April 15, 2020

FILED ELECTRONICALLY

Canada Energy Regulator Suite 210, 517 10 Ave SW Calgary, AB T2R 0A8

Attention: Ms. Louise George Secretary of the Commission of the Canada Energy Regulator

Dear Ms. George:

Re: Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC (“Trans Mountain”) Trans Mountain Expansion Project (“Project” or “TMEP”) File OF-Fac-Oil-T260-2013-03 61 File OF-Fac-Oil-T260-2013-03 63 Detailed Route Hearing Order MH-004-2020 West Alternative Feasibility Study

Trans Mountain is today filing with the CER the West Alternative Feasibility Study contemplated in Commitments #4,165 and #4,167 of Part B of Trans Mountain’s Condition 6 Commitment Tracking Table. Trans Mountain provided a draft of the Feasibility Study to Coldwater Indian Band (“Coldwater”) on March 31, 2020 and invited their comments. No comments on the draft were received as of the date of filing.

Should you have any questions or wish to discuss these matters further, please contact the undersigned at [email protected] or (403) 514-6400.

Yours truly,

Original signed by

Scott Stoness Vice President, Regulatory and Compliance Trans Mountain Canada Inc.

Encl. cc: E. Hume, Ratcliffe & Company LLP, N. Hume, Ratcliffe & Company LLP

Suite 2700, 300 5th Avenue SW, Calgary, AB T2P 5J2

Trans Mountain Expansion Project Revision Date: 2020-04-15 Revision No.: 0 Feasibility Study of the 19731-506-RPT-00126 Coldwater IR Western Route Page 1 of 27

Trans Mountain Expansion Project

Feasibility Study of the Coldwater IR West Alternative Route

TMEP Document # 01-13283-S5A-M002-PL-RPT-0006 RC Trans Mountain Expansion Project Revision Date: 2020-04-15 DRAFT Revision No.: 0 Feasibility Study of the 19731-506-RPT-00126 Coldwater IR West Alternative Route Page 2 of 27

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ...... 3

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 4

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 4

3.0 BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF THIS REPORT ...... 6

4.0 OVERVIEW OF THE WEST ALTERNATIVE ROUTE ...... 9

5.0 ENGINEERING EVALUATION ...... 11 5.1 Geotechnical and Geohazard Evaluation ...... 11 5.1.1 Terrain Mapping...... 11 5.1.2 Slope Geohazards ...... 12 5.1.3 Hydrotechnical Analysis ...... 12 5.1.4 West Alternative Coldwater River Crossing #1 (Preliminary Findings) .... 12

6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ...... 14 6.1 Wetlands Evaluation ...... 14 6.2 Fish & Fish Habitat Evaluation ...... 15 6.2.1 Watercourses and Drainages ...... 15 6.2.2 Project Interactions with Fish and Fish Habitat ...... 17 6.3 Vegetation ...... 17 6.4 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitats ...... 18 6.5 Groundwater Resources ...... 21 6.6 Traditional Land Use ...... 21 6.8 Environmental Summary ...... 22

7.0 CONSTRUCTION EVALUATION ...... 23 7.1 West Alternative Coldwater River Crossing #1 ...... 23 7.2 West Alternative Coldwater River Crossing #2 ...... 24

8.0 COSTS AND PROJECT SCHEDULE ...... 25

9.0 CONSULTATION ...... 26

10.0 CONCLUSION ...... 27

11.0 APPENDICES ...... 27 Trans Mountain Expansion Project Revision Date: 2020-04-15 DRAFT Revision No.: 0 Feasibility Study of the 19731-506-RPT-00126 Coldwater IR West Alternative Route Page 3 of 27

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

Term Meaning

BC British Columbia bpd barrels per day m³/d cubic metres per day FOTS Fibre Optic Transmission System HDD horizontal directional drill IR Indian Reserve km kilometre KP Kilometre Post (TMEP)

AK Alternate Kilometre Post ROW right-of-way TMEP Trans Mountain Expansion Project TMPL Trans Mountain Pipeline UPI Universal Pegasus International Trans Mountain Expansion Project Revision Date: 2020-04-15 DRAFT Revision No.: 0 Feasibility Study of the 19731-506-RPT-00126 Coldwater IR West Alternative Route Page 4 of 27

1.0 INTRODUCTION This report was prepared in satisfaction of Commitment #4,165 (Commitment 4165) and in furtherance of routing discussions contemplated in Commitment #4,167 (Commitment 4167) of Part B of the Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC (Trans Mountain) Condition 6 filing (A7E0D1). Commitment 4165 requires Trans Mountain to study the feasibility of a western route (West Alternative Route) for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (Project or TMEP) around Coldwater Indian Band (Coldwater) Indian Reserve No. 1 (Reserve). The Reserve is located approximately 3 km south of the town of Merritt, BC and is shown in Figure 1.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Trans Mountain is a Canadian corporation with its head office located in Calgary, Alberta, and the general partner of Trans Mountain Pipeline L.P., which is operated by Trans Mountain Canada Inc. (TMC). Trans Mountain is the holder of the Canada Energy Regulator (CER) certificates for the operation of the existing Trans Mountain Pipeline System (OC-02, OC- 049) and for the construction and operation of the TMEP (OC-065). The TMEP will increase the sustainable capacity of the Trans Mountain Pipeline System to 141,500 m³/day (890,000 bpd) through a second line (Line 2) from the Edmonton Terminal to the Burnaby Terminal and terminal upgrades including additional storage, delivery, and connectivity. The route of the additional pipeline generally follows the existing Trans Mountain Pipeline wherever practicable. Although the existing line passes through several Indian Reserves, Trans Mountain has not pursued routing options for the Project through Indian Reserves without the express consent of the resident First Nation. With respect to Coldwater’s Reserve, Trans Mountain received regulatory approval for a Project corridor along the Approved Route, which passes to the east of the Reserve. However, Trans Mountain has not yet received approval of the Plan, Profile and Book of Reference (i.e., the detailed route) for this segment of the pipeline. The issue of routing in the vicinity of the Reserve is subject to further discussion with Coldwater and regulatory approval by the Commission of the Canada Energy Regulator. 644000 648000 652000 656000 660000 KP 928 !.

A N T KO 2 1 !. J O E YA S K A 2 ¯ KP 929 Figure 1

KP 930!.

AK 05.0!. Coldwater Alternative !. .! AK 06.0 AK 04.0 KP 931 Kilometre Post (KP) !. !. AK 03.0 !. AK 02.0 !. AK 0 !. !. AK 07.0!. AK 01.0 KP 932 !. 5548000 5548000 .! TMEP Pipeline AK 08.0 Kilometre Post (KP) !. KP 933!.

AK 09.0 !. !.KP 934 Coldwater West Alternative Pipeline Route

KP 935 !. AK 10.0 !. TMEP Pipeline

!. AK 11.0 !. KP 936 Existing TMPL Pipeline KP 937 COLDWATER 1 !. 5544000 AK 12.0 !. 5544000 Lily Lake (!1 Highway !. !. KP 939 KP 938 Edna AK 13.0 Lake !. KP 940!. OP5

!. Indian Reserve KP 941 GWEN LAKE 3 AK 14.0 !. Gwen KP 942!. Lake Hydrology

Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 10N. AK 15.0 !. Coldwater West Alternative Centreline provided by UPI March 10, 2020; Pipeline SSEID005.19 Spread 5A and KPs provided by UPI December 10, 2018; TMPL Route Revision 0 provided by KMC, May !. 2012; Transportation: BC MFLNRO 2012; Hydrology: BC MFLNRO 2008; KP 943 First Nation Lands: Government of Canada 2018; Service Layer Credits: Coquihalla Hwy 5 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community. AK 16.0 !. !. 5540000 KP 944 5540000 This document is provided by Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. (KMC) for use by the intended recipient only. This information is confidential and proprietary to KMC and is not to be provided to any other recipient without the written consent of KMC. It is not to be used for legal, engineering or surveying KP 945 purposes, nor for doing any work on or around KMC's pipelines and PAUL'S BASIN 2 !. facilities, all of which require KMC's prior written approval. !.

Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated AK 17.0 with the data used to generate this product or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. r !. e t MAP NUMBER a r KP 946 202001_MAP_CH2M_GEN_01168_REV1 e w v DATE REFERENCE REVISION d i l AK 18.0!. March 2020 CE733700 1 o R !. C SCALE PAGE SIZE DISCIPLINE KP 947 !. AK 18.12 1:55,000 11x17 GEN DRAWN CHECKED DESIGN SMZ DJN CMR

0 1 2 km 644000 648000 652000 656000 660000 ALL LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE 202001_MAP_CH2M_GEN_01168_Rev1.mxd !. Trans Mountain Expansion Project Revision Date: 2020-04-15 DRAFT Revision No.: 0 Feasibility Study of the 19731-506-RPT-00126 Coldwater IR West Alternative Route Page 6 of 27

3.0 BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF THIS REPORT A western route option was considered during an early stage in the Project; however, this option was not pursued by Trans Mountain in its original application for the Project, filed with the National Energy Board (NEB) in 2013. Instead, Trans Mountain sought and obtained NEB approval for a Project corridor that passed to the east of the Reserve, referred to herein as the Approved Route (SSEID005.19). The Approved Route was preferred over a route to the west of the Reserve for the following primary reasons (among others): • the western route option would include two (2) additional Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD) river crossings of the Coldwater River; • the western route option was more than two kilometres longer than the eastern route; and • a western route would be subject to a higher number of geohazards, with higher severity sites located immediately west of the Coldwater River. Commitments 4165 and 4167 arose in the context of the re-initiated Phase III Crown consultation process between the Federal Government, Coldwater and Trans Mountain. Throughout that process, Coldwater raised concerns regarding the potential impacts of the Project on its community water supply, which is sourced from an aquifer beneath the Reserve. Coldwater viewed a western route as a potential mitigation of Coldwater’s concerns, and it expressed a desire for Trans Mountain to study the option further. The current wording of Commitment 4165 is: Trans Mountain commits to undertake a feasibility study of the proposed western route which commits to be completed and filed with the NEB on or before March 31, 2020. This study commits to include consideration of geotechnical, geohazard, species at risk and environmental factors. lt commits to also include a summary of consultations undertaken with the Coldwater First Nation, as well as copies of all written comments that may be provided to Trans Mountain by the Coldwater First Nation. ln its summary, Trans Mountain commits to providing a description and justification for how Trans Mountain has incorporated the results of its consultation, including any recommendations from the Coldwater First Nation into the studies. If Coldwater First Nation chooses, it may commission a Traditional Land Use Study of the proposed western route to be completed on or before November 30, 2019. In addition to fulfilling Commitment 4165, this report is intended to aid discussions between Trans Mountain and Coldwater in relation to the Project route through the Coldwater Valley. Specifically, Commitment 4167 sets out the following process for routing discussions between the parties: Trans Mountain commits to the following process to determine the pipeline route. Trans Mountain and Coldwater First Nation have until three months following Trans Mountain's filing pursuant to Condition 39 and filing of the feasibility study contemplated in Commitment #4165 to attempt to reach consensus on a route for sections of the pipeline between KP 929 (Veal Road) and KP 952, and: a) If Trans Mountain and Coldwater First Nation are in agreement that the route should be in the approved pipeline corridor, then the detailed route approval process may proceed or continue, in the manner to be determined by the NEB; b) If Trans Mountain and Coldwater First Nation are not in agreement on the route, and Coldwater First Nation takes the position that the route should be located outside of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project Revision Date: 2020-04-15 DRAFT Revision No.: 0 Feasibility Study of the 19731-506-RPT-00126 Coldwater IR West Alternative Route Page 7 of 27

approved pipeline corridor, then: The detailed route approval process may proceed or continue in the manner to be determined by the NEB; • Trans Mountain recognizes that, pursuant to section 36 of the NEB Act, the NEB may consider the suitability of alternate proposed routes outside of the approved corridor. The NEB will approve or deny the proposed route, considering the best possible detailed route, in its ordinary course; • If Coldwater takes the position that the best possible route is the proposed western route, if the NEB process allows, Trans Mountain agrees to file an assessment of the proposed western route as part of any additional detailed route approval process and such assessment shall include: • The Traditional Land Use Study, if Coldwater is in agreement with its inclusion; • A map/environmental sheet at an appropriate scale clearly depicting the proposed western route; • An environmental issues list identifying relevant effects of the proposed western route on the environment (e.g. soil, vegetation, wildlife, hydrology and archaeological information); and • An identification of associated mitigation measures that may mitigate environmental effects and an analysis of such measures; • If the NEB does not approve the proposed route, Trans Mountain may apply for a variance pursuant to section 21 of the NEB Act and the variance application would proceed in the manner to be determined by the NEB; • If the NEB determines that a detailed route hearing process should proceed or continue simultaneously with a variance application(s), the above process applies with necessary modifications. c) If Trans Mountain and Coldwater First Nation are in agreement on a route located outside of the approved pipeline corridor, or are not in agreement on the route but both take the position that the route should be located outside of the approved pipeline corridor, then: • Trans Mountain will apply for a variance pursuant to section 21 of the NEB Act on or before September 30, 2020 and the variance application would proceed in its ordinary course. It is within this context that Trans Mountain has undertaken the feasibility study discussed in this report. The study is not intended to satisfy the requirements for a full feasibility assessment under CSA Z662 or the requirements imposed by TMEP Certificate Condition 67 regarding geotechnical and feasibility reports for select HDD river crossings. Rather, the intent is to provide an analysis of the West Alternative Route that is sufficiently detailed to enable Trans Mountain and Coldwater to engage in routing discussions on an informed basis. Further assessment and field work will be required in the event Trans Mountain chooses to pursue the West Alternative Route. As many as 10 different centreline options at the far north end of the West Alternative Route have been considered by Trans Mountain. Figure 2 below shows the numerous potential western routing options that have been examined and considered. The routes varied in location, length and starting point. Routes were assessed and removed from consideration because of additional length, landowner concerns, constructability, environmental concerns, utility crossings and access. In addition, geotechnical investigation determined a slope geohazard along the west valley slope. Based on these analyses, the most practical western route option was identified for further analysis. This route, the West Alternative Route avoids most of the identified slope geohazard (see Figure 3). Based on a combination of desktop reviews and field observations, the West Alternative Route is a technically feasible option for the TMEP. This report summarizes the work done to date in determining the feasibility of the West Alternative Route, the outcomes of those assessments, and relevant information regarding the two route options under consideration (West Alternative Route vs. Approved Route). Trans Mountain Expansion Project Revision Date: 2020-04-15 DRAFT Revision No.: 0 Feasibility Study of the 19731-506-RPT-00126 Coldwater IR West Alternative Route Page 8 of 27

Figure 2: Route Options considered at the North end of the West Alternative Route

Figure 3: Landslide area on the west bank of West Alternative Route Coldwater River Crossing #1

Trans Mountain Expansion Project Revision Date: 2020-04-15 DRAFT Revision No.: 0 Feasibility Study of the 19731-506-RPT-00126 Coldwater IR West Alternative Route Page 9 of 27

4.0 OVERVIEW OF THE WEST ALTERNATIVE ROUTE The West Alternative Route deviates from the Approved Route at kilometre post (KP) 931.43 and joins the Approved Route at KP 946.88. This section of the Approved Route is 15.45 km long, and the West Alternative Route measures 18.12 km, an additional 2.67 km. As the West Alternative Route centreline deviates west from the Approved Route, it crosses the Coldwater River (West Alternative Coldwater River Crossing #1), before heading up the western valley slope, eventually crossing Midday Valley Road (See Figure 4). This part of the route is greenfield and does not parallel an existing disturbance, utility or road for approximately 4.3 km. The initial greenfield portion of the West Alternative Route ends at Midday Valley Road. At approximately Alternate Kilometre Post (AK) 5, the route begins to run parallel with a TELUS Fibre Optics Transmission System (FOTS) buried cable (orange line in Figure 4 below). At AK 8, the pipeline route turns south and aligns with two Spectra Energy pipelines and continues south, paralleling either the Spectra pipelines shown in yellow, or the Telus FOTS cable, until it re-joins the Approved Route at KP 946.88.

Figure 4. West Alternative Route: AK 4.0 to AK 9.0.

Trans Mountain Expansion Project Revision Date: 2020-04-15 DRAFT Revision No.: 0 Feasibility Study of the 19731-506-RPT-00126 Coldwater IR West Alternative Route Page 10 of 27

The following is a summary of the main features of the West Alternative Route: • 4.30 km of greenfield construction (not parallel to any existing utility/road feature). • 13.82 km of construction parallel to other linear features including the existing Spectra Energy right-of-way and the existing TELUS FOTS right-of-way • One (1) crossing of the existing Spectra Energy right-of-way, which may involve a total of two (2) pipeline crossings. There are two buried pipelines in the Spectra Energy right- of-way, according to field survey data. • Two (2) HDD crossings of the Coldwater River – West Alternative Coldwater River Crossing #1 and West Alternative Coldwater River Crossing #2 • Lands affected by the route are primarily Crown land. More specifically, 80% or 14.52 km of the West Alternative Route is within Crown land (16 parcels), and 20% or 3.6 km is on private land (5 parcels). The private land affected is largely at the north end of the route between AK 0.5 and AK 2.5, crossing three large residential properties and one large agricultural property. The route traverses one large private agricultural property at the southern end of the route between AK 16.5 and AK 18.21. Most of the Crown lands are occupied by grazing tenures. A comparison of the West Alternative Route and the Approved Route is provided in Table 4- 1 below.

Table 4-1. Comparison of the West Alternative Route and the Approved Route

Feature West Alternative Route Approved Route

Total Length (km) 18.12 15.45 Greenfield Section (km) 4.30 10.30 Valves Minimum 4 valves are required at the West Alternative Coldwater River #1 1 & #2 HDD crossings Access Bridge Access bridge of approximately 33 m span will be required at the Coldwater No bridge required River #1 West Alternative Route HDD crossing Number of Crossings (total) 65 51 Roads 7 9 Trails 9 9 Pipelines (Total) 3 4 • Spectra Energy 2 2 • Fortis BC 1 0 • TMPL 0 2 Telus FOTS Cable 5 1 Powerline 4 2 Watercourses and Drainages 32 22 (excluding Coldwater River)

Coldwater River 2 0

Trans Mountain Expansion Project Revision Date: 2020-04-15 DRAFT Revision No.: 0 Feasibility Study of the 19731-506-RPT-00126 Coldwater IR West Alternative Route Page 11 of 27

5.0 ENGINEERING EVALUATION The design criteria of the proposed West Alternative Route around Coldwater IR are based on the fundamental engineering philosophies, principles and design objectives for the TMEP. The permanent easement will be 18 m in width; the construction footprint will be approximately 45 m wide with additional extra workspace areas for bends and crossings. Depth of cover over the pipeline will be 0.9 – 1.2 m. Based on the field survey discussed below and satellite imagery from November 2019, the number of crossings on the West Alternative Route was determined (see Table 4-1). Should Trans Mountain pursue the West Alternative Route, the construction methodology for the crossings listed in Table 4-1 above will be assessed during the detailed engineering phase upon receiving complete survey and geotechnical data. The Coldwater River has a narrow Least Risk Biological Window for in-stream work due to the number and type of fish species present in the watercourse. For this reason, trenchless crossing installations (HDD) were recommended for both potential Coldwater River crossings on the West Alternative Route, conditional on the completion of a favourable geotechnical investigation and feasibility analysis. Preliminary assessments and geotechnical investigations indicate that the contemplated HDD crossings are feasible. Crossing designs will incorporate all applicable regulatory requirements including conditions specified by each permit, as issued. Two valves are being considered on either side of each of the 2 proposed Coldwater River Crossing HDDs at this stage in the Project, for a total of four (4) additional valves. The exact locations would be determined during the detailed design stage upon completion of release volume analysis.

5.1 Geotechnical and Geohazard Evaluation As part of the assessment of the West Alternative Route, BGC Engineering Inc. (BGC) prepared a report titled “Geohazard Study for West Alternative Route Around Coldwater IR”, dated January 31, 2020, which is attached as Appendix A. The primary finding of the report was identification of landslide morphology along the original western routing (as further discussed below), which resulted in a minor route adjustment on the current West Alternative Route to avoid the landslide morphology. Preliminary findings from the geotechnical and geohazard investigations to date are provided below.

5.1.1 Terrain Mapping Terrain stability and natural hazard mapping was completed for the West Alternative Route at a nominal scale of 1:20,000. Glaciofluvial, fluvial, till, colluvial, glaciolacustrine, anthropogenic and organic surficial materials and bedrock were identified along the studied corridor. The mapping was developed using desktop techniques including air photo interpretation and review of available lidar and satellite imagery, with field-based ground- truthing. Terrain stability ratings range from I (Stable) to V (Unstable) and describe the likelihood of instability resulting from resource development activities that occur in the upper few metres of the ground surface. Most of the West Alternative Route is located on gentle- to-moderately sloping terrain (up to 35°) occurring on the sides of meltwater channels, and

Trans Mountain Expansion Project Revision Date: 2020-04-15 DRAFT Revision No.: 0 Feasibility Study of the 19731-506-RPT-00126 Coldwater IR West Alternative Route Page 12 of 27

along the Coldwater River. A total of 129 sites in 45 terrain polygons along the West Alternative Route were visited in the field to verify desktop observations. For the purpose of this study, natural hazards were limited to slope and fluvial processes that may impact a terrain polygon regardless of land use and are synonymous with geohazards (which are a subset of natural hazards). Polygons were assigned a natural hazard rating from low (L) to high (H) based on the level of activity within the polygon.

5.1.2 Slope Geohazards Following field reconnaissance, one (1) geohazard, Site 1, remains a geohazard site of concern for potential threats to pipeline integrity. Site 1 is the west valley slope at the West Alternative Coldwater River Crossing #1 (Figure 3). This slope is approximately 120 m high, 700 m long, with an average gradient of 11°. HDD is the proposed method for construction of this river crossing. Along the west valley slope, ridges, bowl-shaped features, hummocks, and lineaments are visible in the lidar imagery, indicating the presence of deep-seated landslides. Similarly, more pronounced landslide morphology extends from mid-slope to the toe and encompasses the proposed HDD exit location. The subsurface geology and the level of landslide activity along the west valley slope are the subject of the 2020 geotechnical drilling investigation.

5.1.3 Hydrotechnical Analysis A total of 34 potential watercourse crossings and one encroachment site were identified along the West Alternative Route. Preliminary results from the desktop study and field reconnaissance suggest that hydrotechnical hazards at these crossings and the encroachment site can be managed using conventional (trenched) construction methods. Hydrotechnical hazards present engineering challenges but do not change the feasibility of the proposed West Alternative Route.

5.1.4 West Alternative Coldwater River Crossing #1 (Preliminary Findings) Trans Mountain has completed two geotechnical boreholes on the west side of the Coldwater River in support of its geotechnical feasibility assessment of the proposed HDD crossing. The two boreholes, BH-BGC20-CW6-03 and BH-BGC20-CW6-04, are in proximity to an area identified as a potential landslide complex, as described in Appendix A, and were selected to investigate the area of greatest potential geotechnical risk along the HDD bore path. The boreholes encountered bedrock at 63.5 m depth and 1.7 m, respectively. Drilling at BH-BGC20-CW6-03 showed the presence of faulted and sheared volcanic bedrock locally throughout the borehole, however these features were primarily concentrated above 85 m depth. These features are interpreted as tectonic in origin; however, they could also be consistent with landslide-induced shearing. Based on the elevation of the river and the observations of these features, the maximum credible depth of a potential landslide block at the borehole location is likely less than 85 m, or at least 100 m above the proposed bore path. Although the bedrock observed at BH-BGC20-CW6-04 was generally closely fractured, the core contained a few zones of shearing or gouge and as such is interpreted to be outside any landslide features. Based on the data available at this time, BGC has not observed any geotechnical concerns at the two borehole locations that would preclude construction of the crossing of the river and the landslide area by HDD. Additional investigation is planned for the east side of the alignment to confirm feasibility of the HDD crossing. Appendix B contains the BGC letter

Trans Mountain Expansion Project Revision Date: 2020-04-15 DRAFT Revision No.: 0 Feasibility Study of the 19731-506-RPT-00126 Coldwater IR West Alternative Route Page 13 of 27

report documenting the results of the BH-BGC20-CW6-03 and -04 investigations. Figure 5 below shows a high-level summary of drilling observations for the boreholes completed to date. Figure 5. Drilling Observations for BH-BGC20-CW6-03 and -04

Trans Mountain Expansion Project Revision Date: 2020-04-15 DRAFT Revision No.: 0 Feasibility Study of the 19731-506-RPT-00126 Coldwater IR West Alternative Route Page 14 of 27

6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION

6.1 Wetlands Evaluation Based on the desktop review and field reconnaissance completed, three wetlands and four flood associations were identified within 30 m of the centerline along the West Alternative Route. The first 4.9 km of the West Alternative Route was assessed by desktop only and not ground-truthed during the Fall 2019 field reconnaissance program. The three wetlands encountered include two seasonal emergent marshes (approximately 1.48 ha and 3.36 ha in size) and one open water pond (approximately 1.48 ha in size). The total wetland area within the footprint associated with the West Alternative Route is approximately 0.29 ha. In addition, four flood associations (i.e., non-wetland ecosystems) were also identified along the West Alternative Route; however, these tend to be in areas that receive regular flooding and have well-drained soils (i.e., sand, gravel). The Approved Route crosses two wetlands and the total wetland area within the footprint is approximately 0.12 ha. Mitigation measures provided in the Pipeline Environmental Protection Plan (Condition 72) would minimize the potential direct and indirect effects during construction of the Project along the West Alternative Route. Should Trans Mountain pursue this route option, detailed field investigations will identify any additional site-specific features or additional mitigation measures that may be required to address site-specific effects. Wetlands along the West Alternative Route would be added to the Wetland Survey and Mitigation Plan (Condition 41). Mitigation measures provided in the Pipeline Environmental Protection Plan and Wetland Survey and Mitigation Plan would minimize the potential direct and indirect effects during construction and operation of the Project along the West Alternative Route. Table 6.1-1 Wetlands Encountered by the West Alternative Route based on Desktop Review and Field Reconnaissance Number of Total Wetlands Size of Wetland Description within 30 m Identified Area within Mitigation Comments of the Wetland Construction centerline Footprint Wetland -Detailed field Construction is considered class: investigations will feasible from a wetland 1.48 ha and Seasonal 2 identify any management perspective, 3.36 ha emergent additional site- once the applicable 0.29 ha marsh specific features or mitigation measures from Wetland additional mitigation the Pipeline Environmental class: Open 1 1.48 ha measures that may Protection Plan and water pond be required to associated condition plans address site-specific are applied. effects.

Non-wetland -Wetlands along the ecosystems: West Alternative Flood 4 -- -- Route will be added associations to the Wetland (a) Survey and Mitigation Plan (Condition 41).

Trans Mountain Expansion Project Revision Date: 2020-04-15 DRAFT Revision No.: 0 Feasibility Study of the 19731-506-RPT-00126 Coldwater IR West Alternative Route Page 15 of 27

-Mitigation measures provided in the Pipeline Environmental Protection Plan (Condition 72) and Wetland Survey and Mitigation Plan (Condition 41) will reduce the potential direct and indirect effects during construction and operation of the Project. Notes: (a): These flood associations tend to be in areas that receive regular flooding but have well-drained soil characteristics (i.e., sand, gravel). ha = hectares m = metres -- = no data

6.2 Fish & Fish Habitat Evaluation

6.2.1 Watercourses and Drainages In the fall of 2019, 18 potential watercourse crossings were investigated along the initial western route. These watercourses and drainages are shown below in Table 7.2-1 and include:

• 1 high sensitivity fish-bearing watercourse crossing (West Alternative Coldwater River Crossing #1 [S1B]) - navigable • 1 low sensitivity fish-bearing watercourse crossing (Salem Creek [S3]) • 16 nonfish-bearing drainages that include 4 non-classified drainages (NCDs) and 12 mapped features that had no visible channel (NVC) In addition to the 18 investigated watercourse crossings described above, desktop review has identified an additional 16 potential watercourses that have not yet been field verified. Based on preliminary review, the 16 potential watercourse crossings to be field verified are expected to be classified as:

• 1 high sensitivity fish-bearing watercourse crossing (West Alternative Coldwater River Crossing #2 [S1B]) - navigable • 2 NCDs • 8 NVCs • 5 NCDs or NVCs (TBD) Six of the above potential crossings would require field assessments to confirm classification (NVC or NCD) and to gather channel measurements and habitat value at the West Alternative Coldwater River #2 crossing location.

Trans Mountain Expansion Project Revision Date: 2020-04-15 DRAFT Revision No.: 0 Feasibility Study of the 19731-506-RPT-00126 Coldwater IR West Alternative Route Page 16 of 27

Table 6.2-1 Summary of Watercourses and Drainages on the West Alternative Route

Provincial Least Risk Master Watercourse Sensitivity Stream Known Fish Instream Biological Crossing Name Ranking Classification Species Present Work Window Number Window Proposed CWGB-01 Unnamed Drainage None NVC None None Open CWGB-01a Unnamed Drainage TBD NCD or NVC None None Open (drag section) CWGB-01b Unnamed Drainage TBD NCD or NVC None None Open (drag section) CWGB-02 Unnamed Drainage TBD NCD or NVC None None Open CWGB-03 Unnamed Drainage TBD NCD or NVC None None Open CH, CO (BT, CC, CH, Coldwater River CO, DV, L, LDC, LNC, July 22 - July 22 - CWGB-04 High S1B (West Alternative #1) MW, PL, RB, RSC, ST, August 1 August 10 SU) CWGB-05 Unnamed Drainage None NVC None None Open CWGB-06 Unnamed Drainage None NVC None None Open CWGB-07 Unnamed Drainage None NVC None None Open CWGB-08 Unnamed Drainage None NVC None None Open CWGB-09 Unnamed Drainage Low NCD None None Open CWGB-10 Unnamed Drainage TBD NCD or NVC None None Open CWGB-11 Unnamed Drainage Low NCD None None Open CWGB-12 Unnamed Drainage None NVC None None Open CWGB-13 Unnamed Drainage None NVC None None Open CWGB-14 Unnamed Drainage None NVC None None Open CWIRW-13 Unnamed Drainage None NVC None None Open CWIRW-14 Unnamed Drainage Low NCD None None Open CWIRW-15 Lemoto Creek Low NCD None None Open CWIRW-16 Unnamed Drainage None NVC None None Open CWIRW-17 Unnamed Drainage None NVC None None Open CWIRW-18 Oluk Creek None NVC None None Open CWIRW-19 Unnamed Drainage None NVC None None Open CWIRW-20 Unnamed Drainage None NVC None None Open CWIRW-21 Unnamed Drainage None NVC None None Open CWIRW-22 Unnamed Drainage Low NCD None None Open CWIRW-23 Unnamed Drainage None NVC None None Open CWIRW-24 Unnamed Drainage None NVC None None Open CWIRW-25 Unnamed Drainage None NVC None None Open CWIRW-26 Unnamed Drainage None NVC None None Open BT, CC, CH, CO, DV, Coldwater River July 22 - July 22 - CWIRW-27 High S1B L, LDC, LNC, MW, PL, (West Alternative #2) August 01 August 10 RB, RSC, ST, SU July 22 - CWIRW-28 Salem Creek Low S3 RB Open October 31 CWIRW-28a Unnamed Drainage Low NCD None None Open CWIRW-29 Unnamed Drainage None NVC None None Open

BT = Bull Trout, CC = Sculpin (general), CH = Chinook Salmon, CO = Coho Salmon, DV = Dolly Varden, L = Lampreys (general), LDC = Leopard Dace, LNC = Longnose Dace, MW = Mountain Whitefish, PL = Pacific Lamprey, RB = Rainbow Trout, RSC = Redside Shiner, ST = Steelhead, SU = Sucker (general)

Trans Mountain Expansion Project Revision Date: 2020-04-15 DRAFT Revision No.: 0 Feasibility Study of the 19731-506-RPT-00126 Coldwater IR West Alternative Route Page 17 of 27

For comparison to the 34 identified potential watercourses along the West Alternative Route, there are 24 watercourse crossings required along the Approved Route between KP 931.44 and KP 946.86. These include watercourse crossing IDs BC-521 through BC-539, summarized as follows:

• 2 high sensitivity fish-bearing watercourses (S3) (Kwinshatin Creek [BC-531] and Unnamed Channel [BC-533]) • 2 low sensitivity fish-bearing watercourses (S4) (Unnamed Channel [BC-532] and Skuagam Creek [BC-534]) • 4 nonfish-bearing watercourses (S6) • 8 NCDs • 8 NVCs Additionally, there are seven (7) watercourse crossings associated with access roads required to construct the Project along the Approved Route. These include crossing IDs BCVA-224 to BCVA-230, summarized as follows:

• 2 low sensitivity fish-bearing watercourses (S4* or S6/S3) • 3 non-fish-bearing watercourses (S6) • 2 NCDs

6.2.2 Project Interactions with Fish and Fish Habitat Potential Project interactions (for construction and reclamation phases of pipeline construction) with fish and fish habitat are outlined in Section 3.1.2 of the 2013 Fisheries (BC) Technical Report 5C-7 in Volume 5C of the 2013 Project Application (A3S2C1). Potential residual and cumulative effects of pipeline and facilities components of the Project on freshwater fisheries, including an evaluation of significance, are provided in Volume 5A Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment (ESA) – Biophysical Assessment (Triton December 2013; Filing IDs A3S1L2-A3S1R3). Neither of the two Coldwater River crossings associated with the West Alternative Route are expected to alter previous significance conclusions; these two high sensitivity crossings are proposed to be crossed using a trenchless method which requires no instream works and avoids impacts to the aquatic ecosystem. All other watercourse and drainage crossings along this route are low sensitivity. The West Alternative Route does not cross the two high sensitivity fish-bearing crossings (BC-531 and BC-533) located along the Approved Route.

6.3 Vegetation A summary of vegetation features on the West Alternative Route is provided in Table 6.3-1. Based on the desktop review and field reconnaissance completed, there are three rare ecological communities that may be present on the West Alternative Route and five (approximately 1.8 km total length) non-legal (non-gazetted) Old Growth Management Areas (OGMA) traversed. No legal (or gazetted) OGMAs will be impacted by the West Alternative Route. The Approved Route crosses approximately 1.4 km of non-legal OGMAs, and no legal OGMAs are impacted by the Approved Route. Non-native and invasive plants are known to occur along the West Alternative Route, especially in areas where the route parallels a transmission line right-of-way. Should Trans Mountain pursue the West Alternative Route, results from the vegetation surveys (i.e., rare

Trans Mountain Expansion Project Revision Date: 2020-04-15 DRAFT Revision No.: 0 Feasibility Study of the 19731-506-RPT-00126 Coldwater IR West Alternative Route Page 18 of 27

plants, OGMA delineation, and weed surveys) to be completed in spring/summer 2020 will be included in the Rare Ecological Community and Rare Plant Populations Management Plan (Condition 40), Weed and Vegetation Management Plan (Condition 45) and Old Growth Management Areas Mitigation and Replacement Plan (Condition 76). In that case, mitigation measures provided in the Pipeline Environmental Protection Plan and associated condition plans would reduce the potential direct and indirect effects during construction and operation of the Project. Detailed field investigations would identify any additional site-specific vegetation features or additional mitigation measures that may be required to address site- specific effects.

Table 6.3-1 Vegetation Communities Encountered by the West Alternative Route based on Desktop Review and Field Reconnaissance

Construction Footprint Description Mitigation Comments Interaction Rare ecological 3 communities -Detailed field No legal OGMAs will be communities investigations will identify impacted by the West Non-legal Old Growth 4 OGMAs (approximately any additional site-specific Alternative Route. Management Areas 1.4 km) features or additional Construction is considered (OGMA) mitigation measures that feasible from a vegetation Non-native and invasive Known to occur along the may be required to management perspective, plants West Alternative Route, address site-specific once the applicable especially in areas where effects. mitigation measures from the route parallels a the Pipeline transmission line right-of- -Results from the surveys Environmental Protection way will be included in the Plan and associated Rare Ecological condition plans are Community and Rare applied. Plant Populations Management Plan (Condition 40), Weed and Vegetation Management Plan (Condition 45) and Old Growth Management Areas Mitigation and Replacement Plan (Condition 76).

-Mitigation measures provided in the Pipeline Environmental Protection Plan and associated condition plans will reduce the potential direct and indirect effects during construction and operation of the Project. Note: km = kilometres

6.4 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitats Based on the desktop review and field reconnaissance completed, the West Alternative Route is located entirely within an extirpated Grizzly Bear Population Unit as well as approved Ungulate Winter Range for mule deer (14.1 km) and approved Wildlife Habitat Area (WHA) for Williamson’s sapsucker (3.15 km). The West Alternative Route crosses several WHAs

Trans Mountain Expansion Project Revision Date: 2020-04-15 DRAFT Revision No.: 0 Feasibility Study of the 19731-506-RPT-00126 Coldwater IR West Alternative Route Page 19 of 27

for Williamson’s sapsucker that are not crossed by the Approved Route; however, most of the length of these WHAs overlaps with critical habitat for Williamson’s sapsucker where mitigation and habitat restoration measures would be implemented where the biophysical attributes of critical habitat are present. The Approved Route crosses approximately 3.3 km of Williamson’s sapsucker and Lewis’s woodpecker WHA and critical habitat areas as well as approximately 13.5 km of Ungulate Winter Range for mule deer. These features are summarized in Table 6.4-1 and shown on Figure 6. Mitigation measures provided in the Pipeline Environmental Protection Plan (Condition 72), Grizzly Bear Mitigation Plan (Condition 56) and Williamson’s Sapsucker and Lewis’s Woodpecker mitigation plans provided within the Wildlife Species at Risk Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plans (Condition 44) would reduce the potential direct and indirect effects during construction and operation of the West Alternative Route. Detailed field investigations conducted prior to construction would identify any additional site-specific features or additional mitigation measures that may be required to address site-specific effects.

Table 6.4-1 Wildlife Habitat Crossed by the West Alternative Route based on Desktop Review and Field Reconnaissance

Construction Footprint Description Mitigation Comments Interaction Grizzly Bear Population Located entirely within an -Detailed field The West Alternative Unit extirpated Grizzly Bear investigations will identify Route crosses several Population Unit any additional site-specific WHAs for Williamson’s Ungulate Winter Range Crosses an approved features or additional sapsucker that were not Ungulate Winter Range mitigation measures that previously crossed by the for mule deer (14.1 km) may be required to Project; however, most of Wildlife Habitat Area -crosses an approved address site-specific the length of these WHAs (WHA) WHA for Williamson’s effects. overlap with critical habitat sapsucker (3.15 km) for Williamson’s -Mitigation measures sapsucker where -crosses critical habitat for provided in the Pipeline mitigation and habitat Williamson’s sapsucker Environmental Protection restoration measures will and Lewis’s woodpecker Plan (Condition 72), be implemented in areas Grizzly Bear Mitigation where the biophysical Plan (Condition 56) and attributes of critical habitat Williamson’s Sapsucker are present. and Lewis’s Woodpecker Construction is considered mitigation plans provided feasible from a wildlife and within the Wildlife Species wildlife habitat at Risk Mitigation and management perspective, Habitat Restoration Plans once the applicable (Condition 44) will reduce mitigation measures from the potential direct and the Pipeline indirect effects during Environmental Protection construction and operation Plan and associated of the Project. condition plans are applied. Notes: km = kilometres

644000 648000 652000 656000 660000 KP 928 !.

A N T KO 2 1 !. J O E YA S K A 2 ¯ KP 929 Figure 6

KP 930!.

AK 05.0!. ! Coldwater Alternative AK 06.0 KP 931 !. . Kilometre Post (KP) !. !. !. AK 02.0 AK 04.0 !. AK 0 !. AK 03.0 !. !. AK 01.0 .! TMEP Pipeline AK 07.0 KP 932 !. Kilometre Post (KP) 5548000 5548000 AK 08.0 !. KP 933 Coldwater West !. Alternative Pipeline Route

!. !.KP 934 TMEP Pipeline AK 09.0

Existing TMPL Pipeline

!. !. AK 10.0 KP 935 (!1 Highway

!. !. Critical Habitat AK 11.0 KP 936 Lewis's Woodpecker

!.KP 937 Critical Habitat

5544000 AK 12.0 COLDWATER 1 5544000 Lily !. Williamson's Sapsucker Lake !.KP 938 !.KP 939 Wildlife Habitat Area AK 13.0 !. !. OP5 Edna Lake KP 940 Approved Ungulate Winter Range KP 941!.

Indian Reserve !. GWEN LAKE 3 AK 14.0 Gwen KP 942 !. Lake Hydrology

Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 10N. !. Coldwater West Alternative Centreline & KPs provided by UPI June 26, AK 15.0 2019; Pipeline SSEID005.19 Spread 5A and KPs provided by UPI December 10, 2018; TMPL Route Revision 0 provided by KMC, May !. 2012; Transportation: BC MFLNRO 2012; Hydrology: BC MFLNRO 2008; KP 943 Biogeoclimatic Zones: BC FLNRO 2014; Critical Habitat: Environment Coquihalla Hwy 5 Canada 2019; BC Wildlife Habitat Area: Environment Canada 2019; First Nation Lands: Government of Canada 2018; Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community !. KP 944!.

5540000 AK 16.0 5540000 This document is provided by Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. (KMC) for use by the intended recipient only. This information is confidential and proprietary to KMC and is not to be provided to any other recipient without the written consent of KMC. It is not to be used for legal, engineering or surveying purposes, nor for doing any work on or around KMC's pipelines and !. facilities, all of which require KMC's prior written approval. !. PAUL'S BASIN 2 KP 945 AK 17.0 Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated r with the data used to generate this product or in the product itself, users of e r these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. t e !. a v i MAP NUMBER

w R 202001_MAP_CH2M_WL_01165_REV1 d KP 946 l DATE REFERENCE REVISION o AK 18.0

C !. March 2020 CE733700 !. 1 AK 18.12!. SCALE PAGE SIZE DISCIPLINE KP 947 1:55,000 11x17 WL DRAWN CHECKED DESIGN SMZ DJN CMR

0 1 2 km 644000 648000 652000 656000 660000 ALL LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE 202001_MAP_CH2M_WL_01165_Rev1.mxd !. Trans Mountain Expansion Project Revision Date: 2020-04-15 DRAFT Revision No.: 0 Feasibility Study of the 19731-506-RPT-00126 Coldwater IR West Alternative Route Page 21 of 27

6.5 Groundwater Resources The West Alternative Route is located on the opposite side of the Coldwater Valley from the Reserve in a different watershed from the watershed used for the community’s water supply.

The West Alternative Route does not cross any mapped aquifers. There are two known springs (including Ewalt spring) and two surface water licence holders within 150 m of the West Alternative Route. However, there are no active water wells within 150 m of the West Alternative Route.

The Paul’s Basin Indian Reserve #2 is located southwest of the West Alternative Coldwater River Crossing #2. A desktop review of the BC Groundwater Database was conducted to identify any data on groundwater conditions in Paul’s Basin IR #2. The area is generally unpopulated, and there is no information regarding registered groundwater wells, springs or potable water sources. Paul’s Basin IR #2 is upgradient of the West Alternative Route, which is situated approximately 260 m east of the reserve at its closest point. Initial evaluation is that risk to Paul’s Basin IR #2 is low given its topographic location relative to the West Alternative Route.

6.6 Traditional Land Use Trans Mountain understands that Coldwater Indian Band’s sacred sites include ancestral places (including burials), ceremonial areas, sweat lodges, ritual bathing sites, vision quest locations, sun dance grounds, sacred waterfalls, mountains, archaeological pit house sites, locations inhabited by spirit beings, including the ‘little people’, as well as special avoidance areas. These sites may be present on the West Alternative Route. Coldwater has identified nine (9) Traditional Land Use (TLU) sites that are on the Footprint of the West Alternative Route. These include hunting and fishing sites. Mitigation measures to ensure site-specific impacts are avoided will be implemented. Coldwater has identified two (2) sacred sites, one cultural site and four (4) TLU sites on the Approved Route.

