Prepared For: Prepared By

SUPPLEMENTAL TRADITIONAL MARINE RESOURCE USE – MARINE TRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL REPORT FOR THE TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE ULC TRANS MOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT

July 2014

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012

THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE LOCATION AND NATURE OF USE OF ALL SITES HAS BEEN PRESERVED THROUGHOUT THIS REPORT

Prepared for: Prepared by:

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC

Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. CH2M HILL Energy Canada, Ltd. Suite 2700, 300 – 5th Avenue S.W. Suite 1100, 815 - 8th Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 5J2 Calgary, Alberta T2P 3P2 Ph: 403-514-6400 Ph: 403-265-2885

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY An Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment was completed by TERA, a CH2M HILL Company, and was submitted as part of the Application to the National Energy Board (NEB) in December 2013 for the proposed Trans Mountain Expansion Project (referred to as TMEP or the Project). The NEB will conduct a detailed review and hold a Public Hearing to determine if it is in the public interest to recommend a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for construction and operation of the Project. Pending regulatory approval, Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC (Trans Mountain) plans to begin construction in 2016 and go into service in 2017.

Trans Mountain will continue to engage Aboriginal communities through all phases of the Project. Traditional Marine Resource Use (TMRU) information received from participating communities will be reviewed in order to confirm literature results and mitigation measures. Additional issues of concern, TMRU sites or features identified through ongoing engagement with Aboriginal communities will be considered for incorporation into Project planning under the guidance of existing marine transport regulations and mitigation recommendations. The results of these ongoing engagement efforts will be provided to the NEB in future supplemental filings. Further information is provided in Technical Report (TR) 8B-5 in Volume 8B, Traditional Marine Resource Use Technical Report of the Application.

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page i

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... i 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1 1.1 Project Overview ...... 1-1 1.2 Purpose of Report ...... 1-1 2.0 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT ...... 2-1 2.1 Public Consultation, Aboriginal Engagement and Landowner Relations...... 2-1 3.0 METHODS ...... 3-1 3.1 Project Interactions and Identification of Potential Effects ...... 3-1 3.2 Assessment Indicators and Measurement Endpoints...... 3-1 3.3 Study Area Boundaries ...... 3-1 3.4 Existing Conditions...... 3-1 3.5 Literature/Desktop Review ...... 3-1 3.6 Field Data Collection ...... 3-1 3.6.1 Community Engagement and Scoping ...... 3-1 3.6.2 Map Reviews/Interviews ...... 3-2 3.6.3 Field Reconnaissance ...... 3-2 3.6.4 Results Review/Reporting ...... 3-2 4.0 SUPPLEMENTAL RESULTS OF LITERATURE/DESKTOP REVIEW ...... 4-1 4.1 Tsawwassen First Nation ...... 4-1 4.2 United States Waters ...... 4-1 5.0 RESULTS OF TRADITIONAL MARINE RESOURCE STUDIES ...... 5-1 5.1 Cowichan Tribes ...... 5-1 5.1.1 Community Participants ...... 5-1 5.1.2 Results ...... 5-1 5.2 Ditidaht First Nation...... 5-6 5.2.1 Community Participants ...... 5-7 5.2.2 Results ...... 5-7 5.3 Esquimalt Nation ...... 5-8 5.3.1 Community Participants ...... 5-8 5.3.2 Results ...... 5-9 5.4 Halalt First Nation ...... 5-14 5.4.1 Community Participants ...... 5-15 5.4.2 Results ...... 5-15 5.5 Hwlitsum First Nation ...... 5-21 5.5.1 Community Participants ...... 5-22 5.5.2 Results ...... 5-22 5.6 Penelakut First Nation ...... 5-26 5.6.1 Community Participants ...... 5-26 5.6.2 Results ...... 5-27 5.7 Pacheedaht First Nation ...... 5-32 5.7.1 Community Participants ...... 5-32 5.7.2 Results ...... 5-32 5.8 Malahat Nation ...... 5-36 5.9 Scia’new First Nation (Beecher Bay Indian Band) ...... 5-37 5.10 Semiahmoo First Nation ...... 5-37 5.11 Stz’uminus First Nation (Chemainus) ...... 5-38 5.11.1 Community Participants ...... 5-39 5.11.2 Results ...... 5-39

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page ii Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

5.12 Tsartlip First Nation ...... 5-46 6.0 DISCUSSION AND MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 6-1 6.1 General Recommendations ...... 6-1 7.0 SUMMARY ...... 7-1 8.0 REFERENCES ...... 8-1 8.1 Literature Cited ...... 8-1 8.2 Figure and Mapping References ...... 8-1

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 5.1 Esquimalt Nation Traditional Land Use Areas Identified During Map Review ...... 5-10 Figure 5.2 Esquimalt Nation Traditional Marine Use Areas Accessed During Field Reconnaissance ...... 5-11

LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 Time Table of Traditional Marine Resource Use Studies for Each Participating Community ...... 3-2 Table 4.1-1 Supplemental Results of Tsawwassen First Nation Desktop Study and Literature Review – Traditional Marine Resource Use Within or in Proximity to the Marine Regional Study Area ...... 4-1 Table 5.1-1 Plant Gathering Sites Identified by Cowichan Tribes ...... 5-2 Table 5.1-2 Hunting Sites Identified by Cowichan Tribes ...... 5-3 Table 5.1-3 Fishing Sites Identified by Cowichan Tribes ...... 5-4 Table 5.1-4 Gathering Places Identified by Cowichan Tribes ...... 5-5 Table 5.3-1 Hunting Sites Identified by Esquimalt Nation ...... 5-12 Table 5.3-2 Fishing Sites Identified by Esquimalt Nation ...... 5-13 Table 5.3-3 Sacred Areas Identified by Esquimalt Nation ...... 5-13 Table 5.4-1 Plant Gathering Sites Identified by Halalt First Nation ...... 5-16 Table 5.4-2 Hunting Sites Identified by Halalt First Nation ...... 5-17 Table 5.4-3 Fishing Sites Identified by Halalt First Nation ...... 5-18 Table 5.4-4 Gathering Places Identified by Halalt First Nation ...... 5-20 Table 5.5-1 Travelways Identified by Hwlitsum First Nation ...... 5-23 Table 5.5-2 Plant Gathering Sites Identified by Hwlitsum First Nation ...... 5-23 Table 5.5-3 Hunting Sites Identified by Hwlitsum First Nation ...... 5-24 Table 5.5-4 Fishing Sites Identified by Hwlitsum First Nation ...... 5-24 Table 5.5-5 Gathering Places Identified by Hwlitsum First Nation ...... 5-25 Table 5.5-6 Sacred Areas Identified by Hwlitsum First Nation ...... 5-26 Table 5.6-1 Travelways Identified by Penelakut Tribe ...... 5-27 Table 5.6-2 Plant Gathering Sites Identified by Penelakut Tribe ...... 5-27 Table 5.6-3 Hunting Sites Identified by Penelakut Tribe ...... 5-28 Table 5.6-4 Fishing Sites Identified by Penelakut Tribe ...... 5-29 Table 5.6-5 Gathering Places Identified by Penelakut Tribe ...... 5-30 Table 5.6-6 Sacred Areas Identified by Penelakut Tribe ...... 5-31 Table 5.7-1 Plant Gathering Sites Identified by Pacheedaht First Nation ...... 5-33 Table 5.7-2 Hunting Sites Identified by Pacheedaht First Nation ...... 5-34 Table 5.7-3 Fishing Sites Identified by Pacheedaht First Nation ...... 5-35 Table 5.7-4 Gathering Places Identified by Pacheedaht First Nation ...... 5-36 Table 5.11-1 Travelways Identified by Stz’uminus First Nation ...... 5-39 Table 5.11-2 Plant Gathering Sites Identified by Stz’uminus First Nation ...... 5-40 Table 5.11-3 Hunting Sites Identified by Stz’uminus First Nation ...... 5-41 Table 5.11-4 Fishing Sites Identified by Stz’uminus First Nation ...... 5-42 Table 5.11-5 Gathering Places Identified by Stz’uminus First Nation ...... 5-44 Table 5.11-6 Sacred Areas Identified by Stz’uminus First Nation ...... 5-45 Table 6.1-1 Potential Effects and Mitigation Measures - Related to the Increase in Project-Related Marine Vessel Traffic on Traditional Marine Resource Use ...... 6-1

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page iii

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

Table 6.1-2 Issues or Concerns Identified by Participating Aboriginal Communities ...... 6-3 Table 6.1-3 Concordance Table - Halalt First Nation ...... 6-10

LIST OF PLATES Plate 1 Small Pox Island (Inskip Islands) in Esquimalt Harbour (December 2013)...... 5-14

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page iv

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Overview Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC (Trans Mountain) is a Canadian corporation with its head office located in Calgary, Alberta. Trans Mountain is a general partner of Trans Mountain Pipeline L.P., which is operated by Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. (Kinder Morgan), and is fully owned by Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. Trans Mountain is the holder of the National Energy Board (NEB) certificates for the Trans Mountain pipeline (TMPL) system.

The TMPL system commenced operations 60 years ago and now transports a range of crude oil and petroleum products from Western Canada to locations in central and southwestern British Columbia (BC), Washington state, and offshore. The TMPL system currently supplies much of the crude oil and refined products used in BC. The TMPL system is operated and maintained by staff located at Trans Mountain’s regional and local offices in Alberta (Edmonton, Edson and Jasper) and BC (Clearwater, Kamloops, Hope, Abbotsford and Burnaby).

Trans Mountain submitted an application to the NEB in December 2013 for the proposed Trans Mountain Expansion Project (the Project or TMEP). The proposed expansion will be comprised of the following:

• pipeline segments that complete a twinning (or “looping”) of the pipeline in Alberta and BC with about 987 km of new buried pipeline;

• new and modified facilities, including pump stations and tanks; and

• three new berths at the Westridge Marine Terminal in Burnaby, BC, each capable of handling Aframax class vessels.

The complete Project description is provided in the Project Overview, Economics and General Information in Volume 2 and in Project Design and Execution in Volumes 4A, B and C of the Application. Pending regulatory approval, Trans Mountain plans to begin construction in 2016 and go into service in 2017.

1.2 Purpose of Report The purpose of this supplemental technical report is to provide additional information describing the existing characteristics of Traditional Marine Resource Use (TMRU) assessed for the development of the Project for the marine transportation component of the Project. The marine and inlet communities identified as having an interest in the Project or having interests potentially affected by the increased Project-related marine vessel traffic are listed in Section 1.0 of Traditional Marine Resource Use – Marine Transportation Technical Report (TR 8B-5) in Volume 8B of the Application. In addition, Ditidaht First Nation has been identified as having an interest in the Project or having interests potentially affected by increased Project- related marine vessel traffic.

This report contains the results of the TMRU studies conducted by potentially affected Aboriginal communities for the Project and completed from November 20, 2013 to June 17, 2014. Approval to treat collected TMRU within this report as public knowledge was received by the participating Aboriginal communities listed herein.

Additional desktop information from the Tsawwassen Final Agreement (Tsawwassen First Nation 2007) is also included in this report and relevant issues raised in interest letters presented to Trans Mountain during the engagement process.

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 1-1

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

2.0 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT Trans Mountain and its consultants continue to conduct a number of consultative activities to inform Aboriginal communities, stakeholders, the public and regulatory authorities about the approach to assessing potential environmental and socio-economic effects of the Project, and to seek input throughout the Project planning process.

2.1 Public Consultation, Aboriginal Engagement and Landowner Relations The full description of the public consultation, Aboriginal engagement and landowner relations programs are located in Volumes 3A, 3B and 3C of the Application, respectively, as well as Consultation Update No. 1 & Errata filed with the NEB in March 2014. Consultation Update No. 2 will be filed with the NEB in Q3 2014. The results of the consultation and engagement activities conducted from August to December 2013 were reviewed by the discipline experts. All issues and concerns associated with Consultation Update No. 1 & Errata were previously addressed in the Application – Volume 8B (Marine Transportation) submitted to the NEB in December 2013. After consideration by technical experts, it was determined that no new mitigation is required beyond that provided in the Application. The significance conclusions presented in Volume 8A of the Application did not change as a result of these consultation and engagement activities from August 1 to December 31, 2013.

Part 3 of the Consultation Update No. 1 & Errata (the Update) also provides information on the Project Aboriginal Engagement Program for the pipeline and marine corridors between October 1 and December 31, 2013. The Update outlines engagement activity during the period and summarizes the comprehensive information provided as well as feedback received during the 3-month reporting period following the submission of the Application to the NEB pursuant to Section 52 of the NEB Act for the Project.

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 2-1

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

3.0 METHODS 3.1 Project Interactions and Identification of Potential Effects A description of Project interactions and identification of potential effects used in this supplemental report is provided in Volume 8B of the Application.

3.2 Assessment Indicators and Measurement Endpoints The indicators and measurement endpoints used in the assessment of Project-related effects and cumulative effects on TMRU are the same as those used in TR 8B-5 of Volume 8B and in Marine Commercial, Recreation and Tourism Use – Marine Transportation Technical Report (TR 8B-6) of Volume 8B of the Application. Further information on the selection and development of these indicators and measurement endpoints are provided in the TR 8B-5 of Volume 8A of the Application.

3.3 Study Area Boundaries A description of study area boundaries considered in this supplemental report is provided in TR 8B-5 of Volume 8B of the Application.

3.4 Existing Conditions A description of existing conditions considered in this supplemental report is provided in TR 8B-5 of Volume 8B of the Application.

3.5 Literature/Desktop Review Detailed information regarding methodology used to conduct the literature/desktop review is located in TR 8B-5 Volume 8B of the Application.

3.6 Field Data Collection Protocols and processes developed between Trans Mountain, TERA, a CH2M HILL Company (TERA), and each of the Aboriginal communities potentially affected by the Project facilitated the gathering and compilation of TMRU study data for the Project. Although Aboriginal communities consider some data and information to be confidential and, therefore, not included in materials submitted on the public record for the Application, this information will be used in developing recommendations for mitigation measures as outlined by these protocols and processes agreed upon by Trans Mountain and each Aboriginal community.

3.6.1 Community Engagement and Scoping TMRU studies were initiated for the Project in 2013 and are ongoing. Participation in the TMRU studies, either as TERA-facilitated or community directed using a third-party consultant, were discussed with Aboriginal communities based on an indicated interest in participating in these studies. The Project scope, timetable and location were discussed. Project information packages, which included a Project description, facts on the nature, timing, scope and location of the Project, and relevant contact information for communication with Trans Mountain and TERA, were sent to each community and meetings were subsequently scheduled. Communities were also provided with copies of the proposed TMRU study methods and a draft outline of TERA’s TMRU study work plan. Interpreters were made available at the request of the community.

Trans Mountain provided funding to assist Aboriginal communities that elected to conduct their own independent, community-led TMRU studies (i.e., third-party). These communities often engaged other consultants to provide technical support and assistance with their TMRU studies for the Project. The time table for TLU studies being conducted for the Project are presented in the table below.

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 3-1

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

TABLE 3.1

TIME TABLE OF TRADITIONAL MARINE RESOURCE USE STUDIES FOR EACH PARTICIPATING COMMUNITY

Results Reviews/ Community Map Review Interviews Ground Reconnaissance Mitigation Meetings Cowichan Tribes Third-party, independent study. Final report received November 29, 2013 Esquimalt Nation November 13, 2013 November 13 and 14, 2013 November 13 and 14, 2013 January 30, 2013 Ditidaht First Nation Third-party, independent TMRU study (underway). Preliminary interests identified on June 8, 2014. Halalt Nation Third-party, independent report received December 12, 2013. Hwlitsum First Nation Third-party, independent report received December 12, 2013. Lyackson First Nation Third-party, independent TMRU study (underway). Malahat First Nation Third-party, independent TMRU study (underway). Preliminary interests identified on May 23, 2014. Pacheedaht First Nation Third-party, independent report received June 7, 2014. Pauquachin First Nation Third-party, independent TMRU study (underway). Penelakut Tribe Third-party, independent study. Final report received December 12, 2013. Sc’ianew First Nation TERA-facilitated TMRU work plan development underway. Semiahmoo First Nation Third-party, independent TLRU/TMRU study (underway). Identified preliminary interests on August 6, 2013. Stz’uminus First Nation Third-party, independent TMRU study. Final report received December 9, 2013. Tsartlip First Nation Preliminary interests identified on April 9, 2014. Tsawout First Nation Tsawout First Nation has requested confidentiality in it’s engagement with Trans Mountain. Tsawwassen First Nation TLRU/TMRU study not requested by Tsawwassen First Nation.

From November 20, 2013 to June 1, 2014, interest letters were received from Sc’ianew First Nation, Malahat First Nation, Halalt First Nation, Tsartslip First Nation and Pacheedaht First Nation. These interests are described in Section 5.0 of this supplemental report. Additional TMRU study work with participating Aboriginal communities is scheduled for completion prior to construction of the Project. Information gathered during ongoing TMRU studies will be considered for incorporation into Project planning under the guidance of existing marine transport regulations and mitigation recommendations made to date. The results of these ongoing engagement efforts will be provided to the NEB in future supplemental filings.

On August 29, 2013, Esquimalt Nation elected to conduct a TERA-facilitated TMRU study. The TMRU study included a map review and community interviews that focused on the Crown lands and waters within the asserted traditional territory of Esquimalt Nation crossed by the Marine Regional Study Area (RSA). The results of the Esquimalt Nation TMRU study completed for the Project at the time of filing were provided in Section 5.0 of TR 8B-5 in Volume 8B of the Application. Additional information identified during field reconnaissance for the Esquimalt Nation TMRU study is provided in Section 5.0 of this supplemental report. Each phase of the TERA-facilitated TMRU study is described in further detail in the following subsections. TERA has implemented proper record keeping practices for information obtained during the TMRU study to ensure that study results are accessible for future reference and confidential information is protected.

3.6.2 Map Reviews/Interviews Detailed information regarding methodology used to conduct map reviews and interviews is located in TR 8B-5 of Volume 8B of the Application.

3.6.3 Field Reconnaissance Detailed information regarding methodology used to conduct field reconnaissance is located in TR 8B-5 of Volume 8B of the Application.

3.6.4 Results Review/Reporting Detailed information regarding methodology used to conduct results review and reporting is located in TR 8B-5 in Volume 8B of the Application.

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 3-2

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

4.0 SUPPLEMENTAL RESULTS OF LITERATURE/DESKTOP REVIEW 4.1 Tsawwassen First Nation This section provides supplemental publicly available regional and local TMRU information for Tsawwassen First Nation based on their Final Agreement that was not included in the Application filed with the NEB in December 2013. Potential resource use issues within the Marine RSA and identification of historic and current use of areas within the Marine RSA by Tsawwassen First Nation to maintain a traditional lifestyle are described in Table 4.1-1.

TABLE 4.1-1

SUPPLEMENTAL RESULTS OF TSAWWASSEN FIRST NATION DESKTOP STUDY AND LITERATURE REVIEW – TRADITIONAL MARINE RESOURCE USE WITHIN OR IN PROXIMITY TO THE MARINE REGIONAL STUDY AREA

Location Relative Shipping Lanes Crossed Location Activity/Site Type Description to Marine RSA to Access Activity/Site? Boundary Bay Fishing Tsawwassen First Nation fishing area. Within RSA No Roberts Bank Fishing Tsawwassen First Nation fishing area Within RSA No Sturgeon Bank Fishing Tsawwassen First Nation fishing area Within RSA No West Fraser River Fishing Tsawwassen First Nation fishing area Within RSA No in Richmond Galiano Island Intertidal Bivalve Tsawwassen First Nation intertidal bivalve harvesting area Within RSA Yes Mayne Island Intertidal Bivalve Tsawwassen First Nation intertidal bivalve harvesting area Within RSA Yes Samuel Island Intertidal Bivalve Tsawwassen First Nation intertidal bivalve harvesting area Within RSA Yes Saturna Island Intertidal Bivalve Tsawwassen First Nation intertidal bivalve harvesting area Within RSA Yes Tumbo Island Intertidal Bivalve Tsawwassen First Nation intertidal bivalve harvesting area Within RSA Yes Pitt Lake region Wildlife harvesting Tsawwassen First Nation wildlife harvest area Northeast of RSA No Pitt River region Wildlife harvesting Tsawwassen First Nation wildlife harvest area Northeast of RSA No Richmond Wildlife harvesting Tsawwassen First Nation wildlife harvest area East of RSA No Delta Wildlife harvesting Tsawwassen First Nation wildlife harvest area East of RSA No Nicomekl River Wildlife harvesting Tsawwassen First Nation wildlife harvest area East of RSA No region Galiano Island Wildlife harvesting Tsawwassen First Nation wildlife harvest area including South of RSA Yes migratory birds Saltspring Island Wildlife harvesting Tsawwassen First Nation wildlife harvest area including South of RSA Yes migratory birds Mayne Island Wildlife harvesting Tsawwassen First Nation wildlife harvest area including South of RSA Yes migratory birds Pender Islands Wildlife harvesting Tsawwassen First Nation wildlife harvest area including South of RSA Yes migratory birds Saturna Island Wildlife harvesting Tsawwassen First Nation wildlife harvest area including South of RSA Yes migratory birds Richmond Plant gathering Tsawwassen First Nation plant gathering site East of RSA No Delta Plant gathering Tsawwassen First Nation plant gathering site East of RSA No Barber Island Plant gathering Tsawwassen First Nation plant gathering site East of RSA No Ducky Island Plant gathering Tsawwassen First Nation plant gathering site East of RSA No Woodward Island Plant gathering Tsawwassen First Nation plant gathering site East of RSA No Burns Bog Plant gathering Tsawwassen First Nation plant gathering site East of RSA No Ecological Conservancy East and West Plant gathering Tsawwassen First Nation plant gathering site Northeast of RSA No Pitt Lake regions Source: Tsawwassen First Nation 2007

4.2 United States Waters The shipping lanes are partially located in United States (US) waters and the Marine RSA extends into US waters in the following areas:

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 4-1

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

• Strait of Georgia, near Point Roberts, Washington (WA);

• Haro Strait, near San Juan Islands, WA; and

• Juan de Fuca Strait, near the Olympic Peninsula, Clallam County, WA.

TMRU is expected to be similar in US and Canadian waters, given the similar types of marine environments in WA and BC and, where available, descriptions of existing conditions related to TMRU within US waters are included in Table 4.1-1 above and in Section 5.0 below.

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 4-2

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

5.0 RESULTS OF TRADITIONAL MARINE RESOURCE STUDIES The following subsections provide the results of TMRU studies completed and received from November 20, 2013 to June 17, 2014 for all participating Aboriginal communities that may be affected by the increase in Project-related marine vessel traffic.

5.1 Cowichan Tribes Cowichan Tribes elected to conduct a third-party TMRU study for the Project. A third-party consultant, Traditions Consulting Services, conducted a desktop literature review, including information in reports, historical documents and archaeological site research and community interviews that focused on Crown lands and waters within the asserted traditional territory of Cowichan Tribes crossed by the Marine RSA. The results of the Cowichan Tribes TMRU study received on November 29, 2013 are summarized below.

As a member of the Cowichan Nation Alliance, Cowichan Tribes is also working in partnership with Stz’uminus First Nation, Hwlitsum First Nation, Penelakut Tribe and Halalt First Nation in their engagement with Trans Mountain. Cowichan Tribes is taking a leadership role in the coordination of the Cowichan Nation Alliance.

Interviews were held with 13 Cowichan Tribes community members from July 22, 2013 to October 18, 2013. The TMRU also included information from reports, historical documents and archaeological site research.

Where available, approximate distances and directions of specific geographic areas from the shipping lanes were determined by TERA based on the information provided in the Cowichan Tribes TMRU study and are described in Tables 5.1-1 to 5.1-4.

Additional issues of concern, Traditional Use Sites (TUS) or features identified through ongoing engagement with Cowichan Tribes will be considered for incorporation into Project planning under the guidance of existing marine transport regulations and mitigation recommendations made to date.

5.1.1 Community Participants Community Members: Alex Johnny; Jerome Crocker; Darin A. George; John Charlie Sr.; Della Rice-Sylvester; Ken Elliot; Doug August Sr.; Luschiim (Arvid Charlie); Fabian Tommy; Steve Alphonse; Frank Wilson; Tim Kulchyski; and Gary Roland.

Cowichan Tribes TMRU Team Members: Char La Fortune, Cultural and Community Coordinator; Pamela Williams, Technical Coordinator; Hilda Paige, Researcher; Larry George, Lulumexun Lands and Governance Department Manager; Norman Thorne, Lulumexun Lands and Governance Department Programs Enhancement Officer; and Helen Reid, Lulumexun Lands and Governance Department Referrals Manager.

5.1.2 Results The interviews and desktop literature review did not reveal any TMRU sites within the Marine RSA requiring mitigation as requested by Cowichan Tribes.

5.1.2.1 Travelways The locations and names of all travelways identified during the TMRU study by Cowichan Tribes were reported to be confidential by Cowichan Tribes.

Cowichan Tribes community members reported concerns about the effects of increased tanker traffic on travelling to and from resource gathering sites and crossing the shipping lanes as many community members cross the shipping lanes in small canoes.

Locations of travelways were reported by Cowichan Tribes to be confidential during the TMRU study. It was reported that some of these travelways cross the shipping lanes, however, their exact locations were kept confidential by Cowichan Tribes. No mitigation was requested for travelways by Cowichan Tribes (Cowichan Tribes Traditional Marine Use and Occupancy Study Team and Traditions Consulting Services Inc. [Cowichan Tribes and Traditions Consulting] 2013).

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-1

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

5.1.2.2 Plant Gathering Cowichan Tribes identified several plant gathering sites during the TMRU study for the Project, detailed in Table 5.1-1.

All of the plants identified during the TMRU study are used as an important food source or for medicinal purposes. Community members reported that certain plant gathering locations are confidential.

Cowichan Tribes community members reported concerns that there could be accelerated erosion on the beaches due to an increase in tanker traffic and this in turn could have effects on plants. Also concern was expressed about the effects of a potential oil spill on vegetation (Cowichan Tribes and Traditions Consulting 2013).

TABLE 5.1-1

PLANT GATHERING SITES IDENTIFIED BY COWICHAN TRIBES

Shipping Lanes Relative to Location Relative Crossed to Access Location Species Shipping Lane to Marine RSA Activity/Site? Confidential Cranberry, blueberry, Devil’s club, camas, Douglas fir, bigleaf maple, Unknown Unknown Unknown Location Garry oak, soapberry, coastal strawberry, green thin seaweed, prickly pear cactus Whipple Tree Trembling aspen 28 km east West of RSA No Junction Beacon Hill Indian celery 3 km north North of RSA No Belle Chain Indian celery 9 km southwest Within RSA No Islands East Saanich Indian celery 11 km west West of RSA No Gulf Islands Red alder, Pacific crab apple, arbutus, trembling aspen, cascara, 28 km west West of RSA No yellow cedar, trailing blackberry, bitter cherry, black cottonwood, western dock, Pacific dogwood, licorice fern, grand fir, red huckleberry, common juniper, stinging nettle, ironwood, wild onion, prince’s pine, rattlesnake plantain, black raspberry, salal, salmon berry, Saskatoon berry, common snowberry, Pacific willow, western yew Chemainus Red alder, Pacific crab apple, arbutus, trembling aspen, cascara, 30 km southwest Southwest of RSA No Valley yellow cedar, trailing blackberry, bitter cherry, black cottonwood, western dock, Pacific dogwood, licorice fern, grand fir, red huckleberry, common juniper, stinging nettle, ironwood, black raspberry, salal, salmon berry, Saskatoon berry, common snowberry, Pacific willow, western yew Quamichan Trembling aspen 32 km northwest Northwest of RSA No Cowichan Red alder, Pacific crab apple, arbutus, trembling aspen, cascara, 34 km northwest Northwest of RSA No Valley yellow cedar, trailing blackberry, bitter cherry, black cottonwood, western dock, Pacific dogwood, licorice fern, grand fir, red huckleberry, common juniper, stinging nettle, ironwood, black raspberry, salal, salmon berry, Saskatoon berry, common snowberry, Pacific willow, western yew Inwood Creek Trembling aspen 40 km west West of RSA No to Mt. Prevost base Cowichan Indian celery 50 km north North of RSA No River Fraser Valley Black cottonwood 55 km east East of RSA Yes Parksville Indian celery 72 km west West of RSA No Texada Island Indian celery 90 km northwest Northwest of RSA No Source: Cowichan Tribes and Traditions Consulting 2013

One plant gathering site was identified within the Marine RSA during the TMRU study. Access to one plant gathering site is crossed by the shipping lanes. No mitigation was requested for plant gathering sites by Cowichan Tribes (Cowichan Tribes and Traditions Consulting 2013).