6.7 Heritage Resources Evaluation On behalf of Trans Mountain, Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) completed a desktop archaeological review of the proposed West Alternative Route (the study area). The results can be found in “Memo – Archaeological Desktop Review of Proposed Coldwater Reroute – for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project in British Columbia”, dated February 14, 2020, which is attached as Appendix C. The study included reviews of the Provincial Archaeological Report Library (PARL), satellite imagery, archaeological site inventory forms, the Remote Access to Archaeological Data (RAAD) application, approved provincial archaeological potential models and previous archaeological assessments completed in the vicinity of the study area. The study area is within the traditional territories of the: Ashcroft Indian Band, Kanaka Bar First Nation, Lower Nicola Indian Band, affiliated members of the Nicola Tribal Association that include: Coldwater Indian Band, Nooaitch Indian Band, Shackan Indian Band, Siska First Nation, Cook’s Ferry Indian Band and Nicomen Band, affiliated members of the Nlaka’pamux Nation Tribal Council that include: Boothroyd Indian Band, Lytton First Nation, Boston Bar First Nation, Skuppah Indian Band, Oregon Jack Creek Indian Band, Spuzzum First Nation Trans Mountain Expansion Project Revision Date: 2020-04-15 DRAFT Revision No.: 0 Feasibility Study of the 19731-506-RPT-00126 Coldwater IR West Alternative Route Page 22 of 27

and the Upper Nicola Band that is also affiliated with the Okanagan Nation Alliance that includes the following member communities: Penticton Indian Band, Okanagan Indian Band, Lower Similkameen Indian Band and Upper Similkameen Indian Band. No previously recorded archaeological sites were identified within the study area. However, should Trans Mountain pursue the West Alternative Route, an archaeological impact assessment (AIA) will be undertaken at select locations because of areas assessed for high archaeological potential and limited previous archaeological field work. The AIA would determine the extent and nature of archaeological sites so they can be appropriately managed during construction. Trans Mountain believes that impacts to Heritage Resources, should they be identified during baseline survey, can be mitigated and are not expected to affect the feasibility of the West Alternative Route.

6.8 Environmental Summary Based on the initial desktop review and field reconnaissance completed to date, construction of the proposed West Alternative Route appears to be feasible from an environmental perspective, once the applicable mitigation measures from the Pipeline Environmental Protection Plan and associated condition plans are applied. A summary of environmental features is provided in Table 6.8-1.

Table 6.8-1 Comparison of Environmental Features on the West Alternative Route and the Approved Route

West Alternative Factors Approved Route Route Description Description Quantity Quantity (where appropriate) (where appropriate) Length of Coldwater River 0 0.29 2 crossings Riparian Reserve Zone (km) Woodlots crossed 0 0.46 1 woodlot (km) Wildlife habitat areas for SARA Williamson Williamson 3.31 3.15 listed species (km) Sapsucker Sapsucker (species) Old Growth Management Area 1.41 1.4 (4 OGMAs) (non-legal) (km) Old Growth Management Area 0 0 (legal) (km) Ungulate Winter 13.51 Mule Deer (U-3-003) 14.1 Mule Deer (U-3-003) Range (km) Wetlands crossed 0.12 2 wetlands 0.29 4 wetlands (km) Watercourses 31 34 Invasive Yes Yes Vegetation Trans Mountain Expansion Project Revision Date: 2020-04-15 DRAFT Revision No.: 0 Feasibility Study of the 19731-506-RPT-00126 Coldwater IR West Alternative Route Page 23 of 27

Species Present (Yes/No) Rare Ecological Communities 0 0 encountered (No.) TLU/Sacred and 72 92 Cultural Sites Heritage 12 02 Resources 1Reflects updated study information

2Based on desktop study; further field validation may be required

7.0 CONSTRUCTION EVALUATION Based on the above assessments, the West Alternative Route provides a technically feasible route option for the TMEP, paralleling existing utilities for 13.82 km with 4.3 km of greenfield route. The desktop imagery and field survey data show that there is sufficient access to all areas of this Route, although some trails may require upgrading for pipe trucks, lowbed trucks hauling heavy equipment, and other construction vehicles, which may also require more field survey data for identification and upgrades as required (See Figure 6). Main road access used would be Hwy 5, the asphalt Coldwater Road, the Kettle Valley Trail, the Midday Valley Road, Paul Basin Road and numerous gravel and dirt trails that parallel the Spectra pipeline right-of-way. No major impediments to construction have been identified along the proposed route at this time. The HDDs of the two major watercourse crossings of the Coldwater River present technical challenges but appear feasible based on the work to date.

7.1 West Alternative Coldwater River Crossing #1 The West Alternative Coldwater River Crossing #1 (See Figure 7) crosses the geohazard landslide area. To mitigate potential geohazards to the pipeline at this location, the planned installation method of the pipeline will be by HDD. Preliminary borehole results in this area indicate possible HDD profiles will be outside of possible geohazard regions and will stay outside of possible shear planes throughout the entirety of the drill. The preliminary HDD length measures approximately 1898 m and has safe road access to the proposed entry/exit drill points which extend well beyond the landslide area. Compared to conventional trenching/open cut installation, the HDD option would eliminate: • two road bores. • one Telus line crossing; and • two powerline crossings. Trans Mountain Expansion Project Revision Date: 2020-04-15 DRAFT Revision No.: 0 Feasibility Study of the 19731-506-RPT-00126 Coldwater IR West Alternative Route Page 24 of 27

Figure 7. West Alternative Coldwater River Crossing #1

A pipe laydown area may be required on the west side of the crossing for the HDD drag section and will likely require heavy grade activity. In addition to the two boreholes completed, three (3) additional borehole locations are proposed along the HDD path. The entry point of the HDD is proposed on the east side of the Coldwater River, within 100m of an existing access road, while the exit point of the HDD is planned on the west side of the Coldwater River and shows two trails within 100m that may require minimal access upgrades.

7.2 West Alternative Coldwater River Crossing #2 A second HDD is proposed at Coldwater River Crossing #2 (See Figure 8) near the southwest portion of the West Alternative Route, which would be approximately 541 m in length. There is safe road access to the south exit drill point location, but the entry point location may need some grading on the north side of the river. West Alternative Coldwater River Crossing #2 would eliminate the requirement to isolate and open-cut two separate drainage crossings on the Approved Route, along with eliminating the installation of one road bore. A pipe laydown area is likely only available on the south side of the HDD for welding and staging the HDD drag section, as there are numerous side bends and a significant grade slope on the north side of the HDD crossing. There are three (3) borehole locations along the Coldwater River Crossing #2 HDD path that are being completed as part of the geotechnical feasibility investigation. Trans Mountain Expansion Project Revision Date: 2020-04-15 DRAFT Revision No.: 0 Feasibility Study of the 19731-506-RPT-00126 Coldwater IR West Alternative Route Page 25 of 27

Figure 8. West Alternative Coldwater River Crossing #2. 3D Image.

8.0 COSTS AND PROJECT SCHEDULE Trans Mountain has conducted a preliminary cost assessment for the West Alternative Route. Assuming construction of the two Coldwater River crossings proceeds by way of HDD, Trans Mountain estimates that construction, installation, and reclamation activities associated with the West Alternative Route will cost approximately $70 million CAD. For comparison purposes, the construction cost estimate for the Approved Route from KP 931.43 to KP 946.88 is approximately $50 million CAD, a difference of $20 million CAD. The increase in costs for the West Alternative Route relative to the Approved Route is largely attributable to the two HDD crossings of the Coldwater River, the increased length of the route (2.67 km), and the challenges posed by the sloping terrain. Construction in this area is expected to take approximately 12 months, which is roughly the same amount of time as for the corresponding portion of the Approved Route. However, to construct the Project along the West Alternative Route, Trans Mountain would require a variance of Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity OC-065 pursuant to section 190 of the Canadian Energy Regulator Act (Act). Further detailed field investigations and consultation would be required to support such an application. The $20 million cost difference does not reflect costs associated with the environmental studies and application process that would be required for a section 190 application. Trans Mountain would also require approval of the detailed route pursuant to section 203 of the Act, in addition to other ancillary permits. Trans Mountain expects regulatory timelines to Trans Mountain Expansion Project Revision Date: 2020-04-15 DRAFT Revision No.: 0 Feasibility Study of the 19731-506-RPT-00126 Coldwater IR West Alternative Route Page 26 of 27

depend, in part, on the outcomes of Trans Mountain’s consultation efforts, including its routing discussions with Coldwater.

9.0 CONSULTATION Commitment 4165 requires Trans Mountain to include a summary of consultation with Coldwater in relation to the feasibility study, including a description and justification for how Trans Mountain incorporated and responded to Coldwater’s recommendations. A summary of consultation with Coldwater, including a table listing and addressing Coldwater’s concerns and recommendations, is included as Appendix D to this report. Trans Mountain also agreed, in Commitment 4165, to attach copies of all written comments received from Coldwater in relation to the study. A consultation log, which includes verbatim written comments, is provided in Appendix E to this report. Trans Mountain provided a draft of the West Alternative Feasibility Study to Coldwater on 31 March 2020 and requested their comments. At the time of filing, no comments have been received. Commitment 4165 refers to a traditional land use study that may be commissioned by Coldwater. Trans Mountain understands that a traditional land use study is underway and that Coldwater anticipates completing the study and providing it to Trans Mountain in April 2020. In addition to consulting on the feasibility study with Coldwater, Trans Mountain delivered an information letter regarding the West Alternative Route to the following Indigenous groups on February 28, 2020:

Nicola Tribal Association affiliated communities: • Nooaitch Indian Band • Shackan Indian Band • Coldwater Indian Band • Siska First Nation • Cook’s Ferry Indian Band • Nicomen Band

Nlaka'pamux Nation Tribal Council affiliated communities: • Boothroyd Indian Band • Lytton First Nation • Boston Bar First Nation • Skuppah Indian Band • Oregan Jack Creek Indian Band • Spuzzum First Nation

Okanagan Nation Alliance affiliated communities: • Upper Nicola Band (also affiliated with the Nicola Tribal Association) • Okanagan Indian Band • Penticton Indian Band • Lower Similkameen Indian Band • Upper Similkameen Indian Band Trans Mountain Expansion Project Revision Date: 2020-04-15 DRAFT Revision No.: 0 Feasibility Study of the 19731-506-RPT-00126 Coldwater IR West Alternative Route Page 27 of 27

Other communities: • Ashcroft Indian Band • Kanaka Bar First Nation • Lower Nicola Indian Band The respective asserted traditional territories of the above groups overlap with the West Alternative Route. The information letter, an example of which is attached as Appendix F, sent out on February 28th, invited recipient groups to provide any comments or concerns with respect to the West Alternative Route and included an offer to meet and discuss the matter further. Since March 9th, Trans Mountain’s Indigenous Relations Team has initiated communication with each of the above groups to discuss the West Alternative Route, the feasibility study and any other related matters, following up with each group again on April 9th. At the time of filing, Trans Mountain has not received any substantive routing concerns or comments from any of these groups.

10.0 CONCLUSION Based on the multidisciplinary reviews completed to date, the West Alternative Route appears to be a feasible route for the TMEP. As engagement continues with Coldwater and other Indigenous groups on the West Alternative Route, Trans Mountain will continue to advance engineering work on this route and the feasibility conclusions in this report may be further refined. Note that, in addition to feasibility, Trans Mountain’s decision with respect to routing in the Coldwater Valley will be influenced by several factors, including engagement, costs, timing and risk assessment, not all of which are addressed in this report.

11.0 APPENDICES The following appendices are included with this report: A. BGC Engineering Inc., “Geohazard Study for West Alternative Route Around Coldwater IR”, January 31, 2020 B. BGC Engineering Inc. letter report, BH-BGC20-CW6-03 and -04 borehole investigations, March 2020 C. Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec), “Memo – Archaeological Desktop Review of Proposed Coldwater Reroute – for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project in British Columbia”, February 14, 2020 D. Summary of Consultation with the Coldwater Indian Band on the Feasibility Study, March 2020 E. Log of Communications between Trans Mountain and the Coldwater Indian Band, January 2019 – March 2020 F. Example of the Information Letter to Indigenous Groups regarding the West Alternative Route, February 28, 2020 Appendix A

BGC ENGINEERING INC. AN APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES COMPANY

TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE ULC

TRANS MOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT

GEOHAZARD STUDY FOR WEST ALTERNATE ROUTE AROUND COLDWATER IR

REV 0

PROJECT NO.: 1321150-43 DATE: January 31, 2020 DOCUMENT NO.: TMEP20-004

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, Trans Mountain Expansion Project January 31, 2020 Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR – REV 0 Project No.: 1321150-43

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

As part of the engineering design and assessment for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMEP), Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC (Trans Mountain) has retained BGC Engineering Inc. (BGC) to complete a geohazard study for the west alternate route around the Coldwater Indian Reserve (IR) located approximately 3 km south of Merritt, British Columbia. The study of this alternate route was requested by Trans Mountain in response to the Coldwater IR’s concerns with the potential for groundwater contamination from a pipeline leak or rupture based on the originally proposed pipeline alignment (SSEID 002). Terrain stability and natural hazard mapping was completed for the proposed west alternate route at a nominal scale of 1:20,000. Glaciofluvial, fluvial, till, colluvial, glaciolacustrine, anthropogenic and organic surficial materials and bedrock were identified along the studied corridor. The mapping was developed using office techniques including airphoto interpretation and review of available LiDAR and satellite imagery, with field-based ground-truthing. Terrain stability ratings range from I (Stable) to V (Unstable) and describe the likelihood of instability resulting from resource development activities that occur in the upper few metres of the ground surface. Most of the west alternate corridor is located on moderately to gently sloping terrain (<26°), where slope stability has been mapped as Classes I to III (Drawings 02 and 03). Steep slopes (>35°) occur on the sides of meltwater channels, and along the Coldwater River. A total of 129 sites in 45 terrain polygons along the west alternate route were visited in the field to verify desktop observations. For the purpose of this study, natural hazards are limited to slope and fluvial processes that may impact a terrain polygon regardless of land use and are synonymous with geohazards (which are a subset of natural hazards). Polygons were assigned a natural hazard rating from low (L) to high (H) based on the level of activity within the polygon. Potential slope geohazards along the proposed corridor were compiled during the desktop study. Three sites of concern were carried forward for field reconnaissance (Drawings 02 and 03). Following the field reconnaissance, the geohazards at Sites 2 and Site 3 were no longer considered likely to result in a loss of containment provided that proper construction techniques are utilized during construction. Site 1 is the west valley slope to the northern Coldwater River crossing and remains a geohazard site of concern for potential threats to pipeline integrity. This slope is approximately 120 m high, 700 m long, with an average gradient of 11° (Drawing 02 and Drawing 03). The proposed method for construction for the northern Coldwater River crossing is by a Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD). Along the west valley slope, ridges, bowl shaped features, hummocks, and lineaments are visible in the LiDAR imagery indicating the presence of deep seated landslides. Similarly, more pronounced landslide morphology extends from the mid slope to the toe and encompasses the proposed HDD exit location. Although deep seated landslide features are present, the subsurface geology and the level of landslide activity along the west valley slope is unknown.

Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR_PQ29Jan20_MB Page i BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, Trans Mountain Expansion Project January 31, 2020 Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR – REV 0 Project No.: 1321150-43

A total of 25 watercourse crossings and one encroachment site were identified along the west alternate route. Preliminary results from the desktop study and field reconnaissance suggest that hydrotechnical hazards at these crossings and the encroachment site can be managed using conventional (trenched) construction methods. Hydrotechnical hazards do not hinder the feasibility of the proposed west alternate route. This hydrotechnical hazard assessment excludes the northern and southern trenchless crossings of the Coldwater River, and the crossing of the Salem Creek debris flood channel, which will be evaluated under a separate cover. The proposed route for the west alternate alignment in general is considered favorable and suitable for pipeline construction from a geotechnical and hydrotechnical perspective based on the terrain, and geohazards associated with most of the slopes and the watercourse crossings. There is one important exception; the west valley slope of Coldwater River at the north end of the route contains a landslide morphology of unknown depth, extent, age, mechanics, and state of activity. As such, the proposed west alternate alignment is considered not feasible. BGC recommends the west alternate alignment be re-routed either around or below the landslide morphology to avoid the possibility of the HDD drill path intersecting old landslide failure planes related to the possible deep-seated landslide along the west valley slope. If the corridor is re- routed below the landslide, boreholes and the installation of slope inclinometers would be required to determine a safe bore path that avoids potential landslide movement. An HDD assessment would also be required to evaluate the feasibility of an HDD crossing the landslide terrain.

Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR_PQ29Jan20_MB Page ii BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, Trans Mountain Expansion Project January 31, 2020 Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR – REV 0 Project No.: 1321150-43

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... i LIST OF TABLES ...... iii LIST OF FIGURES ...... iv LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS ...... iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1. Background ...... 1 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK ...... 4 2.1. Terms of Reference ...... 4 3.0 TERRAIN MAPPING ...... 5 3.1. Methods ...... 5 3.2. Results ...... 5 3.2.1. Surficial Materials ...... 5 3.2.2. Terrain Stability ...... 7 3.2.3. Natural Hazard Classes ...... 9 4.0 SLOPE GEOHAZARD ANALYSIS ...... 12 4.1. Methods ...... 12 4.1.1. Desktop Analysis ...... 12 4.1.1. Field Reconnaissance ...... 12 4.2. Results ...... 12 4.2.1. Desktop Analysis ...... 12 4.2.2. Field Reconnaissance ...... 13 5.0 HYDROTECHNICAL ANALYSIS ...... 17 5.1. Scope of the Assessment ...... 17 5.2. Methods ...... 17 5.3. Results ...... 17 5.3.1. Site Inventory ...... 17 5.3.2. Hydrotechnical Hazard Assessment ...... 17 5.4. Summary ...... 18 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 19 7.0 CLOSURE ...... 20 REFERENCES ...... 21

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3-1 Terrain stability ratings for road construction ...... 8 Table 3-2. Criteria used to assign terrain stability classes ...... 9 Table 3-3. Criteria used to define natural hazard classes...... 11

Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR_PQ29Jan20_MB Page iii BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, Trans Mountain Expansion Project January 31, 2020 Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR – REV 0 Project No.: 1321150-43

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1. Plan view of three TMEP routes considered in 2015 near the Coldwater IR and the existing TMPL alignment...... 3 Figure 4-1. Overview of the Coldwater River valley crossing. The proposed west alternate route considered in this report is shown in pink...... 13 Figure 4-2. Detailed view of the landslide features on the west valley slope. The older, more subdued landslide features are highlighted in red with the younger, more recently active landslide features in blue...... 15

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS

PHOTOGRAPH 1 Looking north west from the Midday Valley Road at the glacial drift and the pre-Fraser outcrops. PHOTOGRAPH 2 Looking north at the slope toe at the soil outcrops. PHOTOGRAPH 3 Looking west at the back-tilted beds in the lacustrine soils.

LIST OF DRAWINGS

DRAWING 01 Terrain Legend DRAWING 02 Terrain Mapping (1 of 2) DRAWING 03 Terrain Mapping (2 of 2)

Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR_PQ29Jan20_MB Page iv BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, Trans Mountain Expansion Project January 31, 2020 Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR – REV 0 Project No.: 1321150-43

LIMITATIONS

BGC Engineering Inc. (BGC) prepared this document for the account of Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC. The material in it reflects the judgment of BGC staff in light of the information available to BGC at the time of document preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this document or any reliance on decisions to be based on it is the responsibility of such third parties. BGC accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this document.

As a mutual protection to our client, the public, and ourselves all documents and drawings are submitted for the confidential information of our client for a specific project. Authorization for any use and/or publication of this document or any data, statements, conclusions or abstracts from or regarding our documents and drawings, through any form of print or electronic media, including without limitation, posting or reproduction of same on any website, is reserved pending BGC’s written approval. A record copy of this document is on file at BGC. That copy takes precedence over any other copy or reproduction of this document.

Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR_PQ29Jan20_MB Page v BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, Trans Mountain Expansion Project January 31, 2020 Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR – REV 0 Project No.: 1321150-43

1.0 INTRODUCTION Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC (Trans Mountain) is a Canadian corporation with its head office located in Calgary, Alberta (AB). Trans Mountain is operated by Trans Mountain Canada Inc. (TMCI) and is fully owned by the Canada Development Investment Corporation. Trans Mountain is the holder of the Canada Energy Regulator1 (CER) certificates for the Trans Mountain pipeline system (TMPL system). The TMPL system commenced operations in 1953 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. In December 2016, the National Energy Board (NEB, now CER) granted approval for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (referred to as “TMEP” or “the Project”) under Section 52 of the National Energy Board Act (NEB Act). The proposed expansion will comprise of new pipeline segments that complete a twinning (or “looping”) of the pipeline in AB 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.

1.1. Background In 2014, BGC Engineering Inc. (BGC) was retained to complete a geohazard frequency assessment along the proposed pipeline corridor (SSEID 002) as part of the NEB Technical Update #1. The purpose of the frequency assessment was to estimate the frequency of loss of containment from geohazards. The results of the assessment were passed on to Dynamic Risk Ltd. (DRA) for use in their risk calculations as part of a risk assessment for the overall pipeline corridor. The proposed TMEP route located south of Merritt, British Columbia, at that time, followed the existing TMPL corridor before heading east around the Coldwater Indian Reserve (IR) and re-joining the TMPL corridor south of the Coldwater IR (Figure 1-1). This route was not favored by the Coldwater IR due to concerns with the possibility for groundwater contamination from a potential pipeline leak or rupture. In 2015, TMEP proposed two alternate pipeline routes adjacent to the Coldwater IR that included a west route located on the west side of the Coldwater River and a route that parallels the existing TMPL corridor with the exception of a 3 km deviation near Kwinshatin Creek as shown in Figure 1-1. TMEP retained BGC to complete a desktop geohazard frequency assessment along the two alternate pipeline routes with the intent of estimating the frequency for loss of containment at geohazards sites located along each of the routes. The 2015 desktop assessment was based on the available data sources at that time and relied on terrain mapping, Google EarthTM satellite imagery, and publicly available maps. During the BGC (2015) assessment, LiDAR imagery was

1 The National Energy Board (NEB) became the Canada Energy Regulator (CER) on August 28, 2019.

Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR_PQ29Jan20_MB Page 1 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, Trans Mountain Expansion Project January 31, 2020 Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR – REV 0 Project No.: 1321150-43 not available along the proposed alternate pipeline routes and field work to validate the desktop assessment was not completed. As a consequence, some geohazards may not have been identified at the desktop level and the geohazards that were identified were not evaluated in the field to determine their credibility. The results of the assessment concluded that the proposed pipeline corridor (SSEID 002) had geohazards with the lowest frequency for loss of containment and the least number of geohazards when compared to the two alternate alignments.

Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR_PQ29Jan20_MB Page 2 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, Trans Mountain Expansion Project January 31, 2020 Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR – REV 0 Project No.: 1321150-43

Figure 1-1. Plan view of three TMEP routes considered in 2015 near the Coldwater IR and the existing TMPL alignment.

Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR_PQ29Jan20_MB Page 3 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, Trans Mountain Expansion Project January 31, 2020 Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR – REV 0 Project No.: 1321150-43

2.0 SCOPE OF WORK As part of the engineering design and assessment for the TMEP, Trans Mountain has retained BGC to complete a geohazard study for the west alternate route around the Coldwater IR located approximately 3 km south of Merritt, British Columbia. This study was requested by Trans Mountain in response to the Coldwater IR’s concerns with the potential for groundwater contamination from a pipeline leak or rupture based on the original proposed pipeline alignment (SSEID 002). The intent of the of this geohazard study is to further evaluate the west alternate route based on update LiDAR imagery and the observations from a desktop assessment. BGC’s scope of work included the following: • Desktop study including: ○ Review the published literature on the regional geology and the local geological setting along the proposed alternate route. ○ Review the existing 1:20,000 scale terrain mapping assessment along the pipeline corridor. ○ Complete an updated 1:20,000 scale terrain mapping assessment based on stereo airphotos and LiDAR imagery. ○ Complete an updated geohazard assessment based on LiDAR imagery. ○ Complete an assessment of hydrotechnical hazards at watercourse crossings and encroachment sites along the proposed Coldwater west alternate route. • Field reconnaissance to: ○ Complete shallow hand dug test pits to ground truth the updated terrain mapping. ○ Evaluate the credibility of the geohazards identified in the desktop assessment. ○ Collect observations and data to support the hydrotechnical hazard assessment of watercourse crossings. The purpose of this report is to provide the updated terrain mapping, to evaluate potential geohazards, and to develop the necessary design parameters to mitigate hydrotechnical hazards along the proposed west alternate pipeline corridor around the Coldwater IR.

2.1. Terms of Reference TMEP authorized BGC to complete the current scope based on BGC’s change order request entitled “Geotechnical Study for Western Option Around Coldwater IR”, dated May 30, 2019 and approved under work directive number 4794632-5-TMCI dated July 18, 2019. The services provided for the scope of work are governed by the Master Services Agreement (MSA) number 54107 dated June 25, 2012.

Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR_PQ29Jan20_MB Page 4 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, Trans Mountain Expansion Project January 31, 2020 Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR – REV 0 Project No.: 1321150-43

3.0 TERRAIN MAPPING

3.1. Methods The mapped landscape was subdivided into geomorphic units with similar features called terrain polygons. Criteria used to delineate polygons include: unique surficial geology, landforms, surficial deposit thickness, surface water drainage, slope stability and geohazards. Slope stability classes were then assigned to each polygon by considering terrain characteristics within the polygon. Digital airphotos were set up in Summit Evolution software for on-screen stereo viewing and mapping was completed in ArcGIS on a LiDAR base. Terrain mapping methods were based on guidelines described by the Resources Inventory Committee (1996) and used the terrain classification system of Howes and Kenk (1997). Data fields describing material types, drainage, and slope stability were included for all terrain polygons. Where soil texture such sand, silt and clay is known from field data, it is included as part of the terrain symbol, otherwise textures are assumed to be typical textures for that material type as described in Section 3.2.1. Ground-truthing of the desktop interpretation was completed between October 30 to November 2, 2019 by Betsy Waddington, P.Geo. and Michael Beaupre, P.Eng., P.Geo. Soil pits or exposures in road cuts were examined and the material texture, drainage, genesis and slope stability were described at each site. The results from the field program were used to determine material types and textures. A total of 129 sites in 45 terrain polygons along the west alternate route were visited. The minimum size of terrain polygons that can be mapped at a 1:20,000 scale is about four hectares. Thus, local variations in terrain conditions over areas of 2 to 5 ha, or over distances of less than 200 m, may not be identified at the mapped scale. As a result, some variations in slope steepness, material characteristics, soil moisture, bedrock depth and slope stability should be expected within each polygon.

3.2. Results

3.2.1. Surficial Materials Surficial materials are of relatively young geological age. Most were deposited in the last approximately 10,000 years, during or following the last glaciation or less frequently during older glacial and interglacial periods. They are classified by their modes of formation such as erosion, transportation, deposition, mass movements and weathering that result in specific sets of physical characteristics (Howes and Kenk, 1997). Glaciofluvial, fluvial, till, colluvial, glaciolacustrine, anthropogenic and organic surficial materials and bedrock were identified along the west alternate route corridor. Typical descriptions of each material, with their mapping codes, are given in the following sections and their distribution is shown on Drawings 02 and 03. Drawing 01 contains a terrain legend describing the symbols on Drawings 02 and 03.

Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR_PQ29Jan20_MB Page 5 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, Trans Mountain Expansion Project January 31, 2020 Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR – REV 0 Project No.: 1321150-43

Glaciofluvial (FG) Glaciofluvial material is typically composed of coarse sands and gravels, deposited during the immediate post-glacial and earlier interglacial periods. It is typically located in terraces or scarp slopes above the present Coldwater River level or abandoned fans in the upland areas. Highly cemented layers are locally present within the glaciofluvial gravels forming relatively low permeability layers within otherwise permeable formations. Fluvial (F, FAp) Fluvial material is deposited by the modern river in floodplains, fans or low terraces and is typically composed of silt, sand and gravel. Areas mapped as active floodplains (FAp) have little vegetation and are frequently flooded. Fluvial material has been mapped on floodplains and terraces along the Coldwater River. Colluvium (C) Colluvium is material that has been moved downslope by gravity. It is common as a thin veneer (< 1 m thick) on rocky slopes and as thicker deposits at the base of slopes which have experienced slumping or landsliding. The texture of colluvium reflects its source - where derived from bedrock, colluvium will typically be silt to gravel sized with some boulders and highly-disturbed bedrock. Till (M) Till is material that has been deposited by glacial ice. Typically, it is a highly consolidated deposit consisting of poorly sorted, usually matrix-supported, subangular or subrounded clasts in a clayey-sandy-silt matrix. It is common as thick blankets or as thin veneers throughout the study area. Glaciolacustrine (LG) Glaciolacustrine material was deposited into lakes that formed near the onset and end of glacial periods. Typically, this material consists of interbedded sand, silt and clay. Glaciolacustrine material is present along Coldwater River at the northern end of the proposed reroute. Organic (O) Organic material is sediment that is composed largely of partially decomposed vegetative matter. It occurs in small wet areas in low lying areas. Anthropogenic (A) Anthropogenic materials exist where an area is sufficiently modified by human activity such that the original natural material, terrain stability and natural hazards are no longer relevant. This designation was used for features such as gravel pits and major highways where the natural ground has been built up or excavated, and where large debris flow control structures have been constructed.

Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR_PQ29Jan20_MB Page 6 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, Trans Mountain Expansion Project January 31, 2020 Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR – REV 0 Project No.: 1321150-43

3.2.2. Terrain Stability Terrain stability refers to the potential for slope instability or erosion following disturbance by construction or removal of forest cover. Terrain stability ratings range from I to V (Table 3-1) and describe the likelihood of instability resulting from resource development activities that occur in the upper few metres of the land surface within in-situ surficial materials and bedrock. Stability classes are based primarily on slope angle, surficial material type, and observable geomorphological processes occurring within the polygon (e.g., gully erosion, existing active landslides), as shown in Table 3-2. For example, a slope morphology that includes irregular, near- surface bedrock would typically be rated as more stable than a similar slope with a smooth profile, because bedrock irregularities tend to stabilize soil against shallow instability caused by road construction or removal of forest cover. Polygons with existing active landslides identified in the mapping and field work are automatically assigned Class V ratings. The stability ratings assume effective surface water drainage control is present during the life span of the facility. Most of the west alternate route corridor is located on moderately to gently sloping terrain (<26°), where slope stability has been mapped as Classes I to III (Drawings 02 and 03). Steep slopes (>35°) occur on the sides of meltwater channels, and along Coldwater river valley. Typically, steeper slopes are less than 50 m long and are cut into sandy till, glaciofluvial material, or bedrock. These steep slopes were assigned either Class IV or V depending on whether landslides were observed within the polygon. Polygons mapped as Class IV or V typically require terrain stability field assessments (TSFAs) before roads or other infrastructure are constructed within the polygon. Atypical construction techniques will be required in these areas to minimize the likelihood of initiating landslides. Where the consequences of shallow slope instability are potentially high, TSFAs might also be warranted within some Class III polygons.

Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR_PQ29Jan20_MB Page 7 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, Trans Mountain Expansion Project January 31, 2020 Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR – REV 0 Project No.: 1321150-43

Table 3-1 Terrain stability ratings for road construction (Adapted from Ministry of Forests, 1999). Terrain Stability Class Interpretation I No significant stability problems exist. There is a very low likelihood of landslides following right of way clearing, II pipeline and or road construction. Minor instability is expected along cut slope, especially for 1 or 2 years following construction. There is a low likelihood of landslides following right of way clearing, III pipeline and or road construction. Minor instability is expected along cut slope, especially for 1 or 2 years following construction. Expected to contain areas with a moderate to high likelihood of landslide initiation following right of way clearing, pipeline and or road construction. IV Wet season construction will further increase the likelihood of construction- related landslides. Expected to contain areas with a high likelihood of landslide initiation following right of way clearing, pipeline and or road construction. Wet V season construction will further increase the likelihood of construction- related landslides.

Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR_PQ29Jan20_MB Page 8 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, Trans Mountain Expansion Project January 31, 2020 Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR – REV 0 Project No.: 1321150-43

Table 3-2. Criteria used to assign terrain stability classes (modified from Ryder, 2002)

SLOPE CLASS

Moderate Moderately Steep Plain (p) Gentle Slope (j) Steep (s) (a) (k) 0-5% 6-27% >70% 28-49% 50-60% 61-70% (0-3°) (3-15°) (>35°) (15-26°) (26-30°) (31-35°)

Any material, plain or gentle

undulating topography I moderate rock slopes

fans and gentle slopes of any material

II

irregular rock slopes with till or

colluvial veneers

moderate glaciofluvial slopes

till or colluvial veneers or blankets, glaciofluvial scarps III Course textured talus,

competent rock

glaciolacustrine or glaciomarine blankets or

TERRAIN STABILITY CLASS slopes

glaciolacustrine or glaciomarine blankets or

slopes

gullied till or colluvial blankets

IV Fine textured till or colluvial veneers or blankets. Till,

colluvial, glaciolacustrine, glaciomarine slopes

gullied till, glaciolacustrine,

or glaciomarine slopes

V all materials and landforms that are unstable (i.e. include the initiation zone of mass movements: -F”, - R”s, and/or –R”b*)

3.2.3. Natural Hazard Classes For the purposes of this study, natural hazards are limited to slope and fluvial processes that may impact the terrain polygon regardless of land use and are synonymous with geohazards (which are a sub-set of natural hazards). These are naturally occurring processes such as rock fall, debris flows, debris floods, floods, channel changes, and rock avalanches. Polygons were assigned a rating from low (L) to high (H) based on the level of activity within the polygon (see Table 3-3).

Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR_PQ29Jan20_MB Page 9 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, Trans Mountain Expansion Project January 31, 2020 Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR – REV 0 Project No.: 1321150-43

Snow avalanches were not included in this classification. Snow avalanches are not likely to affect a buried pipeline but could be a hazard during construction or inspection of the pipeline if those activities occur during avalanche season. Snow avalanches could also dam and divert creeks, causing erosion, flooding or avulsion. Where this scenario is deemed probable it is included as that hazard. Geohazards are shown on Drawings 02 and 03 as lines showing approximate initiation zones and runout distance. The lines should be regarded as an indicator of a hazard, not its extent, and show existing hazards only. They do not provide information on geohazard risk.

Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR_PQ29Jan20_MB Page 10 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, Trans Mountain Expansion Project January 31, 2020 Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR – REV 0 Project No.: 1321150-43

Table 3-3. Criteria used to define natural hazard classes.

Estimated Likelihood of Range of Description of Activity of Occurrence of Annual Terrain Attribute Criteria Geomorphic Processes Hazard Likelihood of Occurrence

Signs of recent or recurrent activity on photo imagery and/or in the field which is very Hazard is currently or recently significant, either through active; the occurrence of the frequency of occurrence or High >1/20 terrain hazard(s) is imminent, spatial domination. Includes and well within the lifetime of a areas of landslide initiation, person or typical structure. transportation, and deposition, unstable gullies, and active fans and floodplains. Hazard is inactive but there is Evidence of historical activity potential for hazard to occur. It and/or active, small-scale is currently not present but indicators; may also include contributing factors and a areas of similar terrain attributes Moderate 1/100 to 1/20 trigger for a hazard are to nearby active areas. A more present. Terrain hazard(s) is frequently active process may probable within the occur but will be spatially approximate lifetime of a subordinate. person or typical structure. Hazard is dormant or no Evidence of probable to possible hazard exists. Terrain relict activity and/or similar hazard(s) is not likely, but is terrain attributes of areas of possible, within a given lifetime minor activity; no significant (i.e., ~ 1/100-1/500). Terrain Low < 1/100 indications of activity for at least hazard activity considered about 100 years. Areas where unlikely to nil would there is no evidence of correspond to an annual geomorphic process activity are likelihood of occurrence of likely in a very low hazard class. ~<1/500.

Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR_PQ29Jan20_MB Page 11 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, Trans Mountain Expansion Project January 31, 2020 Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR – REV 0 Project No.: 1321150-43

4.0 SLOPE GEOHAZARD ANALYSIS

4.1. Methods

4.1.1. Desktop Analysis Potential slope geohazards along the proposed corridor were compiled and identified from several data sources including the following: • A visual examination of available LiDAR data and imagery for terrain features along the corridor indicative of potential slope instabilities. • Where available, satellite images were reviewed to help identify important geomorphic features and to assess the local and regional potential for large scale slope instability. • The expected underlying geology at the site based on terrain mapping, surficial geology, and bedrock geology (Massey et al., 2005; Fulton, 1975). At the initial desktop level, terrain features associated with five slope-related geohazard types were assessed including; rockfall, extremely rapid rockslides, rock avalanches, debris slides, and earth landslides. These slope-related geohazard types were evaluated based on the criteria outlined in the geohazard assessment completed for the TMEP corridor (TMEP, February 27, 2017). The overall dimensions, expected geology, and surface expression of terrain features along the corridor were reviewed. Several of the terrain features were not considered beyond the desktop stage, where the slopes were not considered a credible threat. Terrain features that were not eliminated from further consideration at this stage were either considered to have some potential to be unstable and impact the pipeline or required a more detailed field reconnaissance to make that determination. These features were advanced to a field reconnaissance level as additional information was required to further characterize the geohazard or collect site-specific information.

4.1.1. Field Reconnaissance The purpose of the field reconnaissance was to evaluate the terrain features identified in the desktop assessment and to ground truth the terrain mapping. Georeferenced observations, photos, and mapping of surficial features were captured using iPads equipped with ArcGIS Collector Application Software. Particular attention was paid to the geomorphic features, surficial materials, and local site drainage at the terrain features identified in the desktop assessment.

4.2. Results

4.2.1. Desktop Analysis Based on the desktop information collected, three sites were carried forward to the field reconnaissance level. Drawings 02 and 03 show the locations of these sites along the proposed alignment. Appendix A summarizes the geohazard type, expected geology, site dimensions, and the desktop interpretation for each site.

Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR_PQ29Jan20_MB Page 12 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, Trans Mountain Expansion Project January 31, 2020 Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR – REV 0 Project No.: 1321150-43

4.2.2. Field Reconnaissance Key observations were collected at each of the three slope geohazard sites visited during the reconnaissance. Appendix B summarizes the field observations, descriptions of the assessed sites, and the dates visited. Based on the observations from the field reconnaissance, Sites 2 and Site 3 were considered manageable provided that the pipeline is constructed using modern pipeline construction techniques and under the direction of qualified professionals. Site 1 was determined to be a credible geohazard that could impact pipeline integrity in the absence of significant efforts to avoid or mitigate its effects. The field observations and a more indepth description of the geohazard at Site 1 is provided below.

4.2.2.1. Site 1 – Coldwater River North Crossing Location and Setting The northern crossing of the Coldwater River valley along the proposed west alternate route is located approximately 3.6 km south of Merritt, BC. The valley at the northern crossing is 1200 m wide and approximately 145 m deep. At this location, the proposed crossing of the Coldwater River by the TMEP is by a Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD). The proposed west alternate alignment (Figure 4-1) has the pipe conventionally trenched along a river terrace to the HDD entrance on the east side of the Coldwater River. The HDD exit would be on the upper section of the west valley slope on a low angle bench. The main concerns are the potential of the current HDD path to intersect possible old failure surfaces of an interpreted deep seated landslide on the west valley slope of the Coldwater River valley.

Coldwater River N

West valley slope

East valley slope

HDD entry

HDD path

HDD exit

Figure 4-1. Overview of the Coldwater River valley crossing. The proposed west alternate route considered in this report is shown in pink.

Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR_PQ29Jan20_MB Page 13 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, Trans Mountain Expansion Project January 31, 2020 Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR – REV 0 Project No.: 1321150-43

Geology No boreholes have been drilled on the slope or within the immediate uplands, so the exact nature of the underlying geology has been inferred based on published literature and the field reconnaissance. The Clearwater Valley is incised into glacial drift and underlain by bedrock from the Princeton Group (Read, 1998; Read, 2000). The Princeton group is comprised of the Coldwater Formation and the Cedar Formation (Read, 1988). The geology of the Coldwater Formation consists of sandstone, pebble conglomerate, shale, and coal whereas the Cedar Formation is comprised of volcanic rhyolite, dacite, andesite, and basaltic flows (Read, 1988; Read, 2000). To the north of the HDD crossing, the Coldwater Formation is at a higher elevation and overlies the Cedar Formation; however, at the HDD crossing the Coldwater Formation is at a lower stratigraphic elevation within the stratigraphic unit (Read, 1988). Both the Coldwater and the Cedar Formations are underlain by the Nicola Group volcanics comprised of andesite and basalt flows, tuff, and minor volcanic breccia (Read, 1988; Gilmar, 1980). The surficial geology at the HDD crossing has been mapped by Fulton (1975). At the HDD entry, the surficial geology is comprised of post-Fraser glaciation (deposited after to the last glacier advance) alluvial sediments consisting of sand, gravel, and silt. Along the west valley slope and at the HDD exit, the surficial geology has been mapped as landslide deposits consisting of blocks and rubble comprised mainly of bedrock. During the field reconnaissance, the surficial geology observed along the upper to mid-slope consisted of a well graded silt and clay with some sand, sub-rounded gravels and cobbles. This soil has been interpreted as glacial drift. Outcrops of a dense, dark brown, well graded, bedded sand and sub-angular gravel with some shells were observed underlying the glacial drift (Photograph 01). This unit has been interpreted as pre-Fraser sediments (deposited prior to the last glacier advance) and part of the Coldwater Formation. Along the lower slope, the soil consisted of the well-graded glacial drift observed near the slope crest and was underlain by dense, dark brown sand and gravel from the Coldwater Formation. A third unit consisting of poorly graded, grey, bedded silt was observed on the lower slope and located adjacent to the Coldwater Formation (Photograph 02). The silt unit has been interpreted as a lacustrine deposit. The surficial geology mapping completed by Fulton (1975) identified lacustrine deposits north of the HDD crossing, however, it is possible that the lacustrine deposit extends further south. The bedding within both the lacustrine silt and the underlying Coldwater Formation are back tilted by approximately 15°. Slope Morphology The present day Coldwater valley is oversized for the river and has been mapped as a glacial meltwater valley formed by drainage from wasting glaciers. Evidence of deep seated landslide features are visible in the LiDAR along the upper and mid-section of the west valley slope and consists of rounded ridges, bowl shaped features, hummocks, and lineaments. Some of these landslide features located on the upper section of the slope are crosscut by post-glaciation gullies which suggests that the deep seated landslides that formed the valley wall are old. At the valley

Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR_PQ29Jan20_MB Page 14 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, Trans Mountain Expansion Project January 31, 2020 Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR – REV 0 Project No.: 1321150-43 bottom, the river valley has been infilled with post-Fraser fluvial sediments suggesting the pre- Fraser valley was significantly deeper when compared to the present day configuration. The deep seated landslides that formed the west valley wall may have occurred when the valley floor was historically at a deeper depth. The present day valley infill may be acting as a stabilizing buttress for the deep seated landslide features and the west valley slope, assuming that its failure surface is at some depth below the modern valley floor. From the mid-slope to the toe and including the HDD exit location, more pronounced landslide features, such as exposed soil, bowl features, hummocky ground, and grabens are present. These more pronounced landslide features are concentrated at the outside bends in both the present-day and historical locations of the Coldwater River visible in the LiDAR imagery. The concentration of the more pronounced landslide features at the outside bends in the Coldwater River suggests toe erosion by the river may be contributing to landslide movement (Figure 4-2).

Subdued landslide features and cross cutting gullies

More pronounced landslide features

N

Figure 4-2. Detailed view of the landslide features on the west valley slope. The older, more subdued landslide features are highlighted in red with the younger, more recently active landslide features in blue.

Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR_PQ29Jan20_MB Page 15 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, Trans Mountain Expansion Project January 31, 2020 Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR – REV 0 Project No.: 1321150-43

Slope Stability Concerns Based on the LiDAR imagery and the field reconnaissance, the west valley slope appears to have been formed by at least two processes of slope failure. The upper section of the slope is interpreted to have failed during pre-Fraser valley incision and the movement may have been limited to that time period. The mid to lower part of the slope and the area that encompasses the HDD exit location has more pronounced features suggesting the slope movements are more recent and have occurred post-Fraser glaciation. Although obvious landslide features are present, uncertainty remains in the interpretation of the subsurface geology along the west approach slope. The type(s) and extent(s) of the material(s) containing the failure planes for both the deep-seated and shallower landslides, and their controls on slope movements along the west valley slope, are unknown. The level of slope activity for both the deep-seated landslides that encompass the west valley slope and the more recent landslides along the mid-slope and toe that encompass the HDD exit location are also unknown. Slope inclinometers or other instrumentation would be required to check whether the slope is moving and if so, at what rate. Although movement may not be currently occurring along the upper section of the west valley slope, the potential for continuous or episodic movement in the younger features along the mid-slope and toe cannot be ruled out, particularly given the chance of future erosion at the toe with movement of Coldwater River. An HDD intersecting a failure plane in the underlying geology could pose a significant risk to integrity of the TMEP should any movement occur. Either extending the HDD drill path to avoid the area of potential failure planes along the west valley slope or re-routing the alignment to avoid the deep-seated landslide features would be prudent.

Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR_PQ29Jan20_MB Page 16 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, Trans Mountain Expansion Project January 31, 2020 Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR – REV 0 Project No.: 1321150-43

5.0 HYDROTECHNICAL ANALYSIS The characterization of hydrotechnical hazards including scour, channel degradation, bank erosion, and encroachment along the west alternate route followed a similar approach to the one used for the main pipeline alignment (BGC, April 27, 2016); however, the hydrotechnical hazards in this assessment were evaluated qualitatively to support an assessment of feasibility of the west alternate route, rather than to support detailed design.

5.1. Scope of the Assessment This assessment focused on potential hydrotechnical hazard sites (i.e., watercourse crossings and encroachment sites) along the west alternate route. Hydrotechnical hazards at the proposed northern and southern trenchless crossings of the Coldwater River will be evaluated as part of separate geotechnical feasibility assessments and are not considered in this assessment. The crossing of the Salem Creek debris flood channel immediately south of the southern Coldwater River trenchless crossing (KP 16.5) is located within the extent of the proposed southern HDD bore path; it is therefore also not included in this assessment

5.2. Methods As part of the desktop study, a preliminary inventory of potential hydrotechnical hazard sites was completed for the west alternate route using LiDAR data, satellite imagery, and stream segments digitized from Natural Resources Canada’s National Hydro Network (NRC, 2016). Sites exhibiting greater potential for hydrotechnical hazards were advanced to a field reconnaissance level as additional information was required to further characterize the hazards and collect site-specific information. The field reconnaissance was completed on foot between October 30 and November 2, 2019 by Betsy Waddington, P.Geo. and Michael Beaupre, P.Eng., P.Geo. Site measurements, observations, and photographs were collected using iPads equipped with a geolocation-enabled ArcGIS Collector Application Software.

5.3. Results

5.3.1. Site Inventory An initial watercourse crossing inventory was built by intersecting the west alternate route with the National Hydro Network and included 25 sites (Drawings 02 and 03). Subsequent review of the LiDAR data and satellite imagery identified one additional site with a potential encroachment hazard. The final inventory of potential hydrotechnical hazard sites along the west alternate route includes 25 watercourse crossings, and one encroachment site.

5.3.2. Hydrotechnical Hazard Assessment Using catchment area at each of the identified 26 sites as a surrogate for hydrotechnical hazard severity, the sites were screened for the presence of hydrotechnical hazards including scour, bank erosion, and encroachment. A field assessment was completed at six of the crossings that

Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR_PQ29Jan20_MB Page 17 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, Trans Mountain Expansion Project January 31, 2020 Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR – REV 0 Project No.: 1321150-43

had the largest catchment areas that ranged from 0.8 to 2.7 km2. The intent of the field assessment was to collect observations of active hydrotechnical hazards (i.e., channel incision and bank erosion) at these sites, to complement the results of the desktop assessment. At four of the watercourse crossings identified for field assessment, the channel was fully vegetated with grass and showed no signs of erosion or channel incision. Weak channel definition (incision < 0.1 m) was observed at the remaining two field sites. Data collected in the field at the crossings with the largest catchment areas suggest that streamflow in all the 25 channels crossed by the west alternate route are ephemeral and may only occur during sustained snowmelt or intense storm events. Channel degradation via the possible retrogression of an observed knickpoint (i.e., a break in slope in the channel longitudinal profile) downstream of the crossings was evaluated for each crossing. To complete this evaluation, the channel longitudinal profile was traced over a distance ranging from 30 to 175 m downstream of each crossing, based on the LiDAR data. This evaluation revealed the presence of a knickpoint downstream of two crossings were potentially susceptible to channel degradation.

5.4. Summary A total of 25 watercourse crossings and one encroachment site were identified along the Coldwater western alternate route. Preliminary results from the desktop study and field reconnaissance suggest that hydrotechnical hazards at these sites can be managed using conventional (trenched) construction methods and do not hinder the feasibility of the proposed route. Hydrotechnical hazards should be re-evaluated during the detailed design phase. The northern and southern trenchless crossings of the Coldwater River were excluded from this assessment as they will be evaluated under separate cover. A hydrotechnical hazard assessment of the Salem Creek debris flood channel was also excluded since it is located within the proposed bore path of the southern Coldwater River trenchless crossing.

Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR_PQ29Jan20_MB Page 18 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, Trans Mountain Expansion Project January 31, 2020 Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR – REV 0 Project No.: 1321150-43

6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed route for the west alternate alignment in general is considered favorable and suitable for pipeline construction from a geotechnical and hydrotechnical perspective based on the terrain, and geohazards associated with most of the slopes and the watercourse crossings. There is one important exception; the west valley slope of Coldwater River at the north end of the route contains a landslide morphology of unknown depth, extent, age, mechanics, and state of activity. As such, the proposed west alternate alignment is considered not feasible. BGC recommends the west alternate alignment be re-routed either around or below the landslide morphology to avoid the possibility of the HDD drill path intersecting old landslide failure planes related to the possible deep-seated landslide along the west valley slope. If the corridor is re- routed below the landslide, boreholes and the installation of slope inclinometers would be required to determine a safe bore path that avoids potential landslide movement. An HDD assessment would also be required to evaluate the feasibility of an HDD crossing the landslide terrain.

Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR_PQ29Jan20_MB Page 19 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, Trans Mountain Expansion Project January 31, 2020 Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR – REV 0 Project No.: 1321150-43

7.0 CLOSURE We trust the above satisfies your requirements at this time. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours sincerely,

BGC ENGINEERING INC. per:

Betsy Waddington, M.Sc., P.Geo. Michael Beaupre, M.Eng., P.Eng., P.Geo. Geoscientist Geological Engineer

Pascal Szeftel, Ph.D., P.Eng. Hydrotechnical Engineer

Reviewed by: Pete Quinn, Ph.D., ing., P.Eng. Principal Geotechnical Engineer

AB/PQ/gc/mm

Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR_PQ29Jan20_MB Page 20 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, Trans Mountain Expansion Project January 31, 2020 Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR – REV 0 Project No.: 1321150-43

REFERENCES

BC Ministry of Forests (1999). Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook, Second Edition.36 pp BGC Engineering Inc. (2015). Coldwater IR Alternate Routes – Geohazards Analysis Rev.1, Letter report dated November 27, 2015. BGC Engineering Inc. (2016). Hydrotechnical Design for Trenched Watercourse Crossings. Report dated April 27, 2016. Howes, D.E., and Kenk, E. (eds.). (1997). Terrain Classification System for British Columbia, Version 2. A system for the classification of surficial materials, landforms and geological processes of British Columbia. Resource Inventory Branch, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Province of B.C. Victoria, B.C. 100 pp. Fulton, Robert J., (1975). Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology, Nicola-Vernon Area, British Columbia. Geological Survey of Canada Memoir 380. 64 pp. Gilmar, P.C. (1980): Merritt Coal Prospect; report prepared by Crows Nest Resources Ltd. for Shell Canada Ltd., B.C. Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, Coal Assessment Report 00162. Massey N.W.D., MacIntyre, D.G., Desjardins, P.J., and Cooney, R.T. (2005). Geology of British Columbia, B.C. Geological Survey. Map 2005 – 3. Ministry of Forests. (1999). Mapping and Assessing Terrain Stability Guidebook, Second Edition. Forest Practices Code Guidebook dated August 1999. Natural Resource Canada. (2016) National Hydro Network. Published January 25, 2016. https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/a4b190fe-e090-4e6d-881e-b87956c07977 Resource Inventory Committee. (1996). Guidelines and Standards to Terrain Mapping in British Columbia. Guidelines prepared by the Resource Inventory Committee Surficial Geology Task Group. 131 pp. Resource Inventory Committee. (1997). Terrain Stability Mapping in British Columbia. Prepared by the Resource Inventory Committee Surficial Geology Task Group. Read, P.B. (1988). Tertiary Stratigraphy & Industrial Minerals, Merritt Basin, British Columbia. Ministry of Energy, Mines, and Petroleum Resources. Open File 88-15. Read, P.B. (2000). Geology and Industrial Minerals of the Tertiary Basins, South-Central British Columbia, Ministry of Energy and Mines, GeoFile 2000-3. Ryder, J.M., (2002). A User’s Guide to Terrain Stability Mapping in British Columbia. Division of Engineers and Geoscientists in the Forest Sector. 89pp

Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR_PQ29Jan20_MB Page 21 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, Trans Mountain Expansion Project January 31, 2020 Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR – REV 0 Project No.: 1321150-43

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC. (2014). Trans Mountain Expansion Project – Quantitative Geohazard Frequency Assessment. Attachment B of “Preliminary Risk Results for TMEP Line 2 and New Delivery Lines”, files as part of NEB Technical Update No.1 and Consultation Update No.2, August 1, 2014. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC. (2017). Trans Mountain Expansion Project – Quantitative Geohazard Frequency Assessment – Post Mitigation. Filed as part of NEB Condition 16, February 27, 2017.

Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR_PQ29Jan20_MB Page 22 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, Trans Mountain Expansion Project January 31, 2020 Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR – REV 0 Project No.: 1321150-43

APPENDIX A SUMMARY OF DESKTOP INFORMATION

Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR_PQ29Jan20_MB BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, Trans Mountain Expansion Project January 31, 2020 Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR – REV 0 Project No.: 1321150-43

Terrain Potential Slope Average Slope Site Expected Feature of Hazard Height Slope Length Desktop Site Summary Name Geology Interest Type (m) Angle (°) (m) 1 North Earth Glacial 125 10 700 The proposed pipeline route traverses the west valley slope Coldwater Landslide Till for the northern Coldwater River crossing. At this location, River deep-seated landslide morphology is visible in the LiDAR Crossing include rounded ridges, subdued hummocks, and (West lineaments. The landslide morphology becomes more Valley pronounced near the slope toe, with landslide landforms Slope) concentrating adjacent to the outside bends in the present and historical locations of the Coldwater River. A site visit was recommended to observe potential signs of slope instabilities at this site. 2 Lemoto Earth Glacial 25 25 60 At this site, the proposed pipeline route crosses an Creek Landslide Till approximately 150 m wide valley. Within the valley bottom, (West Lemoto Creek flows in a channel ranging from 2 m to 5 m Valley wide. The west approach slope has been identified as Slope) Stability Class IV terrain and warrants field review. 3 South Earth Glacial 30 26 90 The proposed pipeline route crosses the west valley slope for Coldwater Landslide Till the southern Coldwater River crossing. Slope instabilities River have been identified in the LiDAR imagery approximately Crossing 1.6 km to the northeast of the proposed corridor along the (West same escarpment. The adjacent pipeline RoW has been Valley graded and several diversion berms are visible in the LiDAR. Slope) A field review is warranted based on the presence of the instability near the corridor and the grading and post- construction water management features on the adjacent RoW.

Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR_PQ29Jan20_MB BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, Trans Mountain Expansion Project January 31, 2020 Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR – REV 0 Project No.: 1321150-43

APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF FIELD OBSERVATIONS

Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR_PQ29Jan20_MB BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, Trans Mountain Expansion Project January 31, 2020 Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR – REV 0 Project No.: 1321150-43

Terrain Site Potential Feature of Field Observations Assessment Name Interest Hazard Type 1 North Earth Evidence of landslide morphology consisting of bowl features and Credible Coldwater Landslide lineaments were observed along the upper section of the slope. The trees Geohazard Site River Crossing along the upper slope are predominately straight. Along the mid slope and (West Valley the slope toe, grabens, bowl features, and exposed soil were observed. Slope) Fresh vegetation was also observed within the gullies at the slope toe suggesting seepage may be present. Trees along the mid slope and toe are predominately straight except for some back-tilted trees in the steep gullies. Surficial materials within the landslide morphology consist of silt and clay with some sand, sub rounded gravels and cobbles. A poorly graded, grey, bedded silt was observed at the slope toe. A dense, dark brown sand and gravel unit was observed in the road cut for the Midday Valley Road and at the slope toe adjacent to the silt unit. These observations support the interpretation of this landform complex as containing large landslide features of various ages and mechanisms. 2 Lomoto Creek Earth Slope angles along the proposed alignment range from 25 to 35 degrees. Not credible (West Valley Landslide The trees on the slope are predominately straight with some minor evidence Slope) of slope creep. At the time of the site visit, there was no evidence of seepage or instabilities. The adjacent RoW to the south has been graded to approximately 25 degrees and contains diversion berms discharging water to the south. Surficial materials at the site consist of silt and clay with some sand, gravels, and cobbles. 3 South Earth The slope angles on the existing alignment range from 30 to 35 degrees. Not credible Coldwater Landslide The slope is vegetated with mature pine trees that are predominately River Crossing straight. At the time of the site visit, there was no evidence of seepage or (West Valley instabilities. Slope) The adjacent RoW to the north has been graded to approximately 20 degrees and contains diversion berms that discharge water to the south. It is envisioned that the construction of the TMEP alignment would grade the RoW to 20 degrees and the existing diversion berms would be extended across the RoW.

Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR_PQ29Jan20_MB BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, Trans Mountain Expansion Project January 31, 2020 Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR – REV 0 Project No.: 1321150-43

PHOTOGRAPHS

Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR_PQ29Jan20_MB BGC ENGINEERING INC.

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC January 31, 2020 Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR – REV 0 1321150-43

Glacial Drift

Pre-Fraser Sediments

Photo 1. Looking north west from the Midday Valley Road at the glacial drift and the pre-Fraser outcrops.

Glacial Drift

Pre-Fraser Sediments

Glaciolacustrine Silt

Slope Toe

Photo 2. Looking north at the slope toe at the soil outcrops.

Geohazard Photo Sheet BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC January 31, 2020 Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR – REV 0 1321150-43

Photo 3. Looking west at the back-tilted beds in the lacustrine soils.

Geohazard Photo Sheet BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, Trans Mountain Expansion Project January 31, 2020 Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR – REV 0 Project No.: 1321150-43

DRAWINGS

Geohazard Study for West Alternate Route Around Coldwater IR_PQ29Jan20_MB BGC ENGINEERING INC. Terrain Mapping Legend Textural Terms and Symbols Natural H azard Classes

blocks g rav el sand a g s L No existing h azard, or h azard is dormant. i.e. h azard h as not been activ e in th e last 100 to 1,000 years or it h as boulders h umic org anics mesic org anics Simple Terrain Symbols: U sed w h en one surficial material is present w ith in a polyg on b h u dev eloped under different climatic conditions. clay cobbles ang ular frag ments c k x d mixed frag ments m mud z silt M H azard is inactiv e. R e-v eg etated tracks can be observ ed in airph otos. Smaller more frequent ev ents, such as rock falls, Surface expression Geomorph olog ical process may affect a small area of th e polyg on. No ev idence th at th e h azard h as been activ e w ith in 20 years but trig g er is present. fibric org anic pebbles Surficial material type Geomorph olog ical process sub-type e p H azard is unlikely to occur w ith in th e life of th e project.

H H azard is currently activ e or sh ow s ev idence of activ ity in th e last 20 years. H azard likely to occur w ith in th e life of th e Example: texture g Cb – R b w Drainag e Geomorph olog ic P rocesses project.

III M A Snow av alanch es M Meandering ch annel

B Braided ch annel N Niv ation Terrain stability class Natural h azard class E Melt w ater ch annels P P iping Soil Drainag e Classes

F Slow landslide (runout zone) R R apid landslide (runout zone)

Slow landslide (initiation zone) R apid landslide (initiation zone) r R apidly drained W ater is remov ed from th e soil rapidly in relation to supply. F” R ” G Anth ropog enic g round disturbance S Solifluction w W ell-drained W ater is remov ed from th e soil readily but not rapidly. Composite Terrain Symbols: U sed w h en 2 or 3 terrain types are present w ith in a polyg on H Kettled U Flooding I Irreg ular ch annel V Gully erosion m Moderately w ell-drained W ater is remov ed from th e soil somew h at slow ly in relation to supply. Cv .Mv indicates th at ‘C’ and ‘M’ are roug h ly equal in extent J Anastamosing ch annel W W ash ing W ater is remov ed from th e soil sufficiently slow ly in relation to supply to keep indicates th at ‘C’ is g reater in extent th an ‘M’ (about 60:40) K Karst X P ermafrost Imperfectly drained Cv /Mv i th e soil w et for a sig nificant part of th e g row ing season. Cv //Mv indicates th at ‘C’ is much g reater in extent th an ‘M’ (about 80:20) L Seepag e Z P erig lacial processes W ater is remov ed so slow ly in relation to supply th at th e soil remains w et for a Cv .R s/Mv indicates th at ‘C’ and ‘R ’ are roug h ly equal in extent and both are g reater in extent th an Mv (about 40:40:20) p P oorly drained comparativ ely larg e part of th e time th e soil is not frozen. Geomorph olog ical P rocess Subtypes Stratig raph ic Terrain Symbols W ater is remov ed from th e soil so slow ly th at th e w ater table remains at or on V ery poorly drained v th e surface for th e g reater part of th e time th e soil is not frozen. Ch annel av ulsion R ock creep Debris av alanch es Cv |Mj indicates th at ‘Cv ’ ov erlies ‘Mj’ a g s b R ock fall k Tension cracks/sackung u Surficial material slump Surficial Material Types c Soil creep m Bedrock slump U d Debris floods Examples d Debris flow s r R ock slides x Slump/earth flow combined A Anth ropog enic I Ice R Bedrock e Earth flow R s//Cv – V R ”bd Steep bedrock slope w ith <20% cov er of a colluv ial v eneer; g ullied w ith initiation zones for rock fal l and debris flow s. Expected to contain areas w ith a h ig h likelih ood of landslide initiation follow ing road C Colluv ium L Lacustrine W G Glaciomarine V H construction. Debris flow s and rock fall are likely to occur w ith in th e life of th e project. D W eath ered bedrock LG Glaciolacustrine U Till, Glaciolacustrine, Glaciofluv ial (interbedded) Terrain Stability Class E Eolian M Glacial Till sg FAp -U i Activ e floodplain composed of sand and g rav el potentially subject to flooding . Imperfectly drained. No

F Fluv ial N Not mapped (usually a lake or larg e riv er) I M sig nificant stability problems exist. Inactiv e flood h azard is unlikely to occur during th e lifetime of th e project FG Glaciofluv ial O O rg anic I No sig nificant stability problems exist.

zcLGks-V R ”s m Moderately steep to steep g laciolacustrine slope composed of silt and clay, w ith g ullies, moderately w ell Surface Expressions II Th ere is a v ery low likelih ood of landslides follow ing rig h t of w ay clearing , pipeline and or road V M drained. H ig h likelih ood of debris av alanch es follow ing major landform ch ang es. Small natural debris construction. Minor instability is expected along cut slopes, especially for 1 or 2 years follow ing slides are possible w ith in 20 years. construction. a Moderate slope (15-26°) p P lain (0-3°) Cj – F”g Th ick, g entle colluv ium forming a rock g lacier b Blanket (>2 m th ick deposit) r R idg e c Cone (>15°) s Steep slope (>35°) III Th ere is a low likelih ood of landslide initiation follow ing rig h t of w ay clearing , pipeline and or Cf – R d Colluv ial fan subject to debris flow s

f Fan (<15°) t Terrace road construction. Minor instability is expected along cut slopes, especially for 1 or 2 years Ck – R b Colluv ial slope subject to rock fall (talus slope) h H ummocky u U ndulating follow ing construction. d x j Gentle slope (4-14°) v V eneer (0-2 m th ick deposit) m . d k Moderately steep slope (27-35°) w V ariable th ickness deposit) n e IV Expected to contain areas w ith a moderate to h ig h likelih ood of landslide initiation follow ing g R olling V ery th in v eneer (0-.5m th ick deposit) e m x L rig h t of w ay clearing , pipeline and or road construction. W et season construction w ill _ n i a

r sig nificantly increase th e potential for construction-related landslides. r

e T _

1 Activ ity Lev el 0 \ r V Expected to contain areas w ith a h ig h likelih ood of landslide initiation follow ing rig h t of w ay SACKU NG e t a clearing , pipeline and or road construction. W et and or w inter season construction w ill w ‘ ’ Indicates activ e floodplain (subject to ch annel ch ang es) d FAp A l LANDSLIDE SCAR P o sig nificantly increase th e potential for construction-related landslides. C CIf ‘I’ Indicates inactiv e fan _ d

n u LANDSLIDE P ATH o r A _ n o i t p O _ n r e t s e W _ y d u t S _ l a c i n h c e t o e G _ 8 1 1 1 9 1 0 2 \ t r o p e R \ n o i t c u d

o SCALE: P R O J ECT: r

P NTS \ GEO H AZAR D STU DY FO R W EST ALTER NATE R O U TE S I DATE:

G AR O U ND CO LDW ATER IR \ NO TES: JAN 2020 0 BGC ENGINEER ING INC. 5 TITLE:

1 1. TH IS DR AW ING MU ST BE R EAD IN CO NJ U NCTIO N W ITH BGC'S R EP O R T TITLED "GEO H AZAR D STU DY FO R W EST ALTER NATE R O U TE AR O U ND CO LDW ATER IR ", AND DATED J ANU AR Y 2020. AN AP P LIED EAR TH SCIENCES CO MP ANY \ DR AW N: 1 B GC TER R AIN MAP LEGEND 2 2. U NLESS BGC AGR EES O TH ER W ISE IN W R ITING, TH IS DR AW ING SH ALL NO T BE MO DIFIED O R U SED FO R ANY P U R P O SE O TH ER TH AN TH E P U R P O SE FO R W H ICH BGC GENER ATED IT. BGC SH ALL H AV E NO LIABILITY FO R ANY DAMAGES O R LO SS JV C

3 CLIENT: 1

\ AR ISING IN ANY W AY FR O M ANY U SE O R MO DIFICATIO N O F TH IS DO CU MENT NO T AU TH O R IZED BY BGC. ANY U SE O F O R R ELIANCE U P O N TH IS DO CU MENT O R ITS CO NTENT BY TH IR D P AR TIES SH ALL BE AT SU CH TH IR D P AR TIES' SO LE R ISK. s CH ECKED: t c BW P R O J ECT No.: DW G No.: e j o r AP P R O V ED:

P 1321150-43 01 \

: MT X 5 6 6 , 5 5 5 0 5 5 , , 0 0 0 , 0 0

0 Prince George Edmonton 0 0 0 ! ! 0 Hinton !

Red Deer ! ³ Williams Lake Alberta ³ ! Banff Calgary ! ! British Columbia ! Kamloops Kelowna Ft w ! ! CranbroI Lok ! SITE LOCATION ! Mb m Ob p I L Mwb w-m I L III L Fpt w sdMb m ! I L II L Mv//Rkm w Mb-V m FGb//Fp III L III L i-m Mb m I L II L Mwb m II L Mw w Mb w-m Mw w Cv|Mb w dzsMw|Ru-E w II L I L zcdMb//sgFGp-E m CWIRw-W0021 Ob p III L II L II L I L K!P 8! ! I L ! SITE 2! ^_!")! !!")! LGb m ! ! ! C!WIRW-w0020 LGpu w ! ! ! ! ! II L Fp m-i ! KP 7 Cv/Rak w-r I L ! Mb m Mv-V w LGs-R"s w I L ! ! III L Mw//Rah w III L LGks-V w-m V M Ob p dzsMk-V w I L ! ! Mb/Ov|Mb II L IV L ! FGb w IV L ! KP 9 ! ! ! I L m-i FAp-U m Fpt w ! ! Ru.Mw w I L ! Ca m ! Ob p ! I L PHOTO 1 LGj w I H I L ! ! II L Ca w LGju-VE m III L I L Mw|Ru w !! Mw|Rau w II L LGs-V w-m L KP 6 ! Cb m-w *# III L III L Fp m I L E ! ! Cwir-0016 IV L LGka w-m M III L Fp m ! ! II L I M O !") Mw|Rau w Cb m Cv/Rk-V w LGp m LGu m I M III L zLGuj m T ! Mb|Ru w-m czdMb w FGf w II L O ! IV L I L II L ! ! II L II L III L LGk-V w LGk-V w

Mb m C II L ! II L ! IV L Mp//Ov !i II L R dzsMm w ! Rsk//Cv IV L Cj m

! E ! III L ! KP 5 E w-r I L Mw/Rau w Mw w ! LGaks-F"u w-m sgFp//FAp m KP 1 I L K !! cdMks-V w Mu.LGv|Mu w ! ! Mw/Ru m-i IV L FGa-V w ! II L II L Mw w Mb m V M I M 650,000 sdMm m !! II L IV L ! !! III L II L

d III L ! II L ! x II L Ov|Mb i ! sgFGa!k/Ma-V w

m ! ! czdMu m . PHOTO 3 III L 7 KP 10 Mw.Rh w-r I L CWIRW-W0011 ")!! ! KP 4 !! 1 ! II L ! ! x ! 1 ! II L !! *# ! 1 ! Mb/Ov|Mb m !Ruh!//Mv w !

_ ! LGa w ! ! KP 0 P III L Mwb w-m Mv//Rmj w II L LGs/Ms-R"sFu ! czsMs/sgFGs-VR"s w D ! Mb m Ov|Mb i ! Cwir-0009 *# !!II L ! !! ! !! ! ! ! D II L II L w-m KP 2 ! V H ! _ ! LGv|Mu t ! Rmu//Mw r Mb w-m II L I L ")! ! !! e Mb-L m-i ! ^_ V H e ! ! w-m h I L II L II L zLGk-Fu m ! S Op v Mb m ! P! HOTO 2 I L _ t ! Cv/Rk w IV M ! LGv|Mu m n I L II L SIT! E 1 ! e IV L Mb/Ov|Mb FGb w ! II L 5,550,000 m ! ^_ ! n Mw|Ru w Ob p m-i I L !! K!P 3 g Mbu m

i Ms-VR"s w l ! I L II L ! !! A II L Mw w sgFGh.czLGh Mak-V w-m II L _ ! Mb m-i V H g Ov|Mb.Mb II L w-m n Mb|Ru m IV L i Rksa//Cv r I L Mb m p m-i p ! I L Rau/rCv r czdMak-Fu m II L a IV L I L II L

M Mw//Rak w III L IV M _ ! n i Mv w III L a

r ! r Mw//Rmj w e ! III L T Mbw m Mw|Rmj w Mb-V w-m _ Mv w II L Ma m LGv|Mj-EP m Mb/Cv|Mb m gczMu m

e Mb m

l II L

i O I L III L f ! III L Cb m sgFGa m II L II L II L II L

o II L L Mw//Rmu w

r KP 11 LGv|Mu m U Rk.Cv w P III L Rs/Cv-R"sb III M Mbj m

_ II L K Mw/Rak w

0 I L ! III L Mw|Ru w S 0 ! w-r II L

\ P C III L r sdMm-VE w-m A e II L R Cb/Mbw w

t V H ! Msk-VR"s w N a sdMm w E III L 660,000

w II L sgMb-V m I E V H Cfj m S d

l II L Cv//Rk w Rhr/Cv w K FGb w Mb m H !o FAp-U i II L III L

C III L III L II L Mw//Ru w C _ I L R d Mv/Rk w Rsk/Cv w I H ! n Cj m II L E ! u Mv m III L E o IV L Mu m

r LEGEND I L Mb m III L K A MwRm m Mw m I L ! _ II L Mka m n Mw//Ru w LGak/Mak w

o Rsk-R"b r II L i Mb/Cv|Mb III L II L t II L Mw|Ruh w-m WATERCOURSE PRIMARY SURFICIAL GLACIOFLUVIAL p GEOHAZARD SITE REVIEWEDIII L Mw//Rjm w w-m Mk/Cv.Rk w ^_ V H ! O II L A _ II L Rksr/Cv MATERIAL TYPE ") n III L IV L ! r Cb m w-r LGv|Mu m LIDAR COVERAIIIG L E GLACIOLACUSTRINE ! e Ma m t *# PHOTO LOCATION s II L IV L I L e Cv//Rk w FGb w II L zFv|MbEXTENTS NO DATA

! W

! _ III L I L Cj m Cb m GLACIAL TILL y FGu w ! WATELRGCaj OmURSE CROSSING m-i Rar/Cv r d Rh/Dw r II L ! u FGk/Rk-V w Maj-Fu m TERRAI LIN II L t 5,545,000 II L FGak.Mak II L LGa-V m III L ANTHROPOGENIC

S Cv/Rk w II L

_ Cv/Rsk-V w III L V M ORGANIC l w-m WATERCOURSE CRIII OL SSING - ! a III L Ft m c Caj w-m ") ! i IV L III L S LANDSLIDE SCARP COLLUVIUM

n T Ma-V m SCALE 1:25,000 Cv/Rsk-R"b I L I FIELD RECONNAISSANCE h II L R LGu m sgMb m BEDROCK ! c w-r L III L e I t 250 0 250 500 750 1000 Cv//Rks w N I L II L o Mw w V M G FLUVIAL e Cb w IV L FGk w COLDWATER IR REROUTE C

! G

Fp/FAp-UM m R

_ II L III L III L Rsk/Cv r E 8 CENTRELINE ! 1 Mu m I M Mw|Ru m-w 1 Mbw|RuMj ETERS IV L E gzsMba m Cb m 1 II L K 9 Ov|Mb/Mb FGf w II L II L III L ! 1 w-m LABEL LEGEND 0 i-p I L TMEP PROPOSED 2 0 FGak w FGp w \ II L Mw//Ru w gzsMpu m t 0 r

I L Mb 0 - m TERRAIN LABEL, DRAINAGE 0

0 Fv|Mb m CENTRELINE (SSEID 005.19) o THIS DRAWING MAY HAVE BEEN REMDbU CmED OR ENLARGED. III L I L II L , 0 II L 0 ! p 5 0 0 e Cv/RakA wLL SMCa/A/RLEak N-EOVT AwTIONS INDICATED ARE BASED ON III, U TERRAIN STABILITY AI LND ,

II L 4 R

FAp/Fp-U 5 0 \ Mv w 5 Mb m Mb m , 5 6 ! n III L Mb w-m IIOI RL IGINAL FORMAT DRAWINGCSv.-V w Fu w FGf w TMPL ALIGNMENT o Cb w-m Rs//Cv-R"b r 5 m-i Mu m 6 NATURAL HAZARD CMLwA|RSuS w 6 i III L gsFGtu w FGaj w Caj m t III L II L II L c II L III L V H I H II L I L I L I L u II L II L II L

! d

o SCALE: PROJECT: r 1:25,000 P

\ GEOHAZARD STUDY FOR WEST ALTERNATE ROUTE S I NOTES: DATE: AROUND COLDWATER IR G \ JAN 2020

0 1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METRES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. BGC ENGINEERING INC.

5 TITLE: 1 2. THIS DRAWING MUST BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH BGC'S REPORT TITLED "GEOHAZARD STUDY FOR WEST ALTERNATE ROUTE AROUND COLDWATER IR" AND DATED JANUARY 2020. AN APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES COMPANY \ DRAWN: B G C 1

2 3. BASE TOPOGRAPHIC DATA BASED ON LIDAR PROVIDED BY MCELHANNEY, DATED JULY 25, 2014. BACKGROUND TOPOGRAPHY BASED ON SHUTTLE RADAR TOPOGRAPHY MISSION (SRTM) DATA. JVC TERRAIN MAPPING

3 CLIENT:

1 4. THIS MAP IS A SNAPSHOT IN TIME. CHANGES IN LAND USE (E.G. DEVELOPMENT, RIVER MIGRATION) MAY WARRANT RE-DRAWING OF CERTAIN AREAS. \

s CHECKED: t 5. PROPOSED PIPELINE CENTERLINE VERSION FOR TMEP COLDWATER WESTERN ALTERNATIVE ROUTE DATED SEPTEMBER 2019. KILOMETRE POSTS GENERATED BY BGC, STARTING AT 0 FROM THE NORTHEAST END OF THE ALIGNMENT.

c BW PROJECT No.: DWG No: e

j 6. COORDINATE SYSTEM IS NAD 1983 UTM ZONE 10N. VERTICAL DATUM IS UNKNOWN. o r 7. UNLESS BGC AGREES OTHERWISE IN WRITING, THIS DRAWING SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED OR USED FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH BGC GENERATED IT. BGC SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR LOSS APPROVED:

P 1321150-43 02 \ - : ARISING IN ANY WAY FROM ANY USE OR MODIFICATION OF THIS DOCUMENT NOT AUTHORIZED BY BGC. ANY USE OF OR RELIANCE UPON THIS DOCUMENT OR ITS CONTENT BY THIRD PARTIES SHALL BE AT SUCH THIRD PARTIES' SOLE RISK. X 5 5 , , 5 5 4 4 0 5 , ,

³ 0 0 Prince George Edmonton 0 0 ! ! 0 0 Hinton !

Red Deer ! Williams Lake Alberta ³ ! Banff Calgary ! ! British Columbia ! Kamloops Kelowna ! ! Cranbrook ! SITE LOCATION

K ! E E R C Y DA ID ! M

Fp/FAp-U m-i I M Fp m Cb m I M III L Rs//Cv-R"b r 650,000 V H Cv.Rsk-R"bs r Cv/Rks w Cv.Rsk-R"bs FGt m rCk-Rb w Cw/Rak w V H IV L Cvb w w-r II L III H III L III L V H Cv//Ra m Mw//Rau w Cv//Rak w ^_ ! ! Ob p KP 16 ! III L II L III L Mv w Mb-L i Mb-L m-i ! Mw|Ru w ! Rsk.Cv r ! I L I L ! II L I L II L ! Mb m-w ! IV L cgzMwb|Ru m ! ! sdMb w-m ! III L I L Mw|Ru m ! Mw.Rau w III L Rsk/sdMv zsMbu w-m ! ! KP 15 ! ! ! SITE 3 ! II L ! ! w-r ! II L Mw.Rau w-m ! ! I L ! ! ! ! ! ! zsMak w ! KP 12 ! Op v ! IV L ! ! ! III L ! ! sdMbw//Rk w! KP 14 ! Ov|FGp i ! III L ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! I L ! Cwir-0030 ! ! KP 13 ! ! sdMb m ! ") III L ! ! sdMm w I L KP 17 sdMks/FGks-V m ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! sdMm m d II L II L x IV L KP 11 ! ! II L ! !

m ! ! Mb|Ru m ! . ! ! !

7 Mb m ! ! ! 1 gczMwb|Rum m II L ! ! ! x Mv m-w ! II L ! ! 1 ! zsMb m sgFp m ! I L ! 1 Mb|Ru w-m ! !

_ III L I M ! P II L Mp//Ov i csdMbk-V w II L Mw/Ru w-m ! D

D ksgFAp-Ua i sgFGs/csdMs-VR^s w Mw//Rk w Mw//Rjm w I L _ IV L III L ! t e sgFAf-Ud m I H V H III L II L e gczMu m CREEK h Ma//Fj m Mv w ! S Ob p ! Mb|Ru w-m ! S Mw//Ruj w I M PU

_ I L A

t L II L III L A I L II L ! n II L T e Fp m FGp w m Cv.Rk w n Rau/Mw r Mba m I M I L sdMm-VE w-m g Fju w i l Mra w gsFApj III L III L A II L III L II L Rk//Cv-EV _ III L Cv/Rak w Mw w g m-i r-w n i Mu m III L Mb/Ov|Mb m p Cv.Rks w I L zsLGb m IV L II L p I L Mw|Ru w III L a III M II L M II L Ov|Mb/Mb _ Mv w n Cb m i Mum m-w i-p a K r Mak-V w E III L r Mb-V II L I L E Mb|Ru m e Mj m II L R T Mu m III L gsFt w C _ II L w-m FGks/Mks-R"s w Mw w K Rk.Cv w I L e l II L FGu w i I L Mw|Rr w U f III L C V M III L Mb w-m OL III L o r III L A I L Ob p

P II L S Ma//Rak-EV w Cv/Rk w

_ Fp m T

0 Mb m I L I Mbw|Ruj 0 Mw//Rm w L III L III L \ Mw//Ru w I M r Mv w II L L Mw//Ru w e w-m I t II L II L O a Mb m FGm w Mk/Rk-EV w II L III L Fka w N w II L Cb w

d 650,000 l II L II L C Mb m IV L Mv w o Mb-V m Cfj m III L III L R C Mbr w

_ II L III L E d II L II L Cv//Rk w Ma-V m E Mak-V w n III L Fp/Ov|Fp-U Rh/Dw r u K o III L Fka w III L III L Mw|Ru w r LEGEND i-p II L A Mb m _ A III L I H II L n Mw|Ruh w-m o II L i III L Mw.Rak w t Mu m FGtu m WATERCOURSE PRIMARY SURFICIAL GLACIOFLUVIAL p GEOHAZARD SITE REVIEWED III L ^_ Mbw w-m II L O I L FGtu w Rksa//Cv r

_ S A Mb m II L II L MATERIAL TYPE n I L r LE LIDAR COVERAGE GLACIOLACUSTIRV ILNE e II L FGf w t M Mu m FGa/Mb m *# PHOTO LOCATION Cv.Rsk-V w Cv-V w Cv//Rk w s C Rsk/Cv r e R II L EXTENTS Mu m IV L ANTHROPOGENIC E I L III L FGa m FGw|Mb w III L III L W E IV L

_ GLACIAL TILL K Cv/Rk w II L Cb m y ! II WL ATERCOURSEFp CmROSSING II L d III L u III L TERRAIN t COLLUVIUM Mw//Rar w Mb m Rak.Cv I M Cv//Rk w S FGsk-R"s w Cb w-m

_ ORGANIC l II L II L w-r WATERCOURSE CROSSING - a V H III L III L Cv/Rsk-V w

c ") i III L LANDSLIDE SCARP FLUVIAL n SCALE 1:25,000 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE Cfj w IV L Mb/Cv|Mb Mw//Rak w h FGak w BEDROCK c Mw//Rau w Fp m II L III L e w-m t 250 0 250 500 750 1000 III L Mw//Ru w o III L I M LANDSLIDE PATH e CCOb LmDWATER IR REROUTE FGtu w II L Mu m III L G Rs//Cv-R"b r

_ II L 8 Mw.Rak w CEII NL TRELINE II L V H Mb m 1 FAp/Fp-U 1 METERS Cv//Rks w 1 III L II L 9 czMb w FGv|Mu w m-i IV L 1 LABEL LEGEND Ff m 0 II L TMEP PROPOSED I H Cv/Rsk-R"b 2 0 Mw.Rau w-r II L 0 \ t

0 II L 0 r Mb - m TERRAIN LABEL, DRAINAGE w-r Mv/Rk w

0 CENTRELINE (SSEID 005.19) 0 o THIS DRAWING MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED OR ENLARGED. II L , , p Mw w Fp/FAp-UM m III L 0 5 V M e ALL SCALE NOTATIONS INDICATED ARE BASED ON III U TERRAIN STABILITY AND Cb m 4 4 R III L I M \ 5 5 , , n ORIGINAL FORMAT DRAWINGS. TMPL ALIGNMENT FGpu w Ff m FGu w II L Cb m o 5 NATURAL HAZARD CLASS Mb m FGa w FGa w 5 Ft w i t II L c III L I L III L I L II L u III L I L d

o SCALE: PROJECT: r 1:25,000 P

\ GEOHAZARD STUDY FOR WEST ALTERNATE ROUTE S I NOTES: DATE: AROUND COLDWATER IR G \ JAN 2020

0 1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METRES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. BGC ENGINEERING INC.

5 TITLE: 1 2. THIS DRAWING MUST BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH BGC'S REPORT TITLED "GEOHAZARD STUDY FOR WEST ALTERNATE ROUTE AROUND COLDWATER IR" AND DATED JANUARY 2020. AN APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES COMPANY \ DRAWN: B G C 1

2 3. BASE TOPOGRAPHIC DATA BASED ON LIDAR PROVIDED BY MCELHANNEY, DATED JULY 25, 2014. BACKGROUND TOPOGRAPHY BASED ON SHUTTLE RADAR TOPOGRAPHY MISSION (SRTM) DATA. JVC TERRAIN MAPPING

3 CLIENT:

1 4. THIS MAP IS A SNAPSHOT IN TIME. CHANGES IN LAND USE (E.G. DEVELOPMENT, RIVER MIGRATION) MAY WARRANT RE-DRAWING OF CERTAIN AREAS. \

s CHECKED: t 5. PROPOSED PIPELINE CENTERLINE VERSION FOR TMEP COLDWATER WESTERN ALTERNATIVE ROUTE DATED SEPTEMBER 2019. KILOMETRE POSTS GENERATED BY BGC, STARTING AT 0 FROM THE NORTHEAST END OF THE ALIGNMENT. c BW PROJECT No.: DWG No: e

j 6. COORDINATE SYSTEM IS NAD 1983 UTM ZONE 10N. VERTICAL DATUM IS UNKNOWN. o r 7. UNLESS BGC AGREES OTHERWISE IN WRITING, THIS DRAWING SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED OR USED FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH BGC GENERATED IT. BGC SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR LOSS APPROVED:

P 1321150-43 03 \ - : ARISING IN ANY WAY FROM ANY USE OR MODIFICATION OF THIS DOCUMENT NOT AUTHORIZED BY BGC. ANY USE OF OR RELIANCE UPON THIS DOCUMENT OR ITS CONTENT BY THIRD PARTIES SHALL BE AT SUCH THIRD PARTIES' SOLE RISK. X Appendix B

BGC ENGINEERING INC. AN APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES COMPANY Suite 500 - 980 Howe Street Vancouver, BC Canada V6Z 0C8 Telephone (604) 684-5900 Fax (604) 684-5909

March 24, 2020 Project No.: 1321150-43 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC 2700 – 300 5th Ave SW Calgary, AB T2P 5J2

Re: Preliminary Geotechnical Drilling Results for Western Alternative Route Coldwater River North Crossing

As part of the engineering design and assessment for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMEP), BGC Engineering Inc. (BGC) has been retained to complete geotechnical feasibility assessments for horizontal directional drilling (HDD) at select stream crossings along the proposed pipeline corridor. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC (Trans Mountain) is considering several alternative route options including Western Alternative Route Coldwater North Crossing (CW North). At the request of Trans Mountain, BGC has prepared a preliminary summary of the results for investigation drilling completed along the CW North alignment and provided preliminary commentary on the feasibility of an HDD crossing at this location. As drilling has only recently been completed, the information in this letter is considered preliminary and subject to revision following geotechnical assessment, laboratory testing, and review in context with any subsequent holes that may be drilled.

1.0 SITE INVESTIGATION Two geotechnical boreholes have been completed. The as-built location and depth of each borehole are given in Table 1. Preliminary observations related to HDD design are given in Section 2.0. A high-level summary of the materials encountered in BH-BGC20-CW6-03 and BH-BGC20-CW6-04 is provided in Table 2 and Table 3 respectively.

2.0 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL OBSERVATIONS The following observations were recorded during geotechnical drilling and may be relevant to HDD design considerations, noting however that the planned borepath is located well below the depth of drilling at BH-BGC20-CW6-03. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC March 24, 2020 Preliminary Geotechnical Drilling Results for Western Alternative Route Coldwater River North Crossing Project No.: 1321150-43

2.1. Presence of Cobbles and Boulders BH-BGC20-CW6-03 encountered cobbles during drilling between depths of 8 m to 19 m in a unit inferred to be till, and again between 47 m to 64 m in a unit inferred to be glaciolacustrine. While cobbles were encountered, the presence of boulders was not inferred based on drilling action, however their presence cannot be excluded given the glacially deposited genesis of the material.

2.2. Drill Fluid Circulation During drilling of BH-BGC20-CW6-03, drilling fluid circulation was generally 70 to 100%. However, a zone of 60% circulation was encountered between depths of 23 m to 29 m. Additionally, between depths of 42 m to 43 m, a zone of significant fluid loss was encountered, requiring the advancement of casing. Drilling fluid circulation was generally 80 to 90% in BH-BGC20-CW6-04, however zones of highly fractured rock from 40 m to 59 m depth resulted in significant fluid loss.

2.3. Groundwater Observations Measurements of groundwater level in the boreholes were recorded during drilling. These records do not necessarily represent the stabilized static groundwater levels as the drilling process introduces fluid to the formation and the use of drill casing may slow or prevent the migration of groundwater into the borehole. Additionally, if the hydraulic conductivity is low, the formation may take longer than the duration between shifts to recover. Measurements of ground water levels in BH-BGC20-CW6-03 ranged from 0.7 m to 47.6 m below ground surface. However, once the borehole progressed to below 71 m depth, water level readings measured at the start of each drilling shift varied between 39.9 m and 47.6 m. Measurements of ground water levels in BH-BGC20-CW6-04 ranged from 6.5 m to 49.8 m.

2.4. Landslide Morphology BGC issued a geohazard report (BGC, January 31, 2020) detailing the interpreted presence of landslide morphology on the west slope of Coldwater River valley at this location. Based on the depth of the borepath provided by UPI on January 13, 2020 (see Drawings) the borepath is likely below the basal shear surfaces of these landslides. BGC installed a slope inclinometer in BH-BGC20-CW6-03 to a depth of 82.9 m and will complete a baseline reading after completion of the current borehole drilling.

3.0 PRELIMINARY COMMENTS ON HDD FEASIBILITY Based on the preliminary data available at this time, BGC has not observed any geotechnical concerns at the two borehole locations that would preclude the installation by HDD along the proposed CW North alignment. Additional investigation is planned for the east side of the alignment and the results will be presented subsequently.