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-2

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

5.1.2.3 Hunting Cowichan Tribes identified several hunting sites during the TMRU study for the Project, detailed in Table 5.1-2.

Cowichan Tribes community members reported hunting a variety of marine species including harbour porpoise, humpback whale, sea lion, harbour seal, sea otter and various types of marine bird species. Community members also identified deer as a food source, and shared that their hooves and hides are also used for ceremonial purposes. Ducks and geese are hunted in the fall and winter using nets, spears, traps, arrows and guns. Ducks were also identified as a favorite food during ceremonial events, with their feathers being used for ceremonial and ritual purposes. Community members also reported the locations of certain hunting sites to be confidential (Cowichan Tribes and Traditions Consulting 2013).

Cowichan Tribes community members reported concerns about the effects of an oil spill on wildlife and fish species.

TABLE 5.1-2

HUNTING SITES IDENTIFIED BY COWICHAN TRIBES

Shipping Lanes Relative to Location Relative to Crossed to Access Location Species Shipping Lane Marine RSA Activity/Site? Confidential location Deer Unknown Unknown Unknown Confidential location Harbour porpoise, humpback whale, sea lion, harbour Unknown Unknown Unknown seal, sea otter Canoe Pass Brant goose, canvasback duck, common merganser, 14.5 km west West of RSA Yes mallard Fraser River Brant goose, canvasback duck, common merganser, 15 km east South and west of RSA Yes mallard Long Harbour Brant goose, canvasback duck, common merganser, 19 km southwest Within RSA No mallard Porlier Pass Brant goose, canvasback duck, common merganser, 19 km east Within RSA No mallard Gabriola Passage Brant goose, canvasback duck, common merganser, 26 km west Within RSA No mallard Quamichan Lake Brant goose, canvasback duck, common merganser, 31 km northwest Northwest of RSA No mallard Nanoose Harbour Brant goose, canvasback duck, common merganser, 60 km west West of RSA No mallard Source: Cowichan Tribes and Traditions Consulting 2013

Three hunting sites were identified within the Marine RSA during the TMRU study. Access to two hunting sites is crossed by shipping lanes. No mitigation was requested for hunting sites by Cowichan Tribes (Cowichan Tribes and Traditions Consulting 2013).

5.1.2.4 Fishing Cowichan Tribes identified several fishing sites during the TMRU study for the Project, detailed in Table 5.1-3.

Community members indicated that they fish throughout their entire traditional territory. Blue mussel was identified as playing an important role in Cowichan history, as community members traditionally utilized the shells as knife blades for butchering salmon. Octopi are also identified as a favourite food source, for bait, and some parts are used for medicinal purposes. Salmon was identified as a vital food staple, both historically and currently. Community members identified herring as a traditional food source that used to be harvested year round, however, as herring stocks have long been in decline it is no longer fished year-round. Herring fishing season used to be from December to January, and now the fishing season is from September to October, making it more difficult to catch herring. Community members also reported that the locations of certain fishing sites are confidential (Cowichan Tribes and Traditions Consulting 2013).

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-3

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

Cowichan Tribes community members reported concerns about the effects of increased tanker traffic on fishing sites, since increased tanker traffic may potentially make fishing for species such as cod and snapper very difficult. Concerns were also expressed about the effects of a potential oil spill on fish habitat and on other marine species.

TABLE 5.1-3

FISHING SITES IDENTIFIED BY COWICHAN TRIBES

Location Shipping Lanes Relative to Relative to Crossed to Access Location Species Shipping Lane Marine RSA Activity/Site? Confidential Blue mussel, small mussel, octopus, sea cucumber, red and green Unknown Unknown Unknown Location sea urchin, halibut, herring roe Salish Sea Salmon (coho, grilse, jack spring, pink, chum, spring/Chinook, Within shipping lane Within RSA Yes sockeye) Cadboro Point Giant red chiton, Black Katy chiton 2.5 km west Within RSA No East Point Lingcod, lingcod roe, rock cod, sturgeon 2.5 km west Within RSA No Miners Channel Sturgeon 3.5 km west Within RSA No Becher Bay Giant red chiton, Black Katy chiton 5 km north Within RSA No Tumbo Island Clam (butter, horse, Japanese, littleneck), oyster, red snapper 4 km west Within RSA No Cabbage Island Red snapper 5.5 km west Within RSA No Saturna Island Red snapper 7 km southwest Within RSA No Oak Bay Giant red chiton, Black Katy chiton 7 km southwest Within RSA No Cowlitz Bay, WA Skate, sturgeon 7.3 km southeast Within RSA Yes Portland Island Clam (horse, Japanese, littleneck, cockle), oyster 8.5 km northwest Within RSA No Edith Point Rock cod 9 km southwest Within RSA No David Cove Clam (butter, Japanese, littleneck), oyster 9 km southwest Within RSA No Gossip Island Red snapper 9.5 km southwest Within RSA No Active Pass Lingcod, lingcod roe, Pacific herring, rock cod, red snapper 12 km southwest Within RSA No Mayne Island Giant red chiton, Black Katy chiton, Dungeness crab 12 km southwest Within RSA No Tsawwassen Sturgeon 12 km northeast Within RSA Yes Montague Harbour Littleneck clam 13 km southwest Within RSA No Parker Island Littleneck clam 14 km southwest Within RSA No Fraser River Salmon (coho, grilse, jack spring, pink, chum, spring/Chinook, 14 km east Within RSA Yes sockeye), sturgeon Point Liddell Littleneck clam 14 km northwest Within RSA No Enterprise Reef Lingcod, lingcod roe, rock cod 14.5 km southwest Within RSA No Yeo Point Clam (butter, horse, Japanese, littleneck), oyster 14.5 km northwest Within RSA No Western Saltspring Giant red chiton, Black Katy chiton 15 km northwest Within RSA No Island Cape Keppel Clam (butter, horse, Japanese, littleneck, cockle), oyster, 16 km east Within RSA No weathervane scallop Diver Bay Clam (butter, Japanese, littleneck), oyster 16 km northwest Within RSA No Fulford Harbor Pacific herring, flounder 16 km northwest Within RSA No Galiano Island Littleneck clam, lingcod, lingcod roe, Pacific herring 18 km west Within RSA No Senanus Island Littleneck clam 18 km west Within RSA No Long Harbour Clam (butter, horse, Japanese, littleneck), oyster 19 km southwest Within RSA No Porlier Pass Pacific herring, Dungeness crab 19.5 km west Within RSA No Oak Bluff (Pender Lingcod, lingcod roe, rock cod 20 km southwest Within RSA No Island) Southey Point Clam (horse, Japanese, littleneck, cockle), oyster 21 km west Within RSA No Ganges Harbour Clam (butter, horse, Japanese, littleneck), oyster, Pacific herring, 21 km southwest Within RSA No Dungeness crab, flounder Musgrave Point Clam (butter, horse, Japanese, littleneck, cockle), oyster 21.5 km west Within RSA No Cherry Point to Weathervane scallop, skate, sole 22 km west Within RSA No Cowichan Bay

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-4

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

TABLE 5.1-3 Cont'd

Location Shipping Lanes Relative to Relative to Crossed to Access Location Species Shipping Lane Marine RSA Activity/Site? Sansum Narrows Clam (butter, horse, Japanese, littleneck), giant red chiton, Black 22 km northwest Within RSA No Katy chiton, oyster, lingcod, rock cod, Dungeness crab, red snapper Burgoyne Bay Pacific herring 22.5 km northwest Within RSA No Penelakut Island Clam (horse, Japanese, littleneck, cockle), oyster, Pacific herring 23 km west Within RSA No Trincomali Channel Lingcod, lingcod roe, rock cod 24 km west Within RSA No Octopus Point Clam (butter, horse, Japanese, littleneck), oyster, red snapper 25 km northwest Within RSA No Cowichan Bay Clam (butter, horse, Japanese, littleneck, cockle), giant red chiton, 26 km west Within RSA No Black Katy chiton, oyster, rock cod, Dungeness crab, flounder, skate Gabriola Passage Clam (butter, horse, Japanese, littleneck, cockle), oyster 26 km west Within RSA No Shoal Island Lingcod, lingcod roe 27 km southwest Within RSA No Lulu Island Sturgeon 27 km east Within RSA Yes Willy Island Clam (butter, horse, Japanese, littleneck, cockle), oyster, flounder 27.5 km east Within RSA No Gulf Islands Salmon (coho, grilse, jack spring, pink, chum, spring/Chinook, 28.5 km east Within RSA No sockeye) Chemainus Bay Pacific herring 30 km southwest Within RSA No Kulleet Bay Pacific herring 32 km west Within RSA No Point Roberts Sturgeon 42 km east Within RSA Yes Cowichan River Salmon (coho, grilse, jack spring, pink, chum, spring/Chinook, 47 km north North of RSA No sockeye) Beacon Hill Giant red chiton, Black Katy chiton 3 km north North of RSA No Source: Cowichan Tribes and Traditions Consulting 2013

Fifty-three fishing sites were identified within the Marine RSA during the TMRU study. Access to six of these sites is crossed by the shipping lane. No mitigation was requested for fishing sites by Cowichan Tribes (Cowichan Tribes and Traditions Consulting 2013).

5.1.2.5 Gathering Places Cowichan Tribes identified three gathering places during the TMRU study for the Project, detailed in Table 5.1-4.

TABLE 5.1-4

GATHERING PLACES IDENTIFIED BY COWICHAN TRIBES

Shipping Lanes Location Relative Crossed to Access Location Activity/Site Type Relative to Shipping Lane to Marine RSA Activity/Site? Unnamed village at southern arm of Fraser River Historic village Adjacent to shipping lane Within RSA Yes Comiaken Historic village 28.5 km southwest Within RSA No Kilpaulus Historic village 28.5 km southwest Within RSA No Source: Cowichan Tribes and Traditions Consulting 2013

Three gathering places were identified within the Marine RSA during the TMRU study. Access to one of these sites is crossed by the shipping lane. No mitigation was requested for gathering places by Cowichan Tribes (Cowichan Tribes and Traditions Consulting 2013).

5.1.2.6 Sacred Areas All information pertaining to sacred areas including site type and location were reported by Cowichan Tribes to be confidential during the TMRU study.

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-5

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

Community members reported concerns that increased tanker traffic will make it difficult to conduct any marine ceremonial practices.

No sacred areas were identified within the Marine RSA during the TMRU study and no mitigation was requested for gathering places by Cowichan Tribes (Cowichan Tribes and Traditions Consulting 2013).

5.2 Ditidaht First Nation Trans Mountain and Ditidaht First Nation have engaged in discussions to determine the community’s interest and a process for their involvement in Project activities. Ditidaht First Nation elected to conduct a third-party TMRU study for the Project. The Ditidaht First Nation TMUOS Team, and a third-party consultant, Traditions Consulting Services Inc., prepared the third-party interim report for Ditidaht First Nation and Kinder Morgan Canada for the Project. This interim report is based on a literature review and four interviews with Ditidaht participants.

Ditidaht First Nation provided their interim TMUO report to Trans Mountain on June 8, 2014 outlining their preliminary interests in the Project, including the following:

• increased tanker traffic directly over Swiftsure Bank will reduce access to fishing sites, increase risks for boat collision (both between tankers, and tankers and Ditidaht First Nation members), create pollution, auditory and visual disturbance, and have significant negative impacts on marine life at the bank;

• increase in wave frequency and size resulting from increased tanker traffic will adversely impact fishing, seafood gathering and archaeological sites on the marine shoreline as well as maritime transportation routes along the coastline portion of Ditidaht territory, offshore to Swiftsure Bank, and across the Canadian-US border to Neah Bay. Larger and more frequent waves will prevent some travel altogether and render the rest more dangerous. Tanker traffic waves will also threaten sensitive sacred sites such as burial caves located directly on the marine shoreline;

• bailing of bilges by increased number of tankers would likewise impact the coastline and raise the possibility of introduced species;

• an oil spill would devastate the coast. It would adversely impact all traditional marine use and occupancy sites within the Regional Study Area, including sensitive reefs. Strong tides could carry oil along the entire marine shoreline, including beaches along the world- renowned West Coast Trail unit of the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve, a significant portion of which is located within Ditidaht territory. An oil spill would interfere significantly with Ditidaht First Nation’s ability, both before and after treaty, to develop an ecotourism industry, one of the major areas of economic development and survival for the nation; and

• Ditidaht First Nation members have many concerns about oil spill response operations plans. For example, the lack of a paved road to the main Ditidaht settlement at Malachan IR #11 would significantly impede clean-up efforts in the event of an oil spill. Ditidaht First Nation would have to be provided proper response equipment and training, including possibly vessels, in order to swiftly carry out response (Ditidaht First Nation Traditional Marine Use and Occupancy Study Team and Traditions Consulting Services Inc 2014).

Ditidaht First Nation conducted a literature review and conducted interviews with participants that focused on Crown lands and waters within the asserted traditional territory of Ditidaht First Nation crossed by the Marine RSA. Ditidaht First Nation identified 418 TMOU sites that cross the Marine RSA, however, these TMUO sites were only identified as point, line or polygon TMUO sites on the map with no distinction made between TMUO categories and activities (Ditidaht First Nation Traditional Marine Use and Occupancy Study Team and Traditions Consulting Services Inc. 2014).

Additional issues of concern, TUS or features identified through ongoing engagement with Ditidaht First Nation will be considered for incorporation into Project planning under the guidance of existing marine transport regulations and mitigation recommendations made to date.

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-6

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

5.2.1 Community Participants Acknowledgements: Ditidaht First Nation Chief and Council, Treaty Department staff and community members who were interviewed about their knowledge and lifetime experiences.

5.2.2 Results The literature review and interviews did not reveal any traditional marine use sites within the Marine RSA requiring mitigation as requested by Ditidaht First Nation.

Ditidaht First Nation’s Interim TMUO Report provides information regarding the subsistence and cultural activities that are practiced throughout Ditidaht First Nation’s asserted traditional territory. TMUO sites related to environmental features, gardening and farming, for a total of 20 sites, were not included in the categories listed below because it could not be determined how to categorize these sites from the broad description provided in the interim report. Site-specific traditional marine use information was not provided in Ditidaht First Nation’s Interim TMUO Report.

5.2.2.1 Trails and Travelways Ditidaht First Nation stated that, historically, transportation routes, as well as trade and communication networks, were established and maintained throughout their asserted traditional territory. Ditidaht community members used both waterways, via canoes, and overland routes as a means of travel and transportation. These routes and networks supported socio-economic connections and factored into identity and cultural values. For example, historically, community members used an “Indian trail” to travel to and from Cowichan Lakes. Community members used trails and travelways to participate in spiritual and ceremonial activities and to gather, hunt and fish. Trails and travelways continue to be used by community members, however, resource development, modern infrastructure and increased restrictions on land and marine use have resulted in community members using motorized vehicles (i.e., cars and motor boats) and traveling further to access trails and travelways. Forty-one trails and travelways, including canoe/travel routes and marker sites, were identified by Ditidaht First Nation within the Marine RSA. No mitigation was requested for travelways by Ditidaht First Nation (Ditidaht First Nation Traditional Marine Use and Occupancy Study Team and Traditions Consulting Services Inc. 2014).

5.2.2.2 Plant Gathering Plant gathering was, and continues to be, an important TMUO activity for Ditidaht First Nation. Ditidaht First Nation identified 40 plant gathering sites, including berry gathering and forestry sites within the Marine RSA. No mitigation was requested for plant gathering sites by Ditidaht First Nation (Ditidaht First Nation Traditional Marine Use and Occupancy Study Team and Traditions Consulting Services Inc. 2014).

5.2.2.3 Hunting Ditidaht First Nation community members historically harvested both terrestrial and marine mammals, including, but not limited to, deer, elk and whales; as well as birds for subsistence, trade and other cultural purposes. Ditidaht First Nation identified 55 hunting sites within the Marine RSA. No mitigation was requested for hunting sites by Ditidaht First Nation (Ditidaht First Nation Traditional Marine Use and Occupancy Study Team and Traditions Consulting Services Inc. 2014).

5.2.2.4 Fishing Seafood gathering and fishing, fish and fish habitat in the ocean and inland remain critical to Ditidaht First Nation community members for food, as well as for cultural and economic aspects of their society. Ditidaht First Nation identified 168 fishing and seafood gathering sites within the Marine RSA. No mitigation was requested for fishing sites by Ditidaht First Nation (Ditidaht First Nation Traditional Marine Use and Occupancy Study Team and Traditions Consulting Services Inc. 2014).

5.2.2.5 Trapping Historically, trapping was an important traditional activity for Ditidaht First Nation and 11 trapping sites were identified within the Marine RSA. No mitigation was requested for trapping sites by Ditidaht First Nation

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-7

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

(Ditidaht First Nation Traditional Marine Use and Occupancy Study Team and Traditions Consulting Services Inc. 2014).

5.2.2.6 Gathering Places Ditidaht First Nation mentioned the continued importance of cultural activities in maintaining their connections to and knowledge of the land, traditions and culture. They maintain a cultural landscape that contains landmarks, including place names and histories throughout their asserted traditional territory. Ditidaht First Nation identified 224 gathering places including traditional historic, Indian Reserve, resource material and conflict sites within the Marine RSA (Ditidaht First Nation Traditional Marine Use and Occupancy Study Team and Traditions Consulting Services Inc. 2014).

Ditidaht First Nation explained that, historically, nine Ditidaht villages were found along the coast of Vancouver Island from Bonilla Point to Pacheena Point, with the Village of Whyac being the most historically prominent of these villages. Each village comprised a different group that collectively made up the Ditidaht First Nation and during the Reserve creation process there were 16 groups for which reserves were surveyed, and these groups then amalgamated into the Ditidaht First Nation. During the 1960s, more permanent habitation sites were moved inland to Nitinat Lake, however, community members continued, and continue, to utilize TMUO sites and areas along the coast in its asserted traditional territory. Ditidaht First Nation identified 94 habitation sites, including dwellings, water supply, preparation and manufacturing sites within the Marine RSA. No mitigation was requested for gathering places by Ditidaht First Nation (Ditidaht First Nation Traditional Marine Use and Occupancy Study Team and Traditions Consulting Services Inc. 2014).

5.2.2.7 Sacred Areas Ditidaht First Nation identified 50 sacred areas including sacred/ceremonial, burial, rock art panel and legendary being sites within the Marine RSA. No mitigation was requested for sacred areas by Ditidaht First Nation (Ditidaht First Nation Traditional Marine Use and Occupancy Study Team and Traditions Consulting Services Inc. 2014).

5.3 Esquimalt Nation Esquimalt Nation elected to conduct a TERA-facilitated TMRU study for the Project. The TMRU study included a map review, community interviews and field reconnaissance that focused on the Crown lands and waters within the asserted traditional territory of Esquimalt Nation crossed by the Marine RSA. The results of the map review and initial community interviews completed with Esquimalt Nation at the time of Application filing were reported in TR 8B-5 in Volume 8B of the Application. The results of field reconnaissance conducted since Application filing are reported in this supplemental report.

The map review was held with Esquimalt Nation on November 12 and 13, 2013 at the Esquimalt Administration Office in Esquimalt, BC. During this meeting, members of Esquimalt Nation examined the regional Project maps with TERA facilitators to determine what areas would be surveyed during planned field reconnaissance (Figure 5.1). Field reconnaissance was conducted on November 13 and 14, 2013 (Figure 5.2). Community and Elder interviews were conducted on November 13 and 14, 2013.

The results review of the completed Esquimalt Nation TMRU study conducted from January 30, 2013 for the Project are described in Tables 5.3-1 to 5.3-3.

Additional issues of concern, TUS or features identified through ongoing engagement with Esquimalt Nation will be considered for incorporation into Project planning under the guidance of existing marine transport regulations and mitigation recommendations made to date.

5.3.1 Community Participants TERA would like to thank the following community members of Esquimalt Nation for their time and assistance.

Chief: Andy Thomas.

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-8

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

Elders: Elmer George; Mary Ann Thomas; Irene Thomas; Gordon Modeste; Louis Charlie; and Rene Thomas.

Community Members: Joseph Thomas; Steve Thomas; Esther Thomas; Janice Rose; Barbara Lecoy; and Robert Thomas.

5.3.2 Results The field reconnaissance, map review and interviews did not reveal any TMRU sites within the Marine RSA requiring mitigation as requested by Esquimalt Nation.

5.3.2.1 Trails and Travelways No additional information was gathered on travelways during field reconnaissance.

5.3.2.2 Plant Gathering In addition to plant gathering sites reported in TR 8B-5 of Volume 8Bof the Application; Esquimalt First Nation community members reported that “Indian medicines” were found all over the place and community members also used to harvest seaweed.

5.3.2.3 Hunting Esquimalt Nation identified some additional hunting sites during field reconnaissance for the TMRU study for the Project, detailed in Table 5.3-1.

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-9

201406_MAP_TERA_TLU_00500_Rev3.mxd

P a e w r k e A C G C

E d

E G o

N n n

A R r i C

1 e e o

r e

w L k

H a i e

m c k

m h

i e n a

Q g

U H

s S

E e

a u

E n t

C r

S e t e

I i

s D n B G

C A A O

F r

Y C

Q U e 1 R J

U e

P 4 U

D C r k A A A A O J e R N u

H N P

e K

A D k 4 n R E

d L

F n

u s

c C

r M C

e e

e a

m d r

e a

C i

t n

r o

t e s

n C s

O R

k a

i W

L i v

n C

A v

e O I

r C K

J e

W L r

E u A A

I H

N a H

n F le s

et R A l

i N R v e a i r

v m e

r C re ek S F B K R P E U E A A N T R C Z C K S H

H K M 8 R C

U u

O I

i T V r W Z E C

hi R C p 7

I m C

r an

P Cr e e k

H e

A e k A F R i N K s O K B h L

H Y T d A ol A A

i la n C n S Z Y K D g

r T A

A 1 Y e E R 2 L S R

T e A M

- k T C L R I Z A H T I

A B V H

M L

T E

e E

M a

u 6

g e

w H R 5

el c o C n

l l A C h t

Cre

e P k r o

R I e u A i N

e n

v R

k r U

K C r

r S

r i

1 e e

8 e k C

R K e

P K

I e 1 k C H V O O

A S l O u T E P C S K T O N v n ' R W A A H H S S O O t i

Y i I R O E P O n L I

K R

K n - T C K M A g A U

o L L So T E

' o k H R A E S H - S

e H k C A K H S A

O ek K re - O I Q

E R s N u N U F O iv i

A n

l U

1 r

e i U

- a s K t N K A D

i h h S n B

E R E G S U i

g n R 1

i E 2 / N 1 g F I 3

v I H L G S 0 H P E C i

s L A

e A P H V A A h r A A L R T E N L i n N A R S K A T g L D K L M H T T

E 1 O 2 S O I P O K U A W C

L S F O N 2 O R F A P B i I s K T K C W i E K A s h A I E R F H C S h E S M i I P I I n i S E L i P T H N A C s

K n O P g L A S A M T B h E H g I N I A A E I N L E i N N C E N n A E A R

B R R - N N R 9 L S G g E P D S P B T N E V M K V L a E E D T T A L T P L O

A C A c 1 I E

N I O 4 A A E - 1

L H E N e H Y 8 H P R

G L I K A N T N S

S A D E T A A R 1 L H S U C A N O L

T I R I A T P G

o H E A u A T L 5 U L R . A

S c R n I

1 E A O N N 7 O A S R

k t 1

3 N i I

S D N L n s K S I I S A G g

L C N O 9 L E M S A F P O G A R H

P O N O H W 4 O L O N S A I R W T A D I G M K L U N A D R W T D D

G I H O 7 N K L N

T A C T 1 S O L I L

B H O O T C E R N 0 1 T A A W A O I R 2 S U D D

C N B N B I Y A L E S B

N L E U S P 1 D

A E E 3 A L A L A R

H O I A 7

Y I R V S A A O P M N S Y O F A A S

R U G I A N 4 L N

U N N E I A P Y R K

A T C B O R P D W D F A L O A A B H H N A r K Y F i

F R L s O o R E N 1 O S C

N R D 1 h i K S t 0 T s A U I E K c S R i E Q C D h J H n P N A h R O D H t i A g E U n i T

N r H e A 5 R g F S I R a

I M N N P K A i L C s A i C O e H A h t A L S O d

i I N n O L o N E g 1 L T g I N A B f L 7 e T C M

I E

S G H S G S N M P T A H I H A O R A H E D

V e O a S A P U R N W R E S N o b E A A N E I R K C i i R N E r t t V A R S B I T K e a g S Y

M E

I A K N P O s t L 1 C L B i i

o O G E P A A I a A T U E C n A U I O Y N L R H N R F L N E R D

H T i K 2 s E I F

A O h 6 P i s i A n U h R g S i n I K E S g

O L B B P A A A A A G F N R Y R H K a i A s D K E t h r h a e

i e 9 n r a I r P S g i s i F C I n L

E S S i H g A s N L h t A A N D r i T n N D E a H D g R D

i 8 A I D t S S

M D M I C F

S 4 e i O A C

U l t h V R O

C a i

I E n

V N N P

R g

E A

o E

Y R

I P Y t I N

S A T

I L

R S A E

L A K S

I N A S A

L D

D N T

A D

A 3 S D

A T 7

A T

E E S L T A P E o a i s n t t S a l i s B h o

S u e n a d a r y

B a y S U W R R S O H R E C I E M T K Y E I A 9 H 9 A M O O 9 9 S D M T D C P A u h R 2 A r A T r s e A P i 0 f L e C a E s i R o e I o W N c w

E m o r N

1 n D

V e t i d r P r ( 3 H b O a p U N r A o 4 1 B e d

B p T R o a a s J . o r

l y 5 t i M e r i y l u 0

: c o n o u e r r g e c E n t p u

k 3 R R L d t g o t s h B 6 n c r u u l j e s

r r h e T y G P

e 5 n t a o E r Q o v N _ o o o t a m a r r U h o I e d r A G R

a c e l n i 0 u y c p u w s M l u 2 u T i , d e

t l n o L W

b e e

: i s v G r g , A e R o e r T r o i 0 n M

a e

i 0 o n c r y o D i e A p s N c t a h s n e e I g r i t r g k d 1 e h c ) t

r 0 e l r n

n I e e P t g C

s y e e d

A S l a E i

o t 4 o r a i i I F 0 s e 9 n E a : b 1 B o i a s _ : a h a e r S n

i d u r

7 T l e H d 6 T

t o U s y t u N C m X q T n e p y A I S e u t e r K I e : A i u

u E

r r a r a E r

T e

I a d K o R

t c s C D t a e 0 d A A c P o o n G Q i l R n o d r h M O t t

M r r m l e

n D v r i l w d

i e A

a e r e e a V n A i A b s L K s w i s e t

B a e

l d r d

C o

a i

g K 1 C _ 9 N K s

P w e o o T M 2 1 c t n a i C

s l k H e l l a n 7 A , E F s e

M h N T N u 0 6 i r M o e D o o c 0 o l

p r R d a E p G l

H t M C L L e

I N p m i a f R 2 t r A 1

n C A I a t i n E H H H G F I P I R P t C

a , r C C U

h M

o e

a b h S s K

S n n t t G a e 0

s . 2 U R

e R o ' a u a S i t ' r r n T e

E e p a y i s e i _ u u a a u n s n 0 s B L E a s i I i ; d t y o d u t

D s Z o i o

n I

v t

a e

F i r 0 o p d d m b t h p K s 3 e d U e G E y n n

d a

M R n

a O e l v

n . i u l A o 2 v D 0 o h i c

u a w r i

r a , a s L i p t r / i e n i e

r t t

n r o 0 s i s s 2 n i t n 5 a a e U 3 n r A t o 1 I n e t i i y R T n 7 e i H

o n

l A N a L a n 1 . c a s a

n n r n o 0 l A 0 N y r O 5 t i 1 r g l t l r 8 i e a o f K n p e

i m s

i s e t c .

T 1 o y t J n o 0 f n n m y g g i w E R

u p i x r a e P G e

e 9 P g N e o s t T i . r i n w

t t 4 t e e _

s , G o n

1 b L a l r U M o

/ l p i e r h

P a o 4 h l

T :

H o C p t d a s e

R ; o i g a P i I N t F 7 e T 5 o p

t y l n n n i r t r e

S s w D i u

d a s L n o

a a E a t l i i

r o o

R n M

i N

s J e , i c P e

e a n b g

i r

b d r M s a A i n r V e

n n . f e A e 4 t L S n p x r a 2 g a n k n e

e a a r e o v h h s d 1 a 3 P 1

a O K s 3 r i i f o l i U d 0 s

T a p

v l d e d L

m o

p T r e t a b M L p p w i

g B s f

a 1 n e

e n e s a A k B r a a

A o p r i r e t a B e J R o m

t 2 r a l a I S o e C h

c n C a i p

g s U s r i n D E a o R P D 2 E s t o t t u ; O ( E i t v s , t a . P A 7 d r I a E E I a l E

e E y

d 0 I e S e d i a u u i a n I n o 7 S V I t G N S t n C R

d t r C

H t 1 S n R t

I s i I r P o t v d

R E i m

N n

a I S

G a t e e i o i e P A o e P ) H 2 S 0 R t a e h I r s o A r a T t N s d d O L . d n

a n

C o ; e l T c e , I a f n r I n R E . o 3 a

N N

n o n E

a t r g i P a a r i d D R R o t : e E e s E

o A e e r n l c

I c r a l h v r e g

t N n e v s V

l T

c a h . d

a r i a T i a y d E t : e T o i

t c o s s

m t a k s r

2 o n o o r 1 G r

. r f i e N L I n o i t s 3 p y

A e 0 i o y

2 ( o

U n w u E b

f n G a m r K O

1 a n i 1 n o

a g o r d e t M t h S 0 0 n 4

W a t n a

F h u d

2 e . a i 0 u h 0 ; d 5 l c y t

u C a r n 0 k n s , 1 e 5 i h a m ) t c t c 1 e y r .

l i t f d a 2 o l , 2 r

201406_MAP_TERA_TLU_00590_Rev0.mxd

n R

u S

n i

a v

e F r B R P E E A A N R C M C K H

e k

T K

u o

k l

gw o

e s

ll t H

C i

r C

e l

ek a

e h

L K

e e

e R l

K P c

I v

V O O h

S i E

P K

T O R n R A S H

i I R

P O

L v C K A K A

L E e r R

E H r e K S e k S O 1 O 4 K E A N B G R E I L G

P H A T R K M O S P O U A O N R K T K A E S L I N A P E K B C E A T

P A M A C

S B R

o L E o K k E e R

R T M iv O E e N T r C

H P O A S I R N K 1 L A G N O C G O F L O L D W R H S D O I G G T O T H O R D O L A W E D N A D

L P M S L A A

R P N A K D R R V O I K E 1 Y W 7 A S A N L A O A N R T I C H H S C A E D J P N A O A E T N E E H R A I R S C S A Q H N N K L Q U S I A M U A A N L I I T 1 C M H 7 A L T S I D N E Y V I C T O R I A O B A A Y K H a r i

S t r a i t D

C I S U A M C

N O

N A R IT A V I D E E N A R

D E Y

S I S T A L A R A

T K E N S D S D M T D C P A u h R 2 A r A T r s e A P i 0 f L e C a E s i R o e o W N c w

E m o r N

1 n

V e t i d r P r ( 1 H b O a p U N r 2 A o 4 B e d J

B p R o a a s o r

l u y t : i M e r i y l 0

c o n o u e r r g e c n t 2 p u

k R L d t g o l t s h B 6 n c r u u j e s T

r 0 r h e T G P

e n t a o E r Q o v _ o o o t a m a r r U G

h o I e d 0 r R

a c e l n i 2 u y c R p u w s M l u u i , d e

t l n o L W

b G e e ,

: i s v r g 0 A e R o e r o i 0 n M

a e

i o n c r y o A i e A p s N c t h s n 1 e e I 1 g r i t r g k d 0 e h c ) A t

r e l r n

n e e 6 P t g C

s y e e

A S 4 l a i

D o t 0 o r a i i s e 9 n a : b B o i a s _ : a h a e r C S n

d u r

7 l e H d

t o U s y u N C m E q T n e p y A I e E u t e r K I e : A C u

u E

r r a T r a r

T T e

a 0 d K

X t c s C D R t a e d A S A c o o n G i l R n o d r h M t t E

M r r I m l e

R a

v r i l w d

i P e A

a e E r e Q e a V n O i b s L K s w i s e S t

B e

l d r d

C o

a i

g K 1 C _ A 9 K s

A P w e o o T M C 2 1 c t n a i C s l k H e l a n 7 A , S U E s e

M h T u 0 N 6 i r M o e o o c 0 o l

p r R d a E p O G F l

N H t M C N L e

N p m i a f R 2 t r E 1

n C A a t i n E t C

a , r C I U

o e

A b I h s K

t t a e 0

s . 2 R

e R o ' a M u a S I P I R P C F T D t S N ' S G n T e

E e p y s e i _ u s n 0 n n B E a s i I i ; y o d u r D s Z i o

n L

v t

a e r r i

F r 0 o I

p d d p K s 3 e e G E

d a

d t t a

n a N e U v

n . M o i u l o 2 O

D 0 o i i c A

u a D r i

r m i , e a s p t l e L n i e

r c I l

i n r o 0 s e i s s v 2 n d 5 a e n r A t w o 1 a t y 2 7 e i A R r H

o k

l A a n 1 L c N s a

r U n o 0 i s l A 9 a y r t O i 1 n

l t l n 8 i e f K n p e n i m

i s T e t R .

a 1 o J n o 0 f E n n m i w I I

u p r x r a e P G e a N

a e 9 P g o s

. R r c d

t t 3 S y t e e _ e U y s ,

R n

1 b L P l r M o

l p

r h

a n o 4 h l t

T o C i p N t d a s e

R ; i 5 e a P i I

t S c D 7 e a T I o p

t y i e n i r t r e

S w H i u

d a R d s L N n o o a a E a N t l i o n r o o M

s J e , . l i c A

A s e a n b i r

b d r a A i n r V e

n n

f e i e 4 t 2 n O n p x r a 2 n t g n P e T k n e

U e a T g e o v s d a 3 P G 1

a K s 0 T i i N f o l d 0 s

a a o p

d e d n L

a r f o

p h a b A M L p p g B J s f

a 1 n e e I S

v l s a r a a

w o p r a r i r e t w B e C

E R O o m

t 2 r F a l a o e d C h

I e c n C k B p U s r E i n D E a R P D 2 i o t t u ; N 4 E i t v s C n , t a s . E A d I r a a E E I

a l E

e y

d 0 e S e d i a N u

i a n I ( D n o 7 S V I E t s G S t n s

d t r C

H t A y 1 T S n I R t

I s i I r P u o t v d R E i m

a I S G a t e e R i o i L e P u A o e P H 2 S 0 t a e h I r s o r a t N n s d d O R L . n n

a n

C o ; ) e D l r T c e , I a f n r I n R E . o 3 a

N N

n d o n c

a t i r g i P a r i d D R E o t : e E e s E

o n A e e r n l c

I c e r a l h a v e g

t N n e v s

l T

c a A h . g d

a r i a T i a d t : r e T o i

t c o s s

m t a k s r

2 o n o o r 1 G r y

. r f i e N L n S o i t s p y

0 e 0 i o y

2 ( o

U n w u b

f n G a m r K O

1 a n i n o

a g o r d e t M t h 0 6 n 4

a t n a

F h u d

2 e a i 0 u h 0 ; d l c y t k

u C a r n 0 n s , 1 e 5 i m h a ) t c t c 1 e y r .

l i t f d a 2 o l , 2 r Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

Deer and elk are currently hunted around Shawingan Lake, Cowichan Lake and Youbou. A community member mentioned that winter was the best time to hunt in those locations.

A community member explained that black ducks were found throughout the Salish Sea and were once common in Esquimalt Harbour where they were harvested as a source of food. Now black ducks rarely show up in the area. Seagull eggs were also once harvested as a food source on both Chatham and Discovery islands.

Sea lions and a humpback whale were identified during the field reconnaissance. Sea lions and whales were once traditionally hunted from fishing canoes. Sea lion meat was consumed as a food source, fat or grease was used to fuel oil lamps or cover hands for warmth when diving for abalone, the stomach was utilized as a cooking pot, intestines were used as sinew for sewing and skins were used for drums or making skin suits for diving. Humpback whales and orcas were commonly hunted. Bones from whales were used to make tools and weapons, fat was used for cooking oil and the meat was consumed for food.

During the results review, it was shared that Chief Andy’s grandfather used to have a trap line at Fort Rodd Hill until the Department of National Defense informed him that he was no longer allowed to trap at Fort Rodd Hill.

TABLE 5.3-1

HUNTING SITES IDENTIFIED BY ESQUIMALT NATION

Relative to Relative to Shipping Lanes Crossed Location Description Shipping Lanes Marine RSA to Access Activity/Site? Shawnigan Lake area Deer and elk 27 km north West of RSA No Cowichan Lake and Youbou Deer and elk 64 km northwest West of RSA No area Salish Sea Duck hunting in the past Encompasses portions of Within RSA Yes the outbound shipping lane Discovery Island Seagull egg harvesting in the past 1 km west On land, within RSA No Chatham Island Seagull egg harvesting in the past 1 km west On land, within RSA No Esquimalt Harbour Black ducks (cormorants) 5.4 km northwest Within RSA No Fort Rodd Hill Trap line 6 km northwest North of RSA No

Four additional hunting sites were identified within the Marine RSA during field reconnaissance. Access to one of these sites is crossed by the shipping lane. No mitigation was requested for hunting sites by Esquimalt Nation during the TMRU study.

5.3.2.4 Fishing Esquimalt Nation identified several additional fishing sites during the TMRU study, detailed in Table 5.3-2.

A community member mentioned that fish are a main food source for the community. Many fishing sites overlapped with other Nations’ traditional territory, but these sites were considered common areas. Salmon, halibut and lingcod were historically fished by community members in several locations, including Albert Head, Clover Point, Cordova Channel, Race Rocks and the Salish Sea. Abalone and gooey duck were also harvested. Goldstream River was identified as a fishing location shared by many communities. Accessible by land, communities took turns fishing in the river for salmon and occasionally for sole in the estuary where the river meets the ocean. Community members fish for Chinook salmon in the fall at Goldstream River using a gaff, although chum salmon is most commonly caught there. Community members often smoke fish, a skill learned from family and from experience. During the field reconnaissance, Race Rocks was identified as an excellent lingcod fishing location. An Elder said that it is a productive region for lingcod year-round. Another Elder added that lingcod lay eggs around December and the eggs, which resemble Styrofoam, are considered a delicacy. To collect the eggs, a strong wind and current are needed to dislodge the egg clumps from rocks and wash them to shore.

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-12

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

Community members also shared that although a site may be listed as a certain kind of fishing site, other types of fishing and activities such as crabbing also occurred there, and all species can be found in all the waters at all fishing sites.

During field reconnaissance several locations were identified throughout the Saanich Inlet as past and current clam harvesting locations. Clams and oysters used to be abundant at Coles Bay. In the 1970s and 1980s, clams were abundant in Roche Cove (Plate 1) and Anderson Bay in the Sooke Basin. However, an Elder said that pollution currently restricts harvesting at these locations. Harvesting can still occur if proper permits are obtained from Fisheries and Ocean Canada, but the clams have to be taken to purging tanks at Coopers Cove to be cleaned. Currently, clams are harvested at Goldstream, Mill Bay, Pat Bay and Brentwood Bay. Community members indicated that pollution has caused occasional harvesting closures at these locations.

TABLE 5.3-2

FISHING SITES IDENTIFIED BY ESQUIMALT NATION

Shipping Lanes Relative to Shipping Crossed to Access Location Description Lanes Relative to Marine RSA Activity/Site? Goldstream Oysters in estuary 25 km north South of RSA No Esquimalt Harbour Crab, sea urchins, salmon, rock cod, lingcod, 11km northwest Within RSA No tommy cod, perch and octopus (historic) Scrooge Rocks Lingcod egg collection (historic) 3 km north Within RSA No Salish Sea Salmon, cod, abalone and gooey duck Encompasses portions of Within RSA Yes the outbound shipping lane Port Hardy Clam digging from Esquimalt to Port Hardy 3 km west From Vancouver Island No (historic) to within RSA Portage Inlet Herring 7.5 km north North of RSA No

Four additional fishing sites were identified within the Marine RSA during field reconnaissance. Access to one fishing site is crossed by the shipping lane. No mitigation was requested for fishing sites by Esquimalt Nation during the TMRU study.

5.3.2.5 Gathering Places No additional information was collected on gathering places during the TMRU study.

5.3.2.6 Sacred Areas Esquimalt Nation identified four additional sacred areas during field reconnaissance for the TMRU study, detailed in Table 5.3-3.

During the field reconnaissance, Brothers Islands were identified as a burial location. A community member mentioned that bones were found in rock crevasses on one of the islands that archaeologists dated back to approximately 800 years ago. One community member explained that in many cases people who suffered and died from a sickness were secluded on small islands for burial to prevent the spread of the illness, such as Small Pox Island (Inskip Islands) (Plate 2).

TABLE 5.3-3

SACRED AREAS IDENTIFIED BY ESQUIMALT NATION

Relative to Shipping Shipping Lanes Crossed Location Description Lanes Relative to Marine RSA to Access Activity/Site? Brothers Islands Historic burial site 5.7 km northwest Within RSA No Royal Roads University lands Historic burial site 7 km north and west North and west of RSA No Fort Rodd Hill Historic burial site 6 km north and west North and west of RSA No Bear Mountain (Spencer Road Exchange) Caves 11 km north and west North and west of RSA No

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-13

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

One additional sacred area was identified on land within the Marine RSA during the TMRU study. None of these areas are crossed by the shipping lane. No mitigation was requested for sacred areas by Esquimalt Nation during the TMRU study.

Plate 1 Small Pox Island (Inskip Islands) in Esquimalt Harbour (December 2013).

5.4 Halalt First Nation Halalt First Nation elected to conduct a third-party TMRU study for the Project. Halalt First Nation conducted a desktop literature review, Elder interviews and field reconnaissance that focused on Crown lands and waters within the asserted traditional territory of Halalt First Nation crossed by the Marine RSA. The results of the Halalt TMRU study were received on December 12, 2013.

The TMRU study included a literature review of existing sources including ethnographies, published Traditional Land Use (TLRU) material, ethno-historical information and other resource material from Halalt archives. Archival information included interviews with Halalt Elders from other projects between 2003 and 2005. An additional nine interviews were conducted with Elders as well as two boat trips for ground-truthing during September 2013.

As a member of the Cowichan Nation Alliance, Halalt First Nation is also working in partnership with Stz’uminus First Nation, Hwlitsum First Nation, Penelakut Tribe and Cowichan Tribes in their engagement with Trans Mountain.

On behalf of Halalt First Nation, the Cowichan Nation Alliance provided their comments on the Summary of the Proposed Approach to the Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment for the Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC’s Trans Mountain Expansion Project to Trans Mountain on July 31, 2013 outlining their preliminary interests in the Project, detailed in Section 5.1.

Halalt First Nation also provided a letter to Trans Mountain on December 12, 2013 outlining their preliminary interests in the Project, including:

• effects of an oil spill on fish, shellfish, waterfowl and plants;

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-14

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

• remediation and restoration of fish stocks, herring spawn sites, shellfish and intertidal gathering areas;

• remediation of waterfowl populations;

• restoration of marine and riparian plants;

• impact on fishing, fish spawn collecting areas, shellfish and intertidal gathering areas, waterfowl hunting areas, plant harvesting sites, habitation and processing sites, recreation sites, and boundary marker sites; and

• impact on food harvest for individual households.

With respect to Project mitigation measures, Halalt First Nation also requested the development of a full collaborative working relationship between the Proponent and the Halalt community to:

• develop full contingency plans and mitigation measures for the Fraser River that fully restores this region and Halalt’s resource sites;

• fully identify the risks posed to Halalt human health and their immediate environment in case of an oil spill;

• develop policies and procedures to manage impacts that an oil spill will create upon Halalt cultural and economic life;

• train Halalt community members to be full marine response ready to help in clean-up if a spill occurs; and

• establish financial support for Halalt employment opportunities related to the oil industry (Halalt First Nation 2013).

Trans Mountain provided an initial response in a letter sent to Halalt First Nation on November 29, 2013 and a more detailed response was sent on May 12, 2014.

The results of the Halalt First Nation TMRU study received on December 12, 2013 are summarized below. Where available, approximate distances and directions of specific geographic areas from the shipping lanes were determined by TERA based on the information provided in the Halalt First Nation TMRU study and are described in Tables 5.4-1 to 5.4-4.

Additional issues of concern, TUS or features identified through ongoing engagement with Halalt First Nation will be considered for incorporation into Project planning under the guidance of existing marine transport regulations and mitigation recommendations made to date.

5.4.1 Community Participants Community members and Elders: Frank Norris; Tony George; Joe Norris; Herman Thomas; Dan Norris; Bob Guerin; Ben Norris Sr.; James (Bert) Thomas; Judy Wilson; and John Thomas.

5.4.2 Results The results of Halalt First Nation’s TMRU study did reveal general and specific TMRU sites within the Marine RSA requiring mitigation as requested by Halalt First Nation. Halalt First Nation specified general, accepted and preferred mitigation measures in Sections G, H and I of its TMRU report (Halalt First Nation 2013]).

5.4.2.1 Travelways Halalt First Nation identified one set of historic trails during the TMRU study. Tluq’tinus are a set of historic trails on Lulu Island approximately 27 km east of the shipping lanes and within the Marine RSA (Halalt First Nation 2013).

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-15

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

One set of trails was identified within the Marine RSA during the TMRU study. The shipping lanes are crossed to access the trails at Lulu Island. Mitigation requested by Halalt First Nation for these sites includes:

• a full marine response appropriate for an oil spill as determined by specialists, in consultation with Halalt First Nation, in the field of oil spill recovery (Halalt First Nation 2013).

5.4.2.2 Plant Gathering Halalt First Nation identified a number of plant gathering sites during the TMRU study for the Project, detailed in Table 5.3-1.

Plant gathering remains an important part of life for Halalt First Nation community members. Historically, Halalt First Nation gathered aquatic plants for food, medicines and multi-purpose materials for a variety of uses. Plants gathered include indigenous onions, chocolate lily or rice root, tiger lily, carrots, bracken fern, sea asparagus, wapato, bog blueberry and cranberry. Wapato or skous, bog blueberry and cranberry grew in abundance in the Lower Fraser River and community members gathered them when they inhabited the river’s banks. Cedar bark, salmon berries and black caps (blackcap berries) were also gathered along the river. Bands traded wapato and Indian hemp in exchange for other goods or when these plants were scarce in their locales (Halalt First Nation 2013).

Community members would make rush mats out of round rushes. The mats were edged with grasses that grow in the Fraser River Valley and the seams were pressed and flattened with a “grooved” wooden instrument. In the nineteenth century communities would often trade these mats with other bands in exchange for halibut. Cattails and grasses were also used to line the walls of longhouses. Scouring rush was used as a sand paper and stinging nettles were woven into fishnets and rope (Halalt First Nation 2013).

Cattails are collected at the Chemainus River and estuary and are currently used to make masks that are worn in cultural dances. Community members also use ferns to lay the fish out and gut them when fishing (Halalt First Nation 2013).

Often shellfish such as mussels and crabs are wrapped in kelp after they are gathered. A hole is dug in the sand and the kelp-wrapped seafood is placed in the hole and covered over with sand. A fire is built on top of the buried seafood that is then left to cook. Community members shared that this is one of the best ways to cook freshly gathered seafood (Halalt First Nation 2013).

TABLE 5.4-1

PLANT GATHERING SITES IDENTIFIED BY HALALT FIRST NATION

Shipping Lanes Crossed Location Description Relative to Shipping Lanes Relative to Marine RSA to Access Activity/Site? Confluence of Pitt and Fraser rivers Plant gathering 12.9 km southeast Within RSA Yes Canoe Pass Plant gathering 14.3 km east Within RSA Yes Valdes Island Plant gathering 22 km west Within RSA No Kuper Island Plant gathering 24.1 km southwest Within RSA No Chemainus River and Estuary Plant gathering 29.1 km southwest Southwest of RSA No Bonsall Creek Plant gathering 32.7 km southwest Southwest of RSA No Upper Chemainus River Plant gathering 51.6 km southwest Southwest of RSA No Source: Halalt First Nation 2013

Four plant gathering sites were identified within the Marine RSA during the TMRU study. Access to two of these sites is crossed by the shipping lanes. Mitigation requested by Halalt First Nation for plant gathering sites, riparian areas and estuaries includes a:

• full marine response appropriate for oil spill as determined by specialists, in consultation with Halalt First Nation, in the field of oil spill recovery. The complete restoration of marine

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-16

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

and riparian plants to be determined after peer review of technical studies (Halalt First Nation 2013).

5.4.2.3 Hunting Halalt First Nation identified nine hunting sites during the TMRU study for the Project, detailed in Table 5.4-2.

Historically, sea mammals such as seals, porpoises and sea lions were hunted. Sea lions were used for their meat, oil, and hides. Their intestines were made into bowstrings and used in trade (Halalt First Nation 2013).

Waterfowl such as ducks were hunted along the Chemainus River during their winter migration. Community members used spears, nets and more recently shotguns to hunt fowl. Another method used to hunt ducks involved a fire in the centre of a canoe during low tides on dark, nearly moonless nights. The hunter would stand in the bow of a canoe with a wide piece of cloth or mat that would cast a shadow on the water and the birds would fly or swim into the shadow. If the ducks were swimming on the surface the hunter would use a pole and a net to trap the ducks, or a pronged spear to stab them. In the recent past, ducks were hunted in November and December for longhouse ceremonies. Ducks were only hunted during certain times of year or their meat would taste fishy (Halalt First Nation 2013).

Another duck hunting method used in the 1930s involved interrupting the bird’s flight during the night using long poles strung high with large nets called Tuck-Um. Nets were set so that the ducks would fly into them, or they would be thrown on top of the ducks, trapping them as they fell to the ground. This was an effective way to trap many ducks at once (Halalt First Nation 2013).

TABLE 5.4-2

HUNTING SITES IDENTIFIED BY HALALT FIRST NATION

Shipping Lanes Crossed Location Description Relative to Shipping Lanes Relative to Marine RSA to Access Activity/Site? Porlier Pass/Cowichan Gap Waterfowl hunting 14.5 km southwest Within RSA No Galiano Island Waterfowl hunting 22 km west Within RSA No Tent Island Waterfowl hunting 24 km southwest Within RSA No Kuper Island Waterfowl hunting 24.1 km southwest Within RSA No Shoal Islands Waterfowl hunting 27 km southwest Within RSA No Willy Island (largest Shoal Island) Waterfowl hunting 27.7 km southwest Within RSA No Side Channel/Tsussie Waterfowl hunting 28.9 km southwest Southwest of RSA No Chemainus River and Estuary Waterfowl hunting 29.1 km southwest Southwest of RSA No Bonsall Creek Waterfowl hunting 32.7 km southwest Southwest of RSA No Source: Halalt First Nation 2013

Six hunting sites were identified within the Marine RSA during the TMRU study. The shipping lanes are not crossed to access these sites. Mitigation requested by Halalt First Nation for waterfowl hunting includes:

• a full marine response appropriate for an oil spill as determined by specialists, in consultation with Halalt First Nation, in the field of oil spill recovery. Measures related to appropriate remediation of the waterfowl populations to the area to be determined after peer review of technical studies (Halalt First Nation 2013).

5.4.2.4 Fishing Halalt First Nation identified a number of sites during the TMRU study for the Project, detailed in Table 5.4-3.

Historically, shellfish (crabs and mollusks) and fish were the main food staples for Halalt First Nation. Community members fished and gathered shellfish along watercourses and waterbodies off the Gulf Islands and in the Strait of Georgia. Ground fish that were caught included herring, sea bass, lingcod, rock cod, greenling cod, red snapper, halibut, flounder and octopus. Community members fished throughout the year

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-17

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

on the Chemainus River for coho, pink, chum, Chinook and sockeye salmon, which were the main fish staples of their diet. Several fishing methods were used to catch the fish including spearing, trolling and fish traps and weirs in the shallows of watercourses and waterbodies. Salmon was preserved by smoking or sun drying. Chum salmon, being the leanest fish, was the most important to preserve since it would last the longest (Halalt First Nation 2013).

From their village site on Lulu Island, Halalt First Nation community members fished for sockeye salmon as far up as the District of Hope along with community members from the Cowichan Tribes and Lyackson First Nation, Penelakut First Nation and Chemainus First Nation. Halalt First Nation built canneries on the river where community members would troll commercially and fish with nets from small fishing boats.

Steelhead trout was also fished in the Chemainus River during the winter, up until May and it was believed by historians that the night fishing method was used to fish for steelhead. Night fishing was conducted in a canoe and involved fire and a harpoon. The fish would see the flame and swim under the canoe and a harpoon would be deployed to spear the fish. Flounder was caught by stepping on the fish as well as by seine net and pitch fork (Halalt First Nation 2013).

Seasonal fishing villages would be built along watercourses in the region where Halalt First Nation community members would fish for salmon during their runs and collect mollusks and other shellfish. Halalt First Nation Elders recall Kulleet Bay as a prime area for gathering and trading fish for herring roe (Halalt First Nation 2013).

Shellfish and intertidal gathering took place year-round, but was most successful in the summer months. Available species of clams included butter, littleneck, razor and horse clams. Other mollusks gathered included cockles, chitons, oysters and mussels. Large numbers of Dungeness crabs were also gathered and served at feasts in the summer months. Spearing sea urchin occurred in the shallow waters along shorelines. A community member recalls as a child gathering oysters and clams and boiling them to eat, as well as smashing the shells and eating them raw. He also remembers eating raw blue mussels, which are considered a delicacy (Halalt First Nation 2013).