Preliminary Drilling Results - CW North - 2020-03-24 Page 2 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC March 24, 2020 Preliminary Geotechnical Drilling Results for Western Alternative Route Coldwater River North Crossing Project No.: 1321150-43

4.0 CLOSURE BGC Engineering Inc. (BGC) prepared this document for Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC (Trans Mountain). The material in this report reflects the judgment of BGC staff based upon the information made available to BGC at the time of preparation of the report, including that information provided to it by Trans Mountain. Any use which a third party makes of this report or any reliance on decisions to be based on it is the responsibility of such third parties. BGC accepts no responsibility whatsoever for damages, loss, expenses, loss of profit or revenues, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report. As a mutual protection to our client, the public and BGC, the report, and its drawings are submitted to Trans Mountain as confidential information for a specific project. Authorization for any use and/or publication of the report or any data, statements, conclusions or abstracts from or regarding the report and its drawings, through any form of print or electronic media, including without limitation, posting or reproductions of same on any website, is reserved by BGC, and is subject to BGC's prior written approval. Provided however, if the report is prepared for the purposes of inclusion in an application for a specific permit or other government process, as specifically set forth in the report, then the applicable regulatory, municipal, or other governmental authority may use the report only for the specific and identified purpose of the specific permit application or other government process as identified in the report. If the report or any portion or extracts thereof is/are issued in electronic format, the original copy of the report retained by BGC will be regarded as the only copy to be relied on for any purpose and will take precedence over any electronic copy of the report, or any portion or extracts thereof which may be used or published by others in accordance with the terms of this disclaimer.

Yours sincerely,

BGC ENGINEERING INC. per:

Dan Costello, M.Sc., P.Geo., PMP Engineering Geologist

Reviewed by:

Pete Quinn, Ph.D., ing., P.Eng. (BC, AB, SK, ON) Principal Geotechnical Engineer

MT/PQ/gc/sjk

Attachment(s): Tables Drawings

Preliminary Drilling Results - CW North - 2020-03-24 Page 3 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC March 24, 2020 Preliminary Geotechnical Drilling Results for Western Alternative Route Coldwater River North Crossing Project No.: 1321150-43

REFERENCES

BGC Engineering Inc. (2020, January 31). Trans Mountain Expansion Project: Geohazard Study for West Alternative Route Around Coldwater IR [Report]. Prepared for Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC.

Preliminary Drilling Results - CW North - 2020-03-24 Page 4 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC March 24, 2020 Preliminary Geotechnical Drilling Results for Western Alternative Route Coldwater River North Crossing Project No.: 1321150-43

TABLES

Preliminary Drilling Results - CW North - 2020-03-24 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC March 24, 2020 Preliminary Geotechnical Drilling Results for Western Alternative Route Coldwater River North Crossing Project No.: 1321150-43

Table 1. Planned borehole information.

Coordinates Planned HDD Approximate Final Depth Borehole ID (UTM Zone 10) Invert Depth Elevation (m) (m) Easting Northing (m) BH-BGC20- 656374 5548465 720 130.14 180 CW6-03 BH-BGC20- 655912 5548523 820 129.99 120 CW6-04

Preliminary Drilling Results - CW North - 2020-03-24 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC March 24, 2020 Preliminary Geotechnical Drilling Results for Western Alternative Route Coldwater River North Crossing Project No.: 1321150-43

Table 2. BH-BGC20-CW6-03 summary of preliminary borehole record.

Depth (m) Preliminary Generalized Description Photos From: To: Interpretation

SILT, some sand, trace to some coarse gravel Overburden and cobbles, medium to high plasticity, soft, 0.00 2.20 [GLACIOLACUSTRINE] brown, near plastic limit (NPL), homogeneous, trace organics.

SAND, silty, trace coarse gravel, well-graded, Overburden compact to very dense, subangular, wet, 2.20 8.10 [GLACIOLACUSTRINE/ homogeneous, trace organics. Sometimes GLACIOFLUVIAL] recovered as GRAVEL, fine to coarse.

SILT, trace to some sand, trace coarse gravel, trace cobbles, non-plastic to low plasticity, Overburden hard, greyish brown, NPL, homogeneous. 8.10 18.50 [TILL] Sometimes recovered as GRAVEL and COBBLES.

SILT, trace sand to sandy, non-plastic, hard, Overburden brownish grey, NPL, intervals of interbedded 18.50 38.10 [GLACIOLACUSTRINE] poorly graded sand. Rhythmically laminated silts and sands were observed within silt.

Preliminary Drilling Results - CW North - 2020-03-24 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC March 24, 2020 Preliminary Geotechnical Drilling Results for Western Alternative Route Coldwater River North Crossing Project No.: 1321150-43

Depth (m) Preliminary Generalized Description Photos From: To: Interpretation

SAND, fine to coarse, trace silt, trace to some Overburden gravel, well graded, angular to subangular, 38.10 47.20 damp, very dense, mottled reddish brown, [GLACIOLACUSTRINE] homogenous or interbedded with silty sand layers.

CLAY, medium to high plasticity, hard, dark grey, NPL, homogeneous, occasional fine sand laminations. From 61.96 m: Closely spaced intervals of CLAYSTONE, extremely weak, dark grey, 60 mm – 110 mm long. Overburden 47.20 63.50 [GLACIOLACUSTRINE] Note: Between 54.40 – 60.0 m and 63.3 – 65.00; poor recovery; recovered as GRAVEL, fine to coarse, trace coarse sand, trace to some silt, well graded, angular, inferred dense to very dense, mottled grey and brown, homogenous, polylithic

Variable fresh to altered mafic and silicic volcanics, moderately strong, 0.1 – 0.5 m thick seams of fault gouge throughout, significant Bedrock iron staining and clay infilling on joints 63.50 81.05 [PRINCETON GROUP] observed. Fault gouge generally comprised SAND, fine to coarse grained, trace to some gravel, trace to some silt, well graded, subangular to subrounded.

Bedrock Brecciated and altered volcaniclastics, very 81.05 90.60 [PRINCETON GROUP] weak to moderately strong, highly fractured.

Preliminary Drilling Results - CW North - 2020-03-24 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC March 24, 2020 Preliminary Geotechnical Drilling Results for Western Alternative Route Coldwater River North Crossing Project No.: 1321150-43

Depth (m) Preliminary Generalized Description Photos From: To: Interpretation Variable fresh volcanic rock, very strong, healed brecciated texture with stockwork veining and microfractures throughout. Below Bedrock 90.60 130.14 109.8 m: Clay seams, very closely spaced, 1 – [PRINCETON GROUP] 5 mm thick, also present in some joints.

Coloration changes after 105.8 mbgs to light grey.

Table 3. BH-BGC20-CW6-04 summary of preliminary (in-progress) borehole record.

Depth (m) Preliminary Generalized Description Photos From: To: Interpretation

Overburden CLAY, silty, some sand (fine), some gravel and 0 1.68 [QUATERNARY cobbles, low plasticity, soft, dark brown, near DEPOSITS] plastic limit (moist), some to trace organics.

ANDESITE, strong to very strong, light pinkish grey, faintly weathered, uniform to Bedrock microfractured, extremely closely spaced joints 1.68 28.45 [PRINCETON GROUP] with faint weathering and iron straining, very closely spaced open fractures with infilling 10 mm to 30 mm thick.

Preliminary Drilling Results - CW North - 2020-03-24 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC March 24, 2020 Preliminary Geotechnical Drilling Results for Western Alternative Route Coldwater River North Crossing Project No.: 1321150-43

Depth (m) Preliminary Generalized Description Photos From: To: Interpretation

BASALT, medium strong to strong, dark grey, Bedrock uniform to microfractured, faintly to slightly 28.45 41.34 [PRINCETON GROUP] weathered, very closely spaced joints with iron staining and clay infill.

Alternating ANDESITE and BASALT, strong, Bedrock light greenish grey to dark grey, faintly to slightly 41.34 94.76 weathered, uniform to microfractured, [PRINCETON GROUP] extremely closely spaced joints with faint weathering and iron straining.

BRECCIATED VOLCANICLASTIC BEDROCK, Bedrock fine to medium grained, strong, dark greenish 94.76 129.99 grey and brown, brecciated, microfractured, [PRINCETON GROUP] faintly to slightly weathered, very closely spaced joints with iron staining and clay infill.

Preliminary Drilling Results - CW North - 2020-03-24 BGC ENGINEERING INC. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC March 24, 2020 Preliminary Geotechnical Drilling Results for Western Alternative Route Coldwater River North Crossing Project No.: 1321150-43

DRAWINGS

Preliminary Drilling Results - CW North - 2020-03-24 BGC ENGINEERING INC. P:\19731 - Kinder Morgan TMX\81 Drafting\505 Pipeline Drawings\SKT- Sketches\ColdWaterHDD_OptionAA.dwg, 1/13/2020 2:16:26 PM, bin.feng Appendix C Memo

To: From: Trans Mountain Stantec Consulting Ltd. File: 123220550 Date: February 14, 2020

Reference: Archaeological Desktop Review of Proposed Coldwater Reroute—for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project in British Columbia

INTRODUCTION

Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) has completed a desktop archaeological review of the proposed Coldwater Reroute (the ‘study area’), a component of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMEP, the Project). The study area includes the original proposed Coldwater Reroute, Option AA, Option GG, and a Southern HDD Option (Figure 1). Based on a review of the Province’s Consultative Areas Database, the study area is within the traditional territories of the Penticton Indian Band, Okanagan Indian Band, Nooaitch Indian Band, Nlaka’pamux Nation Tribal Council, Upper Nicola Band, Cook’s Ferry Indian Band, Boston Bar First Nation, Nicomen Band, Nicola Tribal Association, Lower Similkameen Indian Band, Spuzzum First Nation, Boothroyd Indian Band, Lytton First Nation, Lower Nicola Indian Band, Skuppah Indian Band, Oregon Jack Creek Indian Band, Okanagan Nation Alliance, Siska First Nation, Coldwater Indian Band, Ashcroft Indian Band, Shackan Indian Band, and Esh-kn-am Cultural Resource Management.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the desktop review were to summarize baseline conditions for archaeological resources within the study area; to identify potential conflicts between this portion of the Project and recorded archaeological sites, if present; to evaluate archaeological potential; and to provide management recommendations regarding further archaeological assessment, as required.

STUDY AREA

The original proposed Coldwater Reroute footprint measures approximately 19.7 km long, extending generally westward for approximately 6.5 km from the intersection of Highway 5 and Coldwater Road southwest of Merritt, British Columbia, then turning toward the southwest and south for approximately 13.2 km where it rejoins the TMEP mainline corridor.

The proposed Coldwater Reroute Option AA extends to the northwest of Highway 5 approximately 1.3 km southwest of Merritt, British Columbia. The proposed Coldwater Reroute Option GG extends to the northwest of Highway 5 approximately 3.2 km southwest of Merritt, British Columbia. Both the AA Option and GG Option will connect from the proposed TMEP mainline corridor to the original Coldwater Reroute footprint. Option AA is approximately 7.1 km long (including two spurs measuring approximately 1.5 km and 317 m in length) and winds generally east to west from the proposed TMEP mainline corridor to the original Coldwater Reroute footprint, just east of Highway 5. Option GG is approximately 5.5 km long (including one spur measuring approximately 954 m in length) and runs generally east to west from the proposed TMEP mainline corridor to the original Coldwater Reroute footprint, just east of Highway 5.

February 14, 2020 Sarah Ebbern Page 2 of 6

Reference: Archaeological Desktop Review of Proposed Coldwater Reroute—for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project in British Columbia

A proposed Southern HDD Option of the Coldwater Reroute was also included in this review. The portion of the footprint for the HDD option that falls outside of the originally proposed Coldwater Reroute corridor measures approximately 265 m in length, the southern extent of which joins with the Coldwater Reroute centreline approximately 460 m north-northwest of the reroute corridor’s intersection with the TMEP mainline corridor.

A corridor measuring 100 m in width was assessed for the original reroute footprint and each option (Option AA, Option GG, and Southern HDD Option) (Figure 1).

METHODS

This desktop study included a review of previous archaeological assessments in the vicinity of the study area, as available via the Provincial Archaeological Report Library (PARL), the Remote Access to Archaeological Data (RAAD) application, archaeological site inventory forms, satellite imagery, and approved provincial archaeological potential models. The evaluation of archaeological potential was based on the distribution of recorded archaeological sites in the region, potential ratings of relevant predictive models, as well as terrain characteristics which are commonly associated with past settlement and land use.

RESULTS

RECORDED ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

Two archaeological sites, EaRe-27 and EaRe-29, are recorded within 500 m of the study area (Figure 1). EaRe-27, composed of an isolated surface lithic, is recorded approximately 110 m northwest of the Option AA corridor. EaRe-29, also an isolated surface lithic, is recorded approximately 47 m northeast of the corridor centred on the northern spur of Option AA. Both sites were recorded in 1996 during an archaeological impact assessment (AIA) addressing a proposed subdivision south of Merritt, British Columbia (Baily 1996).

PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES

A large portion of the Option AA corridor was previously inspected during a 1996 AIA addressing a proposed subdivision in part of Lot 166 and part of the north half of Section 4, Township 91, KDYD (Baily 1996).

The entire proposed Coldwater Reroute corridor (including options) is covered by an existing archaeological overview assessment (AOA) potential model—The Coldwater and Spius Landscape Units (CoSpLU) within the Cascades Forest District AOA (Esh-kn-am 2008). This model conforms to Provincial AOA standards and is on file with the Archaeology Branch (Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development), and is made available through the RAAD application maintained by the Branch.

No other archaeological studies were identified in relation to the study area based on the information sources described above.

February 14, 2020 Sarah Ebbern Page 3 of 6

Reference: Archaeological Desktop Review of Proposed Coldwater Reroute—for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project in British Columbia

ARCHAEOLOGICAL POTENTIAL

Portions of the study area fall within areas identified as having high archaeological potential based on the CoSpLU model (Esh-kn-am 2008). Based on a review of area mapping and imagery, these model predictions are supported by general terrain characteristics. The corridor’s general proximity to the Coldwater River and its crossing of Lemoto Creek, Oluk Creek, Talapus Creek, and numerous unnamed tributaries suggests that there is potential for the corridor to contain prominent landforms associated with these hydrological features.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

There are no previously recorded archaeological sites within the study area; however, considering the assessed high archaeological potential (as discussed above) and the limited extent of previous archaeological field work, it is possible that additional (currently unrecorded) archaeological sites may be present. An AIA of the proposed Coldwater Reroute is recommended to determine the extent and nature of archaeological sites, if present, so that potential Project-related impacts can be appropriately managed during construction.

February 14, 2020 Sarah Ebbern Page 4 of 6

Reference: Archaeological Desktop Review of Proposed Coldwater Reroute—for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project in British Columbia

CLOSURE

We trust this memo satisfies your information needs regarding the proposed Coldwater Reroute of the TMEP. Please contact the undersigned if you require additional information.

Regards,

Stantec Consulting Ltd.

Ryan Spady BA, RPCA Associate, Archaeology Phone: 250-655-6056 Fax: 250-656-4789 [email protected]

Attachment: Figure 1

February 14, 2020 Sarah Ebbern Page 5 of 6

Reference: Archaeological Desktop Review of Proposed Coldwater Reroute—for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project in British Columbia

REFERENCES

Bailey, Jeff. 1996. Archaeological Impact Assessment of Part of District Lot 166 and Part of the North Half of Section 4, Township 91, KDYD, Merritt, BC 1996-118; on file with the Archaeology Branch of the Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development, Victoria, BC.

Provincial Heritage Registry. 2020. Assorted Site Forms. Retrieved July 12, 2019 and January 10, 2020 from the Remote Access to Archaeological Data application maintained by the Archaeology Branch of the Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development.

645000 650000 655000 660000

EaRe-25 EaRe-29 EaRe-137 EaRe-127 FIGURE: 1 EaRe-30 EaRe-136 EaRe-26 EaRe-27 EaRe-7 DESKTOP REVIEW ¯ HCA PERMIT 2015-0258 EaRe-24 COLDWATER REROUTE OPTIONS EaRe-10

5550000 5550000 TRANS MOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT

Original Proposed Coldwater Reroute Option AA Option GG Southern HDD Option Permit 2015-0258 Boundary Coldwater Reroute Corridor Desktop Review Study Area EaRe-23 Previously Recorded - EaRf-19 Archaeological Site Coldwater-Spius APM High Archaeological Potential

EaRf-3 EaRe-125

DRAFT 5545000 5545000

EaRf-21

EaRf-4

This document is provided by Trans Mountain Corporation (TMC) for use by the intended recipient only. This information is confidential and proprietary to TMC and is not to be provided to any other recipient without the written consent of TMC. It is not to be used for legal, engineering or surveying purposes, nor for doing any work on or around TMC's pipelines and facilities, all of which require TMC's prior written approval.

5540000 5540000 Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. DlRe-6 MAP NUMBER PAGE 123220334_COLDWATER_REROUTE_DESKTOP_REVIEW 1 of 1 DATE REF. REVISION Feb 2020 1 1 DlRe-5 SCALE PAGE SIZE DISCIPLINE 1:55,000 11x17 Archaeology DRAWN CHECKED PROJECTION K LUCAS XX NAD83 UTM 10

SCALE: 1:55,000 Km 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 645000 650000 655000 660000 ALL LOCATIONS APPROXIMATE fig1_coldwater_reroute_midrange.mxd Appendix D

APPENDIX D - WEST ALTERNATIVE FEASIBILITY STUDY CONSULTATION SUMMARY – COLDWATER INDIAN BAND

15 April 2020

(a) Overview Trans Mountain committed to undertake the Western Alternative Route Feasibility Study in direct response to Coldwater Indian Band’s (Coldwater) requests that Trans Mountain consider the West Alternative Route as a means to avoid potential impacts to the aquifer that supplies drinking water to Coldwater IR No. 1 (Reserve).

In this Appendix, Trans Mountain summarizes its consultations with Coldwater and describes and justifies how it has incorporated the results of its consultations with Coldwater into the feasibility study. In support of this consultation summary, Trans Mountain has attached a log of relevant consultations with Coldwater as Appendix E to the feasibility study report. Pursuant to its commitments, Trans Mountain will continue to discuss this report with Coldwater as the parties attempt to reach a consensus on a route for sections of the pipeline between KP 929 (Veale Road) and KP 952.

(b) Pre-2019 Engagement: Coldwater Prefers the West Alternative Route During the initial National Energy Board (NEB or Board) hearing for the Project (2014-2016), Canada’s initial Phase III consultations that followed (2016), and the Board’s detailed route hearing process (2017-2018), Coldwater expressed a preference for the West Alternative Route as an alternate route to Trans Mountain’s applied-for route to the east of the Reserve. Coldwater expressed the view that the West Alternative Route was a superior route because it posed no apparent threat to Coldwater’s aquifer or drinking water.

Trans Mountain provided Coldwater and the Board with its environmental and technical reasons for not pursuing a West Alternative Route and continued to advance its preferred route through the regulatory process. In its May 2016 OH-001-2014 Report, the Board conditionally approved the TMEP corridor along what was known as the “Modified East” route, which deviated from the existing Trans Mountain Pipeline to the east around the Reserve. The Board’s findings in this regard were not varied in the Board’s February 2019 MH-052-2018 Reconsideration Report. No decision was rendered on the detailed route in 2018, and the detailed routing process for the Coldwater Valley is ongoing.

(c) Reinitiated Phase III (January 28 to June 18, 2019): Trans Mountain Commits to Further Study the West Alternative Trans Mountain actively participated in Canada’s reinitiated Phase III consultation process with Coldwater, joining in tripartite meetings and correspondence, and engaging in additional, bilateral meetings and correspondence with Coldwater. At the parties’ first tripartite meeting (on January 28, 2019), Coldwater requested a process to consider the West Alternative Route as a means to avoid impacts to its aquifer and drinking water. As early as February 11, 2019, Trans Mountain agreed to further discuss and consider the West Alternative Route.

At the parties’ second tripartite meeting on March 4, 2019, Coldwater proposed a process to evaluate the West Alternative Route based on, among other things: (1) traditional land use; (2) geohazards; and, (3) environmental impacts. On March 15, 2019, Trans Mountain confirmed its agreement to consider the West Alternative Route with Coldwater and to fund Coldwater’s participation. Trans Mountain and Coldwater met to discuss the alternative routing process further (along with other matters) on April 10, 2019. Shortly after that meeting, Trans Mountain provided

- 2 -

Coldwater with shapefiles to assist in its traditional land use assessment of the West Alternative Route.

After difficulties scheduling a meeting with Coldwater, Trans Mountain sent a letter to Coldwater on May 14, 2019, proposing a framework to consider the West Alternative Route, including a feasibility assessment.

On June 7, 2019, Natural Resources Canada formally proposed that Trans Mountain conduct a feasibility study of the West Alternative Route through what eventually became Commitments 4165 and 4167. A week later, Coldwater “welcomed the basic structure” of the proposed commitments but expressed various concerns, including the geographic scope of the feasibility study and the apparently limited role of the Crown. Coldwater asked that the feasibility study and associated assessment of geohazards be undertaken in collaboration with Coldwater and that Coldwater be provided with capacity funding. Coldwater further asked that the matter of routing be referred back to the Governor in Council if Trans Mountain, Canada and Coldwater could not come to a consensus.

In its June 17, 2019 response, Trans Mountain accepted the commitments proposed by Canada, agreed to expand the geographic scope of the feasibility study to include the Coldwater Valley (not just the portion of the route starting at Veale Road) as Coldwater requested, offered reasonable capacity funding to Coldwater and explained to Coldwater that the Federal Court of Appeal in the Tsleil-Waututh decision had already determined that the Crown’s duty to consult is triggered by the NEB’s detailed route hearings for the Coldwater Valley.

On June 18, 2019, the Governor in Council approved the TMEP for a second time based on, among other things, Commitments 4165 to 4167.

(d) Post-Approval (June 19, 2019 to March 31, 2020): Trans Mountain Advances the Feasibility Study and Supports Coldwater’s Traditional Land Use Study Following the Governor in Council’s approval, Trans Mountain worked with Coldwater to advance both the feasibility study and Coldwater’s traditional land use study.

Coldwater did not always respond to Trans Mountain’s efforts to engage on the feasibility study. On July 15, 2019, Chief Spahan sent correspondence to Trans Mountain acknowledging that it had been “some time” since the April 10, 2019 meeting at which Coldwater and Trans Mountain discussed routing alternatives and that, notwithstanding Trans Mountain’s requests for such a meeting, it had been a challenge for Coldwater to find time. In the same letter, Coldwater informed Trans Mountain that it retained Richard Inglis to complete a traditional land use study of multiple alternative routes and requested that Trans Mountain fund that study.

On July 23, 2019, Trans Mountain agreed to provide Coldwater with reasonable funds to study its traditional land use along the West Alternative Route, but declined to fund Coldwater’s assessment of traditional land use along other theoretical routes proposed by Coldwater, which Trans Mountain viewed to be outside the scope of Commitments 4165 to 4167. Additionally, Trans Mountain sought Coldwater’s comments on a proposed process and schedule for the feasibility study, including regular tripartite meetings, various site visits to collect information, and a consultation period for Coldwater to provide comments on a draft report. Trans Mountain also followed-up with Chief Spahan about scheduling a meeting to discuss the West Alternative Route.

Trans Mountain’s efforts to develop the feasibility study with Coldwater and schedule a meeting to discuss the study continued throughout the summer of 2019. However, Coldwater did not comment on Trans Mountain’s proposed schedule and did not agree to participate in the feasibility

- 3 - study to the degree that Trans Mountain proposed. The parties were unable to meet until September 23, 2019, wherein the West Alternative Route was considered alongside other matters such as the Condition 39 hydrogeological study and legacy matters on the existing Trans Mountain Pipeline.

On September 20, 2019, Trans Mountain provided Coldwater with additional details regarding the feasibility study in advance of the meeting scheduled for September 23, 2019, including: (1) Trans Mountain’s engagement of BGC Engineering to undertake the study; and (2) information regarding the field program for the study, including a field reconnaissance program to further delineate potential geohazards and ground-truthing of the original terrain mapping.

On September 23, 2019, after more than five months of Trans Mountain requesting such a meeting with Coldwater, ten Trans Mountain representatives (including President and CEO Ian Anderson and multiple subject-matter experts) met with Coldwater to discuss the feasibility study and various other matters. At the meeting, Coldwater took the position that it first required the hydrogeological study report before it could talk about the West Alternative Route. Additionally, Coldwater expressed frustration that it was being asked to consider the hydrogeological study and feasibility of the West Alternative Route while issues with the existing Trans Mountain Pipeline had not been addressed. Nevertheless, Coldwater stated that it expected Trans Mountain to do more than a desktop analysis for the feasibility study and that it wanted to see Trans Mountain’s technical information in support of the study (e.g., ground-truthing). Trans Mountain committed to provide Coldwater with further details in writing regarding the West Alternative Route and the feasibility study and to work with Coldwater to understand the information gaps that Coldwater sought to be filled through the study.

On September 30, 2019, Trans Mountain provided Coldwater with additional information regarding the feasibility study, including: (1) the proposed field reconnaissance program; and (2) the proposed process to assess geohazards and risks. Trans Mountain also offered for Coldwater’s geotechnical consultant to participate in the investigation of geohazards, consideration of mitigation measures, and assessment of risk. Further, Trans Mountain offered to incorporate Coldwater’s traditional land use information into the assessment, if available.

Without reference to Trans Mountain’s September 30th letter, Coldwater wrote to Trans Mountain on October 3, 2019, to request additional information regarding the feasibility study, including the geohazards assessment. Coldwater followed with a letter of October 24, 2019, requesting a meeting to discuss Trans Mountain’s Quantitative Risk Assessment of route alternatives.

On October 28, 2019, Trans Mountain met with Coldwater and Natural Resources Canada to discuss various items and agreed to schedule a meeting for mid-November 2019 to focus on the feasibility study. Trans Mountain reached out to Coldwater’s technical consultant, Cordilleran, to participate in the meeting, which was intended to be a technical discussion on the risk assessment process.

Trans Mountain sent numerous emails to Coldwater attempting to confirm the mid-November meeting and the agenda for the same. However, Coldwater has not yet agreed to participate in a technical meeting of this nature.

At the next tripartite meeting on December 16, 2019, the parties spent only a brief period of time discussing the feasibility study. Trans Mountain offered to attend at the Coldwater Reserve to review maps and plans for the West Alternative Route with Coldwater. However, Chief Spahan indicated that he would need to consult with his Council regarding a date for such a meeting.

- 4 -

On December 30, 2019 and January 2, 2020, Trans Mountain wrote to Coldwater to, again, emphasize that the feasibility study must proceed without delay; otherwise, Trans Mountain may not meet its anticipated in-service date. Trans Mountain suggested regular meetings to discuss the feasibility study. However, Coldwater has not agreed to such meetings.

On January 22, 2020, Trans Mountain followed-up with Coldwater about outstanding correspondence pertaining to the feasibility study that Coldwater had not yet responded to, including a potential meeting on-reserve to further discuss the study.

Trans Mountain did not receive a response to its letters to Coldwater of December 30, 2019, and January 2, 2020 until February 14, 2020. In that February 14th letter, Coldwater expressed concerns about geophysical instabilities and variations of the West Alternative Route. Further, Coldwater advised Trans Mountain that it would complete its traditional land use study on or before March 31, 2020 and requested shapefiles for the route variations. Coldwater agreed to meet in-person to discuss routing, but would only do so after both the feasibility study and its traditional land use study were complete and had been considered by Chief and Council.

Trans Mountain responded to Coldwater on February 20, 2020. In that letter, Trans Mountain repeated its offer (made on December 16, 2019) to meet with Coldwater Council and membership to review routing maps and plans for the West Alternative Route in detail. Trans Mountain encouraged Coldwater to agree to meetings in advance of March 31st, rather than delaying until after the studies are complete. Trans Mountain committed to incorporate traditional land use information into its mitigation plans for the West Alternative Route, to the extent possible, even if the information was not available in time to be included in the feasibility study. Finally, with respect to Coldwater’s concerns regarding route variations, Trans Mountain noted that the variations only affected 20% of the route as originally contemplated (namely, the northern crossing of the Coldwater River).

Trans Mountain followed-up with Coldwater on February 25, 2020, and advised Coldwater that work was ongoing with two geophysical test holes, which would inform Trans Mountain’s assessment of routing options around a geohazard site and the northern crossing of the Coldwater River. Trans Mountain repeated its offer to meet with Coldwater.

Three weeks later, on March 13, 2020, Coldwater responded to Trans Mountain’s February 20th letter, apologizing that it had been unable to schedule a meeting to discuss the West Alternative Route so far in 2020. Coldwater stated that a presentation to the community on route variations was not necessary at this time but offered to meet with Trans Mountain to find a common path forward on routing and other issues. Trans Mountain responded on March 17, 2020, suggesting three dates in early April 2020 for such a meeting.

On March 24, 2020, Trans Mountain met with Coldwater, Natural Resources Canada, Indigenous Services Canada and the Department of Justice Canada to discuss various issues, including the West Alternative feasibility study. Trans Mountain provided an update on the work completed and work that is left to do (e.g., archaeological work that requires snow to melt). Trans Mountain confirmed that the work completed is sufficient to conclude that the West Alternative Route (GB option) is technically feasible. Trans Mountain advised Coldwater that it would provide a copy of its West Alternative feasibility study report on March 31, 2020, and file a copy with the CER on April 15, 2020. However, after that filing, there would still be considerable time for Trans Mountain and Coldwater to consult regarding the content of the feasibility study report. Indeed, Trans Mountain communicated that filing the report is simply the starting point of the parties’ discussions on routing. Trans Mountain and Coldwater agreed to work cooperatively to provide large maps of the West Alternative for membership and leadership to review in mid-April 2020.

- 5 -

In follow-up to the March 24 meeting, Coldwater wrote to Trans Mountain on March 30, 2020 stating, among other things, that (i) it was good to hear that the West Alternative route is feasible; (ii) Coldwater looks forward to receiving the report; (iii) Coldwater wishes to have advance notice of additional archaeological work along the West Alternative Route; (iv) Coldwater did not have comments or questions based on what Trans Mountain had told it about the report thus far; (v) Coldwater expects to have questions once it receives the report; and (vi) the April 15, 2020 filing date would likely have to be postponed. Coldwater reiterated the request for large maps and stated a meeting to discuss the report should occur before April 15, 2020. On March 31, 2020, Trans Mountain provided Coldwater with a draft of the Feasibility Study Report, which, it explained, would be finalized and filed with the Canada Energy Regulator on April 15, 2020. Trans Mountain invited Coldwater to make comments on the draft report or to discuss it further with Trans Mountain.

On April 3, 2020, Trans Mountain replied to Coldwater’s letter of March 30, 2020 and invited Coldwater to make comments on the Feasibility Report. Trans Mountain indicated that it respectfully declined to delay the filing of the Feasibility Report. Trans Mountain explained that the Feasibility Report is the starting point for the discussions on routing, not the end point. As such, there was no practical difference between Coldwater providing comments on the Feasibility Report prior to April 15, 2020, as opposed to a reasonable time after that date. In the letter, Trans Mountain also requested that Coldwater provide an expected date for when it would be providing the Traditional Land Use Study.

Description and Justification for how Trans Mountain has Incorporated the Results of its Consultations with Coldwater into the Feasibility Study

Issue Source of Summary of Issue Trans Mountain’s Response Description Issue

Scope of the Memorandum • Coldwater requested a process to • Trans Mountain made Commitments 4165 to 4167, which Feasibility from consider the West Alternative route includes incorporation of a traditional land use study Study Coldwater based on, among other things: (1) specific to the West Alternative into the feasibility study, if dated March traditional land use; (2) geohazards; available. 4, 2019 and, (3) environmental impacts. • This feasibility study addresses, among other things, geohazards and potential environmental impacts. Trans Mountain conducted geotechnical investigations and field verification work to support the geohazard and environmental evaluations.

• Trans Mountain will undertake further environmental investigations in the summer of 2020.

• Trans Mountain offered for Coldwater’s geotechnical consultant to participate in the investigation of geohazards, consideration of mitigation measures, and assessment of risk.

Capacity for Coldwater • Coldwater requested capacity funding • Trans Mountain committed to provide Coldwater with Feasibility letter to Trans from Trans Mountain and Canada to reasonable capacity funding to retain subject-matter Study Mountain retain consultants to provide technical experts to assist in its review of the feasibility study and Participation dated May 7, advice on the feasibility study and routing options. 2019. alternate routes. • Trans Mountain later increased its funding offer based on Coldwater Coldwater’s concerns about what it viewed as an letter to increased scope of the feasibility study. Natural Resources Canada

- 7 -

Issue Source of Summary of Issue Trans Mountain’s Response Description Issue dated June 14, 2019.

Traditional Coldwater • Coldwater expressed concerns about • Trans Mountain committed to provide Coldwater with Land Use letter to the potential risks that the West reasonable funding for its traditional land use study of the Natural Alternative Route may pose to West Alternative Route. However, the funding was Resources Coldwater and Nalaka’pamux rights, ultimately provided to Coldwater by Natural Resources Canada traditional land use (including hunting, Canada, after Coldwater requested funding from Trans dated March gathering, harvesting and fishing), title Mountain for matters outside the scope of the West 6, 2019. and reserve lands. Alternative Route and the feasibility study.

April 10, • Coldwater was concerned that it would • Trans Mountain committed to incorporate the results of 2019 tripartite not have enough capacity to conduct a Coldwater’s traditional land use study (if available on meeting traditional land use study for the West time) into its feasibility study. Alternatively, Trans between Alternative Route. Mountain committed to incorporate traditional land use Coldwater, information into its mitigation plans for the West Trans Alternative Route, to the extent possible, even if the Mountain and information was not available in time to be included in the Natural feasibility study. Resources Canada. • Trans Mountain provided, at Coldwater’s request, shapefiles and large, high resolution maps for the West Coldwater Alternative Route to support the traditional land use letter to Trans study. Mountain dated July 15, 2019.

Groundwater Coldwater • Coldwater has expressed concerns • Trans Mountain has provided a preliminary assessment letter to about potential risks and impacts of the of groundwater issues in section 6.5 of the report. The Natural West Alternative on groundwater for its report states that Paul’s Basin IR #2 is upgradient of the Resources Paul’s Basin IR #2. West Alternative Route, which is situated approximately Canada 260 m East of Paul’s Basin at its closest point. Initial dated June evaluation is that risk to Paul’s Basin IR #2 is low given its 14, 2019. topographic location relative to the West Alternative Route.

- 8 -

Issue Source of Summary of Issue Trans Mountain’s Response Description Issue

Geographic Coldwater • Coldwater was concerned that the • Trans Mountain agreed to expand the geographic scope Scope letter to geographic scope of the feasibility study of the feasibility study so that it covers the entirety of the Natural (as it was initially conceived – beginning West Alternative Route, which deviates from the Resources at Veale Road) was too narrow. Approved Route at approximately KP 931 and re-joins at Canada Specifically, Coldwater requested that approximately KP 947. dated June the feasibility study consider the route 14, 2019. between KPs 929 to 955 to ensure that the West Alternative Route remains a viable option.

Geohazards Coldwater • Coldwater requested that Trans • Trans Mountain engaged BGC Engineering to undertake letter to Trans Mountain assess geohazards along the an assessment of geohazards on the West Alternative Mountain West Alternative Route in collaboration and associated risk analysis. Trans Mountain attempted dated May 7, with Coldwater. to arrange meetings between BGC Engineering and 2019. Coldwater’s geophysical consultants to discuss • Coldwater expressed concern that it will Coldwater’s concerns and review the technical elements Coldwater not have enough capacity to properly of the program. However, Coldwater has not yet agreed letter to consider geohazards of the West to such meetings. Natural Alternative and, specifically, to retain Resources and confer with its geoscientists and • Trans Mountain proposed a process and schedule to Canada access data to assist it with this review. discuss the feasibility study that included regular dated June meetings, site visits and Coldwater’s review of a draft of 14, 2019. • Coldwater was concerned that Trans the feasibility study. However, Coldwater did not agree to Mountain would not conduct geohazard meet or provide feedback on Trans Mountain’s proposed fieldwork or properly consider schedule. geohazards in the feasibility study (this included a consideration of terrain • Trans Mountain committed to conduct a field stability assessments and requested reconnaissance program for the West Alternative Route, field visits, to investigate the river scour including the identification and delineation of geohazards and landslide sites identified along the and appropriate mitigations. Trans Mountain committed to West Alternative Route). consider all hydrotechnical and geotechnical hazard types (terrain stability, rock fall, landslides, river or creek scour and debris flood) as part of its assessment.

• Trans Mountain has implemented a field reconnaissance program in which it has ground-truthed the original terrain mapping (completed at 1:20,000 scale, which is the

- 9 -

Issue Source of Summary of Issue Trans Mountain’s Response Description Issue appropriate scale for mapping natural hazards in “Guidelines And Standards To Terrain Mapping In British Columbia” by the Resources Inventory Committee of BC Ministry of Environment (1996)). This process allowed Trans Mountain to further delineate locations of potential geohazards, confirm stability rankings, and identify appropriate mitigations.

• Trans Mountain undertook field programs in January 2020 (geohazards) and March 2020 (boreholes)

• Trans Mountain updated the location of the West Alternative based on its geohazard assessments. Specifically, BGC Engineering identified a landslide morphology along the original western route, which led to Trans Mountain revising the northern portion of the West Alternative Route.

• Trans Mountain offered to work with Coldwater to incorporate Coldwater’s traditional land use information, if available, into the geohazard risk analysis.

• To assist Coldwater in reviewing Trans Mountain’s geohazard assessment, Trans Mountain offered to provide reasonable capacity funding to Coldwater to retain geoscientists and review data.

• Trans Mountain also offered for Coldwater’s geotechnical consultant to participate in the investigation of geohazards, consideration of mitigation measures, and assessment of risk.

• Trans Mountain considered geohazards in the feasibility study report and made modifications to the West Alternative Route as a result of its geohazard assessment. Moreover, both the January 2020 geohazard study and the March 2020 geotechnical assessments

- 10 -

Issue Source of Summary of Issue Trans Mountain’s Response Description Issue (two boreholes) were conducted in-field and undertaken to confirm desktop results.

Construction April 10, • Coldwater requested that Trans • Trans Mountain committed to provide Coldwater with Costs 2019 tripartite Mountain provide it with the estimated construction costs for the West Alternative meeting construction costs associated with the Route, which are included in this feasibility study. between West Alternative Route. Coldwater, Trans Mountain and Natural Resources Canada.

Quantitative Coldwater • Coldwater expressed concern with the • Trans Mountain committed to engage with Coldwater on Risk letter to Trans quantitative risk assessment Trans the scope of the geotechnical and other work required to Assessment Mountain Mountain uses to evaluate the risks of complete the feasibility study. dated August route alternatives through the 29, 2019. Coldwater Valley. • Trans Mountain offered to arrange a technical meeting for further discussion on the risk assessment. Coldwater • Coldwater was concerned that Trans letter to Trans Mountain would not incorporate its • Trans Mountain also offered for Coldwater’s geotechnical Mountain perspective into the risk assessment. consultant to participate in the investigation of dated May 7, geohazards, consideration of mitigation measures, and 2019. assessment of risk. • Trans Mountain has committed to a process in Commitment 4167 whereby it will consult with Coldwater on the relative risks of the West Alternative Route and the Approved Route, and attempt to reach consensus on a mutually preferred route.

Appendix E Appendix E Consultation Log – West Alternative Feasibility Study

Coldwater Indian Band March 2020

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Jan 28, In person Chief Lee Regan Trans Mountain met with Coldwater 2019 Spahan Schlecker Indian Band and Canada’s Consultation (Coldwater (TMEP) team to discuss the existing pipeline and Indian Band) Jeff Smith issues for further discussion during Tracey Aljam (TMEP) Canada’s reinitiated Phase III (Coldwater consultation process. With respect to Indian Band) routing, Coldwater asked whether Larry Antoine Canada would consider routing (Coldwater alternatives through the Coldwater Indian Band) Valley, including the West Alternative. Leah Collins Trans Mountain expressed eagerness to (Coldwater complete the hydrogeological study so Indian Band) that it could be used to inform routing. Wendy Hall Coldwater stated that the reason the (Coldwater hydrogeological study was put on hold Indian Band) was to talk to Canada and see if an Corrina Manuel alternate route could be used which (Coldwater would completely avoid the aquifer and Indian Band) make the study inconsequential. Christyne Tremblay (Natural Resources Canada) Mitch Taylor (Crown Consultation Lead) Kimberly Lavoie (Natural Resources Canada) Christopher Sheppard (Natural Resources Canada)

Feb 11, Phone Call Lee Spahan Ian Anderson Feb 11 2019 Trans Mountain President and CEO 2019 - Outgoing (Coldwater (TMEP) Outgoing Call phoned Chief Spahan, Coldwater Indian Indian Band) Ian Anderson, TMC President to Coldwater Chief Lee Spahan Band, and discussed Operations and the Trans Mountain Expansion Project. Trans Mountain President and CEO 1. Existing contamination – TMC wants to get in cleaned up and seek stated Trans Mountain wanted to get in Chief’s help in getting us access to the CP Holder property. We have and clean up the existing contamination been waiting for a few years to get this done and it should be a priority for and Chief Spahan agreed and would both of us. Chief agrees and will ask CP Holder to a Council meeting invite the CP Holder to a Council soon to relay the urgency; meeting to relay the urgency to get this completed. Chief Spahan was pleased 2. The existing easement – Chief is pleased that the Federal ministry is that the Federal Ministry was now acting now acting on the matter and he is keen to see it resolved, as is TMC; on the existing easement as both parties

1

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) wanted this issue resolved. Trans 3. NEB condition 39 - Hydrogeological study – Ian urged that this needs Mountain President and CEO stated that to proceed and will inform all of us more about the aquifer geology with the NEB Condition 39 Hydrogeological science and facts. Chief did not disagree but said that his community is study needed to proceed. The Chief did divided on the work and he may need to take it to the membership. Ian not disagree but reiterated the urged him to discuss with his council and get back to TMC, as this work is community was divided on this issue and good work to do regardless of the route outcomes; he would need to take it to the membership. Trans Mountain President 4. Routing – Ian relayed that TMC is prepared to discuss the alternatives and CEO stated that Trans Mountain but that we remain committed to the approved route and that the west was prepared to discuss routing alternative is problematic for several reasons (river, geology, slope, etc) alternatives but remained committed to that TMC is happy to talk more about. Ian reiterated offer to talk about a the approved route. Chief Spahan new on reserve route including the existing line realignment. Chief stated stated some of the community members that some of the community are very afraid of the existing line and its were afraid of the existing pipeline and proximity to houses etc. and he will talk to his Council and get back to Ian its proximity to houses and that he would on this matter too. talk to his Council and get back to Trans Mountain President and CEO on this matter. Mar 04, In-Person Lee Spahan Regan Summary and Action Items: Team Members, along with the Trans 2019 (Coldwater Schlecker Mountain Consultation Team (the Indian Band), (TMEP), The Trans Mountain Consultation Team (the Crown) and representatives Crown), met with leadership and legal Larry Antoine Jeff Smith of Trans Mountain Corporation (TMC) had a meeting with leadership, and counsel of Coldwater Indian Band, and (Coldwater (TMEP), legal counsel of Coldwater Indian Band (CIB or Coldwater), and technicians from BC Groundwater. The Indian Band), Cyril Jenkins technicians from BC Groundwater. The purpose of the meeting was to purpose of the meeting was to discuss a Gerome Garcia (TMEP), discuss a process for discussing route alternatives in the Coldwater process for discussing route alternatives (Coldwater Neeka Valley, and reinitiating work on the hydrogeological study. in the Coldwater Valley, and reinitiating Indian Band), Mottahedeh work on the hydrogeological study. Wendy Hall (TMEP) Actions Taken (Coldwater Indian Band), - The Crown delivered a hardcopy of a letter from Minister Sohi to Chief Corrina Manuel Spahan dated January 29th, 2019. (Coldwater Indian Band), Actions for Follow-Up Emma Hume - The Crown consultation team will circulate draft meeting minutes to CIB (Coldwater for review and comment. Indian Band), - The Crown will provide CIB a response to their proposed process for Thierry Carriou discussing route alternatives by Monday March 11, 2019. (Coldwater - TMC will provide CIB a response to BC Groundwater’s two Indian Band), memorandums by Monday March 11, 2019. Rick Cronin - Coldwater will provide TMC and the Crown communication protocols to (Coldwater ensure appropriate Coldwater representatives are included in all technical Indian Band), communications regarding recommencing the hydrogeological study. Mitch Taylor - Following the March 13, 2019 Chief and Council meeting, Coldwater will (Natural let the Crown and TMC know the date for a further meeting (likely in the Resources period between March 19-22). Canada), Kimberly Lavoie Discussed Concerns (Natural - Concerned about impacts on the Thompson River Steelhead. The Resources Steelhead are in danger of going extinct, if they do, Coldwater will lose a Canada), piece of their culture and language forever. Christopher - Cumulative impacts in the valley from a variety of projects (e.g. Sheppard loggings, highways, transmission lines, tourism (ski resort), mining, and (Natural pipeline) can be seen in the valley. These impacts include reduction of Resources wildlife, sickness and allergies in the community, unpredictable snowmelt,

2

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Canada), wildfires, flooding, and diminishing fish stocks. Joseph - Coldwater is concerned with access roads being built in their land (both Whiteside on reserve and in their traditional territory), many of their members use (Indigenous their land to hold sun dances, fast, hunt, gather, sweats, and it is where Services the ‘little people’ and sasquatch live. Secondly, Coldwater is concerned Canada) about the impact of increased recreational users in the area (e.g. off-road vehicles going through sensitive riparian areas).