TABLE 5.4-3

FISHING SITES IDENTIFIED BY HALALT FIRST NATION

Shipping Lanes Relative to Relative to Marine Crossed to Access Location Description Shipping Lanes RSA Activity/Site? Strait of Georgia/Tsawwassen Fishing site. Within shipping lane Within RSA Yes Fraser River Fishing site. 8.9 km southeast Southeast of RSA Yes Active Pass Fishing site. 12 km southwest Within RSA Yes Shellfish and intertidal gathering site. Canoe Pass Historic fishing site. 14.3 km east Within RSA Yes Porlier Pass/Cowichan Gap Fishing site, shellfish and intertidal gathering site. 14.5 km southwest Within RSA No Spawn collection. Goldstream Fishing site. 17.9 km north Within RSA No Norway Island Historic shellfish and intertidal gathering site. 19 km southwest Within RSA No Saltspring Island Fishing site. 21 km northwest Within RSA No Shellfish and intertidal gathering site. Galiano Island Shellfish and intertidal gathering site, 22 km west Within RSA No Octopus. Valdes Island Historic fishing site. 22 km west Within RSA No Shellfish and intertidal gathering site. Spawn collection. Mill Bay/Malahat Shellfish and intertidal gathering site. 22.4 km west Within RSA No Tent Island Fishing site. 24 km southwest Within RSA No Shellfish and intertidal gathering site. Kuper Island Fishing, and shellfish and intertidal gathering site. 24.1 km southwest Within RSA No Spawn collection. Cowichan Bay Fishing site. 24.8 km northwest Within RSA No Shellfish and intertidal gathering site. Genoa Bay Historic shellfish and intertidal gathering site. 25.5 km north Within RSA No

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-18

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

TABLE 5.4-3 Cont'd

Shipping Lanes Relative to Relative to Marine Crossed to Access Location Description Shipping Lanes RSA Activity/Site? False Narrows Shellfish and intertidal gathering site. 26 km west Within RSA No Shoal Islands Historic fishing and shellfish and intertidal 27 km southwest Within RSA No gathering site. Dayman Island Historic shellfish and intertidal gathering site. 27.3 km west Within RSA No Osborn Bay Historic fishing and spawning site. 27.4 km southwest Within RSA No Willy Island Historic/current fishing and intertidal gathering 27.7 km southwest Within RSA No site. Gabriola Pass Fishing site. 29 km west Within RSA No Historic spawning collection site. Chemainus River and Estuary Fishing site. 29.1 km southwest Southwest of RSA No Shellfish and intertidal gathering site. Bare Point Fishing site. 29.7 km southwest Within RSA No Shellfish and intertidal gathering site. Yellow Point Fishing site. 30 km west Within RSA No Shellfish and intertidal gathering site. Chemainus Harbour Historic fishing and shellfish and intertidal 25 km southwest Within RSA No gathering site. Spawn collection. Bonsall Creek Fishing and fish processing site. 32.7 km southwest Southwest of RSA No Davis Lagoon Historic fishing and shellfish and intertidal 33.3 km west Within RSA No gathering site. Identified cockles, manilas, butters and oysters. Dodd Narrows Historic fishing site. 34 km west Within RSA No Shellfish and intertidal gathering site. Spawn collecting. Kulleet Bay/Chemainus Bay/ Historic fishing site. 34 km west West of RSA No The Bay Shellfish and intertidal gathering site. Spawn collecting. Boat Harbour Shellfish and intertidal gathering site. 34.4 km west West of RSA No Nanaimo River Estuary/ Shellfish and intertidal gathering site. 40.9 km west Within RSA No Duke Point Point Roberts Historic fishing site. 42 km east East of RSA Yes Cowichan River Historic fishing site. 47 km north North of RSA No Upper Chemainus River Fishing, fish processing and spawning site. 51.6 km southwest Southwest of RSA No Side Channel Fishing and fish spawning site. 32 km southwest Southwest of RSA No Source: Halalt First Nation 2013

Twenty-six fishing sites were identified within the Marine RSA during the TMRU study. Access to five fishing sites are crossed by the shipping lanes. Mitigation requested by Halalt First Nation for fishing, shellfish gathering sites and fish spawn collecting sites includes:

• a full marine response appropriate for an oil spill as determined by specialists, in consultation with Halalt First Nation, in the field of oil spill recovery. Complete remediation and restoration of fish stocks is expected to be determined after peer review of technical studies. Impact upon food harvest loss for individual households [is] to be assessed and compensated (Halalt First Nation 2013).

The same is expected for beaches, rivers and creek estuaries that serve as shellfish and intertidal gathering areas.

Halalt First Nation also identified the following mitigation related to fishing sites:

• study cumulative effects of increased maritime traffic in the Strait of Georgia and its potential for accidents and impacts upon the environment of the region;

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-19

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

• establish routes that are in maritime channels in the Strait of Georgia furthest away from the Fraser River and Gulf Islands;

• establish timing of delivery to periods of time in the Strait when there is the least traffic and potential for accidents;

• maintain a quality marine fleet with contingency plans for maritime accidents and continuous monitoring for non-routine events or equipment failure;

• suspend delivery of tankers when weather is poor. Establish a contingency plan for this suspension; and

• initiate capital investment for training in order to create a First Nations Marine Response Unit to deal with possible oil spills (Halalt First Nation 2013).

5.4.2.5 Gathering Places Halalt First Nation identified a number of gathering places during the TMRU study for the Project, detailed in Table 5.3-4.

Tluq’tinus is the Hul’qumi’num translation for “long shore” and is a historic village on Lulu Island’s south bank on the South Arm of the Fraser River across from Tilbury Island. It is recorded that this village, comprised of more than 120 houses, reached west for many kilometers, possibly as far as Woodward Landing (Halalt First Nation 2013).

Historically, Halalt First Nation camped on Lulu Island in July for 2 months during the sockeye salmon run. Community members also camped along the Fraser River to fish for sockeye and pink salmon. In the past, community members inhabited winter villages at Ladysmith Harbour where they would collect shellfish on the beach. Community members would also fish here in the summer months, and, according to Halalt First Nation, historically some community members would stay in these villages year-round (Halalt First Nation 2013).

Chemainus River and Estuary was rich in resources such as medicinal plants and plants for sustenance, waterfowl and shellfish, and year-round villages were built in this area to access these resources. Community members shared that they used to gather at the park in Chemainus to train for canoe races as well as at Osborn Bay, adjacent to the town of Crofton. Currently, there are two Halalt First Nation reserves at the Chemainus River and Estuary where community members fish at traditional fishing stations. Historic Halalt First Nation villages were established along the Cowichan River close to the salmon runs. An additional Halalt First Nation village that had five or more houses was located at the site of the present day Chemainus sawmill in Chemainus Bay (Halalt First Nation 2013).

Halalt First Nation Indian Reservation (IR) #1 is located on Willy Island and was historically a habitation site with three houses on it in the 1800s. A community member’s grandfather used to have a one room, dirt floor “shack” there in the early 1940s. More recently, community members camped at this location to hunt for ducks and fish (Halalt First Nation 2013).

TABLE 5.4-4

GATHERING PLACES IDENTIFIED BY HALALT FIRST NATION

Relative to Relative to Shipping Lanes Crossed Location Description Shipping Lanes Marine RSA to Access Activity/Site? Saltspring Island Historic summer camping site 21 km northwest Within RSA No Kuper Island Historic summer camping site 24.1 km southwest Within RSA No Lulu Island Historic village (Tluq’tinus) 27 km east Within RSA Yes Osborn Bay Village in the bay 27.4 km southwest Within RSA No Willy Island (largest Shoal Historic Halalt village, currently Halalt IR #1 27.7 km southwest Within RSA No Island) Chemainus River and Estuary Historic fishing village 29.1 km southwest Within RSA No Current camp site

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-20

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

TABLE 5.4-4 Cont'd

Shipping Lanes Relative to Relative to Crossed to Access Location Description Shipping Lanes Marine RSA Activity/Site? Chemainus Harbour (Horseshoe Former Halalt village (currently Chemainus 25 km southwest Within RSA No Bay/Chemainus Bay) sawmill) Boat Harbour Boundary site (Nanaimo and Kulleet Bay 34.4 km west West of RSA No Indians) Ladysmith Harbour Historic winter village 36.2 km west Within RSA No Cowichan River Historic fishing village 47 km north Within RSA No Upper Chemainus River Current Halalt IR #2 51.6 km southwest Southwest of RSA No Historic village Boulder Point/Saltair Boundary site (Chemainus and Halalt First 144 km northwest Northwest of RSA No Nation) Source: Halalt First Nation 2013

Eleven gathering places were identified within the Marine RSA during the TMRU study. Access to one habitation site at Lulu Island crosses the shipping lanes. Mitigation requested by Halalt First Nation for gathering places, including habitation, village, temporary resource and fish and clam drying sites, is to include:

• a full marine response appropriate for an oil spill as determined by specialists, in consultation with Halalt First Nation, in the field of oil spill recovery (Halalt First Nation 2013).

5.4.2.6 Sacred Areas No sacred areas were identified during the TMRU study for the Project. No mitigation was requested for sacred areas by Halalt First Nation.

5.5 Hwlitsum First Nation Hwlitsum First Nation elected to conduct a third-party TMRU study for the Project. Hwlitsum First Nation conducted Elder interviews and field reconnaissance that focused on Crown lands and waters within the asserted traditional territory of Hwlitsum First Nation crossed by the Marine RSA. The results of the Hwlitsum TMRU study were received on December 12, 2013.

The TMRU study included information from Hwlitsum First Nation’s 2009 TLRU study: Hwlitsum First Nation’s Traditional Use and Occupation of the Area now known as British Columbia – Volume 1. Additional interviews with Elders and field reconnaissance for ground-truthing were conducted from June to November 2013.

As a member of the Cowichan Nation Alliance, Hwlitsum First Nation is also working in partnership with Stz’uminus First Nation, Halalt First Nation, Penelakut First Nation and Cowichan Tribes in their engagement with Trans Mountain.

On behalf of Hwlitsum First Nation, the Cowichan Nation Alliance provided their Comments on the Summary of the Proposed Approach to the Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment for the Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC’s Trans Mountain Expansion Project to Trans Mountain on July 31, 2013 outlining their preliminary interests in the Project, detailed in Section 5.1.

In addition, Hwlitsum First Nation provided their ‘Preliminary Aboriginal & Socio-Economic Interests’ to Trans Mountain on October 9, 2013, outlining their preliminary interests in the Project, including:

• the probability of an oil spill occurring;

• Project viability is dependent on large barges or extremely large tankers, often carrying toxic substances, travelling through Hwlitsum First Nation harvesting territory;

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-21

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

• cumulative impacts of increased tanker traffic through traditional waters (Salish Sea and the Fraser River);

• adverse impacts on Hwlitsum First Nation’s constitutionally protected Section 35 interests as a result of increased tanker traffic; and

• development is shrinking the harvestable habitat and increasing traffic in waters where Hwlitsum First Nation traditionally harvests (Hwlitsum First Nation 2013).

Hwlitsum First Nation also notes that they do not see themselves as opponents to the Project and Project- related marine vessel traffic. Hwlitsum First Nation requests the opportunity to put forward proposals that would reduce the risk of oil spills, increase the opportunity for an effective clean-up in the case of spills, and ensure that important spiritual, cultural and fish habitat sites are remediated.

Trans Mountain provided an initial response in a letter sent to Hwlitsum First Nation on October 28, 2013 and a more detailed response was sent in April, 2014.

The results of the Hwlitsum First Nation TMRU study received on November 30, 2013 are summarized below. Where available, approximate distances and directions of specific geographic areas from the shipping lanes were determined by TERA based on the information provided in the Hwlitsum First Nation TMRU study and are described in Tables 5.5-1 to 5.5-6.

Additional issues of concern, TUS or features identified through ongoing engagement with Hwlitsum First Nation will be considered for incorporation into Project planning under the guidance of existing marine transport regulations and mitigation recommendations made to date.

5.5.1 Community Participants Acknowledgements: Chief Raymond Wilson and Hwlitsum Community Elders.

5.5.2 Results The interviews and field reconnaissance did not reveal any TMRU sites within the Marine RSA requiring mitigation as requested by Hwlitsum First Nation.

5.5.2.1 Travelways Hwlitsum First Nation identified three travelways during the TMRU study for the Project, detailed in Table 5.5-1.

It was explained that, historically, community members travelled in canoes, but in more recent decades they travel in motorized boats. An Elder said that due to this change “travel is only a matter of hours and not days.” Community members report that the Canoe Pass travelway has been impacted in recent years by a diversion of water from Canoe Pass into the Fraser River to aid shipping. This has resulted in Canoe Pass becoming shallower and slower moving, making it more difficult and dangerous to navigate (Wilson et al. 2013).

A community member explained how the use of slough networks to cross land and connect to different sites has been lost to development. The Chief reported that the area has changed drastically since contact. The region through the marsh lands along Canoe Pass was once connected by sloughs that could be navigated up to Point Roberts, but are now filled in and impassable (Wilson et al. 2013).

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-22

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

TABLE 5.5-1

TRAVELWAYS IDENTIFIED BY HWLITSUM FIRST NATION

Relative to Shipping Lanes Crossed Location Description Relative to Shipping Lanes Marine RSA to Access Activity/Site? Caone Pass to Active Pass and Gulf Islands Travelway Crossed by the shipping lane Within RSA Yes Caone Pass to Porlier Pass and Gulf Islands Travelway Crossed by the shipping lane Within RSA Yes Canoe Pass up Fraser River and including Travelway 9.9 km northeast Within RSA No upstream tributaries Source: Wilson et al. 2013

Three travelways were identified within the Marine RSA during the TMRU study for the Project. The shipping lanes are crossed to access two of these sites. No mitigation was requested for travelways by Hwlitsum First Nation (Wilson et al. 2013).

5.5.2.2 Plant Gathering Hwlitsum First Nation identified two plant gathering sites during the TMRU study for the Project, detailed in Table 5.5-2.

Hwlitsum First Nation community members gather Devil’s club on Galiano Island. The area around the ancestral village of Tl’uqtinus, which is now being used to harvest cottonwood, was once used to harvest alder.

Community members expressed concern that the current oil spill response system will not be able to protect their plant gathering sites. Concern was also expressed that BC, Canada and Kinder Morgan have no plan in place for remediation of sensitive habitat.

TABLE 5.5-2

PLANT GATHERING SITES IDENTIFIED BY HWLITSUM FIRST NATION

Shipping Lanes Crossed to Location Description Relative to Shipping Lanes Relative to Marine RSA Access Activity/Site? Galiano Island Gathering Devil’s club 17 km southwest Within RSA No Tl’uqtinus Village Cottonwood (current) and alder 18 km west Within RSA Yes (historic) Source: Wilson et al. 2013

Two plant gathering sites were identified within the Marine RSA during the TMRU study for the Project. The shipping lanes are crossed to access one of these sites. No mitigation was requested for plant gathering sites by Hwlitsum First Nation (Wilson et al. 2013).

5.5.2.3 Hunting Hwlitsum First Nation identified six hunting sites during the TMRU study for the Project, detailed in Table 5.5-3.

Community members explained that in the late 1970s and 1980s hunters were prohibited by private landowners from hunting on most of the land near the Canoe Pass, and are now limited to hunting on the opposite side (Westham Island). Westham Island is now closed to hunting since the hunting territory has been shrinking due to urbanization (Wilson et al. 2013).

Hwlitsum First Nation expressed concern that the thriving pheasant and bird populations would ‘thin out’ if they could not access Canoe Pass due to an oil spill, since birds would not be able to stop in the marsh to feed, removing the opportunity to hunt them.

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-23

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

TABLE 5.5-3

HUNTING SITES IDENTIFIED BY HWLITSUM FIRST NATION

Relative to Relative to Marine Shipping Lanes Crossed Location Description Shipping Lanes RSA to Access Activity/Site? Spirit Rock Hunting deer and ‘maritime mammals’ in the past. 10 km southwest Within RSA Yes Westham Island Hunting muskrat, duck, Canada geese and 12 km east East of RSA No pheasants in the past. Georgeson Bay Hunting seals in the past. 12.5 km southwest Within RSA Yes Canoe Pass Moose, deer, duck, elk and goose hunting site. 13 km east South and east of RSA No Sloughs Muskrat, seals and otter in the past. Brunswick Cannery Hunting goose, pheasant, duck and pigeon. 13 km east South and east of RSA No Gravesend Reach Hunting Canada geese and migratory birds in the 22 km east South and east of RSA No past. Source: Wilson et al. 2013

Two hunting sites were identified within the Marine RSA during the TMRU study for the Project. The shipping lanes are crossed to access both of these sites. No mitigation was requested for hunting sites by Hwlitsum First Nation (Wilson et al. 2013).

5.5.2.4 Fishing Hwlitsum First Nation identified a number of fishing sites during the TMRU study for the Project, detailed in Table 5.5-4.

The village of Tl’uqtinus was located above the confluence of both the Fraser River main channel and Canoe Pass. Both Tl’uqtinus and Canoe Pass had excellent access to salmon and were considered important fishing sites. The waters by the Westshore Terminal were also once considered an important fishing area, but have since been damaged by Port Metro Vancouver’s (PMV’s) activities and industrial development. These activities have also caused the water around Steveston Jetty to rise, which led to the demise of fishing at this location. A community member explained how the clamming and cod fishing they carried out in earlier decades in Georgeson Bay ‘all died out’ with marine traffic. The Chief explained how there is coal on much of the seabed in the area and consequently the insides of many harvested crabs are black, and flounders are toxic and have sores on their skin. Community members can no longer fish for eulachon, sturgeon or coho without a commercial license.

Community members expressed concern that the current oil spill response system will not be able to protect their fish gathering sites, and that BC, Canada and Kinder Morgan have no plan in place for remediation of sensitive habitat. This concern extends to include the decline of present fish stocks and potential adverse effects on fishing activities from pollution to the environment, particularly from increased oil tanker traffic, especially through Active Pass. An additional concern about the increase in oil tanker traffic reported by Hwlitsum First Nation is the potential adverse impacts this would have on the hunting of grey and humpback whales.

TABLE 5.5-4

FISHING SITES IDENTIFIED BY HWLITSUM FIRST NATION

Relative to Shipping Relative to Marine Shipping Lanes Crossed Location Description Lanes RSA to Access Activity/Site? Steveston Jetty Sockeye and spring salmon in the past. 6 km east Within RSA No Gulf of Georgia Dogfish in the past. 7 km east Within RSA No Whaler Bay Spring salmon and crab fishing site. 9.8 km southwest Within RSA No Spirit Rock Salmon fishing site. 10 km southwest Within RSA Yes Horton Bay Spring salmon fishing site. 12 km southwest Within RSA Yes Georgeson Bay Clamming location in the past. 12.5 km southwest Within RSA Yes Cod, salmon and herring in the past. Montague Harbour Spring salmon and crab fishing site. 13 km southwest Within RSA Yes

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-24

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

TABLE 5.5-4 Cont'd

Relative to Shipping Relative to Marine Shipping Lanes Crossed Location Description Lanes RSA to Access Activity/Site? Canoe Pass Sturgeon, salmon and eulachon in the past. 13 km east South and east of RSA No Woodward Reach Sockeye and spring salmon site. 13 km east East of RSA No Robert’s Bank Crab fishing sites. 13.2 km southwest Within RSA No Parker Island Clamming site. 14 km southwest Within RSA Yes Fraser River Salmon in the past. 16.5 km east South and east of RSA No Gulf Islands Reef net fishery in the past. 28 km west Within RSA Yes Massey Tunnel Eulachon in the past. 17 km northeast of RSA South and east of RSA No Source: Wilson et al. 2013

Ten fishing sites were identified within the Marine RSA during the TMRU study for the Project. The shipping lanes are crossed to access six fishing sites. No mitigation was requested for fishing sites by Hwlitsum First Nation (Wilson et al. 2013).

5.5.2.5 Gathering Places Hwlitsum First Nation identified five gathering places during the TMRU study for the Project, detailed in Table 5.5-5.

Tl’uqtinus Village used to be the main Hwlitsum village, but it moved at the end of the nineteenth century. The historic village of Lamlchi Bay was lost after the British Navy shelled and burned it in 1863. Today the site is used for storage of shipping containers for the Port of Vancouver.

Community members also expressed concern that the current oil spill response system will not be able to protect their cultural and spiritual locations, and that BC, Canada and Kinder Morgan have no plan in place for remediation of sensitive habitat.

TABLE 5.5-5

GATHERING PLACES IDENTIFIED BY HWLITSUM FIRST NATION

Relative to Shipping Shipping Lanes Crossed to Location Description Lanes Relative to Marine RSA Access Activity/Site? Spirit Rock Gathering point 10 km southwest Within RSA Yes Ladner Current village 16 km east East of RSA No Tl’uqtinus village Historic village 17 km southwest South and east of RSA No Galiano Island Current village 18 km west Within RSA Yes Lamalchi Bay Historic village 22 km southwest Within RSA No Source: Wilson et al. 2013

Three gathering places were identified within the Marine RSA during the TMRU study for the Project. The shipping lanes are crossed to access two of these sites. No mitigation was requested for gathering places by Hwlitsum First Nation (Wilson et al. 2013).

5.5.2.6 Sacred Areas Hwlitsum First Nation identified three sacred areas during the TMRU study for the Project, detailed in Table 5.5-6.

Community members expressed concern that the current oil spill response system will not be able to protect their cultural and spiritual locations, and that BC, Canada and Kinder Morgan have no plan in place for remediation of sensitive habitat.

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-25

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

TABLE 5.5-6

SACRED AREAS IDENTIFIED BY HWLITSUM FIRST NATION

Relative to Shipping Lanes Crossed Location Description Relative to Shipping Lanes Marine RSA to Access Activity/Site? Westham Island Cowichan burial ground 7.6 km east Within RSA No Collinson Point Cave where Lamalchi warrior hid from British 13.7 km southwest Within RSA No Navy Kuper Island Burial ground 24 km west West of RSA No Source: Wilson et al. 2013

Two sacred sites were identified within the Marine RSA during the TMRU study. The shipping lanes are not crossed to access these sites. No mitigation was requested for sacred areas by Hwlitsum First Nation (Wilson et al. 2013).

5.6 Penelakut First Nation Penelakut Tribe elected to conduct a third-party TMRU study for the Project. Penelakut Tribe conducted a literature review and community interviews that focused on Crown lands and waters within the asserted traditional territory of Penelakut Tribe crossed by the Marine RSA. The results of the Penelakut Tribe’s TMRU study were received on December 12, 2013 and are summarized below.

The TMRU study included information from interviews with Penelakut Tribe community members. Some of these interviews had been completed for other purposes, and some were specific to the TMRU study. Additional information was obtained from a literature review on TUS that was originally obtained from Penelakut Tribe members.

As a member of the Cowichan Nation Alliance, Penelakut Tribe is also working in partnership with Stz’uminus First Nation, Hwlitsum First Nation, Penelakut Tribe and Cowichan Tribes in their engagement with Trans Mountain.

On behalf of Penelakut Tribe, the Cowichan Nation Alliance provided their ‘Comments on the Summary of the Proposed Approach to the Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment for the Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC’s Trans Mountain Expansion Project’ to Trans Mountain on July 31, 2013 outlining their preliminary interests in the Project, detailed in Section 5.1.

Where available, approximate distances and directions of specific geographic areas from the shipping lanes were determined by TERA based on the information provided in the Penelakut Tribe’s TMRU study and are described in Tables 5.6-1 to 5.6-6.

Additional issues of concern, TUS or features identified through ongoing engagement with Penelakut Tribe will be considered for incorporation into Project planning under the guidance of existing marine transport regulations and mitigation recommendations made to date.

5.6.1 Community Participants Elders, Cultural Advisors and Community Members: Dennis Charlie; Andy Crocker; Henry Crocker; Jerome Crocker; Henry Edwards; Roy Edwards; Bob Geurin; Earl Jack; Vernon Jack; Florence James; Myrus James; Mary Joe; Linda Joseph; Rhonda Sam; August Sylvester; Leona Sylvester; Ben Thomas; Ken B. Thomas; and Abner Thorne.

Acknowledgements: Chad Ormond (Marine Biologist); Ruth Sauder (Penelakut Tribe); Joey Caro (Hul’qimi’num Treaty Group); Jack Smith (JES Evergreen Management); Lorraine Littlefield (VLW Research); Kevin Neary (Traditions Consulting Services Inc.); Jordan Maher (Q’ul-lhanumutsum Aquatic Resources Society); and Penelakut Tribe staff.

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-26

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

5.6.2 Results The literature review and interviews did not reveal any TMRU sites within the Marine RSA requiring mitigation as requested by Penelakut Tribe.

TUS provided in Penelakut Tribe’s TMRU report are not exhaustive and, therefore, do not represent the full extent of Penelakut Tribe’s use and occupancy. A specific type of use at a site does not exclude other types of use and, unless otherwise specified, it should be assumed that sites were used for all activities. Penelakut Tribe is also in the process of considering and planning to engage in Aboriginal food, social and ceremonial and commercial uses in traditional fishing locations where there is the opportunity and where it makes sense to do so. Where the terms past or present are used, both past and present use should be assumed (Penelakut Tribe 2013).

5.6.2.1 Travelways Penelakut Tribe identified a number of travelways during the TMRU study, detailed in Table 5.6-1.

Penelakut Tribe community members expressed the concern that increased tanker traffic will pose a navigation hazard for First Nation community members.

TABLE 5.6-1

TRAVELWAYS IDENTIFIED BY PENELAKUT TRIBE

Relative to Shipping Relative to Shipping Lanes Crossed Location Description Lanes Marine RSA to Access Activity/Site? Gossip Island Travelway 9 km southwest Within RSA No Active Pass Travelway 12 km southwest Within RSA No Galiano Island Travelway 13 km west Within RSA No Penelakut Island Travelway 18 km west Within RSA No Penelakut Island to Lummi via Stuart Channel and Sansum Travelway 20 km southwest-west Within RSA No Narrows Saltspring Island Travelway 21 km northwest Within RSA No Gulf Islands Travelway 28 km west Within RSA No Source: Penelakut Tribe 2013

Seven travelways were identified within the Marine RSA during the TMRU study. None of these travelways cross the shipping lanes. No mitigation was requested for travelways by Penelakut Tribe (Penelakut Tribe 2013).

5.6.2.2 Plant Gathering Penelakut Tribe identified a number of plant gathering sites during the TMRU study, detailed in Table 5.6-2.

Penelakut Tribe community members expressed concerns that high levels of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide in the air from tanker engines are detrimental to human health, will destroy forest and plant communities and increase acid rain in the area. Community members also expressed concern that oil spills from either the pipe or from tankers will directly impact marine vegetation which would potentially have a devastating effect on Penelakut Tribe.

TABLE 5.6-2

PLANT GATHERING SITES IDENTIFIED BY PENELAKUT TRIBE

Relative to Relative to Shipping Lanes Crossed Location Description Shipping Lanes Marine RSA to Access Activity/Site? Strait of Georgia Yellow cedar Along shipping lane Within RSA Yes Valdes Island Unspecified plant gathering 8 km west Within RSA No Gossip Island Gathering seaweed 9 km southwest Within RSA No

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-27

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

TABLE 5.6-2 Cont'd

Relative to Shipping Relative to Shipping Lanes Crossed Location Description Lanes Marine RSA to Access Activity/Site? Galiano Island Seaweed and wild cherry 13 km west Within RSA No Porlier Pass Gathering seaweed 14.5 km southwest Within RSA No Penelakut Island Blackberries, black/red cap berries, 18 km west Within RSA No huckleberries, salal berries and soapberries) Saltspring Island Unspecified plant gathering, ochre 21 km northwest Within RSA No Flat Top Islands Gathering seaweed 22 km west Within RSA No False Narrows Gathering seaweed 26 km west Within RSA No Source: Penelakut Tribe 2013

Nine plant gathering sites were identified within the Marine RSA during the TMRU study. The shipping lanes are crossed to access one plant gathering site. No mitigation was requested for plant gathering sites by Penelakut Tribe (Penelakut Tribe 2013).

5.6.2.3 Hunting Penelakut Tribe identified 11 hunting sites during the TMRU study, detailed in Table 5.6-3.

Penelakut Tribe community members expressed concerns that the methods and chemicals used to clean up a potential oil spill could affect the mortality of birds and mammals. These chemicals also negatively affect fur and feather-bearing animals by destroying insulation and water repelling abilities. Penelakut Tribe is concerned that oil spills from either the pipe or from tankers could directly impact the mortality of birds and mammals which would potentially have a devastating effect on Penelakut Tribe. Moreover, there are also concerns that tankers may collide with killer whales, baleen whales and other marine mammals, and that tanker traffic could pose a navigation hazard for First Nations peoples and this could potentially mean that First Nations may not be able to fish in certain areas. Community members also reported concern that routine discharge of ballast water into marine waters by oil tankers increases the risk of introducing invasive species into the marine ecosystem, posing a significant risk to the mortality of marine birds and generating beach tar.

TABLE 5.6-3

HUNTING SITES IDENTIFIED BY PENELAKUT TRIBE

Relative to Relative to Shipping Lanes Crossed Location Description Shipping Lanes Marine RSA to Access Activity/Site? Tumbo Island Hunting (duck and marine mammals) 4.5 km west Within RSA No Valdes Island Hunting (seal and sea lion) 8 km west Within RSA No Galiano Island Hunting (mink, raccoon, otter, deer, duck, seal and sea 13 km west Within RSA No lion) Parker Island Hunting (mink, otter and raccoon) 14.5 km southwest Within RSA No Porlier Pass Hunting (seal, porpoise and sea lion) 14.5 km southwest Within RSA No Prevost Island Hunting (deer) 17.5 km northwest Within RSA No Penelakut Island Hunting (duck, killer whale, porpoise and dogfish) 18 km west Within RSA No Secretary Island Hunting (duck) 18 km southwest Within RSA No Saltspring Island Hunting (porpoise, seal and sea lion) 21 km northwest Within RSA No Thetis Island Hunting (unspecified) 21 km southwest Within RSA No Westholme area Hunting (deer, grouse, beaver and duck) 34 km southwest Southwest of RSA No Source: Penelakut Tribe 2013

Ten hunting sites were identified within the Marine RSA during the TMRU study. The shipping lanes are not crossed to access any of these sites. No mitigation was requested for hunting sites by Penelakut Tribe (Penelakut Tribe 2013).