Meeting Summary Notes: - Coldwater’s legal advisor made an audio recording of the meeting.

Coldwater Indian Band’s Opening Remarks - Coldwater welcomes Canada and TMC to Coldwater Valley. - Chief Spahan expresses frustration about his recent meeting with Minister Sohi. Specifically that he was given little notice and was forced to drive to Vancouver. Because of this, none of his council was able to attend with him. Chief Spahan stresses that meetings need to happen in the Coldwater Valley. - Chief Spahan is frustrated with the proposed agenda, Coldwater wanted to discuss the “process” of having a routing discussion. Emphasizing that Coldwater wishes to protect its only source of drinking water. - This is the process for a huge decision, Coldwater explains, all sides have things that are important to them. The most important thing to the Coldwater community is the aquifer and the perceived danger of having a pipeline rupture over the aquifer. - Councillor Garcia provides the Crown and TMC historical context on how they resolved issues. Their ancestors were feared warriors because they were diplomats, they would rather talk than go to war. These talks would often go on for days and weeks before getting the whole story. Their ancestors’ blood runs through their veins. - Climate change has impacted our planet, Coldwater states. When out on the land, you can see there are different animals then before—where there would be several animal tracks, now there is only one. This is from our use of oil and oil by-products. Coldwater is worried about how these resources are being mined (e.g. fracking’s impact on water). Coldwater would like to say there would be no pipeline through any of the Nlaka'pamux nation. - Coldwater expresses concerns about impacts to the land, highlighting that it is not just the Trans Mountain project but other projects and operations in the area (e.g. logging activities and roads; recreational users; the highway above the community; past and current spills). When discussing alternative routes, the conversation should not be just about the reserve but instead about the whole traditional territory. Coldwater members use the territory throughout the year to practice their Aboriginal rights (e.g. ice-fishing, picking berries, etc.). Members look forward to these activities. Again, the impacts are not just from the project but also from other proposed and existing projects. Water is life, the Coldwater people are proof of that. - Chief Spahan expresses his concern about the amount of sickness within the community and the valley. There is a lot of cancer, lupus, and the youth being allergic to their cultural foods. - Looking at the recent explosion of the Enbridge pipeline, Coldwater is scared and terrified of this happening in their home. As stewards of their unseeded territory, Coldwater wants answers to the questions and

3

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) concerns that they have. - Right now, Coldwater is looking for the appropriate and funded process of how everyone can talk about issues and concerns that members have with the Project. - Coldwater’s leadership is frustrated that the Crown wants to discuss the expansion project before resolving the issues with the existing line, even after losing to Coldwater in court. - Coldwater’s membership have provided a clear message: they are frustrated, but glad that they are at the table and discussing the important issues. - Chief Spahan speaks to a recent Assembly of First Nations meeting he attended in Vancouver where other nations from back east spoke about how water treatment plants were outdated and in disrepair. Coldwater is lucky that they do no not need a water treatment plant here because they have good water. That is what they are trying to protect, not just for today but for future generations. - Coldwater would like to move on and begin discussing a proposal on how to consider routing alternatives, and reinitiating the aquifer study. - The Crown indicates that their colleagues from Environment and Climate Change Canada are interested in listening into the discussion about the aquifer. - The Crown states that they wish to have a discussion with Coldwater about process and developing a roadmap to dialogue on routing and a way forward. - In reference to the Crown’s proposed agenda, the Crown asserts that they are ready and wanting to dialogue on substantive issues. The intent of the agenda was to provide information and have technical people at the table. However, the Crown has heard that Coldwater is not ready for that at this meeting, but this will come another day after we agree on a mutually respectful process. - BC Groundwater explains why the hydrogeological study is so important. They were contracted by the band after seeing the studies conducted by the proponent. These studies were inconsistent with the work that BC Groundwater has done in the valley over the past 15-20 years. Their goal is to ensure that the proper science is done. - Coldwater states the importance of the aquifer study, but asks the Crown if there was still a routing option that does not pose a risk to their water. - The Crown responds that it is prepared to discuss all of the routes. For every routing option, there are pros and cons. For example, the West Alternative Route crosses the Coldwater river twice, and the eastern routes go over the aquifer. There are of course other considerations, but these are some key highlights. - Coldwater responds when discussing the Project with Ian Anderson, President of Trans Mountain Canada, they were assured that watercourse crossings were very safe. - Coldwater describes the importance of fish to the community, stating that there were only 17 returning Steelhead to the Coldwater river, and if the species was not listed as a Species at Risk they will be extinct within 2 years. These are caused by cumulative impacts industrial activities in the region (e.g. forestry, tourism, a new ski resort, etc.). - The Nicola Valley has suffered an increasing number of flooding and wildfire crises in recent years, Coldwater describes. - Because the current state of the environment, Coldwater explains that it

4

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) is critical to develop a clear process for information sharing, analysis and considerations on routing. This process should be independent on Trans Mountain. - BC Groundwater asserts that concerns about river crossings could be addressed if the pipeline was above the river, so that it would be easier to monitor the effects of the surrounding elements.

Proposed Process for Discussing Route Alternatives - Coldwater provides the Crown with a brief overview of their proposed process for discussing route alternatives. The proposal is outlined in three steps: (1) scope of route alternatives; (2) gather missing baseline data and undertake impact assessment; and (3) evaluate alternatives. The process notes that this is only concerned with route impacts through the Coldwater Valley and does not relate to potential impacts to Coldwater’s aboriginal rights and title interests elsewhere in the Nlaka’pamux territory [refer to Appendix A for the proposed process for discussing route alternatives]. - Coldwater states that Canada cannot rely on the NEB detailed route hearing to fulfil its duty to consult, - The Crown poses several questions about the proposed studies in step #2: who would conduct the studies? Are there proposed timelines? How would the terms of reference be defined? Who is commissioning the studies? - Coldwater responds that there would likely be three studies: (1) TLU and Rights and title interests would be funded by the Crown, Coldwater would undertake this study; (2) Study of groundwater resources would be funded by TMC, BC Groundwater and TMC would be conducted the study; and (3) The Geohazards study, the Crown would provide funding to Coldwater to contract an expert. Coldwater is happy to have further discussion regarding the terms and indicated it may be appropriate to involve Environment and Climate Change Canada given their expertise. - Coldwater asserts that this is the process to have a meaningful dialogue. Coldwater legal noted that process of information sharing needed to be clear and transparent and not to involve Trans Mountain. It’s the Crown and Coldwater to determine what is safe based on science, facts and informed by rights and title. - Coldwater believes it wasn’t initially consulted on route alternatives, analysis did not incorporate rights and title and Trans Mountain wasn’t aware of the aquifer when options evaluated. Coldwater believes Trans Mountain unilaterally removed the western alternative option. - Coldwater believes route hearing process looked at improper evidence and they were unable to meaningfully respond; therefore, the Crown cannot rely on hearing to fulfill consultation obligation. - Coldwater needs capacity funding to determine better route than the one approved. Geohazards of alternative routes need to be considered, need funding to obtain expet advice and data. - Coldwater stated that assessment includes a community engagement process. - The Crown noted that the detailed route hearing is complete and we await a decision. The NEB is quasi-judicial and there is no plan to reopen hearings. - Coldwater requested that if Canada intends to rely on the detailed route hearing then Canada needs to provide clarity on decision because Coldwater has serious concerns.

5

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) - The Crown acknowledges that everyone has agreed that more work needs to be done to understand the aquifer. Phase 3 is not a restart but is a focused redo to deal with deficiencies. - Coldwater emphasizes that the discussion of routing options and the study of the aquifer are ‘part and parcel’.

Proposed Process for Reinitiating the Hydrogeological Study - BC Groundwater provides an overview of the two memorandums they had prepared: (1) work program to carry out a datalogger monitoring and water sampling to support hydrogeological to study and monitor Coldwater’s groundwater, in order to satisfy NEB Condition 39 hydrogeological study of Coldwater’s aquifer. - BC Groundwater provides a summary of NEB Condition 39, stressing that the study needs to be tailored to the Coldwater aquifer and not vice versa; and that this work should have started a long time ago. - BC groundwater proposed document 2) that In order to make an informed decision on routing, there is a need to better understand the risks posed to the supply wells. This work will build off of the baseline data, which is largely centred on the 1 well that has been studied on Coldwater IR#1, BC Groundwater explains. Coldwater has been engaged with TMC on the groundwater study since 2017, this is a continuation of the work that had already begun. Field investigations need to begin ASAP. - The Crown asks if the objective NEB Condition 39 is to understand the nature, size, and shape of the aquifer. - BC Groundwater confirms that those are key elements, but it is also about conducting a risk assessment. - TMC inquires if their previous agreements with BC Groundwater were no longer sufficient. - BC Groundwater clarifies that they agree with continuing with the agreed-upon scope for the Hydro-geological study, however they also propose an additional scope that would total $47,180 to conduct the datalogger and water sampling work. The work is not a re do but is intended to supplement the hydro-geological study. TMC confirms that they could proceed with recommencement of program with agreed upon scope and provide a response to this additional request by the following week. - Coldwater noted that previously identified 6 drill sites may need to be revisited due to houses being built in areas. - BC Groundwater explains that it has been difficult working on this project as the company has had many different hydrologists working on this project, they are interested in ensuring that there is good science. - TMC responds that one of their senior Project Directors retired this year, and that may have caused a strain. - Coldwater echoes the importance of continuity, stating that Coldwater has been on their land since time immemorial and will continue to be there. - Coldwater states that they have been asking for this work to be done as part of the NEB process in 2015, and that it is not Coldwater’s fault that this information is still missing. - The Crown reiterates that everyone wants this study to proceed, and it is not a question of if the study will proceed, but instead how do we continue.

6

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) - Coldwater leadership is frustrated about continuity, not just at this table but in general. They are frustrated that when Minister Sohi come to meet with them, he was unaware that the existing pipeline is in trespass and only want to speak about the expansion. They are frustrated the Minister O’Regan’s response to Coldwater stated that they spoke at the 2019 Joint Gathering, when in fact his assistants prevented the Chief and Minister from speaking. They are frustrated that in the news Indigenous groups are portrayed as delaying the Project; but they are unable to move forward without the necessary funds or understanding. - When discussing the aquifer study, Coldwater leadership do not want TMC and the Crown to lose sight of other routes that would not put the aquifer at risk. Their members are asking them questions such as “what will they do if they contaminate our drinking water? Will they move us away? Will they build houses and roads to a new community?” Coldwater community members are worried about impacts on their cultural ways. Some families hold sun dances in the community each year; members practice their culture along the creeks (e.g. sweats) and that is where the ‘little people’ live. - Chief Spahan explains that the Thompson steelhead could go extinct in two years. If they lose the steelhead, future generations would lose one word of their language, and a little closer to losing their culture. It is important to understand the cultural impacts of this project. - Coldwater reiterates the importance of understanding the Project’s impacts to Coldwater’s rights and title when considering routing alternatives. This understanding needs to occur alongside the aquifer study i.e. the aquifer study cannot proceed without considerations of routing, specifically the west alternative route that avoids risks altogether - The Crown asks BC Groundwater for a description of their detailed work plan. - BC Groundwater responds and provides an overview of their proposed work plan to examine the vulnerability of supply wells by the Project and existing line, and understand how groundwater flows into the supply wells [refer to Appendix B for both BC Groundwater Memorandums]. - TMC inquires if the hydrogeological study and the proposed three- month pre-freshnet monitoring study can occur concurrently. - BC Groundwater confirms that they can happen at the same time, further explaining that the hydrogeological drill program would be approximately six to eight months, and they propose a two-year monitoring program. - TMC confirmed that they are interested in the proposal, and that they are keen to restart the work of the hydrogeology program. TMC requested clarity on the timelines for drilling. - BC Groundwater responded there were multiple phases: (1) physically drilling; (2) completing the exploratory wells and implementing the monitoring program and (3) place instrumentation. After each task is complete, they would want the band to provide feedback on Trans Mountain’s reports. The six-eight month timeline incorporates time for the band to provide feedback.

Next Steps - Mitch Taylor states that the Crown would like to engage in a routing process, but wishes to discuss the proposal with others (including the Deputy Minister) before responding. Mitch inquires if there are any proposed timelines.

7

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) - Coldwater responds that they do not have a timeline for this work, and they have not had an opportunity to engage with consultants, specifically about the Traditional Land Use and geotechnical work. Coldwater inquires how long the Crown will need to consider the proposal. - Mitch Taylor responds that the Crown will need one-week to respond to Coldwater’s proposed process for discussing route alternatives. - Coldwater agrees that one-week is reasonable, and states that they wish to keep moving forward with this. Coldwater wants to ensure everyone’s time is used wisely, it is important that the Crown comes to this table with a mandate to move things forward and it is frustrating to hear that the Mitch wishes to go back to the Deputy Minister. Furthermore, there seem to be conflicting statements as Minister Sohi had previously told Coldwater to speak with Mitch Taylor on these matters; but now Mitch needs to go back to the Deputy Minister. - Mitch Taylor clarifies that as the Crown has only received this proposal today, they will need time to consider it and wishes to involve the Deputy Minister in scoping how the Crown wishes to proceed. The Crown will respond to Coldwater by this time next week, the response may have more questions or suggestions. - TMC clarifies that, though they have a full mandate, they would like to take approximately a week to consider the BC Groundwater Memorandums before formally responding and agreeing to them. TMC inquires who they should contact with their response. - Coldwater responds that correspondence should go to Chief Spahan, Dawn Porter and copy BC Groundwater. - Coldwater restates that the hydrogeological work must be part of a process to discuss routing, they do not want to pursue the hydrogeological work before the routing discussion is scoped in. Once that happens, both can occur concurrently. - The Crown emphasizes that the aquifer study should not be held up, and that the Crown commits to discuss routing—everything should proceed concurrently. - Coldwater stresses that the aquifer study is only one study in the proposed work plan. - Coldwater inquires if the Crown’s discussion of routing is part of its constitutional obligation. - The Crown responds that discussions within consultations will include the four route alternatives. - The Crown asks to schedule a meeting in a few weeks once the responses have been complete, and suggests some time between March 19-22nd. - Coldwater states that the next Chief and Council meeting is on March 13th, and Councillor Manuel is only available the last week of March. - The Crown confirms that they can meet any time, and emphases the sooner the better. - Coldwater stated the meeting was good and productive and thanked Trans Mountain for participating with a mandate. Mar 06, Letter - Dawn Porter Jeff Smith March 6, 2019 Coldwater Indian Band (CIB), emailed a 2019 Received (Coldwater (TMEP) letter from Chief Spahan to M. Taylor, Indian Band), 2249 Quilchena Avenue, Merritt, BC Phone: (250) 378-6174 Natural Resources Canada - TMEP Lee Spahan Fax: (250) 37 8-5351 Consultation Lead, with a copy to Team (Coldwater Band Administrator , Public Works, Lands Wills & Estates, Member; regarding CIB's proposal for Indian Band), Housing, Economic Development discussing route alternatives. The letter, Mitch Taylor dated March 6, 2019, stated the Crown

8

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) (Natural #301-230th Street Coldwater Reserve Phone: (250) 378- was in the process of making a decision Resources 6168 that would affect CIB for generations, Canada) Fax : (250) 378-6153 and the importance to develop the Chief and Council (Executive Assis t ant) , Finance , Social appropriate process for discussion of Development, Education CIB's concerns about project route through their valley. The letter stated CIB's appreciation on the agreement to Via Email ([email protected]) discuss four route alternatives, and their belief of detailed analysis on the options, Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Consultation Team risk and impacts of each route to CIB's Natural Resources Canada rights and interests was a pre-requisite Attn: Mitch Taylor, Q.C. Consultation Lead to meaningful consultation. The letter 15 th floor, 1138 Melville Street Vancouver, BC V6E 453 noted evaluation of route alternatives needed to consider the essential missing Dear Mr. Taylor : information regarding CIB's aquifer, to understand where it is located, how it is Re: Proposed Trans Mountain Expansion Project recharged, the speed water flows into March 4, 2019 Meeting and Coldwater's Proposal for the aquifer, for understanding of risks Discussing Route Alternatives posed to their drinking water by the eastern routes. The letter stated I write on behalf of the Nc/etko (the people of the creeks), appreciation of Trans Mountain's general further to our March 4, 2019 meeting and our proposed agreement regarding the proposal framework for evaluating route alternatives through the regarding water quality sampling and Coldwater Valley. As my Councillors and I explained, the terms under which the hydrogeological Crown is in the process of making a huge decision that will study should proceed. The letter stated affect us for generations so it is very important that we CIB did not see data collection, analysis develop the appropriate process for understanding and and risk assessment of the drinking discussing our concerns about project routing through our water as separate from an evaluation of valley. Protection of our drinking water, and evaluation of route alternatives. The letter outlined route alternatives to avoid risks to our drinking water, is one why the hydrogeological or aquifer study of many concerns that Coldwater has with respect to the should precede, and inform, any proposed pipeline. evaluation of route alternatives, as outlined in CIB's March 4, 2019 proposal. Process for Evaluating Route Alternatives The letter stated CIB remained hopeful to work together an develop an We are glad that you have agreed that discussing the four appropriate process for evaluating route route alternatives, including the West Alternative, forms part alternatives through the Coldwater of the Crown's constitutional obligation to us and that Valley, and move these important information gaps need to be filled to enable this discussion. I decisions forward. The letter enclosed was personally appreciative of your specific confirmation of copies of CIB's proposed process for this in a direct response to my question during the meeting. considering routing alternatives, and BC We believe that a detailed analysis of routing options and Groundwater's memos which form part of risks and impacts of each route to Coldwater's rights and the proposal. The letter stated CIB interests {including our drinking water) is a pre-requisite to looked forward to a response of their meaningful consultation. As we told you at our meeting, the proposed process for discussion of route detailed route hearing process cannot be relied on to fulfill alternatives through the Coldwater the Crown's constitutional obligations to us. It was good to Valley. hear you confirm that a discussion of routing would, instead, form part of Phase Ill consultation, as it should.

An example of why full information and an objective and rigorous assessment of route alternatives is so important came up at our meeting when you mentioned that there are pros and cons to all of the routes that will need to be

9

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) considered. (I would add that there are also significant concerns regarding cultural impacts relating to aboriginal rights and title on the eastern routes, including with respect to Skuagen/Skuagam and Kwinshatin Creeks.) Within that context, you said that one of the key things is that the West Alternative crosses the Coldwater River twice and that there is obviously an issue with the eastern routes in regards to our aquifer. You said that these are key points that we have to come to grips with together.

We agree that river crossings need to be studied and considered, but, in this context, I told you how Ian Anderson once assured me how safe Trans Mountain's river crossings are. In fact, Ian Anderson told me that Kinder Morgan is in the business of managing risks and that HDD drilling allows Trans Mountain to cross rivers safely. When I hear about how Trans Mountain can manage countless river crossings throughout our territory, but then I hear you flag concerns about the West Alternative - the only route that does not put our drinking water at risk - because of two additional river crossings (something I have heard from Trans Mountain many times in justifying their refusal to reconsider the West Alternative) I am reminded about how critical it is that any process considering routing alternatives is based on unbiased and transparent information about the potential impacts and risks of the various routes. I hope that we can work together to establish an appropriate process that allows for the rigorous analysis and an accurate appraisal of the risks and benefits of each of the proposed routes to allow for a fully informed evaluation of routing options, including getting to the bottom of how risky the river crossings associated with the West Alternative actually are. As Minister Sohi said, this will need to be a fact based discussion.

You now have our proposed process for discussing route alternatives in hand. We note that it does not contain any timelines - the primary line of questioning you had at our meeting. This is because, apart from BC Groundwater who we have been working with for many years, we have not yet retained experts to provide us with their advice with respect to filling other key gaps needed to evaluate route alternatives . Once you take our proposal to your Deputy Minister and discuss it with her, we look forward to hearing back from you about our proposed process. We anticipate hearing back from you within a week, as you indicated. Once we know whether or not you agree to the process, we can talk about funding and retain experts needed to fill information gaps, particularly regarding the rights and title impacts and geohazards associated with the West Alternative as Trans Mountain has already generally agreed to proceed with the hydrogeological work regarding our aquifer. As we said at our meeting, we agreed that further discussions, such as the establishment of a Terms of Reference for the process may be required. We are happy to have those conversations or

10

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) answer any other questions or concerns you might have with our proposal that were not aired at our meeting.

On the issue of timing, though, I think it bears pointing out that Coldwater has been expecting to do this very kind of analysis of the different routing options since 2015 but this was thwarted by Trans Mountain who determined unilaterally sometime before March 2015 that the West Alternative route was no longer under consideration. We immediately and persistently pressed from that time on to have Trans Mountain, the NEB and the Government of Canada do a proper study of the route alternatives, including the West Alternative. All refused. Had this been done correctly in the first place, as Coldwater suggested, it would have been done some time ago. It is also frustrating, that even now, when you apparently have a full mandate to discuss routing with us, we have to wait for you to take matters up to your Deputy Minister before committing to next st eps. This lies in stark contrast to Trans Mountain -who sent technical representatives to our meeting with full spending authority to authorize the study of our aquifer, including a new scope of work we had not previously discussed with them and that is proposed because of the imminent start of the freshet.

The Aquifer Study

As we outlined, the evaluation of route alternatives needs to consider the essential missing information about our aquifer. As our hydrogeologist, Thierry Carriou of BC Groundwater, explained, it is critical that we complete the hydrogeological study so we understand our aquifer- where it is located, how it is recharged, the speed water flows into our aquifer etc. so that we can better understand the risks posed by the eastern routes to our drinking water. Until we have this information, Mr. Carriou's advice to us is that discussing pipeline protection and safety measures that could be implemented along the eastern routes is premature. As he explained, you need to know what you are trying to protect in order to develop measures to protect it. Our proposal for discussing routing alternatives therefore sees the aquifer study and the information it would gather as an input to an evaluation of routing alternatives. As you have agreed, consideration of the West Alternative - which avoids risks to our aquifer all together - will also be considered.

We appreciate that Trans Mountain is in general agreement with BC Groundwater's proposals regarding water quality sampling and the terms under which hydrogeological study should proceed (both dated February 26, 2019) . Hearing that BC Groundwater's proposals make total sense from a technical perspective and that Trans Mountain is keen to

11

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) undertake this work with Coldwater (and our trusted advisors at BC Groundwater) helped to move that issue forward at our meeting, though we look forward to Trans Mountain 's formal response to BC Groundwater's February 26, 2019 memos which we understand will come so on. As BC Groundwater explained, we will need a response on the proposed baseline monitoring by next week for the work program to be initiated before the freshet, which may be upon us within two weeks.

Despite Trans Mountain's desire to move forward with this work, I must reiterate - as I did at our meeting - that we do not see data collection, analysis and risk assessment with respect to our aquifer and drinking water as separate from an evaluation of route alternatives. An accurate, and science based, understanding of the impacts of proposed routes on our water is a critical precursor to analyzing or evaluating route alternatives.

The Importance of the Aquifer Study Preceding an Evaluation of Routing Alternatives

It seemed as though there was some question in your mind at our meeting as to whether a discussion of the four route alternatives could proceed concurrently with the hydrogeological work that needs to be done to understand impacts and risks to our aquifer. You suggested that gathering information with respect to the various alternative routes and the study of the aquifer were "different things". When we explained that they were, in fact , part and parcel, you suggested that we "don't need to worry about how we get both" . With respect, we disagree. Because of this, I want to outline why the hydrogeological or aquifer study is so important and should precede and inform any evaluation of route alternatives as outlined in our March 4, 2019 proposal.

• We know that impacts and risks to Coldwater’s aquifer are yet to be determined. The NEB Report found that:

Trans Mountain has not conducted a hydrogeological study at the Coldwater Reserve that could more precisely predict any potential interactions for the proposed pipeline and the aquifer relied on by the Coldwater Indian Band. The Board finds that Trans Mountain has not sufficiently substantiated in its evidence that there is no potential interactions with the aquifer underlying Coldwater IR No. 1 and the proposed project route. The Board would therefore impose Condition 39 requiring Trans Mountain to file a hydrogeological study to more precisely determine the potential for interactions and impacts on the aquifer at the Coldwater IR 1 (NEB Reconsideration Report, p 329).

The hydrogeological study needed to understand our aquifer is still in its infancy. You heard this from BC Groundwater at

12

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) our meeting and Trans Mountain was in general agreement with our proposed process for completing the study (though details are to be worked out in subsequent conversations and some updates may be needed as homes have now been built on previous drilling locations).

• The NEB' s recommended Condition 39, which is based on good scientific principles, requires that routing be considered after risks to Coldwater's aquifer have been delineated. Condition 39 components (b) through (e) provide that once the aquifer is delineated, aquifer recharge sources and confinement have been characterized, and the direction and speed of groundwater movement is understood then risks to Coldwater's drinking water will be quantified. In other words, baseline information is needed to understand the plumbing system, then risks can be assessed. Only once you understand what you are trying to protect can the ability of mitigation measures to manage risks be considered. Specifically, you cannot compare the relative risks of the alternative routes without the aquifer study nor can you consider the adequacy of any proposed pipeline protection measures until the aquifer study is complete.

• The Crown was previously of the view that understanding the aquifer is essential to an assessment of routing risks from pipeline alternatives. In other words, the hydrogeological study needs to be completed before the relative risks of route alternatives can be evaluated. By letter dated November 28, 2016 the Crown's former consultation lead informed me that "understanding the local-scale groundwater flow regime is essential to an assessment of the vulnerability of Coldwater's water supply wells to risks from the various pipeline routing alternatives considered by the proponent". The Crown also accepted BC Groundwater's conclusions that "the existing pipeline route presents a lower risk to the Band's water supply than the eastern routes." Given your regular statements about the importance of building off of the past consultation process we trust you are in agreement with the Crown's previous consultation lead that the information gathered through the hydrogeological study is essential to understanding our aquifer and the risk of routes that you have now agreed to evaluate during Phase Ill consultation.

• In Tsleil-Waututh v Canada (Attorney General) the Court found that Canada is required to explore how our concerns, particularly those related to protection of our drinking water, could be addressed. The Court was particularly critical of the Crown for placing its reliance on Condition 39, which "carried no certainty about the pipeline route." The Court was also critical of Condition 39 because it did not "provide any certainty as to how the Board would assess the risk to the aquifer." (para 679). The Court was clear that the Crown has an obligation to both understand the risks and impacts of the proposed route alternatives on our sole source of drinking

13

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) water, and to discuss and explore options to deal with this very real concern, including routing. These are interconnected conversations and if Canada wants to proceed with discussing the eastern routes that put our drinking water at risk then the facts about our aquifer that would be gathered through a hydrogeological study (including monitoring to gather information about the speed of recharge and water quality) are needed.

Based on NEB Condition 39, the Crown's understanding at the end of the failed Phase Ill consultation process in 2016, and the resulting Federal Court of Appeal decision based on these facts, there can be no question that the hydrogeological study - and certainty as to risks to our aquifer - followed by an evaluating routes as an option to deal with these concerns must occur as part of the Crown's Phase Ill consultation process. In our mind, the aquifer work BC Groundwater outlined at our meeting, including assessment of risks to our water posed by the eastern route alternatives, must feed into the evaluation of route alternatives. In other words, we do, in fact, need to worry about how we get both the aquifer study done, and gather and compile missing information about the West Alternative, and implement an appropriate process for evaluating the facts about each route alternative once the essential facts have been gathered.

The fact that there are questions about the relationship between understanding our aquifer and assessing routing options is another example of why continuity is so important - an issue Councillor Mike Smithers and I raised at our meeting. Had we been meeting with Ross Neil, Canada's former consultation lead, I must believe that we would be in agreement that the hydrogeological study and gathering essential missing information about our aquifer would need to inform and precede an analysis of routing options. Similarly, Mr. Neil surely would have known that all existing baseline data regarding our aquifer (to the extent that there is any) had been considered by BC Groundwater in May 2015 and still the NEB and the Crown determined that the aquifer study was necessary given the very serious information gap. The basic question by a member of your team about whether existing data has been considered yet speaks volumes of the importance of continuity between the teams of people who are sent to meet with us, yet still have much to learn about the conversations and information that have preceded them.

Next Steps

We remain hopeful that we can work together to develop an appropriate process for evaluating route alternatives through the Coldwater Valley and look forward to moving these important discussions forward, or as you say, get into a "substantive discussion" about routing. As I explained at our

14

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) meeting, protection of our drinking water remains the key priority for Coldwater. Our members are scared and terrified about the impact of the proposed pipeline on our drinking water supply. I have also heard from Chiefs across Canada about their difficulties in accessing clean, safe drinking water on their reserves, and how they are still waiting for Canada to provide the funding needed to upgrade aging water treatment infrastructure.

We don't want to get to the place of having to rely on Canada, or Trans Mountain, to provide our drinking water. Nor do we want to be forced to move away from the Coldwater Valley because there is no water for us to drink. Instead, we want to be able to continue to rely on the aquifer below our reserve for drinking water for the next hundred years, and beyond. This is why it is so important that we analyze the West Alternative route, and ensure that we have all the facts about our aquifer and avoid speculation about how impacts from the eastern routes can be managed through safety programs when essential information about our aquifer has yet to be gathered.

I enclose copies of our proposed process for considering routing alternatives and BC Groundwater's memos which form part of this proposal that you received on Monday in case having electronic copies makes it easier for you to share these materials with your Deputy Minister or if you would like to share them with Environment Canada.

We look forward to your response to our proposed process for discussing route alternatives through the Coldwater Valley which must be informed by an understanding of risks posed that the east alternative routes to our drinking water if those alternatives are to remain under consideration. The aquifer study and discussion of routing alternatives cannot be siloed into separate processes.

COLDWATER INDIAN BAND ./

Chief T. Lee Spahan

Encl. March 4, 2019 - Proposed Process for Considering Routing Alternatives

February 26, 2019 - BC Groundwater Recommended Path Forward: Continuation of Hydrogeologic Investigations Leading to an Understanding of Aquifer Vulnerability from the Proposed Trans Mountain Expansion Pipeline

February 26, 2019 - BC Groundwater Work Program to Carry Out Datalogger Monitoring and Water Sampling to Support

15

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Hydrogeological Assessment and Baseline Monitoring

cc. Jeff Smith, Trans Mountain (Jeff [email protected]) Mar 14, Email - Corrina Manuel Regan From: Dawn Porter [mailto:[email protected]] D. Porter, Coldwater Indian Band (CIB), 2019 Incoming (Coldwater Schlecker Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 12:19 PM emailed Team Members and provided Indian Band), (TMEP), To: Jenkins, Cyril; Lee Spahan; Gerome Garcia; Corrina the signed purchase order, and advised Dawn Porter Cyril Jenkins Manuel; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; CIB had retained BC Groundwater to (Coldwater (TMEP), Schlecker, Regan; Smith, Jeff; Blair, Melanie; Mottahedeh, complete the Datalogger Monitoring and Indian Band), Melanie Blair Neeka Water Sampling Program. CIB advised Emma Hume (TMEP), Subject: RE: Datalogger Monitoring and Water Sampling they would provide a response regarding (Coldwater Neeka Program a communication protocol, but first Indian Band), Mottahedeh wanted to hear about the routing Gerome Garcia (TMEP) Good Morning proposal. (Coldwater Attached is the sign purchase order and Coldwater has also Indian Band), retained BC Groundwater to complete the work Lee Spahan And will get back to you soon about a communication (Coldwater protocol but would like to hear about the routing proposal first Indian Band), Dawn Thierry Carriou (BC Groundwater Consulting Services Ltd.) Mar 15, Letter - Lee Spahan Ian Anderson March 15, 2019 Team Member sent a letter via courier to 2019 Sent (Coldwater (TMEP), Chief Spahan, Coldwater Indian Band Indian Band), Regan Sent Via Courier (CIB). The letter dated March 14, 2019 Mitch Taylor Schlecker referred to CIB's letter of March 6, 2019 (Natural (TMEP), Chief Lee Spahan & Council Coldwater Indian Band in regard to evaluation of potential Resources Jeff Smith 2249 Quilchena Avenue Merritt, BC VIK 1B8 routing alternatives for the Project, Canada) (TMEP) around the CIB Reserve No. 1. The Attention: Chief Lee Spahan letter provided confirmation of work undertaken by Trans Mountain to identify Dear Chief Spahan: potential route alternatives and mitigation measures on the Project in connection Re: Evaluation of Route Alternatives for the Trans Mountain Expansion with Phase III consultation. The letter Project noted Trans Mountain was willing to review five different options. The letter I refer to your letter of March 6, 2019, in respect of the evaluation of stated each option involved technical potential routing alternatives for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project and financial impacts to be discussed ("TMEP") around the Coldwater Indian Band ("Coldwater") Reserve No. 1 further by Trans Mountain and CIB, the (the "Reserve"). results of which, would ultimately need approval by the National Energy Board. This letter is provided to confirm the work undertaken by Trans Mountain The letter advised that Trans Mountain to identify potential route alternatives and mitigation measures on TMEP formally confirmed its agreement and in connection with the Phase III consultation process. As a result of this support of the hydrogeological study. work, Trans Mountain is willing to commit to reviewing five different The letter stated TM recommended the options for TMEP in and around the Reserve. We have detailed each of respective teams to discuss next steps these options in Appendix A, but wish to highlight that the options include for re-commencement of the exploration both the West Alternative favoured by Coldwater and drilling program, immediately. The letter relocation/decommission of the existing Trans Mountain Pipeline System noted upon completion of the ("TMPL") across the Reserve. hydrogeological study, Trans Mountain wished to engage directly with CIB for Each of the options involves technical and financial considerations and discussion and review of the route

16

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) impacts that will need to be discussed further by Trans Mountain and alternatives and gain mutual agreement Coldwater. In particular, several of the options will require Trans Mountain on a path forward. to incur substantial additional costs. While the Modified East Alternative remains Trans Mountain's preferred route from a technical, safety and environmental perspective, Trans Mountain is committed to working with Coldwater in a timely manner to evaluate the alternatives and jointly agree upon an option. Any agreed upon option will ultimately need to be approved by the National Energy Board according to established regulatory requirements and process.

We acknowledge that each of the options requires further evaluation by Coldwater. With the exception of the West Alternative, this evaluation includes completion of the hydrogeological study. As requested in your March 6th letter, Trans Mountain hereby formally confirms its agreement with the water sampling and exploration drilling work contemplated under the memorandums from BC Groundwater Consulting Services Ltd. both dated February 26, 2019. We note that we have separately agreed to provide financial support for the proposed water sampling program in a letter dated March 11, 2019. We recommend our respective teams meet to discuss next steps on re-commencing the exploration drilling program immediately.

As a starting point, Trans Mountain further agrees to provide an additional amount of $25,000 to assist Coldwater in reviewing the options described in this letter and all available route information. We enclose with this letter a cheque in the amount of $25,000 representing this funding. This funding is provided on the strict condition that it will be used by Coldwater for the purposes described in this letter. Immediately following, we wish to engage directly with Coldwater in an effort to discuss and review the route alternatives provided herein, as necessary, so that the parties can mutually agree on a path forward.

Finally, as noted above, completion of the hydrogeological study is not required to evaluate the West Alternative. Trans Mountain is willing to immediately begin discussing the terms on which it is willing to proceed with this option if indeed the West Alternative remains the route favoured by Coldwater. I will be in touch with you separately to discuss next steps in this regard.

Trans Mountain Pipeline L.P.

o/s Ian Anderson

cc. M. Taylor, Q.C., Consultation Lead, Natural Resources Canada Regan Schlecker, Manager, Indigenous Relations, Trans Mountain Corporation Jeff Smith, Senior Advisor, Indigenous Relations, Trans Mountain Expansion Project Emma Hume, Ratcliff & Company Mar 19, Email - Corrina Manuel Regan From: Schlecker, Regan [mailto:[email protected]] Team Member emailed D. Porter, 2019 Outgoing (Coldwater Schlecker Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 9:05 AM Coldwater Indian Band (CIB), and Indian Band), (TMEP), To: 'Dawn Porter' acknowledged receipt of CIB's March 18, Dawn Porter Jeff Smith Cc: Jenkins, Cyril; Lee Spahan; Gerome Garcia; Corrina Manuel; 2019 letter. Team Member attached a (Coldwater (TMEP), '[email protected]'; Emma Hume; Smith, Jeff; Blair, Melanie; copy of a letter from Trans Mountain Indian Band), Cyril Jenkins Mottahedeh, Neeka; Mitchell Taylor ([email protected]); dated March 15, 2019 with respect to

17

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Emma Hume (TMEP), 'Sheppard2, Christopher (NRCAN/RNCAN)'; [email protected] routing and hydrology studies noting that (Coldwater Melanie Blair Subject: RE: Datalogger Monitoring and Water Sampling Program the original had been sent via courier Indian Band), (TMEP), Importance: High directly to Chief Spahan. Team Member Lee Spahan Neeka requested confirmation of receipt. Team (Coldwater Mottahedeh Member indicated there were questions Indian Band), (TMEP) Good morning Dawn, regarding CIB's March 18, 2019 letter Mitch Taylor and looked forward to further dialog at (Natural Trans Mountain is in receipt of Coldwater’s most recent letter to NRCAN the earliest opportunity. Resources dated March 18, 2019. Canada), Christopher I write to share copy of attached Trans Mountain letter to Coldwater Sheppard dated March 15, 2019 with respect to both routing and hydrology studies. (Natural I just realized it was emailed direct to Chief Spahan without copy to you; Resources however, the original was sent via courier same day to your office. Canada), Please confirm receipt? Kimberly Lavoie (Natural Resources I also share copy of this letter as per your note below regarding Canada), communication protocol to discuss next steps on studies; as we have Thierry Carriou some questions for clarification regarding your most recent letter of March (BC 18 and look forward to further dialogue at the earliest opportunity. Groundwater Consulting Services Ltd.) Thank you,

Regan

Regan Schlecker, M.A. Manager, Indigenous Relations Trans Mountain Corporation Office 604 268.3012 Cell 778 686.8177 [email protected] Mar 22, Email - Corrina Manuel Regan From: Emma Hume [mailto:[email protected]] E. Hume, on behalf of Coldwater Indian 2019 Incoming (Coldwater Schlecker Sent: Friday, March 22, 2019 4:03 PM Band, emailed Team Member and Indian Band), (TMEP), To: Schlecker, Regan confirmed delivery of I. Anderson's Dawn Porter Tyler Mitchell Cc: Jenkins, Cyril; Lee Spahan; Gerome Garcia; Corrina Manuel; March 15, 2019 letter to Chief Spahan. (Coldwater (TMEP), '[email protected]'; Smith, Jeff; Blair, Melanie; Mottahedeh, E. Hume included a copy of an approved Indian Band), Jeff Smith Neeka; Mitchell Taylor ([email protected]); 'Sheppard2, BC Groundwater memo that outlined a Emma Hume (TMEP), Christopher (NRCAN/RNCAN)'; [email protected]; 'Dawn communication protocol for the (Coldwater Cyril Jenkins Porter' hydrogeological study as well as next Indian Band), (TMEP), Subject: RE: Datalogger Monitoring and Water Sampling Program steps that would require discussion prior Lee Spahan Melanie Blair to the Indian Reserve No 1 drilling (Coldwater (TMEP), Hi Regan, program commencement. Indian Band), Neeka Christopher Mottahedeh I wanted to follow-up on your email to confirm that Ian Anderson’s March Sheppard (TMEP) 15th letter has now been brought to Chief Spahan’s attention (he was not (Natural aware of it until your email to Dawn). Dawn, and much of Coldwater Resources council, is away on holiday for spring break (returning April 1st) so there Canada), will be some delay in responding to the letter and setting meeting dates. Kimberly Lavoie (Natural Prior to receiving Trans Mountain’s letter the attached memo from BC Resources Groundwater was approved. This memo outlines a communication Canada), protocol for hydrogeological study as well as next steps that will need to

18

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Mitch Taylor be discussed with Coldwater before the IR 1 drilling program is (Natural commenced. I provide this now given Coldwater’s previous commitment Resources to outline a protocol for discussing the hydrogeological study (as noted in Canada), your email below) but note I do not have instructions, nor can I speak to Thierry Carriou Coldwater’s views, with respect to recommencing the IR 1 (BC hydrogeological study in light of Trans Mountain’s commitment to seek Groundwater joint agreement to a route option, including the West Alternative. Consulting Services Ltd.) As an update, I understand that BC Groundwater commenced the water quality sampling program, approved by Trans Mountain by letter dated March 11, 2019, last week.

Appreciate your patience.

Emma

Emma K Hume │Associate│Ratcliff & Company LLP 500 - 221 West Esplanade │ North Vancouver BC │ V7M 3J3 P 604.988.5201 │ F 604.988.1452 │ [email protected] Mar 26, Letter - Emma Hume Regan March 26, 2019 Team Members were included on a letter 2019 Sent (Coldwater Schlecker sent by Natural Resources Canada to Indian Band), (TMEP), Chief Lee Spahan and Council Coldwater Indian Band (CIB) regarding Lee Spahan Jeff Smith Coldwater Indian Band the recommencement of the (Coldwater (TMEP) 301-230th Street hydrogeological study and routing Indian Band), Coldwater Reserve # 1 discussion. The letter referenced Mitch Taylor PO Box 4600, Merritt BC VIK 1B8 multiple correspondence from both (Natural parties over the course of March 2019 Resources Dear Chief Spahan, and expressed the desire to facilitate Canada) Thank you for your letter of March 18, 2019 responding to my letter of substantive, information-based March 15 ,2019. I understand from the final paragraph of your letter that, consultation between CIB and TMEP in at the time of writing, you had not yet seen Trans Mountain's letters of regard to routing. March 11 and 15, 2019. For ease of reference, I am enclosing copies of each letter. Notably, Trans Mountain reconfirmed its shared interest to recommence the hydrogeological study; they agreed to provide additional funding for some further work regarding the aquifer and committed to discussing routing alternatives. The Crown also expressed its continued commitment to discuss routing alternatives.

Further to our meeting of March 4, 2019, in which you tabled three documents, I want to assure you that we have considered the material you provided and further elaborated upon in your letter of March 6, 2019. Your proposal for the hydrogeological study and consideration of route alternatives is much appreciated. The intent of my letter of March 15, 2019 was to set out the Crown's position in response to your proposal and open up a dialogue. Specifically, we welcome your commitment to the hydrogeological study and look forward to that proceeding within the framework that both Coldwater and Trans Mountain agreed to, as supplemented by the March 4 proposals from BC Groundwater and Trans Mountain's response letter of March 11, 2019.

With respect to route considerations, it is our position and shared desire to move forward and facilitate substantive, information-based discussions about routing between Coldwater, the Crown and Trans Mountain Corporation. In doing so, we need to be mindful of timelines and the

19

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) guidance from the Federal Court of Appeal that the reinitiated Phase 3 consultations can be specific and focused. Under the National Energy Board (NEB) Act, the Governor in Council must make a decision on a project within three months of receiving a report from the NEB, unless before then it decides to extend the time for decision. In its deliberations, the Governor in Council will consider whether the duty to consult has been met or whether more needs to be done.

It is through meaningful and substantive consultation with Coldwater and involving Trans Mountain that the Crown can be clear as to what is known, what information gaps exist, clarify points of difference and agreement, and for us to work cooperatively in a timely way to close gaps, identify mitigation and accommodation measures and outline what remains to be done. We agree with you that it is important for the Crown to fully understand the impacts of the Project on Coldwater's section 35 rights, including the protection of the aquifer. We will do this open- mindedly, assisted by dialogue with Coldwater; however, we also believe that Trans Mountain Corporation's participation in routing discussions is critical to finding a path forward. Our engagement must also respect the jurisdiction of the NEB.

As stated on page 2 of my letter, the Crown and Trans Mountain are prepared to provide support to Coldwater so that you can have the right people at the table, with the appropriate knowledge and skills, to engage in a meaningful technical dialogue on the important issues you have identified.

We believe it is in everyone's interests to work cooperatively and in a timely way. For this reason, we respectfully request to meet at your earliest opportunity to discuss an efficient way to provide capacity to Coldwater and initiate substantive dialogue about routing. Yours truly,

Mitchell R. Taylor Consultation Lead Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Consultation Team Natural Resources Canada Telephone: 604-312-6285 Email: [email protected] cc: Emma Hume, counsel, Ratcliff Regan Schlecker, Manager Indigenous Relations, Trans Mountain Jeff Smith, Senior Advisor, Indigenous Relations, Trans Mountain Expansion Project Apr 05, Letter - Cheryl Aljam Ian Anderson April 5, 2019 Via Email Chief Spahan, Coldwater Indian Band 2019 Received (Coldwater (TMEP), (CIB), emailed a letter to Trans Mountain Indian Band), Regan Trans Mountain Pipeline President, in response to a March 15, Lee Spahan Schlecker Attn: lan D. Anderson, President 2019 letter regarding route alternatives. (Coldwater (TMEP) 2700-300 5th Avenue SW Chief Spahan reiterated the need to Indian Band) Calgary, AB T2P 5J2 complete the hydrogeological study at Coldwater Indian Reserve No. 1 and the Re: Evaluation of Route Alternatives evaluation of the impacts of the various routes in order to gather the necessary Dear Mr. Anderson : outstanding information and consult with the CIB membership. Chief Spahan

20

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Thank you for your March 15, 2019 letter, which I received on proposed an April 10, 2019 meeting with March 19, 2019. Trans Mountain to discuss next steps, including the terms in which Trans My council and I have now had a chance to discuss your Mountain was willing to proceed with the proposal, and appreciate the opportunity various proposed options. to fully examine routing alternatives through the Coldwater Valley, including the West Alternative. We have wanted to undertake this evaluation for many years and appreciate the opportunity to do so now.

As outlined at our March 4, 2019 meeting, we will need to gather outstanding information about the risks and impacts of the various routes and consult with our membership. This requires completion of the hydrogeological study at Coldwater Indian Reserve No. 1 and an evaluation of the impacts of the various routes on our aboriginal rights and title interests, amongst other things. BC Groundwater will be assisting us in reinitiating the hydrogeological study, and is working on next steps set out in their March 7, 2019 memo now.

We would like to meet with Trans Mountain to discuss next steps, including the terms on which you are willing to proceed with the various options proposed in your letter following a Coldwater lead evaluation of alternatives and community consultations.

We propose to meet the afternoon of April 10th at Coldwater Indian Reserve No. 1.

COLDWATER INDIAN BAND Chief T. Lee Spahan Apr 05, Email - Dawn Porter Regan From: Dawn Porter [mailto:[email protected]] From: Schlecker, Regan D. Porter, Coldwater Indian Band, 2019 Exchange (Coldwater Schlecker Sent: Friday, April 05, 2019 3:18 PM Sent: Friday, April 05, 2019 4:17 PM exchanged email with Team Members Indian Band) (TMEP), To: Schlecker, Regan; Smith, Jeff To: 'Dawn Porter'; Smith, Jeff and requested to know if they were Jeff Smith Cc: '[email protected]' Cc: '[email protected]' available to meet on April 10, 2019 at (TMEP) Subject: Meeting with Coldwater Band Subject: RE: Meeting with Coldwater Band Coldwater office. D. Porter requested Importance: High confirmation of attendance to [This email message was received from the Internet and accommodate catering if April 10, 2019 came from outside of Trans Mountain] Good afternoon, Dawn. was suitable. Team Member stated that Good Afternoon Regan / Jeff she would follow up with colleague to Chief Lee Spahan would like to know if you are available to Thank you for the invite to meet next week. confirm April 10, 2019. Team Member meet on Wednesday April 10, 2019 from 2:30 to 4:30 PM at inquired if meeting was in regards to the Coldwater Administration office. I will follow up with Jeff to confirm and we will make every effort to attend routing and/or the hydrogeological If this date works could you please confirm how many will be April 10. studies and requested agenda for attending with you, so I can let our caterer know. meeting. Thank you I anticipate this may be in regards to routing and/or the hydrogeological studies. So that we can arrange to have the appropriate team members Dawn Porter join us, could you please advise us of the agenda? Executive Assistant to Chief and Council Coldwater Indian Band Wishing you a wonderful start to the weekend! 250-378-6168 (phone) 250-378-6153 (fax)

21

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Thank you, Regan

Regan Schlecker, M.A. Manager, Indigenous Relations Trans Mountain Corporation Office 604 268.3012 Cell 778 686.8177 [email protected] Apr 05, Email - Dawn Porter Regan E. Hume, on behalf of Coldwater Indian 2019 Incoming (Coldwater Schlecker Band, emailed Team Member and Indian Band), (TMEP), confirmed that BC Groundwater would Emma Hume Jeff Smith be attending April 10, 2019 meeting. (Coldwater (TMEP) Indian Band), Nathan Hume (Ratcliff & Company) Apr 09, Email - Cheryl Aljam Regan Hi Regan, C. Aljam, Coldwater Indian Band (CIB), 2019 Incoming (Coldwater Schlecker emailed Team Member and provided a Indian Band), (TMEP) Yes, your assumption is correct. However, we would like the draft agenda for an April 10, 2019 Emma Hume April 10 2019 meeting to be a discussion of Trans Mountain’s meeting. C. Aljam advised that CIB (Coldwater March 15, 2019 letter, including the process for evaluating would like to use the meeting to discuss Indian Band) route alternatives & terms on which Trans Mountain is willing Trans Mountain's March 15, 2019 letter to proceed with various route options. This will include an and the process for evaluating route update from BC Groundwater on the IR 1 hydrogeological alternatives and the terms on which study. Trans Mountain was willing to proceed with various route options. C. Aljam I’ve attached a draft agenda for our meeting. If there is noted that the discussion would include anything you’d like to add please let me know. an update from BC Groundwater on the Indian Reserve No 1 hydrogeological Can you please confirm who will be attending from Trans study. C. Aljam requested confirmation Mountain? of Trans Mountain attendees.

Dawn will be away from the office for the remainder of the week so if you need anything you can message Emma Hume

Thank you,

Cheryl Aljam Apr 10, In-Person Corrina Manuel Randy Brake Meeting – April 10, 2019 Team Members met with Chief Spahan 2019 (Coldwater (TMEP), and Council, Coldwater Indian Band Indian Band), Regan Key Topics: (CIB), and discussed several aspects of Emma Hume Schlecker - consultation both Project routing, and the (Coldwater (TMEP), - routing hydrogeological study for Coldwater Indian Band), Jeff Smith - hydrogeological study (condition 39) Indian Reserve #1. Gerome Garcia (TMEP), (Coldwater Cyril Jenkins Indian Band), (TMEP), April 10 2019 Larry Antoine Neeka 2:30pm– 5:30pmPT (Coldwater Mottahedeh Coldwater Administration Offices IR#1 Indian Band), (TMEP) Lee Spahan Attending: (Coldwater

22

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Indian Band), Coldwater: Nathan Hume • Chief Lee Spahan (Coldwater • Councillors: Corrina Manuel, Gerome Garcia, Larry Antoine Indian Band) • Nathan Hume, Emma Hume (Ratcliff & Co legal) • BC Groundwater (Thierry Carriou and Rick Cronin)

Trans Mountain: • Regan Schlecker • Jeff Smith • Randy Brake • Cyril Jenkins • Neeka Mottahedeh

Agenda: 1. Welcome and opening remarks 2. Agenda review 3. Discussion of Trans Mountain March 15 2019 letter and process for evaluating route alternatives a. Update on IR#1 Hydrogeological study b. Other 4. Next Steps

Summary:

• TM tabled copy of attached mitigation measures memo to supplement TM’s March 15, 2019 letter on the various route options to be discussed. • Chief Spahan noted that Coldwater: o Needs to understand the terms and conditions for potential route options such as Western Alternative; Coldwater has right and title interests on reserve and throughout territory o Has questions on the Western Alternative route geohazards, as well as impacts on access and existing line o Is in the position it is due to government decisions, little land left and seeking wins in the court o Needs to understand cumulative effects of the project o Interested to know if other valleys have been considered o Sees too much at stake to agree to a route that crosses the aquifer o Members concerned with abandonment of the pipeline – what does that mean for maintenance? o Members terrified of an explosion of the pipeline and safety – integrity of the line after so many years of operation o Members mistrust NEB o Wherever the pipe is placed will impact traditional use like gathering mushrooms o NNTC Chiefs have asked us why routing in our Territory o Employment is a key concern for local Chiefs (Nooaitch and Shackan) o Will not attend IAMC as the optics may be that Coldwater is OK with TMEP and it’s not o Frustrated that other communities are getting rich but Coldwater suffers impacts without prosperity o Invite to Ian Anderson to walk the ROW with Chief to see impacts o Taxation should be considered part of reconciliation o What are the increased construction costs associated with the Western Alternative?

23

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) o Coldwater to confirm band member notification / consent for hydrogeological site access to proceed with drill site prep • Coldwater Legal (Emma Hume) noted: o Coldwater prepared proposal to evaluate routing o Chief and Council appreciate the Western Alternative being tabled by Trans Mountain o How do we move forward together? What does a joint decision mean? o Geohazard field work needed to evaluate risk o Concern with timelines o Interest to develop joint agreement on route; mindful of May 20 deadline o Interest to discuss existing line and tax implications for movement off reserve. o Would TM consider removing existing line from Reserve part of reconciliation? • Trans Mountain noted: o Ian Anderson sends regrets for not attending today’s meeting, it was a miscommunication that his attendance was expected. Ian wishes to meet ASAP with Chief to discuss March 15 2019 letter re-route considerations. o Safety of the line and of communities is #1 priority o TM complies with all NEB regulations, robust integrity program o Some geohazard work done to date, need technical experts to confirm. o Strong interest to discuss hydrogeological study recommencing ASAP; understand that study results needed to inform decision. TMEP may change its consultants o Study timing may depend on enviro windows and SARA permits o Pleased to work with Coldwater/ BC Groundwater on next steps for Study including confirmation of drill site locations, roles and responsibilities, funding, RFPs to expedite field work, logistics and access permissions. Intent is to stream line and have Coldwater lead the study, TM only needs to receive data, ensure study can be replicated and have inspector on site. Coldwater to lead site prep for drill sites for efficiency with local equipment and contractor. o Inquired if Coldwater intends new wells for future water use? § Coldwater confirmed no, production well is not the intent but could use as backup, need to determine quality first. o If Western Alternative pursued there is no need for study. o If both lines in West Alternative route, then existing line would be abandoned on Reserve and remediated to NEB standards. TM is open to discussing options that would retain existing line on Reserve. o West Alternative most costly of route options – 2 HDDs and 2Km additional pipe length o Discussion on project benefits various with route option costs

Next Steps • TM to clarify if an option that includes the West Alternative for Project route while maintaining existing line on IR#1 is feasible • TM to clarify the various options for pipeline abandonment and/or deactivation regarding IR#1; scope of that work and tax implications • TM to provide updated construction cost estimates (since 2013) for each of the route options outline in March 15, 2019 letter • TM to provide feedback to Coldwater on the hydrogeological study • Coldwater to provide capacity funding proposal on next steps to address information gaps related to West Alternative, including geohazard

24

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) assessment and TLU. • TM to provide Shapefiles and/or available information related to West Alternative • Coldwater to prepare draft minutes of meeting for comment by TM • TM to anticipate invoices from Coldwater (BC Groundwater) this week Apr 12, Letter - Cheryl Aljam Ian Anderson From: O'Connor, Dolores Trans Mountain President, emailed a 2019 Sent (Coldwater (TMEP), Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 12:32 PM letter dated April 12, 2019 to Chief Indian Band), Regan To: Lee Spahan - Coldwater ([email protected]); Spahan, Coldwater Indian Band (CIB), Dawn Porter Schlecker '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; regarding a meeting held on April 10, (Coldwater (TMEP), '[email protected]'; Blair, Melanie; Schlecker, Regan; Smith, Jeff 2019. The letter included an apology for Indian Band), Jeff Smith Subject: Letter to Chief Spahan his not having been in attendance and a Emma Hume (TMEP), recap of what was provided to him in the (Coldwater Dolores Good afternoon Chief Spahan: debrief that followed. The letter Indian Band), O'Connor expressed pleasure in the productive Lee Spahan (TMEP), Please see the attached letter from Ian Anderson. nature of the discussion on both routing (Coldwater Melanie Blair and the hydrogeological study. The Indian Band) (TMEP) letter listed the action items that came Dolores O’Connor from the meeting and acknowledged W: 403.514.6608 Chief Spahan's invitation to accompany ______him on a walk through CIB territory as an April 12, 2019 Via Email opportunity to better understand the ([email protected]) impacts of the pipeline on the community. The letter included an Chief Lee Spahan Coldwater Indian Band acceptance to the invitation and 2249 Quilchena Avenue Merritt, BC V1K 1B8 suggested it be an opportunity to talk about a long term relationship as well. And to: [email protected] The letter contained a request for [email protected] another meeting in the near future for a [email protected] discussion of the various processes required for each route scenario, such as Dear Chief Spahan: steps for conducting study work and anticipated time frames to retrieve all I write further to the meeting of April 10, 2019. To begin, I want to relay necessary information required by the my sincere apologies for any confusion regarding attendance; I would CIB for their route option evaluation. have made every effort to be there had I known your expectation. The letter closed with a request for scheduling availability to firm up I understand and was pleased to hear that it was a productive discussion arrangements at Chief Spahan's earliest on both routing and the hydrogeological study and that our respective opportunity. teams are following up on agreed upon action items that include:

• TM to clarify if an option that includes the West Alternative for Project route while maintaining existing line on IR#1 is feasible • TM to clarify the various options for pipeline abandonment and/or deactivation regarding IR#1; scope of that work and tax implications • TM to provide updated construction cost estimates (since 2013) for each of the route options outline in March 15, 2019 letter • TM to provide feedback to Coldwater on the hydrogeological study • Coldwater to provide capacity funding proposal on next steps to address information gaps related to West Alternative, including geohazard assessment and TLU. • TM to provide Shapefiles and/or available information related to West Alternative • Coldwater to prepare draft minutes of meeting for comment by TM • TM to anticipate invoices from Coldwater (BC Groundwater) this week

25

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim)

Regan did note with importance your generous invite for me to accompany you for a walk through your Territory as an opportunity to better understand the impacts of our pipeline on your community. I was also informed of your question to me and the company broadly about reconciliation and what it means for us. Chief, I would be honored to join you at the earliest opportunity to walk together and talk about a long term relationship. Please let me know when you are available.

I also look forward to the opportunity to meet with you in the near future to continue the discussion of various routing options. While I understand some of our follow-up from April 10 is to provide additional information back to you, I think it would also be valuable for us to share more information on the various processes required for each route scenario such as steps for conducting study work and anticipated timeframes to retrieve that information. Please let me know your availability and let’s schedule for me to come out to meet with you at the earliest opportunity.

Sincerely, Ian D. Anderson

cc: Melanie Blair Jeff Smith Regan Schlecker Apr 30, Email - Lee Spahan Regan From: Schlecker, Regan Team Member sent an email to Chief 2019 Outgoing (Coldwater Schlecker Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 4:26 PM Spahan, Coldwater Indian Band (CIB), in Indian Band), (TMEP), To: Lee Spahan - Coldwater ([email protected]) follow-up to the April 12, 2019 letter Cheryl Aljam Jeff Smith Cc: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; regarding the action items originating (Coldwater (TMEP), '[email protected]'; Blair, Melanie; Smith, Jeff from the meeting that took place on April Indian Band), Melanie Blair Subject: Following Up - TM letter of April 12 2019 & Next Steps 10, 2019. Team Member sought Emma Hume (TMEP) Importance: High confirmation that all action items were (Coldwater captured in the letter and looked forward Indian Band) Good afternoon, Chief Spahan. to scheduling Trans Mountain President and CEO's visit as well as the next I hope this message finds you and your team well. meetings. Team Member noted that, in regard to the hydrogeological study, a I recognize there are many demands for your time but didn’t want to lose colleague would respond to CIB's sight of our most recent letter (attached). consultants at BC Groundwater by May 5, 2019. Specifically, to check in with your team to ensure we captured all the action items from our last meeting April 10th and to respectfully follow up on your invite and availability for Ian to come meet and talk with you about these important matters.

We look forward to hearing from you and scheduling our next meeting. Please let us know your earliest availability?

Meanwhile, we will continue to assemble information in response to the action items listed. With respect to the hydrogeological study, our team will respond to Thierry by the May 5th deadline.

26

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Kind regards, Regan

Regan Schlecker, M.A. Manager, Indigenous Relations Trans Mountain Corporation Office 604 268.3012 Cell 778 686.8177 [email protected] May 02, Email - Lee Spahan Regan From: Schlecker, Regan Team Member emailed Chief Spahan, 2019 Outgoing (Coldwater Schlecker Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2019 12:12 PM Coldwater Indian Band (CIB), and Indian Band), (TMEP), To: 'Lee Spahan - Coldwater ([email protected])' provided the Shapefiles for the West Dawn Porter Jeff Smith Cc: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; Alternative as per the Action Item from (Coldwater (TMEP), '[email protected]'; Blair, Melanie; Smith, Jeff an April 10, 2019 meeting. Team Indian Band), Melanie Blair Subject: TMEP Shapefiles - West Alternative Member noted that the Shapefiles were Emma Hume (TMEP) Importance: High based on preliminary desktop analysis (Coldwater only; no engineering assessment or Indian Band) Good afternoon, Chief Spahan. environmental assessment had been completed to validate or support the I’m following up on a specific action item from our April 10, 2019, meeting information provided. Seven files were to provide you with the attached Shapefiles for the West Alternative. attached.

Please note: The shapefiles are based on preliminary desktop analysis only. There has been no engineering assessment or environmental assessment completed to validate/support the information provided.

As always, please contact us with any questions and we look forward to scheduling our next meeting soon.

Kind regards, Regan

Regan Schlecker, M.A. Manager, Indigenous Relations Trans Mountain Corporation Office 604 268.3012 Cell 778 686.8177 [email protected] May 08, Letter - Dawn Porter Ian Anderson From: Dawn Porter [mailto:[email protected]] D. Porter, Coldwater Indian Band, 2019 Received (Coldwater (TMEP), Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2019 7:52 PM emailed a letter from Chief Spahan to Indian Band) Regan To: [email protected] Trans Mountain President and CEO. The Schlecker Cc: Taylor, Mitch (NRCAN/RNCAN); Schlecker, Regan; letter dated May 7, 2019 provided an (TMEP), Smith, Jeff overview of various routing options. The Jeff Smith Subject: Letter from Chief Spahan letter stated that further meetings would (TMEP) be scheduled to share more information [This email message was received from the Internet and about the different processes required came from outside of Trans Mountain] for each route scenario, next steps for Good Evening conducting study work and anticipated Attached is a letter from Chief Lee Spahan along with the timeframes. D. Porter also provided draft April 10, 2019 Meeting Minutes meeting minutes from April 10, 2019 regarding Routing Options, Dawn Porter Hydrogeological Study & Other Executive Assistant to Chief and Council Information Gaps.

27

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Coldwater Indian Band 250-378-6168 (phone) 250-378-6153 (fax) May 08, Letter - Dawn Porter Ian Anderson From: Dawn Porter [mailto:[email protected]] D. Porter, Coldwater Indian Band, 2019 Received (Coldwater (TMEP), Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2019 8:00 PM emailed a letter from Chief Spahan to Indian Band) Regan To: [email protected] Trans Mountain President and CEO. The Schlecker Cc: Schlecker, Regan; Smith, Jeff letter dated May 7, 2019 provided an (TMEP), Subject: Letter from Chief Lee Spahan overview of possible geohazards and Jeff Smith mitigation measures required for (TMEP) [This email message was received from the Internet and proposed route alternatives identified by came from outside of Trans Mountain] Trans Mountain. D. Porter also provided Good Evening a field report from Cordilleran Attached is a letter from Chief Lee Spahan along with P. Geoscience detailing the routing Friele Geoscience report alternatives and geohazards.

Dawn Porter Executive Assistant to Chief and Council Coldwater Indian Band 250-378-6168 (phone) 250-378-6153 (fax) May 09, Email - Dawn Porter Ian Anderson From: Schlecker, Regan Team Member emailed D. Porter, 2019 Outgoing (Coldwater (TMEP), Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2019 1:41 PM Coldwater Indian Band, and confirmed Indian Band) Regan To: 'Dawn Porter'; Nichols, Trudy receipt of the letter from Chief Spahan Schlecker Cc: Taylor, Mitch (NRCAN/RNCAN); Smith, Jeff; dated May 7, 2019. Team Member (TMEP), [email protected] anticipated scheduling a meeting soon to Jeff Smith Subject: RE: Letter from Chief Spahan discuss and share further information on (TMEP), Importance: High route scenarios. Team Member indicated Trudy Nichols that she copied a colleague for D. Porter (TMEP) Good afternoon, Dawn. to coordinate a meeting for Trans Mountain President and CEO and Chief Thank you for your message. I write to confirm receipt of the letter from Spahan. Chief Spahan dated May 7, 2019.

We look forward to scheduling a meeting at the earliest opportunity to discuss and share further information on route scenarios.

By way of this message, I’m cc’ing Trudy Nichols to coordinate with you to find a date in which both Ian and Chief Spahan are available to meet at Coldwater.

Thank you, Regan

Regan Schlecker, M.A. Manager, Indigenous Relations Trans Mountain Corporation Office 604 268.3012 Cell 778 686.8177 May 09, Email - Dawn Porter Ian Anderson From: Schlecker, Regan Team Member emailed D. Porter, 2019 Outgoing (Coldwater (TMEP), Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2019 1:46 PM Coldwater Indian Band (CIB), and Indian Band) Regan To: 'Dawn Porter' confirmed receipt of a second letter from Schlecker Cc: Smith, Jeff; [email protected] Chief Spahan dated May 7, 2019 (TMEP), Subject: RE: Letter from Chief Lee Spahan regarding evaluation of route alternatives - geohazards. Team Member stated that

28

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Jeff Smith Good afternoon, Dawn. Trans Mountain would be reviewing it in (TMEP) detail and would be following up with CIB I write to confirm receipt of Chief Spahan’s second letter dated May 7, on next steps. 2019 regarding evaluation of route alternatives – geohazards.

We look forward to reviewing it in detail and will follow up with you shortly on next steps.

Thank you, Regan

Regan Schlecker, M.A. Manager, Indigenous Relations Trans Mountain Corporation Office 604 268.3012 Cell 778 686.8177 [email protected] May 14, Email - Dawn Porter Ian Anderson From: Nichols, Trudy Team Member emailed D. Porter, 2019 Outgoing (Coldwater (TMEP), Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 7:41 AM Coldwater Indian Band, and requested to Indian Band) Regan To: Schlecker, Regan; 'Dawn Porter' connect by phone to review Trans Schlecker Cc: Smith, Jeff; [email protected] Mountain President and CEO's and Chief (TMEP), Subject: RE: Letter from Chief Spahan Spahan's calendars to organize a Jeff Smith meeting in May, 2019. Team Member (TMEP), Morning Dawn, if we can connect by phone to review Chief and Ian’s requested available dates and feedback. Trudy Nichols calendars. I can be reached directly at 403 514 6432. I understand we (TMEP) need to find first available date in May. If you can kindly advise dates Chief is available and I will review on my end. Thanks Dawn and I look forward to hearing back from you.

Regards,

Trudy Nichols Executive Assistant to Ian Anderson President & Chief Executive Officer Trans Mountain Canada W: 403.514.6432 | [email protected] May 14, Letter - Lee Spahan Regan May 14, 2019 Team Member emailed a letter from rans 2019 Sent (Coldwater Schlecker PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL Mountain President and CEO to Chief Indian Band), (TMEP), Chief & Council Spahan, Coldwater Indian Band (CIB). Cheryl Aljam Jeff Smith Coldwater Indian Band The letter dated May 14, 2019 provided (Coldwater (TMEP), 2249 Quilchena Avenue an overview of the Project Routing Indian Band), Melanie Blair Merritt, British Columbia V1K 1B8 Review in and around CIB and Reserve Dawn Porter (TMEP) Attention: Chief Lee Spahan No. 1. The letter outlined routing Option (Coldwater Dear Chief Spahan: 1 and Option 2 with terms and Indian Band) Re: Commitment to Project Routing Review for Trans Mountain conditions. The letter noted that Trans Expansion Project (the Mountain was also committed to "Expansion") completing the hydrogeological study in Thank you for your letters both dated May 7, 2019 in relation to the cooperation with CIB. The letter proposed alternative routes concluded that any questions or for the Expansion in and around Coldwater Indian Band ("Coldwater") concerns would be discussed at Chief Reserve No. 1 (the Spahan's convenience. "Reserve").

29

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) As you will recall, Trans Mountain Pipeline L.P. ("Trans Mountain") outlined five potential route alternatives for the Expansion in our letter to you dated March 15, 2019 (the "March Routing. Letter"). A copy of the March Routing Letter is set out as Appendix A. Throughout the original National Energy Board ("NEB") process and route hearings related to the Expansion, Trans Mountain put forward its preferred route —Option 1. Trans Mountain believed then, and continues to believe, that such option provides for the least risk from a geotechnical and environmental perspective. Trans Mountain also considered the views of the Coldwater community and, in doing so, chose not to install the Expansion in parallel to the existing line, thereby avoiding the presence of a second pipeline on-Reserve. The NEB recommendation included Condition 39 which obligated Trans Mountain to complete a hydrogeological study prior to construction in order to assist in understanding the aquifer and any potential impacts the Expansion may have on it. Based on our discussions and correspondence since the March Routing Letter, we acknowledge that Coldwater remains interested in considering Option 5 (the "West Alternative"), subject to completing further geotechnical work, environmental analysis and other investigations. To confirm, the West Alternative includes both the Expansion and re-routing the existing line off the Reserve. Trans Mountain is not proposing an option where the Expansion follows the West Alternative and the existing line remains on the Reserve. Trans Mountain has come to understand that Options 1, 3 and 4, which to varying degrees involve either the existing pipeline or Expansion pipeline on-Reserve and in closer proximity to the community, continue to cause Coldwater concern. In numerous discussions and meetings, both technical and otherwise, Trans Mountain has listened to those concerns and understands Coldwater's preference to locate pipeline infrastructure off-Reserve. Trans Mountain also acknowledges Coldwater's concerns regarding the potential impacts the pipeline route for the Expansion may have on the community's aquifer. As the Court found in Tsleil-Waututh Nation v. Canada (Attorney General 2018 FCA 153, the absence of any meaningful discussion or exploration of "options to deal with the real concern about the sole source of drinking water on the Reserve" [para 680] was tantamount to a fundamental failure on the part of Canada to consult in a meaningful way with Coldwater. It is Trans Mountain's intent, by way of this proposal, to address Coldwater's concerns regarding the aquifer and proximity of the pipeline to the community, and to once again offer the implementation of numerous mitigation measures relating to the Option 1 route as outlined in the March Routing Letter as a means of accommodation. With the addition of the proposed mitigation measures, Trans Mountain remains of the opinion that Option 1 best respects the community's concerns for aquifer protection while providing an optimal route. Nevertheless, through consultation and dialogue with Coldwater, Trans Mountain wishes to propose a framework by which each of the parties can work collaboratively to reach an acceptable solution in respect of the Expansion route for all parties. Accordingly, this letter is provided to confirm the following matters to Coldwater: • The terms and conditions on which Trans Mountain commits to pursuing the West Alternative in consultation with Coldwater as a route alternative

30

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) for the. Expansion; • The route alternative that Trans Mountain will pursue if either Coldwater or Trans Mountain determine that the West Alternative is not feasible; and • The impacts that each of the above route alternatives will have on the financial compensation to be offered by Trans Mountain to Coldwater in respect of the Expansion.

As part of the Government of Canada's Phase III consultations, Trans Mountain will provide a copy of this letter to Natural Resources Canada on a confidential basis to confirm Trans Mountain's commitments on the above matters.

West Alternative

Trans Mountain hereby commits to pursuing the West Alternative in consultation with Coldwater as a route alternative for the Expansion on the following terms and conditions:

1. Trans Mountain will evaluate the technical feasibility of the West Alternative as follows:

a. Trans Mountain will lead, with the assistance of Coldwater, the completion of geotechnical and other work required to assess the West Alternative;

b. Trans Mountain will consult with Coldwater on the scope of geotechnical and other work required to assess the technical and economic feasibility of the West Alternative, including in relation to the concerns raised in your letter of May 7, 2019 regarding previous geohazard and risk assessment work; Trans Mountain will share all results of the geotechnical and other technical work with Coldwater; and Coldwater will be entitled to have its own consultants review the work completed by Trans Mountain in respect of the West Alternative; (collectively, the "Feasibility Analysis")

2. Trans Mountain will provide up to $25,000 in funding to assist Coldwater in participating in the Feasibility Analysis. This amount is in addition to the $25,000 that Trans Mountain provided to Coldwater pursuant to the March Routing Letter.

3. Concurrently with the Feasibility Analysis, Trans Mountain will carry out consultation with Indigenous groups potentially impacted by the West Alternative. Coldwater will, if requested by Trans Mountain, provide reasonable assistance and support to Trans Mountain in connection with these consultations.

4. Trans Mountain will endeavor to complete the Feasibility Analysis and Indigenous consultation no later than September 1, 2019. Trans Mountain will promptly inform Coldwater in writing of a determination by Trans Mountain that it believes the West Alternative is feasible from a technical and economic perspective. Coldwater will have three weeks from such date to confirm whether the West Alternative represents the preferred route of Coldwater.

31

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim)

5. If Coldwater and Trans Mountain both agree, in their sole discretion, that the West Alternative represents the preferred route following completion of the Feasibility Analysis and Indigenous consultation, then the parties will prepare and submit a joint application to the NEB for a s.21 route variance hearing in favour of the West Alternative. Coldwater will fully support Trans Mountain in all stages of the route variance process. Specifically, Coldwater will secure the support of all other Nlaka'pamux Nations regarding the route variance and seek to secure the support of all other Indigenous groups who may assert shared territory within that portion of the route corridor.

6. In the event that: a. Trans Mountain determines that the West Alternative is not feasible from a technical or economic perspective; b. Coldwater has not confirmed its agreement to the West Alternative within the timeframes provided in paragraph 4; or c. Coldwater does not obtain the support of other Nlaka'pamux Nations for the West Alternative or otherwise provide assistance and support to Trans Mountain as required by paragraphs 3 and 5; then Trans Mountain may, at any time on five (5) days prior written notice to Coldwater, abandon its pursuit of the West Alternative, including any route variance processes, and proceed with Option 2 as set out below.

Trans Mountain is committed to considering the West Alternative in order to fully respond to the concerns of Coldwater, provided the route is technically and economically feasible. While additional work is required to determine the full costs of the West Alternative, it is clear these costs will be significant. As a result, if the West Alternative is ultimately approved and becomes the route for the Expansion, then Trans Mountain will not provide any additional financial compensation to Coldwater in connection with the Expansion. The parties will still enter into an agreement in connection with the Expansion and West Alternative, but the costs incurred by Trans Mountain in re-routing the existing pipeline and the Expansion off-Reserve will be in lieu of providing financial compensation to Coldwater under such agreement.

Further, in the event the parties agree to commence the route variance process for the West Alternative, Trans Mountain will concurrently proceed with a s. 58 application to the NEB for the relocation of the existing line off-Reserve. The method of abandonment of the segment of existing on-Reserve pipeline will be determined in accordance with that NEB-prescribed process, and Trans Mountain will consult with Coldwater as required.

No further property taxes will be payable to Coldwater in respect of the existing pipeline if the pipeline is abandoned and re-located as contemplated by the West Alternative.

Option 2 If, for any reason, the parties do not pursue the West Alternative as described above, then Trans Mountain will pursue Option 2 from the March Routing Letter as the preferred route for the Expansion, subject to the issuance of a new Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity

32

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) for the Expansion ("Certificate") and complying with all conditions thereunder, including completion of the hydrogeological study in accordance with Condition 39. The hydrogeological study is anticipated to be completed in the near future, discussed below, and will inform planning for Option 2 upon completion. Trans Mountain will concurrently proceed with a s. 58 application to the NEB for the relocation of the existing line off-Reserve. The method of abandonment of the segment of the existing on-Reserve pipeline will be determined in accordance with the NEB-prescribed process, and Trans Mountain will consult with Coldwater as required. As set out above in respect of the West Alternative, no further property taxes will be payable to Coldwater in respect of the existing pipeline if the pipeline is abandoned and re-located as contemplated by Option 2. If Option 2 is ultimately approved and becomes the route for Expansion, then Trans Mountain will offer to enter into an agreement with Coldwater in accordance with the key terms and conditions attached hereto as Appendix B: Term Sheet for Option 2 Route Alternative. [Sentence containing confidential offer removed]. As noted in the March Routing Letter, Trans Mountain commits to protecting the pipeline and Coldwater's aquifer in Option 2 by using pipe with thicker walls, and installing High-Fidelity Dynamic Sensing fibre optic leak detection and monitoring. With thicker pipe and fibre optic leak monitoring, both the likelihood of a leak, and the size of a leak in the unlikely event that one does occur, will be minimized. Trans Mountain is also willing to offer certain enhanced emergency response measures as described in Appendix B. For clarity, the parties may at any time mutually agree to proceed with Option 2 rather than the West Alternative.

Commitment to Fulfilling the Hydrogeological Study

Trans Mountain remains committed to completing the hydrogeological study in cooperation with Coldwater and will continue to advance the study in consultation with Coldwater concurrently with the Feasibility Analysis. Trans Mountain remains supportive of the schedule proposed by Coldwater and BC Groundwater in the April 10, 2019 meeting between the parties. Trans Mountain is committed to meeting the requirements of Condition 39 and anticipates completion of the study in the near future. However, if the parties or their respective consultants are not aligned as to the interpretation of the results of the study or whether the requirements of Condition 39 have been met, Trans Mountain will, no later than February 1, 2020, file the hydrogeological report required by Condition 39 for consideration and decision by the NEB (and take equivalent actions with the BC Environmental Assessment Office in respect of Condition 25 under the Environmental Assessment Certificate issued for the Expansion). In the event the parties agree to proceed with the West Alternative, all work relating to the aquifer study will cease at that time, subject to NEB approval of the West Alternative route variance and its removal of Condition 39. If you have questions regarding this letter or the attached term sheet, please contact me or Regan Schlecker and we would be happy to discuss it at your convenience. Yours truly,

33

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE L.P. Ian D. Anderson President &CEO

[Appendices omitted`] May 29, Letter - Lee Spahan Ian Anderson From: Blair, Melanie Team Member sent a letter to J. Labonte 2019 Sent (Coldwater (TMEP), Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2019 1:29 PM and M. Taylor, Natural Resources Indian Band), Regan To: Labonté, Jeff (NRCan/RNCan); Taylor, Mitch (NRCAN/RNCAN) Canada (NRCan), with copy to Chief Dawn Porter Schlecker Cc: Anderson, Ian; Stoness, Scott; Van Walleghem, Rob; Sanderson, Spahan, Coldwater Indian Band (CIB). (Coldwater (TMEP), Hope; Schlecker, Regan; Jenkins, Cyril; Mottahedeh, Neeka; Wallace, The letter dated May 29, 2019 stated Indian Band), Scott Stoness Bonnie; Lavoie, Kimberly (NRCAN/RNCAN); Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC (Trans Emma Hume (TMEP), [email protected]; [email protected]; Mountain) wished to propose, for (Coldwater Cyril Jenkins [email protected] consideration, a revised Condition 39 Indian Band), (TMEP), Subject: Condition 39 Proposed Amendments - Trans Mountain Pipeline that arose out of the MH-013-2018 Mitch Taylor Bonnie Wallace ULC proceeding. The letter noted that Trans (Natural (Kinder Morgan Mountain requested, if deemed Resources Canada), Mr. Labonté, Mr. Taylor, appropriate, that NRCan put forward the Canada), Melanie Blair proposed amended and restated Jeff Labonte (TMEP), Attached please find a letter from Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC regarding Condition 39 for inclusion by the (Natural Hope a proposed amended and restated Condition 39 for consideration by Governor in Council in the Order in Resources Sanderson NRCan. Council relating to the Project, if Canada), (TMEP), approved. The letter provided an Kimberly Lavoie Rob Van Regards, amended and restated Condition 39. (Natural Walleghem The letter stated Trans Mountain's Resources (TMEP), Melanie Blair| Assistant General Counsel technical rationale with amendment to Canada) Neeka Trans Mountain | 2700, 300 – 5th Avenue SW | Calgary, AB, T2P 5J2 the process and third-party expert review Mottahedeh T: 403.514.6542 | E: [email protected] of the restated Condition 39. The letter (TMEP) noted that the proposed restated ------Condition 39 would establish a process ------whereby the expansion pipeline route in May 29, 2019 the affected area would be confirmed based on the results of the Sent Via Email ([email protected]; m itch. [email protected]) hydrogeological study and an assessment of the risks and proposed Natural Resources Canada 580 Booth Street, 18th Floor Ottawa, ON KIA mitigation measures relating to those 0E4 results. The letter stated that if the National Energy Board determined, Attention: Jeff Labonte, Assistant Deputy Minister Mitch Taylor, DG based on the third-party review Consultation Lead recommendations, the risk to CIB's Dear Messrs. Labonte and Taylor: aquifer were unacceptable, Trans Mountain would file a section 21 review Re: Proposed Amended and Restated Condition 39 and variance application to determine a new route. The letter noted in the event Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC ("Trans Mountain") wishes to propose, for that NRCan wished to consult with CIB consideration by Natural Resources Canada ("NRCan"), a revised on the proposed amendments, Trans Condition 39 related to matters arising out of the MH-013-2018 Mountain would be pleased to participate proceeding. This proposal originates from the Federal Court of Appeal' s in the discussions. decision in Tsleil-Waututh Nation et al. v. Attorney General of Canada et al. (2018 FCA 153) (the "Decision") wherein the Court stated that Canada's "position that it was unable to impose additional conditions on the proponent" was "erroneous." In light of the Court's reasoning, Trans Mountain requests that, if deemed appropriate, NRCan put forward this proposed amended and restated Condition 39 for inclusion by the Governor in Council in the Order in Council relating to the Trans Mountain

34

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Expansion Project (the "Project"), if approved. An amended and restated Condition 39 is attached as Exhibit "A" to this letter.

Technical Amendments

The impetus for Trans Mountain's proposal to amend Condition 39 is two- fold. Firstly, Condition 39 as currently drafted focuses more on a baseline study of the Coldwater aquifer. Following this baseline study, the Condition directs Trans Mountain to utilize the information obtained to further an understanding of associated risks. However, it is Trans Mountain' s opinion that the baseline study contemplated by Condition 39 relies on metrics that are extremely difficult to execute in a way that leads to definitive conclusions. Given that at least part of the intent of the condition is to provide Coldwater Indian Band with aquifer information, the proposed revisions are an attempt to balance the desire to gain information and advance knowledge in respect of the aquifer itself with a risk assessment of Trans Mountain' s proposed pipeline route. It is Trans Mountain's view that a risk assessment of the proposed route could be executed far more effectively with a focused drilling program aimed at collection of subsurface condition information to support geological risks then what is currently reflected in Condition 39.

The proposed revisions allow for design and execution of a program that is technically defensible while recognizing the inherent subsurface uncertainties and limitations of a reasonable hydrogeological investigation of an aquifer. Condition 39 does not currently provide for success criteria to establish what constitutes "delineation" or "characterization" of the aquifer in those broad terms.

As currently drafted, subsections (b) and (c) in Condition 39 can be interpreted differently among consultants and hydrogeologists, and create uncertainty regarding condition compliance. Trans Mountain believes the technical aspects of the condition can be met with the proposed revisions as the revised Condition 39 reflect parameters relating to a reasonable hydrogeological program more typically used to gather information on an aquifer.

Lastly, Trans Mountain believes that the proposed amendments add clarity on how the study of the aquifer pertains to the Project and the risk assessment of the pipeline route. Key factors such as the geological separation between the aquifer and ground surface are essential to support the risk assessment and understand how the aquifer can best be protected.

Amendments to Process and Third-Party Review

Trans Mountain believes that the proposed amendments to the condition address the Court' s specific comments regarding the flaws and limitation of Condition 39 in the Decision. Specifically, the Court stated at paragraph 679:

[679] Canada acknowledged that the Project would be located within an area of Coldwater' s traditional territory where Coldwater was assessed to have a strong prima facie claim to Aboriginal title. In circumstances where

35

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Coldwater would bear the burden of establishing a better route for the pipeline, and where the advice given to Coldwater by the Board's technical expert was that he was personally unaware of a route being moved out of the approved pipeline corridor, Canada placed its reliance on Condition 39, and so advised Coldwater. However, as Canada acknowledged, this condition carried no certainty about the pipeline route. Nor did the condition provide any certainty as to how the Board would assess the risk to the aquifer. [emphasis added]

By filing a report under Condition 39 for approval of the National Energy Board (the "Board"), the amended and restated Condition 39 that Trans Mountain proposes would establish a process whereby the expansion pipeline route in the affected area would be confirmed based on the results of the hydrogeological study and an assessment of the risks and proposed mitigation measures relating to those results. In other words, review for approval of Trans Mountain's report would provide the Board with the basis on which to confirm the pipeline route by providing a direct correlation, or link, between the results of the study and assessment/mitigation of risks and the route itself.

Additionally, the proposed amendments would provide certainty as to how the Board would assess the risk to the aquifer by outlining a process that involves the review of Trans Mountain's hydrogeological report by an independent third-party expert to ensure that a risk assessment would be appropriately evaluated. Therefore, Trans Mountain hereby requests that NRCan direct the Board to appoint an independent third party expert to complete an evaluation of Trans Mountain's hydrogeological report and make recommendations to the Board regarding the results of the report, including the risk assessment and mitigation measures proposed therein.

If the Board determines that, in light of the third party expert's recommendations, the risk to Coldwater's aquifer are unacceptable, Trans Mountain shall file a section 21 review and variance application to determine a new route.

Trans Mountain believes these amendments address the concerns raised in the Decision and requests that in the event NRCan wishes to consult with Coldwater Indian Band on these proposed amendments, Trans Mountain would be pleased to participate in those discussions.

Yours truly,

Ian Anderson President and CEO Attachment

cc: Coldwater Indian Band Jun 04, Letter - Barclay Smith Regan From: Barclay Smith B. Smith, Coldwater Indian Band (CIB), 2019 Received (Coldwater Schlecker Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 10:57 AM emailed a letter from Chief Spahan to Indian Band), (TMEP), To: [email protected]; [email protected]; representatives of Natural Resources Lee Spahan Melanie Blair [email protected] Canada (NRCan), and forwarded a copy (Coldwater (TMEP) Cc: Schlecker, Regan ; Blair, to Trans Mountain. The letter dated Indian Band), Melanie ; [email protected]; Lee June 4, 2019 stated it was in response to Dawn Porter Spahan ; Laura Antoine NRCan's request on a possible Project

36

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) (Coldwater ; Dawn Porter condition to address the uncertainty Indian Band), regarding CIB's aquifer and routing Mitch Taylor Subject: Proposed Trans Mountain Expansion Project through the Coldwater Valley. The letter (Natural stated CIB's concerns that Canada had Resources Mr. Taylor: not provided a substantive response Canada), prior to gathering information needed to Christopher Please find the attached letter from Chief T. Lee Spahan. inform routing, and Trans Mountain was Sheppard seeking changes to the National Energy (Natural Barclay Smith, Board (NEB) Condition 39 that provided Resources Finance Coordinator, the framework of the hydrogeological Canada), Coldwater Indian Band study. The letter noted that CIB did not Kimberly Lavoie understand how the Crown could fulfill its (Natural PO Box 4600 obligation to CIB when information Resources Merritt, BC needed to understand the effects on their Canada) V1K 1B8 aquifer and various route alternatives were missing. The letter stated that CIB 250-378-6168 (ph) did not feel assured, as per NRCan's 250-378-6153 (fax) letter of May 29, 2019, that a Condition may be developed to be a substantive or ------meaningful response. The letter noted CIB's thoughts on what a possible June 4, 2019 Governor in Council (GIC) condition might be. The letter stated the possible Via Email ([email protected]) condition that the GIC must either direct the NEB to dismiss Trans Mountain's Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Consultation Team Natural application, or refer the recommendation Resources Canada report back to the Board for Attn: Mitch Taylor, Q.C. Consultation Lead reconsideration on the completion of 15th floor, 1138 Melville Street Vancouver, BC V6E 4S3 Condition 39, hydrogeological study. The letter stated further to NRCan's request, Dear Mr. Taylor: CIB provided comments on Trans Mountain's May 29, 2019 letter regarding Re: Proposed Trans Mountain Expansion Project - An Additional Project proposing changes to NEB Condition 39. Condition The letter stated CIB trusted the Crown would recognize that any such last- I write in response to your May 29, 2019 letter and May 30, 2019 email, minute change to the condition so late in and in particular your request for our views on a possible Project the process would be a gross and condition to address the current uncertainty regarding our aquifer and extraordinary breach of the Crown's duty. routing through the Coldwater Valley. The letter noted that the GIC did not have the authority to accept Trans As you know, we are very concerned about the upcoming June 18, 2019 Mountain's proposed revisions, and the deadline, given we have yet to have meaningful and informed dialogue on only latitude the GIC had was to impose how impacts and risks from the pipeline on our water will be addressed new conditions when they are needed for and whether there is an appropriate route for the pipeline through the Canada to fulfill its duty to accommodate Coldwater Valley that does not unduly harm our aboriginal rights and Indigenous peoples. The letter reiterated interests. that CIB believed the GIC must either dismiss Trans Mountain's application or At Canada's request we put forward a process to dialogue on routing in submit the Project back to the NEB for early March, 2019. This was to be informed by the hydrogeological study reconsideration and further consultation which is still underway and is gathering missing information about our with CIB. The letter noted that if NRCan aquifer and water supply - information that is essential to understanding believed an additional CIB specific route risks and impacts. At Canada's direction, we embarked on this condition was appropriate, they would be process with Trans Mountain to seek joint agreement on a route through available to discuss and requested the Coldwater Valley.