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-28

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

5.6.2.4 Fishing Penelakut Tribe identified 33 fishing sites during the TMRU study, detailed in Table 5.6-4.

Penelakut Tribe community members expressed concerns that the methods and chemicals used to clean up a potential oil spill could affect the mortality of fish and mammals, and that oil spills from either the pipe or from tankers will directly impact the mortality of fish which would potentially have an adverse effect on Penelakut Tribe. Community members reported concerns that tankers may collide with killer whales, baleen whales and other marine mammals, and that tanker traffic will pose a navigation hazard for First Nation peoples and will mean that First Nations will not be able to fish in certain areas. Community members are also concerned that routine discharge of ballast water into marine waters by oil tankers increases the risk of introducing invasive species into the marine ecosystem, posing a significant risk to the mortality of marine birds and generating beach tar. Concerns about the effects of underwater noise from large vessels on how mammals, sea turtles, fish and invertebrate species sense their surroundings and communicate were also identified by community members.

TABLE 5.6-4

FISHING SITES IDENTIFIED BY PENELAKUT TRIBE

Relative to Relative to Shipping Lanes Crossed Location Description Shipping Lanes Marine RSA to Access Activity/Site? North end of Gabriola Fishing for cod 2.5 km west Within RSA No to East Point Strait of Georgia Fishing for cod Along shipping lane Within RSA Yes Tumbo Channel Fishing (unspecified) 4.5 km west Within RSA No Tumbo Island Fishing (unspecified) 4.5 km west Within RSA No Saturna Island Fishing for cod 6 km north Within RSA No Valdes Island Fishing (salmon, herring); gathering (clams, herring 8 km west Within RSA No roe) North Pender Island Gathering clams and geoducks 11 km northwest Within RSA No Active Pass Fishing (unspecified) 12 km southwest Within RSA No Galiano Island Fishing (scallops, flounder, surf smelt, lingcod, dogfish, 13 km west Within RSA No salmon, herring roe); gathering cockles, clams, sea urchins) Porlier Pass Fishing (salmon [coho, chum and Chinook], cod, 14.5 km southwest Within RSA No rockfish); gathering (herring and herring roe) Ballingall Islets Gathering horse and butter clams 15 km southwest Within RSA No Wise Island Gathering clams 15 km southwest Within RSA No Penelakut Island Fishing (ray, salmon, crabs, herring); gathering 18 km west Within RSA No (cockles, sea urchins, oysters, herring roe, clams) Secretary Island Gathering clams 18 km southwest Within RSA No Fraser River area Fishing salmon and sturgeon 18 km northeast Northeast of RSA Yes Norway Island Gathering sea urchins 19 km southwest Within RSA No Thetis Island Gathering clams 21 km southwest Within RSA No Saltspring Island Fishing (herring, lingcod, perch); gathering (clams, 21 km northwest Within RSA No herring roe) Hall Island Gathering oysters 21 km west Within RSA No Flat Top Islands Fishing for cod, gathering littleneck clams 22 km west Within RSA No Waters between Fishing (unspecified) 22 km west Within RSA No Penelakut Island and Galiano and Valdes Islands Sansum Narrows Fishing for cod and gathering clams 22 km northwest Within RSA No Gabriola Passage Fishing for salmon 25 km west Within RSA No Tent Island Gathering sea life and fishing (unspecified) 24 km southwest Within RSA No Stuart and Trincomali Fishing (unspecified) 26 km west Within RSA No Channels False Narrows Fishing (coho salmon, Pacific halibut and rockfish); 26 km west Within RSA No gathering clams Hudson Island Gathering cockles and fishing (unspecified) 26.5 km west Within RSA No Chemainus area Fishing (unspecified) 29 km southwest Within RSA No

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-29

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

TABLE 5.5-4 Cont'd

Relative to Relative to Marine Shipping Lanes Crossed Location Description Shipping Lanes RSA to Access Activity/Site? Ladysmith area Fishing for trout, chum and coho salmon 29 km southwest Within RSA No Maple Bay area Fishing for perch and gathering clams 29 km northwest Within RSA No Westholme Area Gathering clams and oysters 34 km southwest Southwest of RSA No Cowichan Valley area Fishing (unspecified) 40 km southwest Southwest of RSA No Nanaimo area Fishing (unspecified) 40 km west Within RSA No Source: Penelakut Tribe 2013

Thirty fishing sites were identified within the Marine RSA during the TMRU study. The shipping lanes are crossed to access two fishing sites. No mitigation was requested for fishing sites by Penelakut Tribe (Penelakut Tribe 2013).

5.6.2.5 Gathering Places Penelakut Tribe identified a number of gathering places during the TMRU study, detailed in Table 5.6-5.

Penelakut Tribe community members expressed concern that oil spills could potentially contaminate cultural, village and archaeological sites.

TABLE 5.6-5

GATHERING PLACES IDENTIFIED BY PENELAKUT TRIBE

Shipping Lanes Crossed to Location Description Relative to Shipping Lanes Relative to Marine RSA Access Activity/Site? Valdes Island Historic village site 8 km west Within RSA No Galiano Island Historic village site 13 km west Within RSA No Porlier Pass Historic village site 14.5 km southwest Within RSA No Fraser River area Historic village site 18 km northeast Within RSA Yes Norway Island Historic village site 19 km southwest Within RSA No Thetis Island Historic village site 21 km southwest Within RSA No Saltspring Island Historic village site 21 km northwest Within RSA No Saltspring Island Historic village site 21 km northwest Within RSA No Reid Island Historic village site 22 km west Within RSA No The Cut Historic village site 25 km west West of RSA No Gulf Islands Historic village site 28 km west Within RSA No Chemainus area Historic village site 29 km southwest Within RSA No Ladysmith area Historic village site 29 km southwest Within RSA No Westholme area Historic village site 34 km southwest West of RSA No Nanaimo area Historic village site 40 km west Within RSA No Cowichan Valley area Historic village site 40 km southwest Southwest of RSA No Tumbo Channel Gathering place 4.5 km west Within RSA No Valdes Island Gathering place 8 km west Within RSA No Curlew Island Cultural and spiritual site 11 km southwest Within RSA No North Pender Island Gathering place 11 km northwest Within RSA No Mayne Island Gathering place 12 km southwest Within RSA No Active Pass Cultural-secular site 12 km southwest Within RSA No Galiano Island Gathering place 13 km west Within RSA No Boundary Bay Gathering place 13 km northeast Northeast of RSA Yes Porlier Pass Gathering place 14.5 km southwest Within RSA No Ballingall Islets Cultural site 15 km southwest Within RSA No Penelakut Island Gathering place 18 km west Within RSA No Canoe Islet Cultural site 18 km west West of RSA No Norway Island Cultural site 19 km southwest Within RSA No Boat Passage Cultural site 19 km southwest Within RSA No

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-30

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

TABLE 5.6-5 Cont'd

Shipping Lanes Crossed to Location Description Relative to Shipping Lanes Relative to Marine RSA Access Activity/Site? Jackscrew Island Cultural site 20 km southwest Within RSA No Thetis Island Cultural site 21 km southwest Within RSA No Reid Island Cultural site 22 km west Within RSA No Tent Island Cultural site 24 km southwest Within RSA No Gabriola Passage Cultural site 25 km west Within RSA No The Cut Cultural site 25 km west West of RSA No Hudson Island Cultural site 26.5 km west Within RSA No Gulf Islands Gathering place 28 km west Within RSA No Chemainus area Cultural site 29 km southwest Within RSA No Ladysmith area Gathering place 29 km southwest Within RSA No Westholme area Cultural site 34 km southwest Southwest of RSA No Nanaimo area Gathering place 40 km west Within RSA No Cowichan Valley area Cultural site 40 km southwest Within RSA No Source: Penelakut Tribe 2013

Penelakut Tribe community members expressed concern that oil spills could potentially contaminate cultural, village and archaeological sites.

Thirty-six gathering places were identified within the Marine RSA during the TMRU study. The shipping lanes are crossed to access two gathering places. No mitigation was requested for gathering places by Penelakut Tribe (Penelakut Tribe 2013).

5.6.2.6 Sacred Areas Penelakut Tribe identified a number of sacred areas during the TMRU study, detailed in Table 5.6-6.

Penelakut Tribe community members expressed concern that oil spills could potentially contaminate cultural and archaeological sites.

TABLE 5.6-6

SACRED AREAS IDENTIFIED BY PENELAKUT TRIBE

Shipping Lanes Crossed Location Description Relative to Shipping Lanes Relative to Marine RSA to Access Activity/Site? Valdes Island Historic cultural and burial site 8 km west Within RSA No Curlew Island Cultural and spiritual site 11 km southwest Within RSA No Active Pass Cultural-secular site 12 km southwest Within RSA No Galiano Island Historic burial site 13 km west Within RSA No Penelakut Island Historic cultural and burial site 18 km west Within RSA No Secretary Island Burial site 18 km southwest Within RSA No False Narrows Cultural and spiritual site 26 km west Within RSA No Gulf Islands Burial sites 28 km west Within RSA No Maple Bay area Burial site 29 km northwest Within RSA No Westholme area Historic burial and cultural site 34 km southwest Southwest of RSA No Source: Penelakut Tribe 2013

Nine sacred areas were identified within the Marine RSA during the TMRU study. The shipping lanes are not crossed to access any of these sites. No mitigation was requested for sacred areas by Penelakut Tribe (Penelakut Tribe 2013).

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-31

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

5.7 Pacheedaht First Nation Pacheedaht First Nation elected to conduct a third-party TMRU study for the Project. On behalf of Pacheedaht First Nation, the Pacheedaht Heritage Project and Traditions Consulting Service Inc. worked collaboratively to produce the ‘Pacheedaht First Nation Traditional Marine Use and Occupancy Study (TMUOS) 2014 - Preliminary Report’, the ‘Pacheedaht First Nation Traditional Marine Use and Occupancy Study (TMUOS) 2014 - Interim Report’, and the ‘Pacheedaht First Nation Traditional Marine Use and Occupancy Study (TMUOS) 2014 - Final Report’. The results of the Pacheedaht First Nation TMRU study were received on June 7, 2014 and are summarized below.

Information in the TMUOS reports originated from interviews with Pacheedaht First Nation members. Some of these interviews had been completed in 1997 to 1999, and some were specific to the TMUOS study conducted in 2013 to 2014. Interview dates were not available. Addition information was obtained by literature review and field studies conducted by Pacheedaht First Nation community members throughout 2013.

Where available, approximate distances and directions of specific geographic areas from the shipping lanes were determined by TERA based on the information provided in the Pacheedaht First Nation TMRU study and are described in Tables 5.7-1 to 5.7-4.

Additional issues of concern, TUS or features identified through ongoing engagement with Pacheedaht First Nation will be considered for incorporation into Project planning under the guidance of existing marine transport regulations and mitigation recommendations made to date.

5.7.1 Community Participants Elders, Cultural Advisors and Community Members (1997 to 1999): Nora Baker; Leona Canute; Flora Charles; Carlson Charlie; Helen Dunn; Carl Edgar Sr.; George Gibbs; Charlene Jack; Percy Jack; Roy ”Butch” Jack; Pearl James; Susan Johnson; Alanna Jones; Andrea Jones; Ardis Jones; Arlena Jones; Arnold Jones; Bill Jones; Brenda Jones; Charles Jones Jr.; Charles Jones Sr.; Dan Jones; Dave Jones; Ida Jones; Jeff Jones; John Paul Jones; Karen “Sammy” Jones; Ken Jones; Lawrence Jones; Marvin Jones; Mary Jones; Mary Clara Jones; Robert Jones; Roberta Jones; Shirley Jones; Tim Jones; Tom Jones; Stacey Jones; Wayne Jones; Wesley Jones; Edith Joseph; Stella Matkin; Marvin McClurg; Harry Peters; Hazel Peters; Marg Peters; Sally Peters; Jenny Thomas; John Thomas; Dr. Nancy Turner; and Margaret Williams.

Elders, Cultural Advisors and Community Members (2013 to 2014): Carlson Charlie Sr.; Adelaine Jack; Candice Jack; William Jones; Darrell Jones; Frank Jones; Helen Jones; A. Jeffery Jones; Marvin Jones; Mercena Jones; Pamela Jones; Tim Jones; Walter “Russell” Jones; Daniel McClurg; Marvin McClurg; Gary Pearson; Curtis Scowaisa; and Nora Simpson.

Acknowledgements: Kevin Neary (Traditions Consulting Services Inc.); Simon Norris (Traditions Consulting Services Inc.); Cairn Crockford (Traditions Consulting Services Inc.); Pamela William (Traditions Consulting Services Inc.); Madelen Jones (Pacheedaht Heritage Project); Pamela Jones (Pacheedaht Heritage Project); and Kristine Pearson (Pacheedaht Heritage Project).

5.7.2 Results The map review and interviews did not reveal any TMRU sites within the Marine RSA requiring mitigation as requested by Pacheedaht First Nation.

5.7.2.1 Travelways Pacheedaht First Nation did not identify any travelways during the TMRU study. However, Pacheedaht First Nation community members expressed concerns about safety while travelling to and from fishing grounds and other harvesting sites, and while engaged in fishing and other harvesting activities.

No mitigation was requested for travelways by Pacheedaht First Nation (Pacheedaht Heritage Project et al. 2014).

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-32

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

5.7.2.2 Plant Gathering Pacheedaht First Nation identified three plant gathering sites during the TMRU study, detailed in Table 5.7 1.

Plants harvested by Pacheedaht First Nation include western red cedar, Sitka spruce, basketry grasses, American dune grass, salal berries, silverwood, wild clover, stinging nettle, salmon berry, huckleberry, seaweed, red laver, bull kelp, eel grass, Scouler’s surf grass, bladderwrack, leafy kelps, short kelp, sea palm and sea lettuce.

Concerns were expressed about the impact of tanker wake on marine resources, and that tanker traffic will disrupt fishing and marine harvesting activities in many other ways, such as increasing stress, detracting from the enjoyment of harvesting activities, and interfering with community members’ traditional connection to Pacheedaht territory. Community members also identified concerns about leaks and/or spills and associated clean-up operations that could cause damage to the marine environment and resources in Pacheedaht territory and the degradation of Pacheedaht members’ ability to reside and thrive in their territory (Pacheedaht Heritage Project et al. 2014).

TABLE 5.7-1

PLANT GATHERING SITES IDENTIFIED BY PACHEEDAHT FIRST NATION

Relative to Relative to Shipping Lanes Crossed Location Description Shipping Lanes Marine RSA to Access Activity/Site? Port San Juan American dune grass. 8.5 km northeast Within RSA No Pacheedaht Village Salmonberry, huckleberry, salal berries. 14.8 km northeast East of RSA No Pacheedaht traditional Western red cedar, sitka spruce, basketry grasses, ------territory silverweed, wild clover, stinging nettle, seaweed, red laver, bull kelp, scoulers surf grass, bladderwrack, leafy kelp, short kelp, sea palm, sea lettuce, eel grass. Source: Pacheedaht Heritage Project et al. 2014

One plant gathering site was identified within the Marine RSA during the TMRU study. The shipping lanes are not crossed to access this site. Pacheedaht First Nation also gathers plants throughout their entire traditional territory. No mitigation was requested for plant gathering sites by Pacheedaht First Nation (Pacheedaht Heritage Project et al. 2014).

5.7.2.3 Hunting Pacheedaht First Nation identified a number of hunting sites during the TMRU study, detailed in Table 5.7-2. Pacheedaht First Nation community members expressed concerns that tanker noise will have negative effects on fish and other marine resources, and that damage could be caused to marine mammals and other marine life from collisions with tankers. Community members also reported concerns that tanker traffic will disrupt fishing and marine harvesting activities by increasing stress, detracting from the enjoyment of harvesting activities, and interfering with community members’ traditional connection to Pacheedaht territory. Community members also identified concerns about leaks and/or spills and associated clean-up operations that could cause damage to the marine environment and resources in Pacheedaht territory and the degradation of Pacheedaht community members’ ability to reside and thrive in their territory (Pacheedaht Heritage Project et al. 2014).

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-33

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

TABLE 5.7-2

HUNTING SITES IDENTIFIED BY PACHEEDAHT FIRST NATION

Relative to Relative to Shipping Lanes Crossed Location Description Shipping Lanes Marine RSA to Access Activity/Site? Sombrio River Coastal deer, bufflehead duck 10 km northeast Northeast of RSA No Minute Creek Coastal deer 7.9 km northeast Northeast of RSA No Parkinson Creek Coastal deer 7 km northeast Northeast of RSA No Trisle Creek Coastal deer (until the 1990s) 7.1 km northwest Northwest of No RSA Pacheedaht IR #3 Sea otter (historic), gray whale (historic) 8.1 km northeast Northeast of RSA No Sombrio Point Northern sea lion (historic) 6.9 km northeast Within RSA No Bonilla Point Gray whale (historic) 14.7 km northwest Within RSA No Port San Juan Mink, river otter (historic), raccoon (historic), 12 km northeast Within RSA No bufflehead duck, gray whale (historic) San Juan River Coastal deer, brant goose, common merganser, 14.1 km northeast Within RSA No common goldeneye, Roosevelt elk, black bear (historic), river otter (historic) Gordon River Coastal deer, surf scoter, brant goose, trumpeter 14.6 km northeast Within RSA No swan, whistling swan (1940s), common merganser, common goldeneye, spruce grouse Walbran Creek and Valley Wolf (historic), mink (historic), coastal deer (1930s) 15.1 km north North of RSA No Swiftsure Bank Humpback whale (historic), orca whale (not hunted) Within Within RSA Yes Pacheedaht traditional Mallard duck, rufous hummingbird, mink (historic), ------territory harbour seal, northern fur seal, northern sea lion (historic), California sea lion, harbour porpoise, orca whale (not hunted), northern right whale Source: Pacheedaht Heritage Project et al. 2014

Six hunting sites were identified within the Marine RSA during the TMRU study. Pacheedaht First Nation also hunts throughout their entire traditional territory. The shipping lanes are crossed to access one hunting site. No mitigation was requested for hunting sites by Pacheedaht First Nation (Pacheedaht Heritage Project et al. 2014).

5.7.2.4 Fishing Pacheedaht First Nation identified a number of fishing sites during the TMRU study, detailed in Table 5.7-3.

Pacheedaht First Nation community members expressed concerns about safety while travelling to and from fishing grounds and other harvesting sites, and while engaged in fishing and other harvesting activities. Concern was expressed that tanker traffic will disrupt fishing and marine harvesting activities by increasing stress, detracting from the enjoyment of harvesting activities, and interfering with community members’ traditional connection to Pacheedaht territory. Pacheedaht First Nation is concerned that tanker noise will have negative effects on fish and other marine resources, and tanker collisions with, and damage to, marine mammals and other marine life. Further, tanker traffic could result in the loss or destruction of fishing or other harvesting gear such as nets, traps, fishing tackle or boating gear. Community members also expressed concern about leaks and/or spills and associated clean-up operations that could cause significant damage to the marine environment and resources in Pacheedaht territory and; therefore, the degradation of Pacheedaht members’ ability to reside and thrive in their territory (Pacheedaht Heritage Project et al. 2014).

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-34

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

TABLE 5.7-3

FISHING SITES IDENTIFIED BY PACHEEDAHT FIRST NATION

Relative to Relative to Shipping Lanes Crossed Location Description Shipping Lanes Marine RSA to Access Activity/Site? All beaches Butter clam, Pacific little neck clam, horse clam ------Vancouver Island Sardine 8 km northeast Within RSA No Pacheedatht IR #3 Dogfish shark (historic) 8.1 km northeast Northeast of No RSA Botanical Beach Oyster (historic), Pacific octopus, California mussel, blue 8.5 km northeast Within RSA No mussel Mouth of Jordan River Pacific octopus, blue mussel (historic), steelhead 9.1 km northeast Within RSA No (historic), coastal cutthroat trout (historic) Owen Point California mussel 4.9 km north Within RSA No Kellet Rock California mussel -- Within RSA No Logan Creek California mussel 11.7 km northwest Within RSA No Bonilla Point California mussel 14.7 km northwest Within RSA No Baird’s Beach Blue mussel -- Within RSA No Harris Creek Pink salmon 31.9 km northeast Northeast of No RSA Kirby Creek Steelhead (historic) 8.1 km northeast Northeast of No RSA Walbran Creek Steelhead (historic), coastal cutthroat trout (historic), sole 15.1 km north North of RSA No Sombrio River Steelhead (historic) 10 km northeast Northeast of No RSA Thrashers Cove Blue mussel 11 km northeast Within RSA No Port San Juan Pacific razor clam, Pacific geoduck, cockle, Humboldt 12 km north east Within RSA No squid, Dungeness crab, prawn, dock shrimp, chum salmon, spring salmon, coastal cutthroat trout, sand lance, surf smelt, night smelt, red tailed perch, skate Snuggery Cove Horse clam (historic), Pacific geoduck (historic), blue 12.3 km northeast Within RSA No mussel (historic) San Juan River Sockeye salmon, coho salmon, pink salmon, chum 14.1 km northeast Within RSA No salmon, steelhead, coastal cutthroat trout, flounder, sole, sturgeon, surf smelt, red tailed perch Gordon River Pacific geoduck (historic), chum salmon, pink salmon, 14.6 km northeast Within RSA No chum salmon, steelhead, coastal cutthroat trout, cabezon, sturgeon, surf smelt, northern anchovy, red tailed perch Harris Creek Pink salmon, Chinook salmon 25 km northeast Northeast of No RSA Swiftsure Bank Sockeye salmon, Pacific halibut, sablefish, yelloweye Within Within RSA Yes rockfish, quillback rockfish, tiger rockfish, China rockfish, canary rockfish, yellowtail rockfish, red banded rockfish, rosethorn rockfish, Pacific cod, silver grey rockfish, black rockfish, Vermillion rockfish, copper rockfish, greenling, pomfret, shad, Jack mackerel, skipjack tuna, Greenland turbot, dogfish, octopus, and Humboldt squid, lingcod, cabezon, herring (historic), ratfish Pacheedaht Mya clam, California mussel, blue mussel, gooseneck ------traditional territory barnacles, acorn barnacle, black Katy chiton, giant gumboot chiton, black leather chiton, northern abalone (historic), limpets, whelks, giant red sea urchin, purple sea urchin, green sea urchin, red rock crab, scallop, pile worm, sea cucumber, sockeye salmon, coho salmon, pink salmon, Chinook salmon, herring (historic), greenling, kelp greenling, sablefish, lingcod, yelloweye rockfish, sea bass, black bass, black rockfish, blue rockfish, wolf eel, American shad Source: Pacheedaht Heritage Project et al. 2014

Fourteen fishing sites were identified within the Marine RSA during the TMRU study. Pacheedaht First Nation also practices fishing throughout their traditional territory. The shipping lanes are crossed to access

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-35

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

one fishing site. No mitigation was requested for fishing sites by Pacheedaht First Nation (Pacheedaht Heritage Project et al. 2014).

5.7.2.5 Gathering Places Pacheedaht First Nation did not identify any gathering places during the TMRU but identified several historical habitation sites consisting of both villages and camp sites detailed in Table 5.7-4.

These historical habitation sites were important to Pacheedaht First Nation community members for the harvesting of resources and are part of their cultural identity. These sites are still important to Pacheedaht First Nation rights and culture, and reflect Pacheedaht First Nation’s traditional marine orientation and reliance on marine resources.

Pacheedaht First Nation community members expressed concern about reduced value, desirability and utility of proposed Treaty Settlement Lands (Pacheedaht Heritage Project et al. 2014).

TABLE 5.7-4

GATHERING PLACES IDENTIFIED BY PACHEEDAHT FIRST NATION

Relative to Shipping Relative to Shipping Lanes Crossed Location Description Lanes Marine RSA to Access Activity/Site? Qala:yit Large village 8.3 km northeast North of RSA No łi:xwa:p Winter village 8.7 km northeast North of RSA No ?apsawa? Winter village 8.8 km northeast North of RSA No Qawö adt Small village 8.9 km northeast North of RSA No Diitiida Large village 9 km northeast North of RSA No Tł’ehib Village 9 km northeast North of RSA No ?i?i:bic’aqpi?s Village 9.3 km northeast North of RSA No K’adata?s Winter trapping camp 9.9 km northeast North of RSA No Qwa:qt ł’is Village 10 km northeast North of RSA No ?o:yats’ Village 11.1 km northeast North of RSA No K’o?oba? Village 11.8 km northeast North of RSA No Bo:?api?is Winter village 12.2 km northeast North of RSA No K’witibi?t Village 13.4 km northeast North of RSA No P’a:chi:da? Village 14.8 km northeast North of RSA No Tł’oqwxwat’ Summer fishing village 16.3 km northeast North of RSA No Tłołasi? Summer fishing camp 17.2 km northeast North of RSA No ?a?aqwaxtas Village 17.2 km northeast North of RSA No Tł’i:xsit Large village 17.5 km northeast North of RSA No Kwi:sidok’wa? Fishing camp 19.2 km northeast North of RSA No Source: Pacheedaht Heritage Project et al. 2014

No gathering areas or habitation sites were identified by Pacheedaht First Nation within the Marine RSA during the TMRU study. No mitigation was requested for gathering places by Pacheedaht First Nation (Pacheedaht Heritage Project et al. 2014).

5.7.2.6 Sacred Areas Pacheedaht First Nation did not identify any sacred areas during the TMRU study. No mitigation was requested for sacred areas by Pacheedaht First Nation (Pacheedaht Heritage Project et al. 2014).

5.8 Malahat Nation Malahat First nation elected to conduct a third-party TMRU study for the Project, which is currently underway. Trans Mountain will continue to share Project information with Malahat Nation and to support Malahat Nation’s participation in Project activities.

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-36

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

Malahat Nation provided their ‘Malahat Interests in Respect to the Proposed Trans Mountain Expansion Project’ dated May 23, 2014, outlining their preliminary interests in the Project, including:

• environment:

− Malahat Nation are concerned with potential impacts of increased tanker traffic in the Salish Sea;

− Malahat Nation are concerned with consequences of an oil spill on marine habitat and wildlife; and

− Malahat Nation are concerned with cumulative effects of eroded shores;

• economy:

− Malahat Nation are concerned that any oil spill would destroy the economic opportunity that geoduck aquaculture presents.

Trans Mountain addressed these concerns and interests contained in a letter sent to Malahat First Nation in June, 2014.

Issues of concern, TUS or features identified through ongoing engagement with Malahat First Nation will be considered for incorporation into Project planning under the guidance of existing marine transport regulations and mitigation recommendations made to date.

5.9 Scia’new First Nation (Beecher Bay Indian Band) Scia’new First Nation provided their ‘Scia’new First Nation Consultation Memorandum of Understanding’ to Trans Mountain on November 20, 2013, outlining their preliminary interests in the Project, including:

• legally recognized rights to the land, waters, seabed, renewable resources and non-renewable resources;

• legally recognized rights to manage and regulate lands and resources;

• right to protect and preserve the environment;

• right to access the wealth and participate in wealth generation;

• right to practice their culture and protect those areas that are critical to their cultural survival; and

• right to protect our heritage sights and spiritual places (Scia’new First Nation 2013).

Trans Mountain provided an initial response in a letter sent to Scia’new First Nation on December 4, 2013 and a more detailed response addressing these concerns and interests was provided on April 15, 2014.

Scia’new First Nation has elected to work with TERA Environmental Consultants to develop a TERA-facilitated TMRU work plan. Issues of concern, TUS or features identified through ongoing engagement with Scia’new First Nation will be considered for incorporation into Project planning under the guidance of existing marine transport regulations and mitigation recommendations made to date.

5.10 Semiahmoo First Nation Semiahmoo First Nation is currently conducting an independent, community-facilitated TMRU study for the Project.