37

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) NRCan provide a comprehensive On May 7, 2019 we first asked Canada how it could approve the proposal in advance of such meeting. proposed route corridor when we were working with Trans Mountain to gather information that everyone agrees is necessary to inform routing. Despite our repeated attempts to get clarity on this important issue Canada has not provided a substantive response. The need for a response is now more important than ever given that Trans Mountain has reneged on its commitment to seek our agreement to a route through the Coldwater Valley (see their May 14, 2019 letter), and has recently written to Natural Resources Canada very belatedly (and at the closing of Canada's consultation period) seeking changes to NEB Condition 39 which provides the framework of the hydrogeological study.

Lack of Substantive Response from the Crown to Date

In addition to not receiving a substantive response to our May, 7, 2019 letter, we were also disheartened by your failure to come our May 28, 2019 meeting with any concrete response to the concerns we have been raising about the June 18, 2019 deadline. We still do not understand how the Crown can fulfill its obligations to us when essential information needed to understand the effect of the pipeline on our aquifer and assess the various route alternatives through the Coldwater Valley is missing.

We have not made unreasonable demands, but have simply asked that impacts on our community's water be understood and considered and that the Crown consult us on routing through, or around, the Coldwater Valley to find a route that won't put our water at risk or otherwise harm our members and future generations. Of course, we want this to occur before the Modified East route corridor - which runs directly along the edge of our reserve, on the hill above our community, and appears to pose an even higher threat to our aquifer than the existing pipeline - is approved. As Canada has recognized, approving that eastern route corridor puts in motion a course of action that would be very difficult to reverse, and from which the responsible Minister and you as Crown Consultation Lead will be absent.

It is troubling to see you say in your May 30th email that we exchanged information and had dialogue on routing last week. That is not correct. Instead, we asked you to explain how Canada can possibly approve the project on June 18, 2019 when consultation on routing is outstanding and essential information is missing. You said you would have to get back to us by Thursday, May 30th . We still have no answer. The balance of our meeting was focused on understanding the eight generic accommodation measures proposed by the Crown on April 10, 2019, none of which are responsive to our unique concerns regarding our aquifer or project routing.

On reflection I do not understand what could possibly justify your delay. On May 10, 2019 the Minister told me you have the full mandate to consult us. Mr. Tupper, the Associate Deputy Minister, with Minister Sohi on the phone, told me that he would have to talk to you, as Crown Consultation Lead, about the potential for a specific condition that might address the missing information and lack of meaningful dialogue on routing and our aquifer by postponing the GIC's approval of the route

38

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) corridor through the Coldwater Valley. Yet, when you came to our community to discuss this specific issue you had no concrete proposal, and told us you would have to get back to us. Rather, it seems that you placed it on us to come up with a proposal to deal with this very serious issue which is entirely a result of Trans Mountain and the Crown's failure to take our concerns seriously when we first raised them many years ago. If you don't have an answer, when the Minister and his Associate Deputy Minister indicated that you would, we don't know who to turn to.

Your May 29, 2019 letter again states that Canada is committed to working with Coldwater to potentially provide the Governor in Council (GIC) with an additional condition or modify NEB Condition 39 to address concerns with respect to routing discussions, but you have not identified a proposal or process for doing so. I understood that you would be getting back to me with a proposed condition. With all material to be submitted to the GIC by Thursday-June 6, 2019 - it is now clear to me that you will not be doing so, and even if you did, it would be impossible in this short period of time to have a meaningful dialogue or engagement on how to develop an additional condition for the GIC. I certainly do not consider assurances that a condition may be developed to be a substantive or meaningful response - and certainly not "accommodation" - particularly when we specifically met to discuss that very issue on May 28, 2019 but you came unprepared to discuss it.

A Possible Governor in Council Condition

You asked for our thoughts on what a possible GIC condition might be.

We do not see how the Project can be approved unless it has been determined that there is a feasible route through the Coldwater Valley that does not put our aquifer at risk or otherwise unduly harm our aboriginal rights and interests. Absent completion of the hydrogeological study and an assessment of the West (or other) route alternatives, any approval of the project would have to contemplate the possibility that there is no safe route through our valley. In this respect, there is no condition that can suffice given our unaddressed and undiscussed concerns about our aquifer and routing lie at the very heart of the Crown's constitutional obligations to us.

Thus, the GIC must either direct the NEB to dismiss Trans Mountain's application, or refer the recommendation report back to the Board for reconsideration on completion of the Condition 39 hydrogeological study, assessment of geohazards, particularly along the West Alternative, and assessment of impacts on Coldwater's rights and interests. Following the NEB's reconsideration, a recommendation would be issued to the GIC for reconsideration.

If the GIC is determined to approve the Project on June 18, 2019 and you think that the lack of consultation and missing essential information can be dealt with by way of an additional project condition we would like to hear from you on what you think an appropriate condition might be.

Trans Mountain's Proposed Amendments to Condition 39

39

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Further to your request, we also provide our comments on Trans Mountain's May 29, 2019 letter proposing very substantive changes to NEB Condition 39. We were very surprised by Trans Mountain's letter to you, given we are currently collaborating with Trans Mountain to complete a hydrogeological study specifically designed to meet Condition 39.

Given Trans Mountain has proposed changes to Condition 39 for the first time at the close of Canada's consultation time frame, more than 36 months since the condition was first articulated by the NEB, more than 29 months since the GIC originally approved the project subject to this condition, and more than nine months since the Federal Court of Appeal's decision, without notice to or discussion with us, we trust that the Crown will recognize that any such last-minute change made in these circumstances would be a gross and extraordinary breach of the Crown's duty that would make a mockery of the honour of the Crown. On this basis, we trust that we need say nothing more about this proposal.

Condition 39 is indeed flawed. It does not serve to prohibit the construction of the pipeline along the eastern flanks of our valley even if the hydrogeological study discloses material impact and risk to our drinking water. We have complained about this aspect of Condition 39 from its first inception and will continue to do so. However, the answer to this flaw is not to weaken the hydrogeological study itself, as Trans Mountain now proposes, but rather to live up to the commitments of a joint process to reach a consensus on routing issues through our valley once full information is obtained and a meaningful dialogue is concluded in respect of that information.

We would note, in any event, that the GIC does not have the authority to accept Trans Mountain's proposed revisions. Section 54(1) of the National Energy Board Act limits the authority of the GIC to either: (a) direct the Board to issue a certificate in respect of the pipeline or any part of it and to make the certificate su b ject to the terms and conditions set out in the report ; or (b) direct the Board to dismiss the application for a certificate.

Condition 39 was recommended by the Board in May 2016 and reaffirmed in its February 2019 report. The GIC has no authority to change it under s. 54(1) of the National Energy Board Act. The only latitude that the GIC has to impose new conditions is when that condition is needed for Canada to fulfill its duty to accommodate Indigenous peoples (Gitxaala, para 168; Tsleil Waututh, para 629). Obviously, weakening a condition aimed at protecting our water does not serve that purpose.

Next Steps

As you know, Condition 39 fails to provide certainty as to how our concerns about our aquifer or routing will be addressed. We have yet to discuss these critical issues and are missing essential information needed for informed dialogue.

As set out above, we believe the GIC must either dismiss Trans

40

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Mountain's application (either the entire project, or the portion of the project through Nlaka'pamux Territory) or submit the Project back to the NEB for reconsideration and further consultation with us. Any such reconsideration must be informed by the essential missing information about our aquifer, as well as additional missing information we are currently working with Trans Mountain to gather.

If you believe that an additional, Coldwater specific condition, is appropriate we can make ourselves available to discuss, but would ask that you provide a comprehensive proposal for our consideration in advance on any such meeting.

We look forward to your response.

Chief T. Lee Spahan COLDWATER INDIAN BAND Jun 07, Letter - June 7,2019 Natural Resources Canada wrote to 2019 Received Chief Lee Spahan Coldwater Indian Band (cc: Trans Coldwater Indian Band Mountain) to provide a proposed P. O. Box 4600 proponent commitment to address Merritt, BC Coldwater’s concerns regarding routing VIK 1B8 through the Coldwater Valley. Dear Chief Spahan, Thank you for your letter of June 4, 2019, I write to provide a response to your request to hear from us on conditions. We also note you were copied with the letter on a restated Condition 39 from Trans Mountain sent to Natural Resources Canada May 29, 2019.

Canada has considered these letters and proposes the enclosed commitment from the Company. We attach a draft proponent commitment, responding to the concerns that you have raised. Canada believes this commitment satisfies what we understand to be your key concerns - that a routing decision through or around the Coldwater Valley be made in light of information related to the feasibility of the West Alterative and the results of the aquifer study. We are also confident that it addresses the Federal Court of Appeal concerns by setting out, with certainty, how a route will be chosen - on what basis and with what information.

The key goals of the proposed commitment are to ensure the necessary information is available before decisions are made; to allow Coldwater the time to consider its options; to allow Coldwater and Trans Mountain the opportunity to try to resolve the routing issue together; and to ensure that Coldwater does not carry any evidentiary burden of routing decisions placed before the National Energy Board.

This is a proposal and not necessarily a final product. We recognize the importance of the routing decision to the Coldwater Band. Though we are hopeful that you will agree that this proposed proponent commitment, which would bind

41

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) the Proponent, captures your key concerns, we welcome your input. Your comments, questions and feedback on the text and the implementation are appreciated. We see this dialogue as a collaboration between Canada, Coldwater and the Company resulting in a documented commitment from TMC endorsed by Canada, all aimed at reasonably accommodating your asserted Aboriginal rights.

In your June 4, 2018 letter, you asked for our views on an additional project condition. This proposal proceeds by way of commitment, again endorsed by Canada, and frames it within our ongoing dialogue, allows for implementation by way of timelines and recognizes the authority of the NEB. We see this as a commitment that would be binding.

As you know, the Governor in Council is to make a decision on the project by June 18, 2019. Consequently, we ask that you provide your final comments to us by no later than June 12, 2019 before the Company makes a final commitment and before the final decision takes place. We invite a dialogue with our consultation team if you think it would be of assistance. We can liaise with TMC to work towards the completion of a final product. We imagine you will want to engage your legal counsel on this proposal. Our legal counsel would be happy to discuss this with them.

We have worked hard to develop a solution that we believe is responsive to your concerns and to the concerns of the Federal Court of Appeal. We appreciate your consideration of this and look forward to hearing from you.

Mitchell R. Taylor Consultation Lead Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Consultation Team Natural Resources Canada Telephone: 604-312-6285 Email: [email protected]

------

Proposed Trans Mountain Commitment to Coldwater

Hydrogeological Report

Trans Mountain will file the hydrogeological report referred to in NEB Condition 39 with the NEB on or before December 31,2019. As stated in Condition 39, the report will include "a summary of consultations undertaken with the Coldwater First Nation or appropriate Government Authorities, as well as copies of all written comments that may be provided to Trans Mountain by the Coldwater First Nation or Appropriate Government Authorities." ln its summary, Trans Mountain must "provide a description and

42

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) justification for how Trans Mountain has incorporated the results of its consultation, including any recommendations from the Coldwater First Nation or Appropriate Government Authorities into the assessment."

Additional Studies

Trans Mountain will undertake a feasibility study of the proposed western route which will be completed and filed with the NEB on or before January 31, 2020. This study will include consideration of geotechnical, geohazard, species at risk and environmental factors. It will also include a summary of consultations undertaken with the Coldwater First Nation, as well as copies of all written comments that may be provided to Trans Mountain by the Coldwater First Nation. ln its summary, Trans Mountain will provide a description and justification for how Trans Mountain has incorporated the results of its consultation, including any recommendations from the Coldwater First Nation into the studies.

If Coldwater First Nation chooses, it may commission a Traditional Land Use Study of the proposed western route to be completed on or before November 30, 2019.

Route Hearing Process

Trans Mountain commits to the following process to determine the pipeline route:

Trans Mountain and Coldwater First Nation have until March 31, 2O2O to attempt to reach consensus on a route for sections of the pipeline between KP 930 (Veale Road) and KP 952, and:

a) lf Trans Mountain and Coldwater First Nation are in agreement that the route should be in the approved pipeline corridor, then the detailed route approval process may proceed or continue, in the manner to be determined by the NEB;

b) lf Trans Mountain and Coldwater First Nation are not in agreement on the route, and Coldwater First Nation takes the position that the route should be located outside of the approved pipeline corridor, then: • The detailed route approval process may proceed or continue in the manner to be determined by the NEB; • Trans Mountain recognizes that, pursuant to section 36 of the NEB Act, the NEB may consider the suitability of alternate proposed routes outside of the approved corridor. The NEB will approve or deny the proposed route, considering the best possible detailed route, in its ordinary course;

43

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) • If Coldwater takes the position that the best possible route is the proposed western route, if the NEB process allows, Trans Mountain agrees to file an assessment of the proposed western route as part of any additional detailed route approval process and such assessment shall include: o The Traditional Land Use Study, if Coldwater is in agreement with its inclusion; o A map/ environmental sheet at an appropriate scale clearly depicting the proposed western route; o An environmental issues list identifying relevant effects of the proposed western route on the environment (e.g. soil, vegetation, wildlife, hydrology and archaeological information); and o An identification of associated mitigation measures that may mitigate environmental effects and an analysis of such measures; • If the NEB does not approve the proposed route, Trans Mountain may apply for a variance pursuant to section 21 of the NEB Act and the variance application would proceed in the manner to be determined by the NEB; • If the NEB determines that a detailed route hearing process should proceed or continue simultaneously with a variance application(s), the above process applies with necessary modifications.

c) If Trans Mountain and Coldwater First Nation are in agreement on a route located outside of the approved pipeline corridor, or are not in agreement on the route but both take the position that the route should be located outside of the approved pipeline corridor, then: • Trans Mountain will apply for a variance pursuant to section 21 of the NEB Act on or before September 30, 2020 and the variance application would proceed in its ordinary course. Jun 14, Letter - Coldwater Ian D. Anderson June 14, 2019 Trans Mountain provided comments in 2019 Outgoing Indian Band response to the proposed proponent Sent Via Email commitment provided by Natural Resources Canada. Natural Resources Canada 580 Booth Street, 21st Floor Ottawa, ON K1A 0E4

Attention: Christyne Tremblay, Deputy Minister

Dear Madam Deputy Minister:

Re: Trans Mountain Response to Recent Coldwater Correspondence

44

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) I write in response to Coldwater’s letters to NRCan dated May 31, June 4 and June 10, 2019. Thank you for providing copies of these letters to Trans Mountain.

The purpose of this response is to provide Trans Mountain’s perspective on Coldwater’s comments with respect to routing, Condition 130 and the proposed Trans Mountain commitment to compliment Condition 39.

Routing through the Coldwater Valley

Trans Mountain has engaged with Coldwater with respect to matters relating to the Expansion Project and the potential impacts resulting therefrom for close to six years. At all times, Trans Mountain has worked diligently to respond meaningfully and in a manner that addresses Coldwater’s expressed concerns of those potential impacts within the Coldwater Valley.

Unfortunately, Coldwater has not always reciprocated Trans Mountain’s attempts to engage. For example, your May 31, 2019 letter notes accommodation measures that Trans Mountain developed to benefit the Nicola Valley as a whole, including Coldwater’s reserve and traditional territory. Trans Mountain provided the proposed measures to Coldwater for comment to obtain Coldwater’s views and incorporate them into the development of its plans. To date, Trans Mountain has not received a substantive response from Coldwater.

It has always been, and will continue to be, Trans Mountain’s hope to work collaboratively with Coldwater to reach a shared conclusion on a safe, technically and economically viable route through the Coldwater Valley. However, Trans Mountain has never told Coldwater that it will abandon the Expansion Project without Coldwater’s agreement as to: (1) the optimal route; or (2) the process for determining same. Given Coldwater’s recently expressed position that there is “no condition” that will suffice to address Coldwater’s concerns, it appears that such agreement will not be possible.

Throughout Phase III, Trans Mountain has worked in good faith to address Coldwater’s concern that, as currently drafted, Condition 39 results in a lack of certainty about how impacts on its aquifer and routing will be dealt with based on the hydrogeological report under Condition 39. It was in this spirit that Trans Mountain attempted to address Coldwater’s concerns through proposed amendments to Condition 39 that directly linked the hydrogeological study and risk assessment to routing options through the Coldwater Valley. On the same basis, Trans Mountain will fulfill the commitment Canada proposed to Coldwater on June 7, 2019 (the “Proposed Coldwater Commitment”). Groundwater Monitoring Program

In its May 31, 2019 letter, Coldwater appears to conflate Trans Mountain’s Groundwater Monitoring Program (NEB Condition 130) with

45

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) its Groundwater Management Plan (part of Trans Mountain’s Environmental Protection Plan filed under NEB Condition 72).

It is premature for Coldwater to assert that Trans Mountain has not complied with or collaboratively implemented Condition 130. Trans Mountain has not yet filed its Groundwater Monitoring Program with the NEB. Pursuant to NEB Condition 130, Trans Mountain must file its Groundwater Monitoring Program for NEB approval at least 3 months prior to commencing pipeline operations. Before filing its Groundwater Monitoring Program, Trans Mountain must determine the pipeline route and consult with potentially affected Indigenous groups (including Coldwater). In its program, Trans Mountain must describe and justify how it has incorporated the results of its consultation, including any recommendations from groups consulted, into the program. Once the route is determined, Trans Mountain will engage with Coldwater regarding its Groundwater Monitoring Program.

Further, with respect to Trans Mountain’s Groundwater Management Plan filed in March 2018, Trans Mountain consulted with Coldwater and provided a draft in September 2016. In the plan itself, Trans Mountain noted in response to Coldwater’s concerns about completion of the plan before the Condition 39 study: “Mitigation requirements specific to the Coldwater aquifer will be evaluated in the NEB Condition 39 plan and Trans Mountain will consult with Coldwater on this plan” (NEB Filing ID A90966-10, p. D-13).

Under the proposed commitment in relation to routing through Coldwater Valley, there will be no construction near the Coldwater aquifer until the NEB has determined what mitigation is appropriate. If the risks are unacceptable, Trans Mountain will apply for a new route in accordance with the Proposed Coldwater Commitment.

The Proposed Coldwater Commitment

In Trans Mountain’s view, NRCan’s Proposed Coldwater Commitment, delivered to Coldwater by way of NRCan’s June 7, 2019 letter, is a reasonable and laudable response to Coldwater’s concerns.

The Proposed Coldwater Commitment maintains Condition 39 and the requirement that Trans Mountain incorporate the results of its consultation with Coldwater, including any recommendations from Coldwater. Further, it creates an additional requirement that Trans Mountain undertake a feasibility study of Coldwater’s preferred Western Route to be filed with the NEB on a timely basis. Finally, and in direct response to Coldwater’s concerns about the routing process, the Proposed Coldwater Commitment binds Trans Mountain to a process that: (1) provides an opportunity for the parties to reach a consensus; and, if consensus cannot be attained, (2) prescribes a clear, independent process to assess routing options based on, among other things, an assessment of risks to Coldwater’s aquifer and traditional land use information.

46

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) The Proposed Coldwater Commitment is clearly informed by the three years of engagement with Coldwater regarding Condition 39 and the guidance contained in the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Tsleil-Waututh Nation. Trans Mountain wholeheartedly endorses the Proposed Coldwater Commitment and will add the commitment to its commitments tracking table pursuant to Condition 6. Trans Mountain welcomes the opportunity to work with Coldwater on this proposed commitment. I will make myself personally available to meet with you on this issue, and look forward to continuing our discussions on the protection of Coldwater’s aquifer and Coldwater’s interests in the Coldwater Valley. Yours truly,

TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE L.P., by its general partner TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE ULC Ian D. Anderson President & CEO cc: Coldwater Indian Band Mitch Taylor, Natural Resources Canada

Jun 14, Letter – Chief Lee Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Consultation Team Coldwater Indian Band responded to the 2019 Incoming Spahan Natural Resources Canada proposed proponent commitment Attn: Mitch Taylor, Q.C. Consultation Lead provided by Natural Resources Canada. 15th floor, 1138 Melville Street Coldwater welcomed the basic structure Vancouver, BC V6E 4S3 of the proposal but identified concerns. Dear Mr. Taylor:

Re: Trans Mountain Expansion Project - Proponent Commitment to Coldwater

We write further to our June 11, 2019 letter and in response to your June 7, 2019 letter, enclosing a "Proposed Trans Mountain Commitment to Coldwater". We have now had an opportunity to review the proposed Trans Mountain commitment at our council table and to confer with our trusted advisors at BC Groundwater. We have not had an opportunity to take this proposal to our membership, which is necessary given the importance of the matter.

Based on the analysis we have been able to do within the short time of receiving this letter, while we welcome the basic structure of what has been proposed as providing some framework from which we might be able to collaboratively work together to address the significant issues of concern to Coldwater, we have two primary and fundamental concerns with the proponent commitment.

47

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) First, it eliminates any opportunity for Crown consultation on routing and our aquifer and does not provide the Crown with certainty about how impacts on our rights, title and reserve interests will be addressed, by either Trans Mountain or through the NEB detailed route hearing process. In deferring to a proponent commitment, the Crown will not be in a position to ensure its constitutional obligations are fulfilled. Nor does it allow the Crown to fulfill the fiduciary obligation that is attached to protecting our established reserve interest, namely the aquifer within our reserve. That duty is not something that can be delegated to the NEB.

To address this concern, and again subject to receiving some direction from our membership, we propose that following completion of the Condition 39 hydrogeological study and additional studies and an opportunity for Coldwater and Trans Mountain to reach consensus, or joint agreement, on a route through the Coldwater Valley, and associated mitigation and accommodation measures, routing matters be referred back to the Governor in Council, by the Minister or Ministers, for reconsideration if Coldwater, Trans Mountain and Canada cannot reach consensus on the appropriate, and minimally impairing, route. This would provide an opportunity for Coldwater and Canada to discuss any outstanding concerns, or disputes, regarding routing and our aquifer, allow us to talk about any additional accommodation measures that may be required, and ensure that Canada can satisfy itself that all obligations to us have been fulfilled, in accordance with both Canada's duty to consult and accommodate Coldwater and its more onerous fiduciary duty. We have proposed some additional language to the proposed commitment to Coldwater in the enclosed that would give effect to this proposal.

Second, we (and we suggest Canada) cannot accept the timelines contemplated in the proposed commitment. This is because, based on the current schedule for the hydrogeological study- a schedule that Coldwater and Trans Mountain are in mutual agreement on - and as confirmed to us by BC Groundwater, the hydrogeological report cannot be completed by December 31, 2019. Most importantly, baseline information about how water recharges our aquifer, and at what speed and direction that water flows, will not be available until monitoring wells are installed on Coldwater Reserve and have collected data for at least one full year.

As the Crown has recognized, the information collected by monitoring wells is essential to understanding the risk that the various route proposals on the east side of the Coldwater Valley pose to our drinking water, including the proposed route corridor that is before the Governor in Council for decision now. BC Groundwater advises that the earliest we

48

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) expect to have a single year of baseline data is fall/winter 2020. Only after the hydrogeologists have that first set of baseline data can it be determined whether the is sufficient data to complete the study to conform with the specific requirements of Condition 39. Certainly without that initial set of baseline data, Condition 39 cannot be fulfilled.

As such, which we welcome and appreciate the basic structure for the project condition that you have provided (and believe that this structure provides a good basis from which we can collaboratively work towards resolution of the key issues), the timing for completion of steps in that structure (December 31, 2019 for completion of the Condition 39 study and September 2020 for a route variance hearing) is not achievable in the face of the specific requirements of Condition 39.

In addition to the above, we have the following comments on the proposed commitment:

• Additional Studies

The proposed commitment contemplates additional studies to inform routing discussions, including a "feasibility study of the proposed western route" and a Traditional Land Use Study of the proposed western route. Pursuant to Trans Mountain's April 10, 2019 commitment to us, we propose that the language be clarified so that this assessment of geohazards (and any additional factors) will be undertaken in collaboration with Coldwater.

For both the feasibility study and traditional land use study, we will require capacity funding. The proposed commitment should provide for this, with costs to be covered by either Trans Mountain, or Canada.

We have always contemplated the possibility of additional drilling along the west alternative in proximity to our second reserve - Paul's Basin IR 2 - to ensure that the West Alternative poses no risk to groundwater resources at IR 2. BC Groundwater is in the process of preparing a proposal for some additional drilling, in conjunction with the Condition 39 hydrogeological study. We want to ensure that the proposed commitment does not foreclose consideration of this important issue.

The Kilometre Posts Fail to Adequately Capture Route Options

The commitment contemplates attempting to reach consensus on the route for the sections of the pipeline between KP 930 (Veale Road) and KP 952. These kilometer posts do not adequately capture routing

49

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) options through the Coldwater Valley, including the West Alternative which veers off from the existing pipeline before Veale Road. Any condition or commitment regarding routing should, more appropriately apply to the entirety of the route through Nlaka'pamux territory, the Coldwater Valley, or, at the very minimum, KP 929 and KP 9551 to ensure that the West Alternative remains a viable option even if construction into the Coldwater Valley has started. Clarification Around Detailed Route Hearing Process Required

As you know, we have serious concerns with the detailed route hearing process. We would propose a number of changes to the route hearing process commitments to provide more certainty that we will not be left with the evidentiary burden of opposing the route corridor currently before the GIC for decision. We understand that the proposed commitment to Coldwater would be binding on Trans Mountain, it should also be binding on the Government of Canada. We would be pleased to discuss specific amendments to the proposed condition or commitment that you have provided that may address the issues outlined above. It is unfortunate in this respect that the consultation period is closed and cabinet will be proceeding with a decision on the Project on Tuesday. Please contact us if you would like to discuss this further. Chief T. Lee Spahan COLDWATER INDIAN BAND

Jun 17, Letter - Coldwater Ian D. Anderson Natural Resources Canada Trans Mountain President and CEO Ian 2019 Outgoing Indian Band 580 Booth Street, 18th Floor Anderson responded to Coldwater’s letter of June 14, 2019, agreeing to Ottawa, ON K1A OE4 expand the geographic scope of the proposed West Alternative feasibility Attention: Mitch Taylor, DG Consultation Lead study and responding to Coldwater’s additional concerns regarding the proposed commitment. Dear Mr. Taylor:

Re: Trans Mountain Response to Coldwater Letter of June 14, 2019 I write to provide Trans Mountain' s perspective on Coldwater's concerns with the "Proposed Trans Mountain Commitment to

50

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Coldwater" (the "Proposed Coldwater Commitment"), articulated in its letter to NRCan dated June 14, 2019.

The Proposed Coldwater Commitment Recognizes the National Energy Board's Expertise The Proposed Coldwater Commitment does not eliminate the opportunity for Crown consultation or involvement in TMEP routing. In the Tsleil-Waututh decision, the Federal Court of Appeal rejected a very similar argument from Coldwater on the basis that the Crown' s duty to consult is triggered by the NEB' s detailed route hearing process (see paragraphs 542-547). Governor in Council decision- making is not required for the Crown to be engaged and ensure that the honour of the Crown is fulfilled.

It is prudent for the Crown to rely on the NEB to review the sufficiency of the hydrogeological report and make determinations regarding routing, technical feasibility, and conditions to any order approving the detailed route. For sixty years, Parliament has assigned to the NEB the responsibility to assess and regulate interprovincial pipelines. As an expert regulator, the NEB is ideally positioned to assess the risks to Coldwater’s aquifer and come to a determination on a detailed route-within the approved corridor or outside of it, based on technical studies and traditional land use information. Armed with information collected by Trans Mountain and Coldwater pursuant to Condition 39 and the Proposed Coldwater Commitment, the NEB will be informed about potential impacts to Coldwater's aquifer (if any) and the feasibility and relative impacts of the West Alternative. This will allow it to reach a determination on routing that considers Coldwater’s rights and interests.

Seasonal Baseline Data is not Required to Fulfill Condition 39 Condition 39 requires that Trans Mountain, as proponent, complete a hydrogeological risk assessment to confirm predicted and potential impacts and inform appropriate mitigation measures. Indeed, it is important to remember the context within which the NEB recommended Condition 39, which includes the NEB's determination that it had sufficient evidence before it to recommend approval of Trans Mountain's proposed corridor. The hydrogeological assessment is intended to confirm predictions made, implement adaptive management, and inform mitigation.

A full year of baseline data is not required to complete the hydrogeological assessment. Trans Mountain will address Coldwater's concerns about baseline data (which, until now, were not Coldwater's focus with respect to Condition 39) by taking a conservative approach to analyzing all available data for the hydrogeological risk assessment report. Indeed, the subsurface details that must be collected to complete the hydrogeological risk assessment report are the geological separation of the proposed

51

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) pipeline to the top of the aquifer and its lithology, neither of which require seasonal information.

Trans Mountain will Consult and Engage with Coldwater about Risks to the Aquifer Coldwater requests that Trans Mountain's assessment of geohazards (and any additional factors) in the feasibility study be undertaken in collaboration with Coldwater.

Trans Mountain is committed to consulting with Coldwater on additional studies to inform routing discussions, and fully considering Coldwater's third-party technical reports. As noted in the Proposed Coldwater Commitment, Trans Mountain will include a description and justification for how it has incorporated the results of that consultation, including any recommendations from Coldwater, into the studies. However, for greater certainty, it is not appropriate for Coldwater to co-author a feasibility study or report with the project proponent. Coldwater has requested capacity funding for both the feasibility study and traditional land use study. Trans Mountain is open to providing Coldwater with additional, reasonable funding to review and engage regarding the feasibility study, and to complete its own traditional land use study. Trans Mountain invites Coldwater to provide proposals with cost estimates for each. Trans Mountain is surprised to hear that Coldwater has "always contemplated the possibility of additional drilling along the west alternative in proximity to our second reserve - Paul's Basin IR 2 - to ensure that the West Alternative poses no risk to groundwater resources at IR 2". While Trans Mountain is not foreclosing the possibility of such drilling, Trans Mountain has understood Coldwater's position to be that the West Alternative will "avoid risks to our drinking water" ( e.g., Letter from Coldwater dated March 18, 2019).

Scope of the Proposed Coldwater Commitment To address Coldwater's concern about kilometer posts ("KP"), Trans Mountain agrees to revise the KPs in the proposed commitment to the entirety of the route between the current KP 929 and KP 952 (which goes beyond the West Alternative, as proposed). There is no basis to go beyond the Kingsvale Pump Station at current KP 952. The West Alternative does not extend past current KP 947. To go beyond the Kingsvale Pump Station is unnecessary and opens up a potential re• route that is not technically feasible from a hydraulic design perspective. Conclusion Over the past three years, Trans Mountain has dedicated substantial resources to engaging with Coldwater with a view to addressing its concerns. As mandated by the Proposed Coldwater Commitment, and

52

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) consistent with its Aboriginal Engagement Program, Trans Mountain will continue to do so by consulting with Coldwater and incorporating its views and recommendations into the hydrogeological report, feasibility study and reports on routing and aquifer safety. Indeed, Trans Mountain will continue to consult with and engage Coldwater for the life of the expanded pipeline system, for the benefit of both parties. Yours truly,

Ian D. Anderson President & CEO Trans Mountain Pipeline L.P.

cc: Coldwater Indian Band Jun 19, Email - Dale August Regan From: Dale August D. August, Coldwater Indian Band (CIB), 2019 Incoming (Coldwater Schlecker Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 3:21 PM emailed Team Member and advised that Indian Band), (TMEP), To: Schlecker, Regan Chief Spahan wanted large, high Lee Spahan Jeff Smith ; Smith, Jeff resolution maps for the West Alternative, (Coldwater (TMEP) the Modified Alternative on the Reserve, Indian Band), Cc: Emma Hume ; Lee Spahan and the Modified East Alternative routes. Emma Hume D. August provided the specific details (Coldwater Subject: Trans Mountain - Request for Large Scale, High for the requested maps. D. August also Indian Band) Resolution Route Maps requested Team Member to send shapefiles of the existing pipeline, Regan and Jeff, Modified Alternative on Reserve and Modified East Alternative routes, for use I am Chief Spahan’s interim executive assistant. He has with the Traditional Land Use study. D. asked that I request large, high resolution maps that show August requested that she be copied on each of: the West Alternative; the Modified Alternative on all correspondence with Chief Spahan. Reserve; and the Modified East Alternative routes. We would like six maps in total – two maps that just show the West route and the existing pipeline, two maps that just show the Modified Alternative and existing pipeline, etc... We would propose 36” x 48” – or at least something large enough that elders can easily see the maps and the detail of the land/our community. These maps could be similar to the ones you provided with your May 14, 2019 letter, but we would like them to be much higher resolution (so you can really see the lands) and for the Coldwater IR 1 not to be filled in with pink on the map – we want to be able to see roads, homes etc..

We would like two copies of each map/poster delivered to the Coldwater IR 1 Band Office as well as a high resolution PDF of each map (which can be sent by email).

Would you also be able to send shapefiles of the existing pipeline, Modified Alternative on Reserve and Modified East Alternative routes so we can be sure we have the current shapefiles for the TLU study we are doing? We do have shapefiles for the Segment 5 spread from last year, but want to be sure there haven’t been any changes.

53

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim)

We would appreciate receiving this as soon as possible – ideally by early next week. Is that possible? If necessary, the shapefiles can wait a little longer.

If you have any questions let us know.

Thank you, and please ensure that you cc’ me in any future correspondence to the Chief.

Ms. Dale August Interim Executive Assistant Jun 19, Email - Dale August Regan From: Schlecker, Regan Team Member emailed D. August, 2019 Outgoing (Coldwater Schlecker Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 7:24 PM Coldwater Indian Band, and confirmed Indian Band), (TMEP), To: Dale August ; Smith, Jeff receipt of the request for maps and Emma Hume Jeff Smith shapefiles. Team Member advised she (Coldwater (TMEP) Cc: Emma Hume ; Lee Spahan would confirm internally regarding Indian Band), production of the requested maps, and Lee Spahan Subject: RE: Trans Mountain - Request for Large Scale, High Resolution anticipated timing. (Coldwater Route Maps Indian Band) Good evening, Dale.

Thanks for your message. I write to confirm receipt of your request.

I’ll follow up internally and respond shortly to confirm if we can produce the maps, as you requested, as well as the anticipated timing.

Best regards, Regan Jun 21, Email - Dale August Regan From: Schlecker, Regan Team Member emailed D. August, 2019 Outgoing (Coldwater Schlecker Sent: Friday, June 21, 2019 12:02 PM Coldwater Indian Band (CIB), and Indian Band), (TMEP), To: Dale August advised that Trans Mountain's Emma Hume Jeff Smith Cc: Emma Hume ; Lee Spahan Geographic Information Systems (Coldwater (TMEP), ; Blair, Melanie Department was expediting CIB's map Indian Band), Melanie Blair ; Smith, Jeff requests, both hard and electronic Lee Spahan (TMEP) copies, to be delivered by June 28, 2019. (Coldwater Subject: Re: Trans Mountain - Request for Large Scale, High Resolution Team Member stated that Trans Indian Band) Route Maps Mountain might require sign-off of a data waiver to enable sharing of shapefiles Hello again, Dale. related to the existing pipeline, for safety and security reasons. Team Member Further to my last email, I write to confirm that our GIS department is extended wishes for a Happy National expediting your request and maps (hard and electronic copies) should all Indigenous Day to all. be delivered no later than Friday, June 28.

I'm awaiting direction but understand we may require signing of a data waiver to share Shapefiles related to the existing line, for safety and security reasons. If required, we'll follow up immediately to provide you with the form.

I also would like to take this opportunity to recognize and wish you all a Happy National Indigenous Peoples Day!

54

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim)

Best regards, Regan

Regan Schlecker, M.A. Manager, Indigenous Relations Trans Mountain Corporation Office 604 268.3012 Cell 778 686.8177 [email protected] Jun 21, Email - Dawn Porter Ian Anderson From: Anderson, Ian Trans Mountain President and CEO 2019 Outgoing (Coldwater (TMEP), Sent: Friday, June 21, 2019 2:08 PM emailed Chief Spahan, Coldwater Indian Indian Band), Regan To: Nadia Joe; Lee Spahan; Dawn Porter Band (CIB), and advised that he was Lee Spahan Schlecker Cc: Schlecker, Regan interested to meet and discuss the (Coldwater (TMEP) Subject: Trans Mountain Pipeline current state of relations and work Indian Band), between CIB and Trans Mountain. Nadia Joe (Coldwater Chief, I would be most interested in us finding time soon to sit and Indian Band) discuss the current state of relations and work between us.

Thanks for considering, Ian Jun 21, Email - Dale August Regan From: Schlecker, Regan Team Member emailed D. August, 2019 Outgoing (Coldwater Schlecker Sent: Friday, June 21, 2019 3:15 PM Coldwater Indian Band (CIB), and Indian Band), (TMEP), To: Dale August advised that Trans Mountain required Emma Hume Jeff Smith Cc: Emma Hume ; Lee Spahan CIB to sign a data waiver for the (Coldwater (TMEP), ; Blair, Melanie shapefiles on the existing line. Team Indian Band), Melanie Blair ; Smith, Jeff Member provided the data waiver for Lee Spahan (TMEP) sign-off and noted it was standard (Coldwater Subject: Re: Trans Mountain - Request for Large Scale, High Resolution procedure for safety reasons. Team Indian Band) Route Maps Member requested the signed waiver to be returned at CIB's earliest Good afternoon, Dale. convenience.

As anticipated, we do kindly require Coldwater to sign the attached data waiver for us to provide Shapefiles on our existing line. It's a standard procedure for safety reasons.

Please sign and return to us at your earliest convenience.

Thank you and we look forward to reconnecting on this request next week.

Best regards, Regan

Regan Schlecker, M.A. Manager, Indigenous Relations Trans Mountain Corporation Office 604 268.3012 Cell 778 686.8177 [email protected]

55

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Jun 21, Email - Dale August Regan From: Schlecker, Regan Team Member emailed D. August, 2019 Outgoing (Coldwater Schlecker Sent: Friday, June 21, 2019 3:49 PM Coldwater Indian Band, and provided the Indian Band), (TMEP), To: Dale August PDF data waiver file to be signed off on Emma Hume Jeff Smith Cc: Emma Hume ; Lee Spahan the shapefiles. (Coldwater (TMEP), ; Blair, Melanie Indian Band), Melanie Blair ; Smith, Jeff Lee Spahan (TMEP) (Coldwater Subject: Re: Trans Mountain - Request for Large Scale, High Resolution Indian Band) Route Maps

My apologies, please find PDF form dated and attached for your review and signing.

Thank you, Regan

Regan Schlecker, M.A. Manager, Indigenous Relations Trans Mountain Corporation Office 604 268.3012 Cell 778 686.8177 [email protected] Jun 25, Email - Dale August Farzain Malbari From: Schlecker, Regan Team Member emailed D. August, 2019 Outgoing (Coldwater (Kinder Morgan Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 7:56 AM Coldwater Indian Band (CIB), and Indian Band), Canada), To: Dale August advised that Trans Mountain's Emma Hume Regan Cc: Emma Hume ; Lee Spahan Geographic Information Systems group (Coldwater Schlecker ; Blair, Melanie was almost finished preparing the Indian Band), (TMEP), ; Smith, Jeff requested maps. Team Member Lee Spahan Jeff Smith ; Horn, Mike requested CIB to sign and return the (Coldwater (TMEP), ; Malbari, Farzain attached data waver at their earliest Indian Band) Melanie Blair convenience. (TMEP), Subject: RE: Trans Mountain - Request for Large Scale, High Resolution Mike Horn Route Maps (TMEP) Importance: High

Good morning, Dale.

Our GIS department is almost finished with preparing your requested maps.

Please review, sign and return the attached data waiver to me at your earliest convenience so that we can send the maps to you?

Thank you, Regan

Regan Schlecker, M.A. Manager, Indigenous Relations Trans Mountain Corporation Office 604 268.3012 Cell 778 686.8177 [email protected]

56

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Jun 25, Email - Emma Hume Regan From: Emma Hume E. Hume, for Coldwater Indian Band, 2019 Incoming (Coldwater Schlecker Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 9:23 AM emailed Team Member and thanked her Indian Band) (TMEP) To: Schlecker, Regan for the follow up regarding the Geographic Information System data Subject: RE: Trans Mountain - Request for Large Scale, High waiver. E. Hume advised the Band Resolution Route Maps office may have been closed on June 25, 2019, so there could be a delay in [This email message was received from the Internet and response for completion of the data came from outside of Trans Mountain] waiver. Hi Regan –

Thanks for following up. Dale and Lee are aware of this, I understand the Band Office may be closed today so I expect there will be some delay in responding to this.

I’m sure Dale will get back to you as soon as she is able.

Appreciate your patience.

Emma Emma K Hume │ Ratcliff & Company LLP 500 - 221 West Esplanade │ North Vancouver BC │ V7M 3J3 P 604.988.5201 │ F 604.988.1452 │ [email protected] Jun 25, Email - Emma Hume Regan From: Schlecker, Regan Team Member emailed E. Hume, for 2019 Outgoing (Coldwater Schlecker Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 9:30 AM Coldwater Indian Band, and advised that Indian Band) (TMEP) To: Emma Hume the requirement for a Geographic Subject: RE: Trans Mountain - Request for Large Scale, High Resolution Information Systems data waiver was for Route Maps sharing of shapefiles, and that Trans Mountain could otherwise provide maps. Thank you, Emma.

I should have specified that the GIS data waiver is for sharing the shapefiles, we can otherwise provide the maps.

Respectfully, Regan Jun 25, Email - Emma Hume Regan From: Emma Hume E. Hume, for Coldwater Indian Band, 2019 Incoming (Coldwater Schlecker Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 9:35 AM emailed Team Member and advised, due Indian Band) (TMEP) To: Schlecker, Regan to the loss of a community member, there could be delays on a number of Subject: RE: Trans Mountain - Request for Large Scale, High matters on the file, including the Resolution Route Maps hydrogeological study and letter of support. E. Hume requested Team [This email message was received from the Internet and Member advise her colleague who is came from outside of Trans Mountain] responsible for the hydrogeological Thanks Regan – study, of the community's loss and potential delays that could happen. E. Yes, a very sad day for everyone at Coldwater. It is such a Hume requested the maps be provided loss. when Trans Mountain was able to send them. I expect that there will be some delay in responding to a number of matters on this file, including on the

57

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) hydrogeological study and in particular the letter of support. If you could pass the news and reason for any delay on to Cyril that would be appreciated.

Please provide the maps (and PDF of same) when you’re able.

Best,

Emma Emma K Hume │ Ratcliff & Company LLP 500 - 221 West Esplanade │ North Vancouver BC │ V7M 3J3 P 604.988.5201 │ F 604.988.1452 │ [email protected] Jun 25, Email - Emma Hume Regan From: Schlecker, Regan Team Member emailed E. Hume, for 2019 Outgoing (Coldwater Schlecker Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2019 9:58 AM Coldwater Indian Band, and advised she Indian Band) (TMEP) To: Emma Hume relayed the message of the community's Subject: RE: Trans Mountain - Request for Large Scale, High Resolution loss to the Team and they sent thoughts Route Maps and prayers. Team Member noted in recognition that the Band office was Hi Emma, expected to be closed for the week of June 24, 2019, she inquired where and I relayed your message to our team and they send thoughts and prayers. to whose attention should the maps be couriered. In recognition that the office is expected to be closed this week, please advise where and to whose attention we should courier the maps?

Kind regards, Regan Jun 26, Email - Dale August Regan From: Dale August D. August, Coldwater Indian Band, 2019 Incoming (Coldwater Schlecker Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 9:16 AM emailed Team Member and advised that Indian Band), (TMEP) To: Schlecker, Regan Chief Spahan was out of the office until Lee Spahan June 28, 2019, and that he was informed (Coldwater Cc: Laura Antoine ; Lee of the data waiver which required his Indian Band), Spahan signature. D. August advised she would Laura Antoine Subject: RE: Trans Mountain - Request for Large Scale, High not sign on Chief Spahan's behalf unless (Coldwater Resolution Route Maps instruction to do so. Indian Band) [This email message was received from the Internet and came from outside of Trans Mountain] Good morning, I am writing to inform you that Chief Lee Spahan is out of the office until June 28, 2019. He has been informed of this letter that requires his signature. I will not sign on his behalf unless I am instructed to as I am the interim executive assistant.

Thank you.