Semiahmoo First Nation provided their ‘Trans Mountain Expansion Project–Initial List of Aboriginal Interests’ to Trans Mountain on August 6, 2013, outlining their preliminary interests in the Project, including the following:

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-37

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

• cumulative impacts of land alienation within our traditional territories and limited Crown land within our traditional territory will limit our opportunity for future land claim negotiations and accommodations;

• cumulative impacts of land alienation and development within our traditional territory has a significant impact on the future of our land and water resources. Before any future development occurs within our traditional territory industry must commit to restoring and protecting our lands;

• the cumulative impacts of land alienation and development within our traditional territory have resulted in our reserve being on a permanent boil water advisory;

• cumulative impacts of land alienation have significantly impacted our way of life. The majority of our hunting and harvesting grounds have been developed and we cannot afford any future development of lands where these resources are found within our traditional territory without risk of losing our traditions and culture;

• cumulative impacts of land alienation and increased water traffic on rivers and the ocean have significantly affected our traditional or cultural fishing. Semiahmoo First Nation was once one of the wealthiest Nations on the West Coast because of our fishery which we used to trade with other First Nations;

• our fishery including salmon and shellfish have been taken from us and are limited to small areas on the Fraser River because of cumulative impacts of development on the ocean;

• salmon and shellfish fisheries have been arbitrarily closed to us because of pollution in our traditional fishing areas including the Little Campbell River, Serpentine River, Nicomekl River, Semiahmoo Bay, Boundary Bay, Mud Bay and the Strait of Georgia aka the Salish Sea. In the case of the Strait of Juan de Fuca the fishery has been removed because of the US-Canada border;

• cumulative impacts of land alienation and development have limited our traditions and culture, and damaged or built over areas of cultural significance including traditional village sites such as Crescent Beach;

• potential oil spills within our traditional territory are a major concern given the impact it would have on our already damaged environment that limits the way we are able to practice our traditions and culture; and

• the impact of industrial expansion over the last 50 years has resulted in our members no longer being able to practice traditional fishing such as clam harvesting. This is a major concern given that few elders have knowledge of our traditional harvesting methods and our youth may grow up without any knowledge of our traditions, resulting in the loss of this part of our traditions and culture for future generations (Semiahmoo First Nation 2013).

Trans Mountain addressed these concerns and interests contained in a letter sent to Semiahmoo First Nation on October 28, 2013 and a more detailed response was sent on May 12, 2014.

Additional issues of concern, traditional marine use sites or features identified through ongoing engagement with Semiahmoo First Nation will be considered for incorporation into Project planning under the guidance of existing marine transport regulations and mitigation recommendations made to date.

5.11 Stz’uminus First Nation (Chemainus) Stz’uminus First Nation elected to conduct a third-party TMRU study for the Project. A third-party consultant, Rainshadow Communications Ltd. (Rainshadow), prepared the third-party report for Stz’uminus First

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-38

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

Nation. This report is based on interviews with Stz’uminus Elders and participants. The results of the Stz’uminus First Nation TMRU study were received on December 9, 2013 and are summarized below.

Stz’uminus Elders and participants were interviewed between 1976 and 2007. These interviews initially formed part of three studies: 1) Chemainus Traditional Use Study (June 2009); 2) Chemainus Ethnohistory (July 2009); and 3) Stz’uminus Traditional Use Study Report (November 2012).

Stz’uminus First Nation conducted a literature review that focused on Crown lands and waters within the asserted traditional territory of Stz’uminus First Nation crossed by the Marine RSA.

As a member of the Cowichan Nation Alliance, Stz’uminus First Nation is also working in partnership with Halalt First Nation, Hwlitsum First Nation, Penelakut Tribe and Cowichan Tribes in their engagement with Trans Mountain.

Where available, approximate distances and directions of specific geographic areas from the shipping lanes were determined by TERA based on the information provided in the Stz’uminus First Nation TMRU study and are described in Tables 5.11-1 to 5.11-6.

Additional issues of concern, TUS or features identified through ongoing engagement with Stz’uminus First Nation will be considered for incorporation into Project planning under the guidance of existing marine transport regulations and mitigation recommendations made to date.

5.11.1 Community Participants Acknowledgements: Stz’uminus Chief John Elliot; Stz’uminus Elders and community members; Stz’uminus Band Office; Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group Executive Director and staff; and GIS Technician M.J. Churchill.

5.11.2 Results The map review and interviews did not reveal any traditional marine use sites within the Marine RSA requiring mitigation as requested by Stz’uminus First Nation.

5.11.2.1 Travelways Stz’uminus First Nation identified nine travelways during the TMRU study, detailed in Table 5.11-1.

Stz’uminus First Nation community members expressed concern that wake and ship discharge will impact both the marine and coastal environment, and therefore marine use by Stz’uminus First Nation.

TABLE 5.11-1

TRAVELWAYS IDENTIFIED BY STZ’UMINUS FIRST NATION

Relative to Shipping Shipping Lanes Crossed to Location Description Lanes Relative to Marine RSA Access Activity/Site? Strait of Georgia Travelway In shipping lane Within RSA Yes Mayne Island Trail 8.9 km southwest Within RSA No Whaler Bay Trail 10 km southwest Within RSA No Steveston Trail 11 km east East of RSA Yes Shingle Point IR 4 Trail 22.5 km west Within RSA No Kuper Island Trail 24.1 km southwest Within RSA No Nanoose Harbour Trail 60.3 km west West of RSA No Lasqueti Island Trail 71.9 km northwest Northwest of RSA No North of Powell River Trail 140 km northwest Northwest of RSA No Source: Rainshadow 2013

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-39

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

Five travelways were identified within the Marine RSA during the TMRU study. The shipping lanes are crossed to access two travelways. No mitigation was requested for travelways by Stz’uminus First Nation (Rainshadow 2013).

5.11.2.2 Plant Gathering Stz’uminus First Nation identified 30 plant gathering sites during the TMRU study, detailed in Table 5.11-2.

Stz’uminus First Nation gathered a wide variety of plant species for many purposes including food, medicine and materials throughout their traditional marine territory.

Stz’uminus First Nation community members expressed concern that increased oil tanker traffic in areas used and occupied by Stz’uminus First Nation will displace current uses such as fishing, resource gathering and traditional bathing.

TABLE 5.11-2

PLANT GATHERING SITES IDENTIFIED BY STZ’UMINUS FIRST NATION

Relative to Relative to Shipping Lanes Crossed Location Description Shipping Lanes Marine RSA to Access Activity/Site? Sooke Gathering berries and soapberries 10.7 km northeast Within RSA No Gabriola Island to Mayne Island Plant gathering (seaweed) site 11 km southwest Within RSA No Mainland (Richmond/Vancouver) Plant gathering (seaweed) site 11 km east Within RSA Yes Steveston Gathering seaweed 11 km east Within RSA Yes Montague Harbour Gathering berries 12.5 km southwest Within RSA No Winstanley Point Gathering berries 13.2 km southwest Within RSA No Fraser River Gathering seaweed 15 km east Within RSA No Galiano Island Gathering berries 18 km west Within RSA No Long Harbour Gathering berries 18.8 km southwest Within RSA No Porlier Pass IR 5 Gathering blackberries and black/red caps 20 km west Within RSA No Ganges Harbour Gathering berries 20.3 km southwest Within RSA No Chain Islands Gathering berries 20.4 km southwest Within RSA No Bamberton Gathering medicinal plants 21.3 km west West of RSA No Valdes Island Gathering seaweed 22.3 km west Within RSA No Shingle Point IR 4 Gathering medicinal plants 22.5 km west Within RSA No Cowichan IR 1 Gathering cow parsnip 23.5 km northwest Within RSA No Flat Top Islands Gathering seaweed and ocean spray 23.9 km west Within RSA No Kuper Island Gathering berries and soapberries 24.1 km southwest Within RSA No Breakwater Island Gathering seaweed 25 km west Within RSA No Gabriola Passage Gathering seaweed 25.7 km west Within RSA No Chemainus Bay Cemetery Gathering potato 29.8 km southwest Within RSA No Kulleet Bay Gathering camas 30 km west Within RSA No Deer Point Gathering berries 30.1 km west Within RSA No Kulleet Bay Gathering camas 33.4 km west Within RSA No Chemainus Indian Reserve 13 Gathering cascara 34 km west West of RSA No Ladysmith Harbour area Gathering seaweed 39 km west Within RSA No Lasqueti Island Gathering berries and soapberries 71.9 km northwest Northwest of RSA No Deep Bay Gathering herbs 103 km northwest Northwest of RSA No Oyster Bay Gathering crab apples 146 km northwest Northwest of RSA No Campbell River Gathering Indian consumption plants 162 km northwest Northwest of RSA No Source: Rainshadow 2013

Twenty-four plant gathering sites were identified within the Marine RSA during the TMRU study. The shipping lanes are crossed to access two of plant gathering sites. No mitigation was requested for plant gathering sites by Stz’uminus First Nation (Rainshadow 2013).

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-40

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

5.11.2.3 Hunting Stz’uminus First Nation identified 20 hunting sites during the TMRU study for the Project, detailed in Table 5.11-3.

Stz’uminus First Nation hunts along shorelines and waterways in the coastal areas on Vancouver Island that could be affected by a potential oil spill.

Stz’uminus First Nation community members expressed concern that wake and ship discharge will impact both the marine and coastal environments, and therefore marine use by Stz’uminus First Nation. Concern was expressed that oil tanker traffic in areas used and occupied by Stz’uminus First Nation will displace current uses such as fishing, resource gathering and traditional bathing. Community members also reported concern that increased marine traffic may result in increased mammal strikes, further affecting both natural environments and harvesting activities (Rainshadow 2013).

TABLE 5.11-3

HUNTING SITES IDENTIFIED BY STZ’UMINUS FIRST NATION

Relative to Relative to Shipping Lanes Crossed Location Description Shipping Lanes Marine RSA to Access Activity/Site? Strait of Georgia Hunting for duck and murres In shipping lane Within RSA Yes Strait of Georgia (East of Galiano Island) Hunting for duck and grebe In shipping lane Within RSA Yes Whaler Bay Gathering, fishing (crab) and trail site 10 km southwest Within RSA No Saltspring Island Hunting for deer 13.5 northwest Within RSA No Parker Island Hunting for deer 14 km southwest Within RSA No Galiano Island Hunting for duck and deer 18 km west Within RSA No Porlier Pass IR 5 Hunting duck and goose 20 km west Within RSA No Valdes Island Hunting for deer 22.3 km west Within RSA No Maple Mountain Hunting for land animals 28.1 km southwest Southwest of RSA No Stuart Channel Hunting for duck 28.2 km west Within RSA No Bluffs (Gabriola Island) Hunting for deer 29 km west Within RSA No Kulleet Bay Hunting for duck 30 km west Within RSA No Dunsmuir Islands Hunting for duck 33.9 km west Within RSA No Burleith Arm Hunting for duck 35.5 km west Within RSA No Ladysmith Harbour Area Hunting for mink, duck and otter 39 km west Within RSA No Departure Bay to Hammond Bay Hunting for deer 42.7 km west West of RSA No Nanoose Harbour Hunting for deer 60.3 km west West of RSA No Northwest Bay Hunting for deer 65.2 km west West of RSA No Lasqueti Island Hunting for deer 71.9 km northwest Northwest of RSA No North of Powell River Hunting for deer 140 km northwest Northwest of RSA No Source: Rainshadow 2013

Sixteen hunting sites were identified within the Marine RSA during the TMRU study. The shipping lanes are crossed to access two hunting sites. No mitigation was requested for hunting sites by Stz’uminus First Nation (Rainshadow 2013).

5.11.2.4 Fishing Stz’uminus Nation identified 75 fishing sites during the TMRU study for the Project, detailed in Table 5.11-4.

Stz’uminus First Nation uses a wide variety of fish and marine life.

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-41

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

TABLE 5.11-4

FISHING SITES IDENTIFIED BY STZ’UMINUS FIRST NATION

Relative to Relative to Shipping Lanes Crossed Location Description Shipping Lanes Marine RSA to Access Activity/Site? Strait of Georgia Fishing (sockeye salmon, halibut, Pacific cod In shipping lane Within RSA Yes and lingcod) Strait of Georgia (east of Fishing for sockeye salmon In shipping lane Within RSA Yes Galiano Island) Strait of Georgia (southeast Fishing for salmon (spring, pink and sockeye) In shipping lane Within RSA Yes off Robert’s Bank) Sydney to Steveston Cannery, Gathering clams Crossed by shipping Within RSA Yes to Campbell River lane Strait of Georgia Fishing for chum salmon In shipping lane Within RSA Yes East Point Fishing (unspecified) 2.7 km west Within RSA No Gabriola Island to East Point Fishing (unspecified) 3.2 km northwest Within RSA No Pender Island Gathering littleneck clams 3.8 km northwest Within RSA No Strait of Georgia (north of Fishing (cod, rockfish and sockeye salmon) 6.5 km southwest Within RSA No Active Pass) Roberts and Sturgeon Bank Fishing for salmon 7.1 km east Within RSA Yes Mayne Island Fishing (unspecified) 8.9 km southwest Within RSA No Whaler Bay Fishing for crab 10 km southwest Within RSA No Sidney Gathering clams 10.6 km west Within RSA No Waters surrounding Saturna Fishing (unspecified) 10.9 km northwest Within RSA No and Mayne Island Otter Bay Fishing (flounder, cod and rockfish) 11.5 km northwest Within RSA No Strait of Georgia (south fork of Fishing (sockeye salmon and sturgeon) 12.1 km east Within RSA Yes Fraser River onto Roberts Bank) Montague Harbour Gathering crab, Dungeness crab, oysters and 12.5 km southwest Within RSA No clams (butter, geoduck and horse) Winstanley Point Gathering (butter and horse clams, geoduck, 13.2 km southwest Within RSA No crab and Dungeness crab) Saltspring Island Fishing (salmon, spring, littleneck); gathering 13.5 northwest Within RSA No (butter clam and sea urchin) Parker Island Gathering clams and oysters 14 km southwest Within RSA No Wise Island Gathering clams (littleneck, butter and cockle) 14.3 km southwest Within RSA No and fishing for cod and rockfish Ballingal Islets Fishing (cod and rockfish) 14.5 km southwest Within RSA No Prevost Island Gathering clams 16.8 southwest Within RSA No Athol Peninsula Gathering clams 17.6 km southwest Within RSA No Walker Hook Gathering butter clams 17.8 km southwest Within RSA No Galiano Island Gathering clams 18 km west Within RSA No Long Harbour Gathering clams (butter, horse, littleneck, and 18.8 km southwest Within RSA No manilla) Porlier Pass Fishing for salmon (coho, sockeye, cod and 19.4 km west Within RSA No spring) Porlier Pass IR 5 Fishing (cod, rockfish and lingcod), hunting 20 km west Within RSA No gathering sea urchins and clams (littleneck, horse and butter) Outside Porlier Pass Fishing (unspecified) 20.2 km west Within RSA No Goat Island Gathering butter clams 20.3 km southwest Within RSA No Ganges Harbour Gathering geoduck, crab, Dungeness crab, and 20.3 km southwest Within RSA No clams (horse, manila and butter) Chain Islands Gathering (crab, geoduck, Dungeness crab, 20.4 km southwest Within RSA No manila and horse clams) Booth Inlet Gathering and fishing (clam, oyster and manila) 22 km southwest Within RSA No site Sansum Narrows Fishing for chum salmon 22 km northwest Within RSA No Valdes Island Fishing (unspecified) and gathering (clams and 22.3 km west Within RSA No sea urchins) Shingle Point IR 4 Gathering clams 22.5 km west Within RSA No

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-42

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

TABLE 5.11-4 Cont'd

Relative to Relative to Shipping Lanes Crossed Location Description Shipping Lanes Marine RSA to Access Activity/Site? Cowichan IR 1 Fishing (unspecified) 23.5 km northwest Within RSA No Flat Top Islands Fishing (salmon, sockeye and cod) 23.9 km west Within RSA No Kuper Island Gathering clams 24.1 km southwest Within RSA No Trincomali Channel Fishing (herring, spring and sockeye salmon) 24.3 km west Within RSA No Gabriola Island Fishing (cod, herring roe, rockfish, salmon and 24.3 km west Within RSA No spring); gathering clams Cowichan Bay Gathering littleneck clams 24.8 km northwest Within RSA No Gabriola Passage Fishing (unspecified) 25.7 km west Within RSA No Whaleboat Passage Gathering butter clams 26.5 km west Within RSA No Ruxton Island Gathering butter clams 26.5 km west Within RSA No Degnen Bay Gathering clams 26.9 km west Within RSA No Danger Reefs Fishing (rockfish, cod and lingcod) 27.4 km west Within RSA No Maple Bay Fishing for cod 27.5 km northwest Within RSA No Stuart Channel Fishing for coho salmon 28.2 km west Within RSA No Chemainus River Fishing for salmon 29.1 km southwest Within RSA No Squaw-Hay One IR 11 Fishing (unspecified) 29.7 km southwest Within RSA No Say-La-Quas IR 10 Fishing (unspecified) 29.7 km southwest Within RSA No Chemainus Bay area Fishing for chum salmon 29.8 km southwest Within RSA No False Narrows Gathering clams, oysters and mussels 30 km west Within RSA No Yellow Point to Boat Harbour Fishing for cod and lingcod and gathering clams 30 km west Within RSA No Kulleet Bay Fishing for flounder and gathering clams 30 km west Within RSA No Deer Point Gathering clams 30.1 km west Within RSA No Kulleet Bay to Yellow Point Fishing for herring 30.8 km west Within RSA No Coffin Point Gathering clams, cockles and oysters 31.9 km west Within RSA No Holland Creek Fishing for chum salmon 33 km west Within RSA Yes Kulleet Bay Fishing (cod, octopus and rockfish); gathering 33.4 km west Within RSA No clams Sibell Bay Fishing for flounder and herring and gathering 33.6 km west Within RSA No clams and oysters Dunsmuir Islands Fishing for sea urchins 33.9 km west Within RSA No Chemainus Indian Reserve 13 Fishing (unspecified) 34 km west Within RSA No Dodd Narrows Fishing (unspecified) 34 km west Within RSA No Strait of Georgia (Five Fingers Fishing (unspecified) 36 km west Within RSA No to Entrance Island) Bush Creek Fishing for salmon 37 km east Within RSA No Steve Sampson’s Creek on Fishing for salmon 37 km east Within RSA No Ladysmith IR 12 Ladysmith (Ivy Green area) Fishing (unspecified) 37.1 km west West of RSA No Northumberland Channel Fishing (unspecified) 38.2 km west Within RSA No Ladysmith Harbour area Fishing (flounder, cod and rockfish); gathering 39 km west Within RSA No (clams, oysters and sea cucumber) Departure Bay Fishing (sockeye salmon) and gathering clams 46.1 km west Within RSA No Nanoose Harbour Fishing coho salmon 60.3 km west West of RSA No Lasqueti Island Fishing coho salmon 71.9 km northwest Northwest of RSA No Parksville Gathering clams 72.6 km west Within RSA No Deep Bay Fishing chum salmon and cod 103 km northwest Northwest of RSA No North of Powell River Fishing coho salmon 140 km northwest Northwest of RSA No Oyster Bay Fishing (sockeye and chum salmon) 146 km northwest Northwest of RSA No Cape Mudge Fishing salmon (sockeye, spring and coho) and 155 km northwest Northwest of RSA No gathering clams Walker Creek Fishing for chum salmon 177 km north North of RSA No Rivers Inlet Fishing sturgeon 385 km northwest Northwest of RSA No Hecate Strait (Skeena River) Fishing (salmon, sockeye and spring) 727 km northwest Northwest of RSA No Nass River Fishing (unspecified) 773 km northwest Northwest of RSA No Source: Rainshadow 2013

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-43

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

Seventy-four fishing sites were identified within the Marine RSA during the TMRU study. The shipping lanes are crossed to access eight fishing sites. No mitigation was requested for fishing sites by Stz’uminus Nation (Rainshadow 2013).

5.11.2.5 Gathering Places Stz’uminus First Nation identified a number of gathering places, including habitation sites, during the TMRU study, detailed in Table 5.11-5.

Some members of Stz’uminus First Nation moved from region to region as part of a seasonal round. Others stayed at a number of permanent villages, including at the mouth of the Fraser River.

Traditionally those who had been on seasonal rounds would return to the winter villages by late November or early December. This was an important time when potlatches and dance ceremonies would be held. Community members mainly lived on stored foods during the winter. In spring, people would disperse throughout Stz’uminus traditional territory to hunt, fish, and gather materials, plants and seafood. This was also a time for visiting and trading. People would disperse and then head back to their permanent winter villages.

Stz’uminus First Nation community members expressed concern that increased oil tanker traffic in areas used and occupied by Stz’uminus First Nation could displace current uses such as fishing, resource gathering and traditional bathing (Rainshadow 2013).

TABLE 5.11-5

GATHERING PLACES IDENTIFIED BY STZ’UMINUS FIRST NATION

Relative to Shipping Shipping Lanes Crossed Location Description Lanes Relative to Marine RSA to Access Activity/Site? Valdes Island Gathering site 22.3 km west Within RSA No Steveston Habitation site 11 km east East of RSA Yes Kuper Island Habitation site 24.1 km southwest Within RSA No Gabriola Island Habitation site 24.3 km west Within RSA No Ladysmith (Ivy Green area) Habitation site 37.1 km west West of RSA No Ladysmith Harbour area Habitation site 39 km west Within RSA No Galiano Island Gathering and sacred (burial) site 18 km west Within RSA No Oyster Bay Gathering and sacred site 146 km northwest Northwest of RSA No Slag Point Gathering site 35.4 km west Within RSA No Sibell Bay Gathering and sacred site 33.6 km west Within RSA No Chemainus Indian Reserve 13 Gathering and sacred site 34 km west Within RSA No Coffin Point Gathering and sacred site 31.9 km west Within RSA No Shell Beach Gathering and sacred site 33.8 km west Within RSA No Kulleet Bay village Gathering and sacred site 30 km west Within RSA No Kulleet Bay Gathering and sacred site 30 km west Within RSA No Deer Point Gathering and sacred site 30.1 km west Within RSA No Chemainus Bay area Gathering and sacred site 29.8 km southwest Within RSA No Willy Island Gathering site 27.7 km southwest Within RSA No Squaw-Hay-One IR 11 Gathering site 29.7 km southwest Within RSA No Duncan Gathering site 33.7 km northwest Northwest of RSA No Walker Hook Gathering and sacred site 17.8 km southwest Within RSA No Booth Inlet Gathering site 22 km southwest Within RSA No Gabriola Island IR 5 Gathering site 27 km west Within RSA No Cordero Point Gathering site 24.8 km west Within RSA No Boat Harbour Gathering site 34.4 km west West of RSA No Lord Point (Mayne Island) Gathering site 12.5 km southwest Within RSA No Squirrel Cove Gathering site 146 km northwest Northwest of RSA No Cayetano Point Gathering site 20.3 km west Within RSA No Annacis Island Gathering site 25.6 km east Within RSA Yes Canoe passage Gathering site 14.3 km east East of RSA Yes Flat Top Islands Gathering site 23.9 km west Within RSA No

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-44

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

TABLE 5.11-5 Cont'd

Relative to Shipping Shipping Lanes Crossed Location Description Lanes Relative to Marine RSA to Access Activity/Site? Pender Island Gathering site 3.8 km northwest Within RSA No Mayne Island Gathering site 8.9 km southwest Within RSA No Lamalchi Bay Gathering and sacred site 24.7 km southwest Within RSA No Porlier Pass IR 5 Gathering site 20 km west Within RSA No Shingle Point IR 4 Gathering and sacred site 22.5 km west Within RSA No Baines Bay Gathering and sacred (burial) site 19.3 km west Within RSA No Galiano Island IR 9 Gathering and sacred site 19.2 km west Within RSA No Whaler Bay Gathering site 10 km southwest Within RSA No Rivers Inlet Gathering site 385 km northwest Northwest of RSA No Deep Bay Gathering site 103 km northwest Northwest of RSA No Cape Mudge Gathering site 155 km northwest Northwest of RSA No Union Bay Indian Reserve 4 Gathering and sacred site 14.2 km west Within RSA No Source: Rainshadow 2013

Thirty-three gathering places were identified within the Marine RSA during the TMRU study. The shipping lanes are crossed to access three gathering places. No mitigation was requested for gathering places by Stz’uminus First Nation (Rainshadow 2013).

5.11.2.6 Sacred Areas Stz’uminus First Nation identified 44 sacred areas during the TMRU study, detailed in Table 5.11-6.

Sacred areas identified by Stz’uminus First Nation during the TMRU study include: burial sites; cultural-spiritual sites such as ceremonial bathing areas; and cultural-secular sites such as recreational places or look-out points (Rainshadow 2013).

TABLE 5.11-6

SACRED AREAS IDENTIFIED BY STZ’UMINUS FIRST NATION

Relative to Relative to Marine Shipping Lanes Crossed Location Description Shipping Lanes RSA to Access Activity/Site? Strait of Georgia Sacred site In shipping lane Within RSA Yes Bazan Bay Sacred site 12 km west Within RSA No Montague Harbour Sacred site 12.5 km southwest Within RSA No Saltspring Island Sacred site 13.5 northwest Within RSA No Union Bay Indian Reserve 4 Sacred site 14.2 km west Within RSA No Ballingal Islets Sacred site 14.5 km southwest Within RSA No Walker Hook Sacred site 17.8 km southwest Within RSA No Galiano Island Sacred (burial) site 18 km west Within RSA No Galiano Island IR 9 Sacred site 19.2 km west Within RSA No Baines Bay Sacred (burial) site 19.3 km west Within RSA No Bay in Ganges Harbour Sacred site 20.5 km southwest Within RSA No Bamberton Sacred site 21.3 km west West of RSA No Valdes Island Sacred (burial) site 22.3 km west Within RSA No Shingle Point IR 4 Sacred (burial) site 22.5 km west Within RSA No Kuper Island Sacred site 24.1 km southwest Within RSA No Gabriola Island Sacred site 24.3 km west Within RSA No Lamalchi Bay Sacred site 24.7 km southwest Within RSA No Gabriola Passage Sacred site 25.7 km west Within RSA No Ma-Guala Indian Reserve 6 Sacred (burial) site 26.1 km west Within RSA No Wakes Cove Sacred site 26.1 km west Within RSA No Paddy Mile Stone Sacred site 26.7 km northwest Within RSA No Maple Bay Sacred site 27.5 km northwest Within RSA No

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-45

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

TABLE 5.11-6 Cont'd

Relative to Relative to Marine Shipping Lanes Crossed Location Description Shipping Lanes RSA to Access Activity/Site? Maple Mountain Sacred site 28.1 km southwest Southwest of RSA No Island in Chemainus area Sacred (burial) site 28.3 km southwest Within RSA No Tsussie IR 6 Sacred site 28.7 km southwest Within RSA No Chemainus River Sacred site 29.1 km southwest Within RSA No Chemainus Bay Cemetery Sacred (burial) site 29.8 km southwest Within RSA No Kulleet Bay village Sacred site 30 km west Within RSA No Kulleet Bay Sacred site 30 km west Within RSA No Coffin Point Sacred site 31.9 km west Within RSA No Sharpe Point Sacred site 32.5 km west Within RSA No Kulleet Bay Sacred (burial and story) site 33.4 km west Within RSA No Sibell Bay Sacred (burial) site 33.6 km west Within RSA No Shell Beach Sacred site 33.8 km west Within RSA No Dunsmuir Islands Sacred (burial) site 33.9 km west Within RSA No Chemainus Indian Reserve 13 Sacred (burial) site 34 km west Within RSA No Bush Creek Sacred site 37 km east Within RSA No Ladysmith Harbour area Sacred (burial) site 39 km west Within RSA No Petroglyph Provincial Park Sacred site 42.6 km west West of RSA No Departure Bay Sacred site 46.1 km west Within RSA No Lasqueti Island Sacred site 71.9 km northwest Northwest of RSA No Oyster Bay Sacred site 146 km northwest Northwest of RSA No The Gorge Sacred site 150 km northwest Within RSA No Cape Mudge Sacred site 155 km northwest Northwest of RSA No Source: Rainshadow 2013

Thirty-eight sacred areas were identified within the Marine RSA during the TMRU study. The shipping lanes are crossed to access one sacred site. No mitigation was requested for sacred areas by Stz’uminus First Nation (Rainshadow 2013).

5.12 Tsartlip First Nation Trans Mountain has shared Project information and invited Tsartlip First Nation to participate in the development of a TMRU study. Trans Mountain will continue to share Project information with Tsartlip First Nation and to support Tsartlip First Nation’s participation in Project activities. Interest in a TMRU study will be determined by Tsartlip First Nation.

Tsartlip First Nation provided their ‘Land and Resource Protection and Management’ to Trans Mountain on April 9, 2014, outlining their preliminary interests/requests with regards to their traditional territory, including:

• concerned with the forests and lands within their traditional territory;

• the continuation of hunting, fishing and resource collecting;

• concern about the aquatic resources and water quality within their traditional territory;

• minimizing the impact of development;

• concern about the disruption to burial sites and request that they not be disturbed; and

• the need for jobs, economic development and community capacity building.

• Tsartlip First Nation also requested an equal opportunity for Aboriginal people to actively protect the land. Decisions made regarding the land and resources within their tribal area would be made by Tsartlip First Nation. Tsartlip First Nation requests the development of an Environmental Protocol which would include:

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-46

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

• acceptance of the Tsartlip First Nation Land and Resource Protection and Management Plan;

• a meeting with the community, Chief and Elders to discuss environmental issues;

• public relations that will define the environmental message and who will deliver the message; and

• the hiring of Tsartlip people when environmental studies, media film, ecotourism ventures or new developments are planned (Tartslip First Nation 2014).

Trans Mountain addressed these concerns and interests contained in a letter sent to Tsartlip First Nation on April 24, 2014.

Issues of concern, TUS or features identified through ongoing engagement with Tsartlip First Nation will be considered for incorporation into Project planning under the guidance of existing marine transport regulations and mitigation recommendations made to date.

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 5-47

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

6.0 DISCUSSION AND MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS This section presents an overview of the potential effects on TMRU indicators associated with the Project-related increase in marine vessel traffic. This overview considers the potential interactions discussed in Section 3.1 of TR 8B- 5 in Volume 8B of the Application in the context of the Project and the existing TMRU presented in previous sections.

6.1 General Recommendations The potential effects on TMRU indicators associated with the Project-related increase in marine vessel traffic listed in Table 6.1-1 were identified based on the results of the literature review and the results of engagement with potentially affected Aboriginal communities for the Project.

The Technical Review Process of Marine Terminal Systems and Transshipment Sites (TERMPOL) Origin, Destination and Marine Traffic Volume Survey (TERMPOL Study 3.2 in Volume 8C of the Application) describes current and projected marine traffic volumes in the Marine RSA, of which the Project-related increase is a small portion. Several control measures are related to federal and other regulations and practices regulating the marine shipping community. These pertain to marine navigation safety and security, as well as harbour operations and apply to vessels calling to Trans Mountain’s Westridge Marine Terminal. Trans Mountain is an active member of the maritime community and has opportunities to provide information about Project-related shipping to other marine users, including fishing industry organizations, Aboriginal communities and other affected stakeholders.

As noted, Trans Mountain does not own or operate the vessels calling at the Westridge Marine Terminal. While Trans Mountain can actively enforce vessels docked at the Westridge Marine Terminal to comply with Trans Mountain operating practices and standards, once a vessel departs from the terminal Trans Mountain has little direct control over the actions of vessel owners and operators. As discussed in Section 1.4.1 of Volume 8A, marine transportation in Canadian waters is authorized and regulated through the Canadian Shipping Act and related legislation and regulations administered by Transport Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG). The Canada Marine Act provides a regulatory framework for governing PMV, which manages harbour operations for marine areas under the jurisdiction of the Port Authority (i.e., Burrard Inlet, the Lower Fraser River, and the coastal waters of Delta and Richmond) (PMV 2013). PMV sets out procedures for safe and efficient navigation and environmental protection for the waters it controls. Consequently, any recommended mitigation measures to reduce the potential effects of the increase in Project-related marine vessel traffic described below identifies the party responsible for implementation, including the organizations responsible for various marine regulations and laws on the West Coast of Canada. Trans Mountain has opportunities to share information and practices (e.g., encouraging reciprocal awareness and information sharing between Project-related shipping companies and other marine commercial, recreational and tourism users).

A summary of recommended mitigation measures provided in Table 6.1-1 are based on applicable federal regulations and other guidelines pertinent to marine shipping activities as overseen by Transport Canada, CCG, PMV and Pacific Pilotage Authority (PPA).

The mitigation measures presented in this report will be discussed through ongoing engagement with interested Aboriginal communities. A comprehensive review of all the issues raised by each Aboriginal community and the key mitigation measures will also be conducted with each participating community.

TABLE 6.1-1

POTENTIAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES - RELATED TO THE INCREASE IN PROJECT-RELATED MARINE VESSEL TRAFFIC ON TRADITIONAL MARINE RESOURCE USE

Spatial Potential Effect Boundary1 Key Mitigation Measures in Place/Additional Recommendations 1. TMRU Indicator – Subsistence Activities and Sites 1.1 Disruption of RSA • Refer to Section 4.3.7 Marine Mammals of Volume 8A for key recommendations and mitigation relevant to subsistence hunting sensory disturbance, wake waves, atmospheric and underwater noise and mammal injury or mortality. activities • Refer to Section 4.3.8 Marine Birds of Volume 8A for key recommendations and mitigation relevant to behavior alterations, sensory disturbance, wake waves, atmospheric and underwater noise and bird injury or mortality.

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 6-1

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

TABLE 6.1-1 Cont'd

Spatial Potential Effect Boundary1 Key Mitigation Measures in Place/Additional Recommendations 1.1 Disruption of See above • Refer to Section 4.3.3 Marine Air Emissions, Section 4.3.4 Marine Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions and subsistence hunting Section 4.3.5 Marine Acoustic Environment of Volume 8A for measures pertaining to nuisance air and noise activities (cont’d) emissions, respectively. • Project tankers shall utilize the common shipping lanes, already used by all large commercial vessels for passage between the Pacific Ocean and PMV. • Trans Mountain will continue to provide information about Project-related shipping to other marine users. Specifically: − provide regular updated information on Project-related marine vessel traffic to fishing industry organizations, Aboriginal communities and other affected stakeholders, where possible, through the Chamber of Shipping of BC (COSBC); and − initiate a public outreach program prior to Project operations phase. Communicate any applicable information on Project-related timing and scheduling with fishing industry organisations, Aboriginal communities and other affected stakeholders. • Transport Canada requires all vessels, including tankers, to comply with the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (with Canadian Modifications) and other major international maritime conventions. • Transport Canada requires compliance by all vessels with the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, Collision Regulations, the Navigation Safety Regulations pursuant to the act and other applicable regulations and standards, except government or military vessels. • The CCG ensures that all large vessels, including Project-related tankers, register with Marine Communications and Traffic Services (MCTS) for communications with port authorities and CCG, and employ Automatic Identification Systems (AIS). • The CCG requires compliance with the CCG fishing vessel advisory notice for commercial ships and fishing vessels using the inside passage waters of BC during the commercial fishing season. This notice refers to all inside marine waters of BC. • The PPA requires compliance with the Pacific Pilotage Authority Notice to Industry 07/2013 (PPA 2013). Pilots of the BC Coastal Pilots (BCCP) ensure compliance. • PMV ensures compliance with PMV’s Movement Restriction Area (MRA) regulations, including “Clear Narrows” regulations (PMV 2010). • To enhance preventive measures currently in place through applicable legislation and regulations, implement May 2013 recommendations of Canadian Marine Pilot’s Association Submission to the Tanker Safety Expert Panel. • Trans Mountain will ensure an untethered tug accompanies the Project-related tankers through the Strait of Georgia and between Race Rocks and the 12 nautical mile limit in addition to tug requirements to assist with navigation. The tug can be tethered for extra navigational assistance, if needed. 1.2 Disruption of RSA • Mitigation measures listed in potential effect 1.1 are applied by the appropriate parties. subsistence fishing • Trans Mountain will ensure vessel owners and operators have appropriate processes in place to address vessel activities damage, gear loss or injury. • Transport Canada and the Transportation Safety Board carry out investigations at the appropriate level in case of a collision between vessels. • Refer to Section 4.3.13 Accidents and Malfunctions of Volume 8A. 1.3 Alteration of plant RSA • Mitigation measures listed in potential effects 1.1 and 1.2 are applied by the appropriate regulatory authorities. gathering sites 1.4 Disruption of use of RSA • Mitigation measures in potential effects 1.1 and 1.2 are applied by the appropriate regulatory authorities. travelways • Trans Mountain will provide regular updated information on Project-related marine vessel traffic to shipping associations, such as COSBC. 2. TMRU – Cultural Sites 2.1 Disturbance of RSA • Mitigation measures in potential effects 1.1 and 1.2 will be applied by the appropriate regulatory authorities. gathering places • Refer to Section 4.3.3 Marine Air Emissions, Section 4.3.4 Marine GHG Emissions and Section 4.3.5 Marine Acoustic Environment of Volume 8A for measures pertaining to nuisance air and noise emissions, respectively. 2.2 Disturbance of RSA • Mitigation measures in potential effects 1.1 and 1.2 will be applied by the appropriate parties. sacred sites • Trans Mountain will continue to engage affected Aboriginal communities throughout the operational life of the Project. • Refer to Section 4.3.3 Marine Air Emissions, Section 4.3.4 Marine GHG Emissions and Section 4.3.5 Marine Acoustic Environment of Volume 8A for measures pertaining to nuisance air and noise emissions, respectively. Note: 1 LSA = Marine LSA; RSA = Marine RSA.

The issues raised by participating Aboriginal communities through identified preliminary interests and TMRU studies for the Project are summarised below in Table 6.1-2. The identified issues in Table 6.1-2 were reviewed and considered with respect to the ESA.

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 6-2

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

TABLE 6.1-2

ISSUES OR CONCERNS IDENTIFIED BY PARTICIPATING ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES

Aboriginal Communities that Site Description/Summary of Expressed Interest Interest or Concern or Concern Response Summary1 Concern about effects of tankers on marine • Cowichan • Shoreline erosion from vessel wake typically only occurs in cases where the and coastal environments Tribes heights of vessel wake waves are different from those of natural waves, so no • Pacheedaht shoreline erosion is anticipated. Shoreline erosion from vessel wake may result First Nation from high-speed vessels, such as high-speed passenger ferries, or deep-draft • Stz`uminus vessels operating in sheltered to semi-sheltered estuaries and river environments. First Nation However, these effects are unlikely from vessels moving at conventional speeds (e.g., 12 to 15 knots) in the marine environment. Shoreline erosion from vessel wake typically only occurs in cases where the heights of vessel wake waves are different from those of natural waves, so no shoreline erosion is anticipated. Concern about the effects of a potential oil • Cowichan • Trans Mountain is fully committed to environmental management, protection and spill on vegetation, wildlife and fish and Tribes stewardship of the land during the construction and operations of all its facilities. A marine species habitat. • Esquimalt comprehensive Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment (ESA) has been Concern that the current oil spill response Nation completed for the Project-related increased vessel traffic. The marine studies system will not be able to protect gathering • Halalt First covered a wide range of topics including: marine sediment and water quality; places. Concern that BC, Canada and Nation marine air and GHG emissions; marine acoustic environment; marine birds; marine species at risk; TMRU; marine commercial, recreational and tourism use; human Kinder Morgan have no plan in place for • Hwiltsum First health and ecological risk assessments (ERAs); accidents and malfunctions; and remediation of sensitive habitat. Nation changes to the Project caused by the environment (e.g., seismicity, climate • Pacheedaht change). First Nation • Kinder Morgan, as the operator of TMPL, is committed to transparency involving • Ditidaht First any and all spills that have occurred along its pipelines or on vessels carrying Nation Kinder Morgan-transported product. Spills are reported and available for public knowledge. Kinder Morgan, as the operator of TMPL, understands the safety of the BC coastline is paramount. All 900 tankers that have ever loaded and sailed from the Westridge Marine Terminal in Burnaby have done so without a single spill. There is a network of safety and response organizations in the marine community as well as regulations and requirements established to ensure safe transit of oil tankers in BC waters. When it comes to marine safety, Kinder Morgan also stands with BC in advocating for the necessary level of federal funding and response capabilities. • Trans Mountain will continue to provide information about Project-related shipping to marine users, specifically: − provide regular updated information on Project-related marine vessel traffic to fishing industry organizations, Aboriginal communities and other affected stakeholders, where possible through the COSBC; and − initiate a public outreach program prior to Project operations phase. Communicate any applicable information on Project-related timing and scheduling with Aboriginal communities. • The potential effects of credible worst case and smaller marine spills on marine users are discussed in Section 5.0 of Volume 8A of the Application. Concern about the effects of increased • Cowichan • Since April 2012, Trans Mountain has engaged with Aboriginal communities that tanker traffic on fishing sites and on Tribes may be affected by the Project based on their assertion of traditional and cultural Concerns about the effects of increased • Esquimalt use of resources to maintain a traditional lifestyle. Trans Mountain has facilitated tanker traffic on travelling and crossing, as Nation TLRU studies with potentially affected Aboriginal communities to gather data for the many community members cross the • Halalt First environmental and socio-economic assessment. This assessment considers: the shipping lanes in small canoes. Nation potential environmental and socio-economic effects of the Project; ways in which these effects can be minimized or avoided altogether; and key mitigation strategies Concerns that increased tanker traffic will • Hwiltsum First in place that will further reduce these effects. make it difficult to conduct any ceremonial Nation • While Trans Mountain can actively enforce restrictions on tankers docked at the practices in the ocean. • Penekalut Tribe Westridge Marine Terminal to comply with Trans Mountain operating practices and • Pacheedaht standards, once the tanker departs from the terminal, Trans Mountain has little First Nation direct control over the operating practices of the tankers or tugs as Project-related • Stz`uminus marine vessels are owned and operated by a third-party. Marine transportation in First Nation Canadian waters is authorized and regulated through the Canada Shipping Act, • Ditidaht First 2001, and related legislation and regulations are administered by Transport Canada Nation and the CCG. As such, no direct mitigation has been proposed by Trans Mountain for effects associated with increased Project-related marine transportation. • Project tankers shall utilize the common shipping lanes, already used by all large commercial vessels for passage between the Pacific Ocean and PMV.

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 6-3

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

TABLE 6.1-2 Cont’d

Aboriginal Communities that Site Description/Summary of Expressed Interest Interest or Concern or Concern Response Summary1 Concern that tanker traffic could result in the • Cowichan • Trans Mountain will continue to provide information about Project-related shipping to loss or destruction of fishing or other Tribes other marine users. Specifically: harvesting gear such as nets. • Esquimalt − provide regular updated information on Project-related marine vessel traffic to Safety concerns while travelling to and from Nation fishing industry organizations, Aboriginal communities and other affected fishing grounds and other harvesting sites. • Halalt First stakeholders, where possible, through the COSBC; and − Nation initiate a public outreach program prior to Project operations phase. Communicate Safety concerns while engaged in fishing any applicable information on Project-related timing and scheduling with fishing and other harvesting activities. • Hwlitsum First industry organizations, Aboriginal communities and other affected stakeholders. Nation • Transport Canada requires all vessels, including tankers, to comply with the International • Penelakut Tribe Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (with Canadian Modifications) and other • Pacheedaht major international maritime conventions. First Nation • Transport Canada requires compliance by all vessels with the Canada Shipping Act, • Stz`uminus 2001, Collision Regulations, the Navigation Safety Regulations pursuant to the act and First Nation other applicable regulations and standards, except government or military vessels. • Ditidaht First • The CCG ensures that all large vessels, including Project-related tankers, register with Nation MCTS for communications with port authorities and CCG, and employ AIS. • The CCG requires compliance with the CCG fishing vessel advisory notice for commercial ships and fishing vessels using the inside passage waters of BC during the commercial fishing season. This notice refers to all inside marine waters of BC. • Mitigation measures in potential effects 1.1 and 1.2 are applied by the appropriate regulatory authorities. • Trans Mountain will provide regular updated information on Project-related marine vessel traffic to shipping associations, such as COSBC. • The PPA requires compliance with the PPA Compulsory Pilotage Areas (PPA 2013). • PMV ensures compliance with PMV’s MRA regulations, including “Clear Narrows” regulations (PMV 2010). • Trans Mountain will require a tug accompanies the Project-related tankers through the Strait of Georgia and between Race Rocks and the 12 nautical mile limit in addition to tug requirements to assist with navigation. The tug can be tethered for extra navigational assistance if needed. • Tanker owners have third-party insurance coverage in place to address vessel damage, gear loss or injury. Transport Canada and the Transportation Safety Board carry out investigations at the appropriate level in case of an incident with high potential for loss like collision between vessels. • Shoreline erosion from vessel wake typically only occurs in cases where the heights of vessel wake waves are different from those of natural waves, so no shoreline erosion is anticipated. Shoreline erosion from vessel wake may result from high-speed vessels, such as high-speed passenger ferries, or deep-draft vessels operating in sheltered to semi-sheltered estuaries and river environments. However, these effects are unlikely from vessels moving at conventional speeds (e.g., 12 to 15 knots) in the marine environment. Shoreline erosion from vessel wake typically only occurs in cases where the heights of vessel wake waves are different from those of natural waves, so no shoreline erosion is anticipated. Concerns about the remediation and • Halalt First • Kinder Morgan, as the operator of TMPL, is committed to transparency involving restoration of fish stocks, herring spawning Nation any and all spills that have occurred along its pipelines, or on vessels carrying sites, shellfish and intertidal gathering sites. Kinder Morgan-transported product. Spills are reported and available for public knowledge. Kinder Morgan, as the operator of TMPL, understands the safety of the BC coastline is paramount. All 900 tankers that have ever loaded and sailed from the Westridge Marine Terminal in Burnaby have done so without a single spill. • Current oil spill preparedness and response capacity is described in Section 5.5 of Volume 8A. The Western Canada Marine Response Corporation (WCMRC) is a federally certified oil spill response organization, and is responsible for providing spill response to all marine commercial vessels and oil handling facilities along the West Coast of BC. WCMRC conducted an analysis of future spill response requirements, and have proposed the expansion of existing bases and resources to address expansion of all marine shipping. • Long-term remediation of spill impacts is linked to monitoring plans agreed upon within the spill command structure and between participating entities in the response, including government authorities, Aboriginal communities, and scientific advisors. These situation-specific plans are developed after initial emergency actions have been completed, and involve a net environmental benefits analysis (NEBA) to systematically vet the advantages and disadvantages of different clean-up options and endpoints. In some cases under NEBA, natural attenuation might emerge as the best clean-up option.

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 6-4

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

TABLE 6.1-2 Cont’d

Aboriginal Communities that Site Description/Summary of Expressed Interest Interest or Concern or Concern Response Summary1 Concerns about the remediation and See above • The temporal context of environmental effects is also important. Rather than restoration of fish stocks, herring spawning focusing on the duration and frequency of accidents, the effects assessment sites, shellfish and intertidal gathering sites considered the reversibility, and in particular to the expected time to recovery for (cont’d). each ecological receptor in the event of exposure to spilled oil. The recovery assessment phase considered the potential beneficial effects of remediation (such as oil spill clean-up activities) that would be applied following an oil spill to promote biological recovery of affected ecological receptors (Ecological Risk Assessment of Marine Transportation Spills Technical Report [Volume 8B, TR 8B-7]). • As with the remediation process, other agencies or affected stakeholders and Aboriginal communities will be involved in the assessment of risk and development of a Long-Term Monitoring Program. • Section 8 of Volume 7 discusses the potential environmental effects to the marine environment resulting from hypothetical loading accidents at the Westridge Marine Terminal. The ERA assesses potential effects for a variety of aquatic and terrestrial ecological receptors based on the conservative assumption that initial response and clean-up of these hypothetical worst-case events would be limited. The range of potential effects to marine fish and marine birds, along with estimated timeframes for recovery are summarized in Sections 8.3.3.1.2 and 8.3.3.1.3 respectively. Supporting information is provided in technical report TR 7-2 of the Application, Ecological Risk Assessment of Westridge Marine Terminal Spills. • Section 5.6 of Volume 8 presents the potential environmental effects from credible worst case and smaller spills from hypothetical tanker accidents at three locations along the marine transportation route. The range of potential effects to marine resources is summarized in Sections 5.6.2.2, 5.6.2.3 and 5.6.2.4 for spills at Strait of Georgia, Race Rocks, and Arachne Reef respectively. Supporting information is provided in technical report TR 8B-7 of the Application, Ecological Risk Assessment of Marine Transportation Spills. Estimated time frames for recovery are discussed in Section 9 of TR 8B-7. Concern about the remediation of waterfowl • Halalt First • The temporal context of environmental effects is also important. Rather than populations. Nation focusing on the duration and frequency of accidents, the effects assessment considered the reversibility, and in particular to the expected time to recovery for each ecological receptor in the event of exposure to spilled oil. The recovery assessment phase considered the potential beneficial effects of remediation (such as oil spill clean-up activities) that would be applied following an oil spill to promote biological recovery of affected ecological receptors (Ecological Risk Assessment of Marine Transportation Spills Technical Report [Volume 8B, TR 8B-7]). • As with the remediation process, and other agencies or affected stakeholders and Aboriginal communities will be involved in the assessment of risk and development of a Long-Term Monitoring Program. Concern about the restoration of marine • Halalt First • Kinder Morgan, as the operator of TMPL, is committed to transparency and riparian plants. Nation involving any and all spills that have occurred along its pipelines, or on vessels carrying Kinder Morgan-transported product. Spills are reported and available for public knowledge. Kinder Morgan, as the operator of TMPL, understands the safety of the BC coastline is paramount. All 900 tankers that have ever loaded and sailed from the Westridge Marine Terminal in Burnaby have done so without a single spill. • Current oil spill preparedness and response capacity is described in Section 5.5 of Volume 8A. The WCMRC is a federally certified oil spill response organization, and is responsible for providing spill response to all marine commercial vessels and oil handling facilities along the West Coast of BC. WCMRC conducted an analysis of future spill response requirements, and have proposed the expansion of existing bases and resources to address expansion of all marine shipping. • Long-term remediation of spill impacts is linked to monitoring plans agreed upon within the spill command structure and between participating entities in the response, including government authorities, Aboriginal communities, and scientific advisors. These situation-specific plans are developed after initial emergency actions have been completed, and involve a net environmental benefits analysis (NEBA) to systematically vet the advantages and disadvantages of different clean-up options and endpoints. In some cases under NEBA, natural attenuation might emerge as the best clean-up option.

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 6-5

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

TABLE 6.1-2 Cont’d

Aboriginal Communities that Site Description/Summary of Expressed Interest Interest or Concern or Concern Response Summary1 Concern about the effects on fishing, fish • Halalt First • Since April 2012, Trans Mountain has engaged with Aboriginal communities that spawn collecting areas, shellfish and Nation may be affected by the Project based on their assertion of traditional and cultural intertidal gathering sites, food harvesting, • Hwlitsum First use of resources to maintain a traditional lifestyle. Trans Mountain has facilitated plant harvesting sites, habitation and Nation TMRU studies with potentially affected Aboriginal communities to gather data for processing sites, recreation sites, and • Ditidaht First the environmental and socio-economic assessment. This assessment considers: boundary marker sites. Nation the potential environmental and socio-economic effects of the Project; ways in which these effects can be minimized or avoided altogether; and key mitigation strategies in place that will further reduce these effects. • While Trans Mountain can actively enforce restrictions on tankers docked at the Westridge Marine Terminal to comply with Trans Mountain operating practices and standards, once the tanker departs from the terminal, Trans Mountain has little direct control over the operating practices of the tankers or tugs as Project-related marine vessels are owned and operated by a third-party. Marine transportation in Canadian waters is authorized and regulated through the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, and related legislation and regulations are administered by Transport Canada and the CCG. As such, no direct mitigation has been proposed by Trans Mountain for effects associated with increased Project-related marine transportation. Concern that environmental pollution is • However, PMV is in the midst of developing a program to look at the current levels reducing fish stocks. of underwater noise in the Strait of Georgia and surrounding waters and to consider options for reducing potential environmental effects of noise from marine traffic on marine mammals. This program will be a collaborative effort, led by PMV, and supported by Transport Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and the CCG. It will involve the COSBC and the PPA as key stakeholders, as well as other major marine shipping industry representatives. The program will involve the deployment of a network of hydrophones in the Strait of Georgia and Haro Strait that will be used to measure the acoustic signatures of vessels and to monitor the activities of southern resident killer whales and other cetaceans. Data collected through the program will contribute to the development of mitigation measures aimed at reducing acoustic disturbance to marine mammals. • Trans Mountain is strongly supportive of this regionally-based collaborative industry-government approach to developing viable solutions that could be applied to the marine transportation industry as a whole. Trans Mountain met with PMV in late 2013 and expressed its interest in contributing in a meaningful capacity to the development and implementation of the proposed program. Trans Mountain is also willing to support the outcomes (i.e., research findings and recommended mitigations) that result from the PMV program or a similar government-industry effort. • Key recommendations and mitigation relevant to sensory disturbance, wake waves, atmospheric and underwater noise and mammal injury or mortality is provided in Section 4.3.7 of Volume 8A of the Application.

Concern about increased air pollution due • Penelakut Tribe • Exhaust emissions from large, deep draft ships are a source of air pollution. to increased tanker traffic, and impacts to • Stz`uminus Mitigation is already in place through creation of the North American Emission human health and forest and plant First Nation Control Area (ECA) that requires all vessels passing within 200 nautical miles of the communities. coast to only use higher quality fuel. The standards are expected to progressively Concern about increased air pollution from improve when additional regulations come into force in 2015 and 2020 respectively. increased water traffic. The significance of the effects of air and GHG emissions from Project-related marine vessels is assessed separately in Sections 4.3.3 and 4.3.4 in Volume 8A. A quantitative human health assessment was completed for marine emissions and this report was filed with the NEB on June 16, 2014. It considers the effects of marine emissions on human health and can be downloaded from the NEB website. • In terms of sensory disturbance, the exhaust from Project-related marine vessels is considered to be a nuisance effect while the vessels are transiting near the affected marine user, and may remain a nuisance for a period after the ship has moved past depending on local winds and other microclimate factors (Section 4.3.3). • Trans Mountain will continue to engage with those affected, including Aboriginal communities, throughout the operational life of the Project. Concern that the methods and chemicals • Penelakut Tribe • The use of chemical dispersants in response to any oil spill would only be used to clean up a potential oil spill could considered on a case by case basis, in consultation with federal regulators, local affect the mortality of fish, birds and authorities and other experts, and where this use would result in net environmental mammals. benefit (refer to Section 5.5.1.4 of Volume 8A).

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 6-6

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

TABLE 6.1-2 Cont’d

Aboriginal Communities that Site Description/Summary of Expressed Interest Interest or Concern or Concern Response Summary1 Concern that the methods and chemicals See above • Given that the use of dispersants is not a pre-approved response technique, Trans used to clean up a potential oil spill could Mountain does not believe that an evaluation of the combined effects of crude oil affect the mortality of fish, birds and and dispersants in the Technical Report 8B-7 of Volume 8B, Ecological Risk mammals (cont’d). Assessment of Marine Transportation Spills Technical Report (Stantec Consulting Ltd. December 2013) is warranted, or that it would provide useful information to enhance spill preparedness, as the decision on their use would be based on a situation-specific Net Environmental Benefits Analysis to systematically vet the advantages and disadvantages of this response option. Concern that tankers could collide with killer • Penelakut Tribe • While Trans Mountain can actively enforce restrictions on tankers docked at the whales, baleen whales and other marine • Pacheedaht Westridge Marine Terminal to comply with Trans Mountain operating practices and mammals. First Nation standards, once the tanker departs from the terminal, Trans Mountain has little Concern about tanker collisions with, and • Stz`uminus direct control over the operating practices of the tankers or tugs as Project-related damage to, marine mammals and other First Nation marine vessels are owned and operated by a third-party. Marine transportation in marine life. Canadian waters is authorized and regulated through the Canada Shipping Act, Concern that increased marine traffic could 2001, and related legislation and regulations are administered by Transport Canada result in increased mammal strikes, which and the CCG. As such, no direct mitigation has been proposed by Trans Mountain would affect both natural environments and for effects associated with increased Project-related marine transportation. harvesting activities. • However, PMV is in the midst of developing a program to look at the current levels of underwater noise in the Strait of Georgia and surrounding waters and to consider options for reducing potential environmental effects of noise from marine traffic on marine mammals. This program will be a collaborative effort, led by PMV, and supported by Transportation Canada, DFO, and the CCG. It will involve the COSBC and the PPA as key stakeholders, as well as other major marine shipping industry representatives. The program will involve the deployment of a network of hydrophones in the Strait of Georgia and Haro Strait that will be used to measure the acoustic signatures of vessels and to monitor the activities of southern resident killer whales and other cetaceans. Data collected through the program will contribute to the development of mitigation measures aimed at reducing acoustic disturbance to marine mammals. PMV is expected to release more details on the program in early 2014. • Trans Mountain is strongly supportive of this regionally-based collaborative industry-government approach to developing viable solutions that could be applied to the marine transportation industry as a whole. Trans Mountain met with PMV in late 2013 and expressed its interest in contributing in a meaningful capacity to the development and implementation of the proposed program. Trans Mountain is also willing to support the outcomes (i.e., research findings and recommended mitigations) that result from the PMV program or a similar government-industry effort. • Key recommendations and mitigation relevant to sensory disturbance, wake waves, atmospheric and underwater noise and mammal injury or mortality can be found in Section 4.3.7 of Volume 8A of the Application. • Transport Canada requires all vessels, including tankers, to comply with the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (with Canadian Modifications) and other major international maritime conventions. • Transport Canada requires compliance by all vessels with the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, Collision Regulations, the Navigation Safety Regulations pursuant to the act and other applicable regulations and standards, except Government or Military vessels. • The CCG ensures that all large vessels, including Project-related tankers, register with MCTS for communications with port authorities and CCG, and employ AIS. • The CCG requires compliance with the CCG fishing vessel advisory notice for commercial ships and fishing vessels using the inside passage waters of BC during the commercial fishing season. This notice refers to all inside marine waters of BC. • The PPA requires compliance with the PPA Compulsory Pilotage Areas (PPA 2013). • PMV ensures compliance with PMV’s MRA regulations, including “Clear Narrows” regulations (PMV 2010). • Trans Mountain will require a tug accompanies the Project-related tankers through the Strait of Georgia and between Race Rocks and the 12 nautical mile limit in addition to tug requirements to assist with navigation. The tug can be tethered for extra navigational assistance if needed. • Tanker owners have third-party insurance coverage in place to address vessel damage, gear loss or injury.

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 6-7

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

TABLE 6.1-2 Cont’d

Aboriginal Communities that Site Description/Summary of Expressed Interest Interest or Concern or Concern Response Summary1 Concern that increased marine traffic could See above • Transport Canada and the Transportation Safety Board carry out investigations at result in increased mammal strikes, which the appropriate level in case of an incident with high potential for loss like collision would affect both natural environments and between vessels. harvesting activities (cont’d). Concern that routine discharge of ballast • Penelakut Tribe • Trans Mountain tankers are required to follow all regulations in PMV and in BC water into marine waters by oil tankers waters, including safety regulations, pilotage requirements and ballast water increases the risk of invasive species into exchange requirements. The marine transportation environmental assessment the marine ecosystem, posing a significant considers the possibility of a grounding event as well as the spread of invasive risk to the mortality of marine birds and species and other potential accidents and malfunctions. generating beach tar. • Ballast water is required to be exchanged mid-Pacific to avoid introduction of invasive alien species at a terminal (as discussed in Section 7.6 of Volume 5A). However, subject to Port guidance, a vessel is allowed to release ballast water while taking on cargo. Bilge water must be treated to remove oils and grease prior to discharge. Therefore, any releases of oily water would be due to an accident or Concern that oil spills from either the malfunction (Section 4.3.13) and not routine operations. pipeline or from tankers will directly impact • Safety is a top priority and at the core of who Trans Mountain is as a company. the mortality of fish, marine life, birds, Dedicated staff work to maintain the integrity of the pipeline through maintenance, mammals and marine vegetation. inspection and awareness programs. While no spill is acceptable to Trans Mountain, accidents can happen. Concern about the effects of underwater • Penelakut Tribe • While Trans Mountain can actively enforce restrictions on tankers docked at noise from large vessels on how mammals, • Pacheedaht the Westridge Marine Terminal to comply with Trans Mountain operating sea turtles, fish and invertebrate species. First Nation practices and standards, once the tanker departs from the terminal, Trans • Ditidaht First Mountain has little direct control over the operating practices of the tankers or Nation tugs as Project-related marine vessels are owned and operated by a third- party. Marine transportation in Canadian waters is authorized and regulated through the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, and related legislation and regulations are administered by Transport Canada and the CCG. As such, no Concern that tanker noise will have direct mitigation has been proposed by Trans Mountain for effects associated negative effects on fish and other marine with increased Project-related marine transportation. resources. • However, PMV is in the midst of developing a program to look at the current levels of underwater noise in the Strait of Georgia and surrounding waters and to consider options for reducing potential environmental effects of noise from marine traffic on marine mammals. This program will be a collaborative effort, led by PMV, and supported by Transport Canada, DFO and the CCG. It will involve the COSBC and the PPA as key stakeholders, as well as other major marine shipping industry representatives. The program will involve the deployment of a network of hydrophones in the Strait of Georgia and Haro Strait that will be used to measure the acoustic signatures of vessels and to monitor the activities of southern resident Increased tanker traffic directly over killer whales and other cetaceans. Data collected through the program will Swiftsure Bank will create auditory and contribute to the development of mitigation measures aimed at reducing acoustic visual disturbance. disturbance to marine mammals. • Trans Mountain is strongly supportive of this regionally-based collaborative industry-government approach to developing viable solutions that could be applied to the marine transportation industry as a whole. Trans Mountain met with PMV in late 2013 and expressed its interest in contributing in a meaningful capacity to the development and implementation of the proposed program. Trans Mountain is also willing to support the outcomes (i.e., research findings and recommended mitigations) that result from the PMV program or a similar government-industry effort. • Key recommendations and mitigation relevant to sensory disturbance, wake waves, atmospheric and underwater noise and mammal injury or mortality can be found in Section 4.3.7, of Volume 8A of the Application. Increase in wave frequency and size • Ditidaht First • The existing shipping lanes are used by marine vessel traffic for recreational, resulting from increased tanker traffic will Nation commercial, tourism and passenger transit on a daily basis. The expected adversely impact TLRU locales on the increased Project related marine vessel traffic is not anticipated to pose a capacity marine shoreline as well as maritime problem for the internationally regulated shipping lanes. transportation routes along the coastline • Every month, PMV currently handles 250 vessels of all types. At present, the portion of Ditidaht territory, offshore to Westridge Marine Terminal handles approximately eight vessels per month (five of Swiftsure Bank, and across the Canadian- which are tankers), representing less than 3% of the total traffic in PMV. Should the US border to Neah Bay. Tanker traffic proposed expansion be approved, the number of vessels, including tankers and waves will also threaten sensitive sacred barges, being loaded at the Westridge Marine Terminal could increase to sites such as burial caves located directly approximately 37 per month (34 of which could be tankers) in 2017, or about 14% on the marine shoreline. of today’s total PMV vessel traffic.

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 6-8

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

TABLE 6.1-2 Cont’d

Aboriginal Communities that Site Description/Summary of Expressed Interest Interest or Concern or Concern Response Summary1 Increase in wave frequency and size See above • Project tankers shall utilize the common shipping lanes, already used by all large resulting from increased tanker traffic will commercial vessels for passage between the Pacific Ocean and PMV. adversely impact TLRU locales on the • Trans Mountain will continue to provide information about Project-related shipping marine shoreline as well as maritime to other marine users. Specifically: transportation routes along the coastline − provide regular updated information on Project-related marine vessel traffic to portion of Ditidaht territory, offshore to fishing industry organizations, Aboriginal communities, and other affected Swiftsure Bank, and across the Canadian- stakeholders, where possible through the COSBC; and US border to Neah Bay. Tanker traffic − waves will also threaten sensitive sacred initiate a public outreach program prior to Project operations phase. sites such as burial caves located directly Communicate any applicable information on Project-related timing and scheduling with fishing industry organizations, Aboriginal communities and on the marine shoreline (cont’d). other affected stakeholders. • Transport Canada requires all vessels, including tankers, to comply with the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (with Canadian Modifications) and other major international maritime conventions. • Transport Canada requires compliance by all vessels with the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, Collision Regulations, Navigation Safety Regulations pursuant to the act and other applicable regulations and standards, except Government or Military vessels. • The CCG ensures that all large vessels, including Project-related tankers, register with MCTS for communications with port authorities and CCG, and employ AIS. • The CCG requires compliance with the CCG fishing vessel advisory notice for commercial ships and fishing vessels using the inside passage waters of BC during the commercial fishing season. This notice refers to all inside marine waters of BC. • The PPA requires compliance with the PPA Compulsory Pilotage Areas (PPA 2013). • PMV ensures compliance with PMV’s MRA regulations, including “Clear Narrows” regulations (PMV 2010). • Trans Mountain will require a tug accompanies the Project-related tankers through the Strait of Georgia and between Race Rocks and the 12 nautical mile limit in addition to tug requirements to assist with navigation. The tug can be tethered for extra navigational assistance if needed. • Tanker owners have third-party insurance coverage in place to address vessel damage, gear loss or injury. • Transport Canada and the Transportation Safety Board carry out investigations at the appropriate level in case of an incident with high potential for loss like collision between vessels. Bailing of bilges by increased number of • Ditidaht First • Trans Mountain tankers are required to follow all regulations in PMV and in BC tankers would impact the coastline and Nation waters, including safety regulations, pilotage requirements and ballast water raise the possibility of introducing invasive exchange requirements. The marine transportation environmental assessment species. considers the possibility of a grounding event as well as the spread of invasive species and other potential accidents and malfunctions. • Bilge water and marine paints were well-known historical sources of contaminants and their presence is reflected in baseline conditions. These marine contaminants are now governed through legislation, as discussed in Section 4.2.2 and summarized here. − Release of bilge water is regulated through the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 (Vessel Pollution and Dangerous Chemicals Regulations). Bilge water must be treated prior to release to remove hydrocarbons (oils, grease, fuel). − Use of marine anti-fouling paints is regulated through the International Maritime Organization and through the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 (Vessel Pollution and Dangerous Chemicals Regulations). Note: 1 Detailed mitigation measures are outlined in the Project-specific Environmental Protection Plans (Volume 6D) and the Marine Transportation Assessment, Volume 8A.

Halalt First Nation proposed a number of mitigation measures during the TMRU study for the Project. Table 6.1-2 outlines the mitigation measures requested by Halalt First Nation and the mitigation measures for the Project that address the proposed mitigations.

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 6-9

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

TABLE 6.1-3

CONCORDANCE TABLE - HALALT FIRST NATION

Halalt Proposed TMRU Indicator (Concern) Mitigation Measure How Project Addresses Proposed Mitigation Disruption of subsistence • Full marine response appropriate • Kinder Morgan, as the operator of TMPL, is committed to harvesting (oil spill) for an oil spill as determined by transparency involving any and all spills that have occurred along its specialists, in consultation with pipelines or on vessels carrying Kinder Morgan-transported product. Halalt First Nation, in the field of Spills are reported and available for public knowledge. Kinder oil spill recovery. Morgan, as the operator of TMPL, understands the safety of the BC coastline is paramount. All 900 tankers that have ever loaded and sailed from the Westridge Marine Terminal in Burnaby have done so without a single spill. There is a network of safety and response organizations in the marine community as well as regulations and requirements established to ensure safe transit of oil tankers in BC waters. When it comes to marine safety, Kinder Morgan also stands with BC in advocating for the necessary level of federal funding and response capabilities. • Kinder Morgan to determine consultation with Halalt First Nation regarding marine oil spill response. • Complete remediation and • Trans Mountain is guided by legislative and legal requirements. In restoration of fish stocks is general Trans Mountain’s practice is to first minimize any potential expected to be determined after damages to the extent practical through initial emergency response peer review of technical studies and by providing mitigation to reverse or treat any remaining • Complete remediation and impacts. Should residual impacts remain, Trans Mountain would be restoration of herring spawn sites responsible for additional monitoring and remediation of impacts to be determined after peer directly related to and caused by the spill. Long-term remediation of review of technical studies spill impacts is linked to monitoring plans agreed upon within the spill command structure and between participating entities in the • Complete remediation and response, including government authorities, Aboriginal communities, restoration of shellfish and and scientific advisors. These situation-specific plans are developed intertidal gathering areas is after initial emergency actions have been completed, and involve a expected to be determined after net environmental benefits analysis (NEBA) to systematically vet the peer review of technical studies. advantages and disadvantages of different clean-up options and • Measures related to appropriate endpoints. In some cases under NEBA, natural attenuation might remediation of the waterfowl emerge as the best clean-up option. populations to the area, to be • The temporal context of environmental effects is also important. determined after peer review of Rather than focusing on the duration and frequency of accidents, technical studies the effects assessment considered the reversibility, and in particular • Complete restoration of marine to the expected time to recovery for each ecological receptor in the and riparian plants to be event of exposure to spilled oil. The recovery assessment phase determined after peer review of considered the potential beneficial effects of remediation (such as oil technical studies spill clean-up activities) that would be applied following an oil spill to promote biological recovery of affected ecological receptors (Ecological Risk Assessment of Marine Transportation Spills Technical Report [Volume 8B, TR 8B-7]). • As with the remediation process, other agencies or affected stakeholders and Aboriginal communities will be involved in the assessment of risk and development of a Long-Term Monitoring Program. • Impact upon food harvest loss for • Claims for loss resulting from a ship source spill can be made individual households to be directly to the ship owner to the Canadian Ship-source Oil Pollution assessed and compensated. Fund (SOPF). The SOPF falls under the Marine Liability Act. Part 7 (sections 91-125) of the Act deals with the SOPF. Eligible claimants are defined in section 107 of the Act to include: − an individual who derives income from fishing, from the production, breeding, holding or rearing of fish, or from the culture or harvesting of marine plants − an individual who fishes or hunts for food or animal skins for their own consumption or use

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 6-10

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

TABLE 6.1-3 Cont'd

Halalt Proposed TMRU Indicator (Concern) Mitigation Measure How Project Addresses Proposed Mitigation Disruption of subsistence • See above • Under the Canadian system for ship source spills up to $1.3 billion is harvesting (oil spill) (cont’d) currently available. However, on May 13, 2014, the Government of Canada announced it will enhance the liability and compensation regime by introducing legislative and regulatory amendments to: − Allow the full balance of the SOPF, currently about $400 million, to be available in the event of an oil spill; − In the event that all available sources of funds have been exhausted by spill-related claims, the Government of Canada will ensure compensation is provided to eligible claimants, and then recover those payments from the marine oil transport industry through a levy; and − Align the SOPF with international funds by covering pure economic losses suffered by people who have had a loss of earnings but whose property has not been contaminated by an oil spill. • Anyone suffering damages as a result of Trans Mountain’s operations is eligible for compensation. There is not a specific compensation provision or mechanism for fish stocks, and they would fall under the general compensation provisions that apply should there be an incident. Please see SSN IR 1.06 which explains that process. The available compensation is outlined in the response to NEB IR 1.08.e. • Initiate capital investment for • Volume 8C TR 8C-12 S12 “Future Oil Spill Response Approach training in order to create a First Plan” describes enhancements to marine response capacity. Trans Nations Marine Response Unit to Mountain will work with WCMRC to create opportunities for training deal with possible spills. and capacity building for First Nations participation in spill response Disruption of subsistence fishing • Establish routes that are in • Project tankers shall utilize the common shipping lanes, already activities (increased tanker traffic) maritime channels in the Strait of used by all large commercial vessels for passage between the Georgia furthest away from the Pacific Ocean and PMV. Fraser River and Gulf Islands. • Establish timing of delivery to • Trans Mountain will continue to provide information about periods of time in the Strait when Project-related shipping to marine users, specifically: there is least traffic and potential − provide regular updated information on Project-related marine for accidents. vessel traffic to fishing industry organizations, Aboriginal communities and other affected stakeholders, where possible through the COSBC; and − initiate a public outreach program prior to Project operations phase. Communicate any applicable information on Project-related timing and scheduling with Aboriginal communities. • Maintain a quality marine fleet • Transport Canada requires all vessels, including tankers, to comply with contingency plans for marine with the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea accidents and continuous (with Canadian Modifications) and other major international maritime monitoring for non-routine events conventions. or equipment failure. • Transport Canada requires compliance by all vessels with the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, Collision Regulations, the Navigation Safety Regulations pursuant to the act and other applicable regulations and standards, except government or military vessels. • The CCG ensures that all large vessels, including Project-related tankers, register with Marine Communications and Traffic Services (MCTS) for communications with port authorities and CCG, and employ Automatic Identification Systems (AIS). • The CCG requires compliance with the CCG fishing vessel advisory notice for commercial ships and fishing vessels using the inside passage waters of BC during the commercial fishing season. This notice refers to all inside marine waters of BC.

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 6-11

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

TABLE 6.1-3 Cont'd

Halalt Proposed TMRU Indicator (Concern) Mitigation Measure How Project Addresses Proposed Mitigation Disruption of subsistence fishing • Suspend delivery of tankers • The PPA requires compliance with the Pacific Pilotage Authority activities (increased tanker traffic) when weather is poor. Establish a Notice to Industry 07/2013 (PPA 2013). Pilots of the BCCP ensure (cont’d) contingency plan for this compliance. suspension. • PMV ensures compliance with PMV’s Movement Restriction Area (MRA) regulations, including “Clear Narrows” regulations (PMV 2010). • To enhance preventive measures currently in place through applicable legislation and regulations, implement May 2013 recommendations of Canadian Marine Pilot’s Association Submission to the Tanker Safety Expert Panel. • Trans Mountain will ensure an untethered tug accompanies the Project-related tankers through the Strait of Georgia and between Race Rocks and the 12 nautical mile limit in addition to tug requirements to assist with navigation. The tug can be tethered for extra navigational assistance, if needed.

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 6-12

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

7.0 SUMMARY The Project will result in increased marine vessel traffic to and from the Westridge Marine Terminal in Burnaby, BC. Currently, in a typical month, five vessels are loaded with heavy crude oil (diluted bitumen) or synthetic crude oil at the terminal. The expanded system will be capable of serving 34 Aframax class vessels per month, with actual demand driven by market conditions. The maximum size of vessels (Aframax class) served at the terminal will not change as part of the Project. In addition to tanker traffic, the terminal typically loads three barges with oil per month and receives one or two barges of jet fuel per month for shipment on a separate pipeline system that serves YVR. Barge activity is not expected to change as a result of the expansion.

The results of the literature review, the TMRU studies and the preliminary interests identified to date indicate that Aboriginal communities have historically used and presently use the Marine RSA to maintain a traditional lifestyle and continue to use marine resources throughout the Marine RSA for a variety of purposes. This includes, but is not limited to fish, shellfish, mammal and bird harvesting, aquatic plant gathering and spiritual/cultural pursuits, as well as the use of navigable waters within the Marine RSA to access subsistence and cultural resources, neighbouring communities and coastal settlements.

The potential effects of Project-related marine vessels on TMRU include: disruption of subsistence hunting, fishing, and plant gathering activities; disruption of use of travelways; and the disturbance of gathering places and sacred areas.

Potential interactions with the TMRU of potentially affected Aboriginal communities already exist. However, the increased Project-related marine vessel traffic increases the likelihood of such interactions. All vessels are required to follow Transport Canada laws and regulations in order to avoid possible collisions and conflict when passing.

Trans Mountain will continue to engage Aboriginal communities through all phases of the Project. Ongoing TMRU study work with participating Aboriginal communities is scheduled for completion prior to construction of the Project. Additional information gathered during ongoing TMRU studies will be considered for incorporation into Project planning under the guidance of existing marine transport regulations and mitigation recommendations made to date. The results of these ongoing engagement efforts will be provided to the NEB in future supplemental filings.

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 7-1

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

8.0 REFERENCES 8.1 Literature Cited Cowichan Tribes Traditional Marine Use and Occupancy Study Team and Traditions Consulting Services Inc. 2013. Cowichan Tribes Traditional Marine Use and Occupancy Study. Prepared for Cowichan Tribes. Victoria, BC.

Ditidaht First Nation Traditional Marine Use and Occupancy Study Team and Traditions Consulting Services Inc. 2014. Ditidaht First Nation Traditional Marine Use and Occupancy Study – Interim Report. Prepared for Ditidaht First Nation and Kinder Morgan Canada. Victoria, BC.

Halalt First Nation. 2013. Halalt First Nation Traditional Marine Use Study Report for the Proposed Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Expansion Project. Chemainus, BC.

Pacheedaht Heritage Project, Pacheedaht First Nation Treaty Department and Traditions Consulting Services Inc. 2014 Pacheedaht First Nation Traditional Marine Use and Occupancy Study 2014 – Final Report. Prepared for Pacheedaht First Nation. June 7, 2014.

Pacific Pilotage Authority. 2013. Notice to Industry. Website: http://www.ppa.gc.ca/text/notice/Notice_to_Industry_2013- 03_Rules_for_Crude_Oil_Tankers_Boundary_Pass_Haro_Strait.pdf. Accessed: May 2013.

Penelakut Tribe. 2013. Penelakut Traditional Marine Resource Use Study: Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project. November 1, 2013.

Port Metro Vancouver. 2010. Harbour Operations Manual. Website: http://www.portmetrovancouver.com/en/users/marineoperations/navigation.aspx. Accessed: April 2013.

Port Metro Vancouver. 2013. Port Metro Vancouver. Website: http://www.portmetrovancouver.com/en/default.aspx. Accessed: May 2013.

Rainshadow Communications Ltd. 2013. Stz’uminus First Nation Traditional Marine Use Study. Prepared for Stz’uminus First Nation. Victoria, BC.

Scia’new First Nation. 2013. Scia’new First Nation Consultation Memorandum of Understanding. Sooke, BC.

Semiahmoo First Nation. 2013. Trans Mountain Expansion Project – Initial List of Aboriginal Interests. Surrey, BC.

Tsawwassen First Nation. 2007. Appendices Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement. Delta, BC.

Wilson, Chief Raymond; Miller, Bruce Granville; Angelback, Bill; and Alan Grove. 2013. Hwlitsum First Nation’s Traditional Use and Occupation of the area now known as British Columbia Volume 2: Hwlitsum Marine Traditional Use Study: 2013. Prepared for Hwlitsum First Nation. Ladner, BC.

8.2 Figure and Mapping References This subsection includes references cited on the figures accompanying this report.

BC Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2007. Tantalis Regional Districts (digital file). Victoria, BC. Available: https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/dwds/home.so. Acquired: March 2011. Last Update Check: May 21, 2013.

BC Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2008. Tantalis Parks, Ecological Reserves and Protected Areas (digital file). Victoria, BC. Available: https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/dwds/home.so. Acquired: August 2013. Last Update Check: August 1, 2013.

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 8-1

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

BC Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2008. Tantalis Conservancy Areas (digital file). Victoria, BC. Available: https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/dwds/home.so. Acquired: May 2013. Last Update Check: May 21, 2013.

BC Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. 2012. Digital Road Atlas (DRA) - Master Partially Attributed Road Data (digital file). Victoria, BC. Available: https://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/dwds/home.so. Acquired: December 2012. Last Update Check: December 17, 2012.

ESRI Inc. 2013. World Shaded Relief map service (digital file). Redlands, CA. Available: via ArcGIS Online, visit http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=9c5370d0b54f4de1b48a3792d7377ff2. Acquired: June 2013. Last Accessed: November, 2013.

ESRI. 2005. US States (digital data). Redlands, CA. Available: http://www.esri.com/data/data-maps, data came with ArcGIS software. Acquired: September 2006. Last update check: N/A

Government of Canada. 2013. Aboriginal Lands, Canada (digital file). Edmonton, AB. Available: http://www.geobase.ca. Acquired: November 2013. Last Update Check: November 7, 2013.

IHS Inc. 2004. IHS Hydro Line Data (digital file). Calgary, AB. Available: http://energy.ihs.com/Solutions/Regions/Canada/. Acquired: June 2011. Last Update Check: October 23, 2013.

IHS Inc. 2004. IHS Hydro Region Data (digital file). Calgary, AB. Available: http://energy.ihs.com/Solutions/Regions/Canada/. Acquired: June 2011. Last Update Check: October 23, 2013.

IHS Inc. 2010. IHS Provincial Boundaries (digital file). Calgary, AB. Available: http://energy.ihs.com/Solutions/Regions/Canada/. Acquired: June 2011. Last Update Check: October 23, 2013.

IHS Inc. 2013. IHS Cities and Towns (digital file). Calgary, AB. Available: http://energy.ihs.com/Solutions/Regions/Canada/. Acquired: October 2013. Last Update Check: October 23, 2013.

Kinder Morgan Canada. 2012. Baseline Routing (digital file). Calgary, AB. Received via FTP. Acquired: May 9, 2012. Last Update Check: N/A.

NASA Geospatial Interoperability Program. 2005. Landsat7 Panchromatic Mosaic Imagery (digital file). Available: http://onearth.jpl.nasa.gov. Acquired: January 2007.

Natural Resources Canada. 2003. Canadian Geographical Names (digital file). Ottawa, ON. Available: http://geobase.ca/geobase/en/data/cgn/index.html. Acquired: December 2011. Last Update Check: December 2011.

Natural Resources Canada. 2013. National Road Network - British Columbia (digital file). Sherbrooke, QC. Available: http://www.geobase.ca/geobase/en/data/nrn/index.html. Acquired: September 2013. Last Update Check: September 6, 2013.

United States National Imagery and Mapping Agency. 2000. Vector Map Level 0, Digital Chart of the World, Railroads (digital file). Bethesda, MD. Available: http://geoengine.nima.mil/ftpdir/archive/vpf_data/v0noa.tar.gz. Acquired: September 2009. Last Update Check: September 18, 2013.

UniversalPegasus International. 2013. Rev 6 Routing (digital file). Calgary, AB. Received via FTP. Acquired: August 23, 2013. Last Update Check: N/A.

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 8-2

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental TMRU Technical Report Trans Mountain Expansion Project July 2014

IHS Inc. 2013. IHS Cities and Towns (digital file). Calgary, AB. Available: http://energy.ihs.com/Solutions/Regions/Canada/. Acquired: October 2013. Last Update Check: October 23, 2013.

IHS Inc. 2013. IHS First Nations (digital file). Calgary, AB. Available: http://energy.ihs.com/Solutions/Regions/Canada/. Acquired: October 2013. Last Update Check: October 23, 2013.

IHS Inc. 2013. IHS Road Segments (digital file). Calgary, AB. Available: http://energy.ihs.com/Solutions/Regions/Canada/. Acquired: November 20, 2013. Update Interval: Monthly

Government of Canada (Canadian Hydrographic Service). 2013. Nautical Chart (digital file). Vancouver, BC. Available: http://www.charts.gc.ca. Provided by KMC, April 2013. Last Update Check: N/A.

Kinder Morgan Canada. 2012. Baseline Routing (digital file). Calgary, AB. Received via FTP. Acquired: May 9, 2012. Last Update Check: N/A.

Moffatt & Nichol. 2013. Marine Vessel Route - Inbound (digital file). Vancouver, BC. Received via email. Acquired: March 15, 2013. Last Update Check: N/A.

Natural Resources Canada. 2013. National Road Network - Alberta (digital file). Sherbrooke, QC. Available: http://www.geobase.ca/geobase/en/data/nrn/index.html. Acquired: September 2013. Last Update Check: September 6, 2013.

Natural Resources Canada. 2012. CanVec -Transportation - 1020009 Railway (digital file). Sherbrooke, QC. Available: http://geogratis.cgdi.gc.ca/geogratis/en/download/topographic.html. Acquired: June 2012. Last Update Check: November 2012.

Natural Resources Canada. 2013. Canada Lands Administrative Boundaries Level 1 (digital file). Ottawa, ON. Available: http://geogratis.gc.ca/api/en/nrcan-rncan/ess-sst/eb3757cc-d08b-5e62-9a44- 3a8534ff3249.html. Acquired: November 2013. Last Update Check: November 12, 2013.

TERA Environmental Consultants. 2008. Hillshade. Derived from Natural Resources Canada, Earth Sciences Sector, Centre for Topographic Information. 2000-2008. Canadian Digital Elevation Data 250k (digital files). Sherbrooke, QC. Available: http://www.geobase.ca/geobase/en/data/cded/index.html. Acquired: 2008. Last Update Check: December 2010.

Universal Pegasus International. 2013. Rev 6 Routing (digital file). Calgary, AB. Received via FTP. Acquired: August 23, 2013. Last Update Check: N/A.

SREP-NEB-TERA-00012 Page 8-3