Sincerely Ms. Dale August Interim Executive Assistant Jun 26, Email - Dale August Farzain Malbari From: Schlecker, Regan Team Member emailed D. August, 2019 Outgoing (Coldwater (Kinder Morgan Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 9:26 AM Coldwater Indian Band, and advised that Indian Band), Canada), To: Dale August she just realized a data waiver was

58

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Lee Spahan Regan Cc: Laura Antoine ; Lee Spahan signed by Chief Spahan regarding the (Coldwater Schlecker ; Horn, Mike hydrogeological study therefore Indian Band), (TMEP), ; Malbari, Farzain everything was fully covered with respect Laura Antoine Mike Horn to mapping. Team Member confirmed (Coldwater (TMEP) Subject: RE: Trans Mountain - Request for Large Scale, High Resolution there was no need to sign another data Indian Band) Route Maps waiver, and expressed apologies for any confusion. Team Member noted that Good morning, Dale. Trans Mountain's Geographic Information System Team Members I just realized that a data waiver was signed by Chief Spahan regarding would be sending the maps on June 26, the hydrogeological study so we are fully covered with respect to 2019, and requested confirmation of the mapping. To confirm, there is no need to sign another waiver. My mailing address. sincere apologies for any confusion and I appreciate your response during this time.

Our GIS team (Mike and/or Farzain) will be sending the maps to your attention today. Please advise if the 2249 Quilchena Ave, Merritt, BC V1K 1B8 address correct?

Best regards, Regan

Regan Schlecker, M.A. Manager, Indigenous Relations Trans Mountain Corporation Office 604 268.3012 Cell 778 686.8177 [email protected] Jun 26, Email - Dale August Farzain Malbari From: Malbari, Farzain Team Member emailed D. August, 2019 Outgoing (Coldwater (Kinder Morgan Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 10:34 AM Coldwater Indian Band, and provided the Indian Band) Canada), To: [email protected] Transmittal Document which specified Regan Cc: Schlecker, Regan ; Blair, the contents of what was being sent via Schlecker Melanie ; Horn, Mike Purolator. (TMEP), Melanie Blair Subject: Coldwater IR Data (TMEP), Mike Horn Hi Dale, (TMEP) Attached is the Transmittal Document specifying the contents of what is being sent via Purolator (TRACKING #: : 331881805195). Have a great day.

Farzain Malbari Senior GIS Analyst W: 403.514.6470 | C: 403.826.4492 | F: 403.514.6492 [email protected]

Trans Mountain Corporation 2700, 300 - 5th Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta T2P 5J2 Toll Free: 1.866.514.6700 | E: [email protected] | W:

59

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) transmountain.com Follow: @TransMtn Jul 03, Email - Dale August Farzain Malbari From: Schlecker, Regan Team Member emailed D. August, 2019 Outgoing (Coldwater (Kinder Morgan Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 9:00 AM Coldwater Indian Band (CIB), and Indian Band), Canada), To: Dale August inquired if CIB received the maps that Laura Antoine Regan Cc: Laura Antoine ; Lee Spahan were couriered during the week of June (Coldwater Schlecker ; Horn, Mike 24, 2019. Indian Band), (TMEP), ; Malbari, Farzain Lee Spahan Mike Horn (Coldwater (TMEP) Subject: RE: Trans Mountain - Request for Large Scale, High Resolution Indian Band) Route Maps

Good morning, Dale.

I hope this message finds you well.

I’m just touching base to ask if you received the maps that were couriered last week?

Thanks, Regan

Regan Schlecker, M.A. Manager, Indigenous Relations Trans Mountain Corporation Office 604 268.3012 Cell 778 686.8177 [email protected] Jul 03, Email - Dale August Regan From: Dale August D. August, Coldwater Indian Band, 2019 Incoming (Coldwater Schlecker Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 9:01 AM emailed Team Member and confirmed Indian Band) (TMEP) To: Schlecker, Regan receipt of the maps that were sent during the week of June 24, 2019. Subject: RE: Trans Mountain - Request for Large Scale, High Resolution Route Maps

[This email message was received from the Internet and came from outside of Trans Mountain] Yes, we received them, thank you Jul 15, Letter – Lee Spahan Ian Anderson July 15, 2019 Chief Spahan wrote to Trans Mountain 2019 Incoming (Coldwater (TMEP) regarding routing alternatives, and the Via Email Indian Band) collection of information needed to evaluate the different routes. The letter noted that the parties were proceeding Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC with the initial phase of the Attn; Ian D. Anderson, President hydrogeological study. The letter further 2700 — 300 5th Avenue SW advised that Coldwater was conducting a Calgary, AB T2P 512 traditional land use study of the route Dear Mr. Anderson: alternatives, and sought Trans Mountain’s funding for same. The letter Re: Trans Mountain Expansion Project -Traditional Land also raised concerns regarding TM’s risk Use Study of Route Alternatives assessment and the December 31, 2019 deadline to complete the hydrogeological study.

60

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) It has been some time since we last met with your team to discuss our review of route alternatives through the Coldwater Valley on April 10, 2019. While we remain uncertain as to the framework within which we are going to evaluate route alternatives - Trans Mountain having retracted its commitment to seek our joint agreement to a route as proposed in your March 15, 2019 letter and confirmed at our April 10, 2019 meeting- the collection of information needed to carefully evaluate the different routes remains a priority for my council and I, at the direction of our membership. As you know, we are proceeding with the initial phase of the hydrogeological study - borehole drilling at six locations on the Coldwater Reserve - and are working with your technical team to determine the scope of subsequent work, including geotechnical work and baseline monitoring. We have also retained Richard Inglis to conduct a traditional land use study of the route alternatives Trans Mountain has identified. He has started initial work on the study and will be undertaking the first phase of interviews this month. Enclosed is a budget for the full study. We seek your agreement to pay this cost. We have yet to receive a response to our May 7, 2019 letter regarding the evaluation of geohazards and our concerns with Trans Mountain's risk assessment. Can you please provide a response to this letter and a proposal for moving forward to fill these important knowledge gaps? I recognize that you have an outstanding request for a meeting to discuss the, now approved, project and routing through the Coldwater Valley. It has been a challenge to find time for such a meeting given a number of circumstances, including our focus on Crown consultation and the hydrogeological study. In addition to reneging on 'the March 14th letter, you proposed changes to NEB Condition 39, made on May 29, 2019 at the close of the Crown's consultation process that sought to undermine the very foundation of the hydrogeological study were of very deep concern to us. Then, when Trans Mountain unilaterally developed a December 31, 2019 deadline for the hydrogeological study report contained in your June 7, 2019 commitment it threw a further shadow over our relations and our confidence that our aquifer will be properly studied in conformity with Condition 39. While we are proceeding with mutual agreement on the hydrogeological study at this time, I fear that conflict will arise if Trans Mountain attempts to complete the study with incomplete information or take short cuts in order to meet the

61

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) apparent December 31, 2019 deadline. Finally, the unfounded assertions that you made in defence of your unilaterally proposed commitment and apparent solution to our concerns on June 14, 2019 about how Coldwater "has not always reciprocated Trans Mountain's attempt to engage" were offensive and simply not true. These various letters came as a surprise to my council and I. They undermined the relationship I thought we were rebuilding, particularly after what seemed to be genuine commitments from you and your team to work with us in March and April, 2019. It is not clear to me what precipitated the significant change in tone in May and June or whether we can find a mutually acceptable path forward. While Trans Mountain's June 2019 commitment provides some framework from which we might be able to collaboratively work together to address significant issues of concern my Council and I continue to have fundamental concerns with the June commitment - including the fact that it was developed and imposed without any consultation with us and contains the unacceptable December 31, 2019 deadline for completion of the aquifer study. We are frustrated and disappointed that Trans Mountain would make such dramatic changes to our agreed to plans without even talking to us.

We continue to see the collection of information in a scientifically appropriate way as essential to any meaningful dialogue about routing, but remain open to talking about what the appropriate framework for collecting and discussing that information might be, and would propose - as a starting point - a return to Trans Mountain's March 14, 2019 commitment to seek our joint agreement to a route through the Coldwater Valley. If you think a meeting might facilitate some form of productive conversation about the framework for evaluating routing please schedule a meeting with my Council and I with Council's Interim Executive Assistant, Dale August. I would, however, appreciate a substantive response to this letter in advance of receiving proposed meeting dates.

We look forward to your response. Kwukwscémxw (Thank you) Chief T. Lee Spahan COLDWATER INDIAN BAND Encl. TLU Budget

62

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Trans Mountain Alternate Routes TLU Budget

RICHARD INGLIS COSTS

PHASE I Review of data from 2015 Coldwater Indian Band: Preliminary Ethnographic and Historic Overview and Traditional Use Study and Esh-kn-am Report for the area of the three proposed alternate routes.

• 5 days @ $400/day - $2,000.00

Interviews of Knowledgeable Coldwater Community Members regarding the area of the three proposed alternate routes

• Return Travel (BC ferry, car) to Merritt B.C., accommodation for 3 nights in Merritt, food for 2 people - $1,200.00 • Honoraria for interviewees @ $250/ person - $2,500.00 • Fees for 3 days for 2 people - $2,500.00

Analysis of interview data and Report production

• Interview data analysis - $2,500.00 • Digitization of interview data- $750.00 • Map production - $750.00 • Report writing - $1,800.00

SUBTOTAL - $14,000.00

Phase II Interviews of 10 Additional Coldwater Community Members regarding the area of the three proposed alternate routes.

• Return Travel (BC ferry, car) to Merritt B.C., accommodation for 3 nights in Merritt, food for 2 people - $1,200.00 • Honoraria for interviewees@ $250/ person - $2,500.00 • Fees for 3 days for 2 people - $2,500.00

63

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Analysis of interview data and Report production • Interview data analysis - $2,500.00 • Digitization of interview data- $750.00 • Map production - $750.00 • Report writing - $1,800.00

SUBTOTAL - $12,000.00

TOTAL: $26,000

Jul 23, Letter - Lee Spahan Ian Anderson From: Schlecker, Regan The President and CEO, Trans Mountain 2019 Sent (Coldwater (TMEP), Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2019 11:15 AM emailed a letter dated July 23, 2019 to Indian Band), Regan To: Lee Spahan ; Dale August Chief Spahan, Coldwater Indian Band Dale August Schlecker ; Laura Antoine (CIB), in response to letter dated July 15, (Coldwater (TMEP), ; Gerome Garcia 2019 regarding Traditional Land Use Indian Band), Jeff Smith ; Corrina Manuel Study of Route Alternatives. The letter Laura Antoine (TMEP), provided information and responded to (Coldwater Cyril Jenkins Cc: Emma Hume ; Blair, Melanie CIB's concerns regarding the feasibility Indian Band), (TMEP), ; Smith, Jeff study, traditional land use study, and the Gerome Garcia Melanie Blair ; Mitchell Taylor routing process. The letter outlined a (Coldwater (TMEP) ([email protected]) ; Jenkins, Cyril draft schedule of steps required to fulfill Indian Band), the feasibility study component of the Corrina Manuel Subject: Letter from Trans Mountain to Coldwater Chief Spahan - July 23 Coldwater Commitment. The letter (Coldwater 2019 outlined Site visits with dates to collect Indian Band), information for the feasibility study. The Mitch Taylor Dear Chief Spahan & Council, letter acknowledged that on review of the (Natural Traditional Land Use Study proposal, Resources On behalf of President Ian Anderson, please find the attached letter for Trans Mountain was concerned that the Canada) your consideration. proposed scope was exceeded by the Coldwater Commitment. The letter noted We look forward to your reply and the opportunity to schedule a meeting that Trans Mountain would provide at your earliest availability. reasonable funds for a traditional land use study of the Western Alternative but not extend funding of a study to address other theoretical routes. Regarding the Respectfully, Route Hearing Process, the letter stated Regan that Trans Mountain and CIB have until March 31, 2020 to attempt to reach Regan Schlecker, M.A. consensus on a route for sections of the Manager, Indigenous Relations pipeline between KP 929 and KP 952. Trans Mountain Corporation The letter acknowledged that if the Office 604 268.3012 parties cannot reach a consensus by Cell 778 686.8177 March 31, 2020, Trans Mountain must [email protected] proceed with its preferred route based on technical matters, public safety and the ------protection of the environment. The letter concluded that a meeting with Chief and July 23, 2019 Council could be arranged in August 2019 to discuss moving forward with the Coldwater Indian Band Coldwater Commitment.

64

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) PO Box 4600 Merritt, B.C. VIK 1B8 Attention: Chief Lee Spahan Dear Chief Spahan: Re: Response to Letter dated July 15, 2019 - Traditional Land Use Study of Route Alternatives

Thank you for your letter of July 15, 2019.

As you know, Trans Mountain has a dedicated team of technical and indigenous engagement professionals that have been working for years to find a constructive solution to ensure that Coldwater' s aquifer is protected. While we have not always agreed on the process or technical measures required, our team' s efforts have always been genuine, grounded in science, and in good faith. While Trans Mountain does not agree with Coldwater' s characterization of Trans Mountain's proposed amendments to Condition 39, we acknowledge Coldwater's position and note that the Governor in Council affirmed Condition 39 without amendment when it reapproved the Project on June 18. Trans Mountain does not view the Governor in Council's reapproval of the Project as the end of its engagement with Coldwater. Rather, Trans Mountain seeks to continue to build a strong relationship and fully engage with Coldwater throughout the Project lifecycle. In particular, Trans Mountain's engagement will continue as it works diligently to fulfill commitments 4165 to 4167 (together, the "Coldwater Commitment"), filed with the Board on July 5, 2019.1

The Coldwater Commitment is the result of significant consultation and engagement between Coldwater, the Crown and Trans Mountain. Through the Coldwater Commitment, Trans Mountain seeks to provide procedural certainty to Coldwater with respect to its aquifer and the process for resolving options over the Expansion pipeline route. Trans Mountain is willing to discuss the timing of various components of the Coldwater Commitment and to make reasonable adjustments so that it is workable for all parties. Trans Mountain understands that Canada shares this position. We welcome Coldwater' s further input and suggestions in this regard. However, the Governor in Council reapproved the Project in the Canadian public interest in reliance on the Coldwater Commitment as it currently reads. Therefore, Trans Mountain intends to proceed diligently to ensure that it is fulfilled in substance and in compliance with current deadlines. Trans Mountain considers the deadlines to be reasonable and achievable if both parties work together, in good faith. As discussed more specifically below, all necessary work can be scheduled well in advance of the deadlines.

65

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Cyril Jenkins will provide Coldwater with Trans Mountain's specific response to your letter regarding the hydrogeological study. Here, Trans Mountain provides information and responds to Coldwater' s concerns regarding the feasibility study, traditional land use study, and the routing process. Feasibility Study The Coldwater Commitment requires that Trans Mountain complete a feasibility study of the potential western route, to be filed with the NEB on or before January 31, 2020. This study will include a summary of consultations with Coldwater as well as any written comments from Coldwater. Trans Mountain will provide a description and justification of how it incorporates the results of that consultation, including any recommendations from Coldwater. Trans Mountain seeks a cooperative approach to the conclusions reached with respect to route; however, at law, the NEB is final decision-maker with respect to the Project route. To give the Coldwater Commitment full effect, Coldwater, Trans Mountain and their respective technical experts must be available to engage and provide feedback on a timely basis. Further, Trans Mountain believes that there is value in Natural Resources Canada ("NRCan") participating in the process for the purpose of any potential revisions or discussions regarding the content and timing of the Coldwater Commitment. For planning purposes, so that all parties can make themselves available when necessary, Trans Mountain has prepared the following draft schedule of steps required to fulfill the feasibility study component of the Coldwater Commitment. As noted, we would be pleased to receive Coldwater' s comments and to discuss the content and timing of these steps within the framework of the existing Coldwater Commitment. Site visits to collect information for the feasibility study:2

• Land notifications: Week of July 22, 2019 • Trans Mountain and Coldwater meeting regarding site visits: Week of July 29, 2019 • Routing and ground trothing: Week of August 5, 2019

• Terrain and geohazard mapping: Week of August 12, 2019 • Environmental team visit- aquatics: Weeks of August 12 and 19, 2019 • Environmental team visit - wildlife: Weeks of August 12 and 19, 2019 • Environmental team visit - vegetation: Weeks of August 12 and 19, 2019 • Surveys: Weeks of August 12, 19 and 26, 2019 • Environmental team visit - archaeology: Weeks of September 2 and 9, 2019 • Environmental team visit - soils: Weeks of September 2 and 9, 2019

66

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) • HDD investigation (north): Weeks of September 2 and 9, 2019 • HDD investigation (south): Weeks of September 16 and 23, 2019

Feasibility study of the western route:

• Trans Mountain to collect material and draft initial version of feasibility study: Weeks of September 30 to November 18, 2019 • Consultation meeting with Coldwater and NRCan: Week of September 30, 2019 • Consultation meeting with Coldwater and NRCan: Week of October 28, 2019 • Consultation meeting with Coldwater and NRCan: Week of November 18, 2019 • Coldwater to complete Traditional Land Use study of the proposed westernroute: November 30, 2019 • Draft of feasibility study to Coldwater: December 2, 2019 • Coldwater comments on draft feasibility study: December 16, 2019 • Trans Mountain to provide a second draft of the feasibility study to Coldwater: January 7, 2020 • Coldwater comments on the second draft feasibility study: January 21, 2020 • Trans Mountain to file feasibility study with the NEB: January 31, 2020

Traditional Land Use Study

Trans Mountain is pleased that Coldwater has commissioned Richard Inglis to prepare a Traditional Land Use Study "of the proposed western route to be completed on or before November 30, 2019" as contemplated by the Coldwater Commitment. However, on review of the proposal, Trans Mountain is concerned that the proposed scope exceeds that which is contemplated by the Coldwater Commitment. In particular, and consistent with its commitment, Trans Mountain will provide reasonable funds for a traditional land use study of the Western Alternative. However, the Coldwater Commitment does not extend to funding of a study to address other theoretical routes.

Route Hearing Process Trans Mountain and Coldwater have until March 31, 2020 to attempt to reach consensus on a route for sections of the pipeline between KP 929 and KP 952. Trans Mountain is committed to and looks forward to meaningful cooperation and engagement with Coldwater in this regard. Some clarification appears to be required regarding the meaning of"agreement". To be clear, Trans Mountain has never ceded a "veto"

67

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) to Coldwater over the Project route. It has always been our hope and indeed, our goal, to reach a shared conclusion on a preferred, technically and economically feasible route that accounts for all safety and environmental concerns, in particular, the aquifer. This is what I communicated to Coldwater on March 15, 2019. Trans Mountain has not retracted or reneged on any commitment with Coldwater in this regard.

If the parties cannot reach a consensus by March 31, 2020, Trans Mountain must proceed with its preferred route based on technical matters, public safety and the protection of the environment. I would be pleased to meet with you and your Council in August to discuss moving forward with the Coldwater Commitment. My office will connect with Council's Executive Assistant, Dale August, to schedule this meeting. Yours truly,

Ian D. Anderson President & CEO Trans Mountain Pipeline L.P.

2 The feasibility assessment and study will include an updated assessment geohazards and available mitigation measures based on the information collected. This may address several of Coldwater' s outstanding concerns. At this time, Trans Mountain does not intend to revise its methodology, as requested in Coldwater's letter of May 7, 2019 re: Evaluation of Route Alternatives - Geohazards. This does not mean that Trans Mountain will undervalue Coldwater's perspectives or potential impacts on Coldwater's rights, interests or aquifer. Trans Mountain would be pleased to discuss this as part of its engagement with Coldwater on the feasibility study.

Aug 06, Email - Lee Spahan Regan From: Schlecker, Regan Team Member emailed Chief Spahan, 2019 Outgoing (Coldwater Schlecker Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 1:46 PM Coldwater Indian Band (CIB), and Indian Band), (TMEP), To: Lee Spahan ; Dale August requested confirmation if CIB was Dale August Jeff Smith ; Laura Antoine interested to engage with Trans (Coldwater (TMEP), ; Gerome Garcia Mountain on the feasibility study of the Indian Band), Cyril Jenkins ; Corrina Manuel potential western route, to be filed with Laura Antoine (TMEP), the National Energy Board on or before (Coldwater Melanie Blair Cc: Emma Hume ; Blair, Melanie January 31, 2020. Team Member noted Indian Band), (TMEP) ; Smith, Jeff that Trans Mountain remained available Gerome Garcia ; Mitchell Taylor to meet in August 2019 to discuss (Coldwater ([email protected]) ; Jenkins, Cyril moving the study forward. Indian Band), Corrina Manuel Subject: FW: Letter from Trans Mountain to Coldwater Chief Spahan - (Coldwater July 23 2019 Indian Band) Importance: High

Dear Chief Spahan,

I write further to our correspondence below of July 23, 2019, in which we

68

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) provided the attached response to your letter of July 15, 2019 regarding a traditional land use study of route alternatives.

Specifically, our letter outlined that the Coldwater Commitment, related to Condition 39, requires Trans Mountain to complete a feasibility study of the potential western route, to be filed with the NEB on or before January 31, 2020. As stated in our letter, Trans Mountain seeks a cooperative approach and provided a draft schedule of required steps in which we welcome Coldwater’s comments and the opportunity to meet and discuss the content and timing of these steps within the framework of the existing Coldwater Commitment.

Time is of the essence for us to initiate this important work. Trans Mountain respectfully requests a response at the earliest opportunity to confirm if Coldwater is interested to engage with us on the feasibility study. We remain available to meet with you and your Council in August to discuss moving this study forward.

Thank you, Regan

Regan Schlecker, M.A. Manager, Indigenous Relations Trans Mountain Corporation Office 604 268.3012 Cell 778 686.8177 Aug 21, Letter - Lee Spahan From: Clark, Kristin Team Member emailed a letter from 2019 Sent (Coldwater Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 1:56 PM Trans Mountain President and CEO to Indian Band), To: Lee Spahan ; Dale August Chief Spahan, Coldwater Indian Band Dale August ; Laura Antoine (CIB). The letter dated August 21, 2019 (Coldwater ; [email protected]; stated further to Trans Mountain's letter Indian Band), [email protected] of July 23, 2019, where Trans Mountain Laura Antoine Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Anderson, Ian invited CIB and Natural Resources (Coldwater ; Blair, Melanie Canada (NRCan) to engage on the Indian Band), ; Smith, Jeff content of commitments 4, 165-4, 167, Gerome Garcia ; Jenkins, Cyril and a proposed schedule, including (Coldwater ; Schlecker, Regan consultation meetings, for steps in the Indian Band), feasibility study. The letter noted that Corrina Manuel Subject: Trans Mountain Letter to Coldwater Chief Spahan - August 21, Trans Mountain understood NRCan had (Coldwater 2019 sent a letter to CIB on August 12, 2019 Indian Band), that proposed a tripartite meeting to Emma Hume Dear Chief Spahan, discuss the same, and Trans Mountain (Coldwater was not aware if CIB responded. The Indian Band), Please find our letter of today’s date attached. letter advised that Trans Mountain Mitch Taylor remained open to meeting with CIB and (Natural Regards, discussion of the feasibility study, Resources however must commence the program Canada) Kristin Clark for completion by January 31, 2020. The Paralegal letter suggested CIB contact the office of Suite 2700, 300 - 5 Avenue SW | Calgary AB T2P 5J2 | O: 403-514-6565 the Trans Mountain President and CEO E: [email protected] if they were interested in collaboration on ------the initial components of the study.

69

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) August 21, 2019

Coldwater Indian Band PO Box 4600 Merritt, B.C. VIK 1B8 Attention: Chief Lee Spahan Dear Chief Spahan: Re: Feasibility Study

I write further to my letter of July 23, 2019. In that letter, I invited Coldwater to engage with Trans Mountain and Natural Resources Canada on the content of commitments 4,165-4,167 (together, the "Coldwater Commitment") and proposed a schedule (including consultation meetings) for steps in the feasibility study.

I understand that Natural Resources Canada followed my letter of July 23 with a letter to Coldwater on August 12, 2019, proposing a tripartite meeting in August to discuss the Coldwater Commitment; in particular, the schedule of proposed steps to complete the feasibility study. To the best of my knowledge, Coldwater has not responded to that letter.

Trans Mountain remains open to meeting with Coldwater to discuss the feasibility study. However, the time has come when Trans Mountain must commence the program to complete the feasibility study by January 31, 2020.

If Coldwater is interested in such a meeting please contact my office as soon as you are able so that Coldwater does not lose out on the opportunity for collaborative consultation on the initial components of the study.

Ian D. Anderson President & CEO Trans Mountain Pipeline L.P.

cc: Mitch Taylor, Natural Resources Canada Sep 12, Letter - Dale August Ian Anderson From: Anderson, Ian Trans Mountain President and CEO 2019 Sent (Coldwater (TMEP), Sent: September 12, 2019 12:26 PM emailed a letter to multiple Indian Band), Jeff Smith To: [email protected] ; representatives for Coldwater Indian Lee Spahan (TMEP), [email protected] Band (CIB). The letter indicated that (Coldwater Trudy Nichols Cc: Youngman, Gary ; Smith, Trans Mountain was working on a Indian Band), (TMEP), Jeff ; Thrasher, Kevin detailed response to the August 29, 2019 Larry Antoine Rob Van ; 'Taylor, Mitch letter regarding routing alternatives and (Coldwater Walleghem (NRCAN/RNCAN)' ; [email protected] ensured the response would be prior to Indian Band), (TMEP), ; [email protected] the meeting on September 23 or 26, Laura Antoine Gary Youngman ; [email protected] 2019. Trans Mountain President and (Coldwater (TMEP), ; [email protected] CEO assured that Trans Mountain Indian Band), Kevin Thrasher ; [email protected] remained committed to working with the Leah Collins (TMEP) ; [email protected] CIB on matters related to the continued (Coldwater ; [email protected] presence and routing of the existing Indian Band), ; [email protected] Trans Mountain Pipeline on CIB territory. Wendy Hall ; [email protected] Trans Mountain President and CEO (Coldwater ; Nichols, Trudy reiterated commitment to work with CIB

70

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Indian Band), ; Van Walleghem, Rob on issues related to the Trans Mountain Corrina Manuel ; Shenher, Paul Expansion Project. (Coldwater ; [email protected] Indian Band), ; [email protected] Emma Hume (Coldwater Subject: RE: September 12, 2019 letter to Chief Spahan from Ian Indian Band), Anderson Mike Smithers (Coldwater Trudy Nichols on behalf of Ian Anderson Indian Band), Gerome Garcia (Coldwater Dear Chief Spahan, please note the attached letter. Indian Band), Cheryl Aljam Regards, (Coldwater Indian Band), Trudy Nichols Carol Thomas Executive Assistant to Ian Anderson (Department of President & Chief Executive Officer Justice) Trans Mountain Canada W: 403.514.6432 | [email protected] Sep 18, Email - D Millette, Ian Anderson From: Dale August From: Youngman, Gary D. August, Coldwater Indian Band, 2019 Exchange Annie Major (TMEP), Sent: September 18, 2019 2:21 PM Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2019 5:30 PM emailed Team Members and Justice (Coldwater Regan To: Youngman, Gary To: Dale August ; Smith, Jeff Canada representatives and confirmed Indian Band), Schlecker ; Smith, Jeff ; Thrasher, Kevin Chief Spahan availability for the tripartite Corrina Manuel (TMEP), ; Thrasher, Kevin ; Emma Hume meeting on September 23, 2019 at (Coldwater Jeff Smith ; Emma Hume ; Laura Antoine ; Coldwater in the early afternoon. Team Indian Band), (TMEP), ; Laura Antoine Matthew Kirchner ; Leah Collins Member confirmed Trans Mountain team Dale August Trudy Nichols ; Matthew Kirchner ; Wendy Hall ; availability and requested confirmation of (Coldwater (TMEP), ; Leah Collins Corrina Manuel ; Tracey Aljam the time and location. Indian Band), Hope ; Wendy Hall ; Michael Smithers Emma Hume Sanderson ; Corrina Manuel ; Gerome Garcia (Coldwater (TMEP), ; Tracey Aljam ; Annie Major Indian Band), Rob Van ; Michael Smithers ; Nichols, Trudy Gerome Garcia Walleghem ; Gerome Garcia ; Van Walleghem, Rob (Coldwater (TMEP), ; Annie Major ; Shenher, Paul Indian Band), Gary Youngman ; Nichols, Trudy ; [email protected] Laura Antoine (TMEP), ; Van Walleghem, Rob ; [email protected] (Coldwater Kevin Thrasher ; Shenher, Paul ; Anderson, Ian Indian Band), (TMEP) ; ; Taylor, Mitch (NRCAN/RNCAN Leah Collins [email protected] ; ; Lavoie, Kimberly (NRCAN/RNCAN (Coldwater [email protected] ; ; Sheppard2, Christopher (NRCAN/RNCAN Indian Band), Anderson, Ian ; Taylor, ; Sanderson, Hope Mike Smithers Mitch (NRCAN/RNCAN ; Lavoie, ; Schlecker, Regan (Coldwater Kimberly (NRCAN/RNCAN ; Indian Band), Sheppard2, Christopher (NRCAN/RNCAN Subject: Re: Coldwater, tripartite meeting Tracey Aljam ; Sanderson, Hope (Coldwater ; Schlecker, Regan Thank you Dale Indian Band), Wendy Hall Subject: RE: Coldwater, tripartite meeting On behalf of Trans Mountain we can confirm we will be available. We (Coldwater also understand representatives from Canada can attend but will let them Indian Band), [This email message was received from the Internet and confirm separately. Christopher came from outside of Trans Mountain] Sheppard Good afternoon – You mentioned the meeting will take place early afternoon. Is that a 1:00

71

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) (Natural pm start and could you confirm location please. Resources My apologies, further to my email yesterday, Chief Spahan is Canada), available to meet with Trans Mountain and Canada on Gary Youngman Kimberly Lavoie September 23rd, at Coldwater. We understand that this date (Natural works for Trans Mountain and Canada. Can you please Resources confirm that that is still the case? We would propose an early Canada), afternoon meeting on the 23rd. Mitch Taylor (Natural We look forward to hearing from you. Resources Canada), F. Matthew Thank you. Kirchner (Ratcliff & Company), Sincerely Carol Thomas (Department of Ms. Dale August Justice), Interim Executive Assistant Paul Shenher Coldwater Indian Band (Department of [email protected] Justice) 250-378-6168 (phone) 250-378-6153 (fax) Sep 20, Letter - Lee Spahan Ian Anderson From: Schlecker, Regan Team Member emailed a letter to Chief 2019 Sent (Coldwater (TMEP), Sent: Friday, September 20, 2019 3:04 PM Spahan and Council, Coldwater Indian Indian Band), Regan To: [email protected]; Dale August Band (CIB). The letter dated September Dale August Schlecker 20, 2019, from Trans Mountain President (Coldwater (TMEP), Cc: Youngman, Gary ; Smith, and CEO, was written further to his Indian Band), Jeff Smith Jeff ; Thrasher, Kevin letters of September 6 and 12, 2019, for Emma Hume (TMEP), ; Emma Hume a detailed response to CIB's letter of (Coldwater Cyril Jenkins ; Laura Antoine ; August 29, 2019 regarding routing Indian Band), (TMEP), Matthew Kirchner ; Leah Collins alternatives in advance of the tripartite Laura Antoine Hope ; Wendy Hall ; meeting of the same subject between (Coldwater Sanderson Corrina Manuel ; Tracey Aljam Trans Mountain, Natural Resources Indian Band), (TMEP), ; Michael Smithers Canada (NRCan) and CIB. The letter Leah Collins Rob Van ; Gerome Garcia informed that the separate (Coldwater Walleghem ; Annie Major correspondence from CIB to the Trans Indian Band), (TMEP), ; Nichols, Trudy Mountain Team Member leading the Wendy Hall Neeka ; Van Walleghem, Rob technical work on the hydrogeological (Coldwater Mottahedeh ; Shenher, Paul study, would be addressed by the Team Indian Band), (TMEP), ; [email protected]; Member directly to CIB. The letter Corrina Manuel Gary Youngman [email protected]; Anderson, Ian referenced Commitment 4166 and Trans (Coldwater (TMEP), ; Taylor, Mitch (NRCAN/RNCAN Mountain's commitment for compliance Indian Band), Kevin Thrasher ; Lavoie, Kimberly (NRCAN/RNCAN of filing the hydrogeological report Tracey Aljam (TMEP) ; Sheppard2, Christopher (NRCAN/RNCAN referred to in Condition 39 with the (Coldwater ; Sanderson, Hope Canada Energy Regulator, on or before Indian Band), ; Mottahedeh, Neeka December 31, 2019. The letter stated Gerome Garcia ; Jenkins, Cyril that Trans Mountain considered the (Coldwater deadline to be reasonable and Indian Band), Subject: Trans Mountain Letters of Response to Coldwater Band achievable if both parties worked Annie Major Importance: High together, however, delays in moving the (Coldwater work forward caused increased concern Indian Band), Dear Chief Spahan & Council, about the timing. The letter noted that Mitch Taylor CIB would not agree on the scope of the (Natural We write to respectfully provide you with the attached correspondence in hydrogeological study and preferred a Resources response to each of your letters dated August 29, 2019. two year monitoring window before the

72

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Canada), study was complete, and that no Project Kimberly Lavoie Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to further work should continue until after (Natural discussions with you on Monday, September 23rd. completion of the study. The letter Resources advised that approach was unacceptable Canada), to Trans Mountain, and would cause Christopher Sincerely, significant Project delay. The letter Sheppard Regan discussed the western alternative route (Natural and feasibility study, which would be Resources Regan Schlecker, M.A. completed by January 31, 2020. The Canada), Manager, Indigenous Relations letter informed of the process related to F. Matthew Trans Mountain Corporation Commitment 4167 with a Governor In Kirchner (Ratcliff Office 604 268.3012 Council (GIC) endorsed process to & Company), Cell 778 686.8177 determine the pipeline route, which Paul Shenher [email protected] would include timing to work with CIB (Department of and attempt to reach consensus. The Justice), letter advised that Trans Mountain would Carol Thomas contact CIB to review the program and (Department of September 20, 2019 seek their participation. The letter Justice) informed that Trans Mountain remained Coldwater Indian Band PO Box 4600 of the view that with full cooperation, the Merritt, B.C. V1K 1B8 Attention: Chief Lee Spahan Dear Chief Spahan: commitment could be met by November Re: Commitments 4165 to 4167 (together, the “Coldwater Commitment”) 30, 2019. The letter acknowledged that and Condition 39 CIB may be interested in an on reserve route option, and advised that Trans I write further to my letters of September 6 and 12, 2019, to provide a Mountain wanted to begin discussions detailed response to your August 29, 2019, letter regarding routing immediately. The letter referenced CIB's alternatives in advance of the tripartite meeting on the same subject concerns regarding the quantitative risk between Trans Mountain, Natural Resources Canada (“NRCan”) and assessment used to evaluate the risks of Coldwater Indian Band (“Coldwater”). route alternatives through the Coldwater Valley. The letter advised that the You have written separately to Cyril Jenkins, who is leading our team’s approach was consistent with industry technical work on the hydrogeological study. Mr. Jenkins will respond to standards and accepted by the National your letter directly, with additional information regarding the status of work Energy Board, and approved by the GIC. on that study. The letter stated that Trans Mountain intended to use the same professional Trans Mountain Commitments and the Hydrogeological Study standard of risk assessment on the feasibility study for the western Commitment 4166 is our commitment to filing the hydrogeological report alternative route. The letter addressed referred to in Condition 39 with the Canada Energy Regulator on or the Traditional Land Use (TLU) Study of before December 31, 2019. Route Alternative, and advised that Trans Mountain would only fund the TLU We understand Coldwater’s views on the deadline and appreciate you study of the proposed western route. communicating them to us through various letters. We responded to The letter stated Trans Mountain would these concerns by letter sent July 24, 2019. In that letter, we noted that consider funding a modified proposal the Governor in Council (“GIC”) reapproved the Project in the Canadian upon agreement of which alternative public interest in reliance on the Coldwater Commitment as it currently route to study, the western alternative reads. Therefore, Trans Mountain intends to proceed diligently to ensure route or a modified route on the eastern that it is fulfilled in substance and in compliance with current deadlines. portion of the reserve. The letter Trans Mountain considers the deadline to be reasonable and achievable acknowledged the tripartite meeting if both parties work together, in good faith. scheduled for September 23, 2019, and advised that Trans Mountain would need When we wrote to you in July, we hoped to work cooperatively with to continue meetings with CIB regarding Coldwater on the hydrogeological study. However, the delays in moving the hydrogeological study, feasibility that work forward have caused Trans Mountain to become increasingly study and alternative routing. The letter

73

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) concerned about timing. While we have made some progress, the work is stated if agreement could not be reached significantly behind schedule. Indeed, the drilling work has not even on a route, and the related issues to any started. new re-routing application, then Trans Mountain would pursue the already We understand that Coldwater will not propose a completion date for the approved route. hydrogeological study in response to our committed deadline of December 31, 2019. An indefinite completion date impedes Trans Mountain’s ability to engage in good project planning, including construction timing, ordering materials, and retaining third-party contractors.

We understand now that Coldwater will not agree on the scope of the hydrogeological study and prefers there to be a two year monitoring window before the hydrogeological study is complete. We also understand that Coldwater does not want Project work to continue until after this two year window and the completion of the hydrogeological study. This approach is unacceptable to us and would cause significant delay to the Project.

We have agreed jointly on six new well locations that will provide additional opportunities to monitor and to further understand the nature and characteristics of the aquifer before the Project proceeds. We hope to work with you to commence work on these wells immediately.

Western Alternative Route and the Feasibility Study

The Coldwater Commitment (included in Trans Mountain’s Commitment Tracking Table) is intended to address Coldwater’s concerns expressed through years of consultation and engagement. Through these commitments, Trans Mountain has undertaken to complete a feasibility study of the Western Alternative Route—in consultation with Coldwater. As we have consistently communicated, Trans Mountain intends to provide Coldwater with the opportunity to review and comment on several components of the study, up to the final report (to be completed by January 31, 2020). On completion of the feasibility study, Commitment 4167 provides a GIC- endorsed process to determine the pipeline route, including a lengthy period during which we have committed to work with Coldwater to attempt to reach a consensus.

Time is of the essence. Trans Mountain would like to immediately engage with Coldwater on this process as there are many steps that must occur before the feasibility study is complete. There are also a number of additional permits that will be required if we later agree on the Western Alternative Route.

You have asked if we intend to include a field assessment as part of the feasibility study. This has always been our intent.

We have engaged BGC Engineering to undertake the study. Work will begin shortly and will include an assessment of geohazards on the route. As part of the field program, we intend to ground-truth the original terrain mapping (completed at 1-20,000 scale, which is the acceptable standard for project planning). The field reconnaissance program will allow us to

74

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) further delineate locations of potential geohazards, confirm stability rankings, and identify appropriate mitigations. We recently received landowner approval for access to start the work. Our team will be contacting you shortly to review the program and to seek Coldwater’s participation.

In our July 23, 2019 letter we proposed a timeline for the feasibility study. Due to delays, this timeline will require modification. However, we remain of the view that with full cooperation this commitment can be fulfilled by November 30, 2019. We intend to raise this issue further at our meeting proposed for next week.

On Reserve Route Option

It has come to our attention that Coldwater may be interested in a modified on-reserve route option. As we stated in our September 12, 2019 letter, Trans Mountain remains committed to working with Coldwater on matters relating to the continued presence and routing of the existing line on the reserve. We would like to begin these discussions immediately.

Our previous understanding was that Coldwater wanted the existing line moved off-reserve.

However, if Coldwater is seriously considering a modified route on the eastern portion of the reserve, we need to know immediately to determine if we can undertake the necessary investigation work to meet Project schedule. If Coldwater prefers the on-reserve option, we require its permission to access the reserve to do the necessary work. We would also need to immediately stop work underway on the Western Alternative Route to refocus our team from that alternative to a modified route on the eastern portion of the reserve.

In short, we need to better understand Coldwater’s preferences for routing so that we can focus our efforts on accommodating the same.

Quantitative Risk Assessment

You have raised concerns regarding the quantitative risk assessment that Trans Mountain used to evaluate the risks of route alternatives through the Coldwater Valley.

The approach that we took is consistent with industry standards and was accepted by the National Energy Board and approved by the GIC.

We intend to use the same professional standard of risk assessment on the feasibility study of the Western Alternative Route (or, the modified route on the eastern portion of the reserve, mentioned above).

Traditional Land Use Study of Route Alternative

As you point out in your letter, Commitment 4165 states that Coldwater may commission a Traditional Land Use Study of the proposed western

75

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) route to be completed on or before November 30, 2019. We have committed to funding this study. However, your proposal goes beyond the scope of the Western Alternative Route. We will not agree to fund a study for other potential routing options (unless you abandon your request for study of the Western Alternative Route in favour of a modified route on the eastern portion of the reserve).

Trans Mountain has funded Coldwater’s traditional land use research for years. In 2015, we made a sizable funding contribution to Esh-kn-am Investments Joint Venture to undertake a traditional land use study of Coldwater’s entire traditional territory. At that time, Coldwater was working with two other Indigenous groups that share the same territory. Trans Mountain provided further direct funding to Coldwater for traditional land use work on-reserve.

We also understand that Canada has offered to provide traditional land use funding to Coldwater. However, Coldwater has not yet applied for this funding.

Trans Mountain is open to considering a modified funding proposal from Coldwater once we come to an understanding about which alternative route to study: the Western Alternative Route or a modified route on the eastern portion of the reserve.

Future Meetings

We now have the tripartite meeting scheduled for September 23, 2019. While I am glad this meeting is confirmed, Trans Mountain will need to continue to meet with Coldwater to discuss the matters addressed herein regarding the hydrogeological study, feasibility study and alternative routing. We are committed to working with Coldwater. To do so, we need to understand Coldwater’s position on a preferred alternative route.

If we cannot reach agreement on a route and the issues related to any new re-routing application, we will have no alternative but to pursue the already approved route.

I trust this clarifies our position. As always, we remain open to engage with you as soon as possible on all the above issues.

Yours truly,

TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE L.P. by its general partner TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE ULC

Ian D. Anderson

cc: Mitch Taylor, Natural Resources Canada

76

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Sep 23, In-Person Chief Lee Ian Anderson Trans Mountain participated in an in- 2019 Spahan (TMEP), person meeting with representatives of (Coldwater Kevin Thrasher Coldwater Indian Band, BC Indian Band), (TMEP), Groundwater, Natural Resources Corrina Manuel Gary Youngman Canada (NRCan), and Ratcliff and (Coldwater (TMEP), Company. Discussions were regarding Indian Band), Tim Neuls the existing easement, the Gerome Garcia (TMEP), hydrogeological study, routing, (Coldwater Moness Rizkalla Traditional Land Use funding from Indian Band), (TMEP), NRCan, and date for the next meeting. Larry Antoine Randy Brake (Coldwater (TMEP), Indian Band), Harold Henry Tracey Aljam (TMEP), (Coldwater Biju Kochatt Indian Band), (TMEP), Wendy Hall Cyril Jenkins (Coldwater (TMEP), Indian Band), Neeka Nathan Hume Mottahedeh (Ratcliff), (TMEP) Mitch Taylor (Natural Resources Canada), Kimberly Lavoie (Natural Resources Canada), Christopher Sheppard (Natural Resources Canada), Paul Shenher (Department of Justice). Sep 30, Letter - Chief Lee Ian Anderson September 30, 2019 Trans Mountain President and CEO sent 2019 Outgoing Spahan (TMEP) the Coldwater Indian Band a letter dated (Coldwater Coldwater Indian Band September 30, 2019. The letter provided Indian Band) PO Box 4600 Coldwater with additional information Merritt, B.C. V1K 1B8 regarding the feasibility study, including: Attention: Chief Lee Spahan (1) the proposed field reconnaissance program; and (2) the proposed process Dear Chief Spahan: to assess geohazards and risks. The Re: Commitment to Project Route Review for Trans Mountain letter also offered for Coldwater’s Expansion Project (Expansion) geotechnical consultant to participate in the investigation of geohazards, Thank you for meeting with our team and myself on September 23, 2019 consideration of mitigation measures, (Meeting) at the Coldwater Indian Band (Coldwater) Reserve No. 1 and assessment of risk. In the letter, (Reserve). This letter is in response to a commitment that I made to Trans Mountain offered to incorporate provide you further details on the West Alternative Route (Alternative Coldwater’s traditional land use Route) for the Expansion as well as the Feasibility Study for the information into the assessment, if Alternative Route. available.

77

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim)

Framework and Study Proposals

During the Meeting, Mr. Hume mentioned several times that Coldwater had written to Trans Mountain Pipeline L.P. (Trans Mountain) in May 2019 and that Trans Mountain had not responded to issues raised by Coldwater in that letter. I believe that Mr. Hume was referring to a May 7, 2019 letter from Coldwater (see Attachment 1). In that letter, Coldwater requested a proposal from Trans Mountain for a field assessment of the Alternative Route to assess geohazards and mitigation measures. Coldwater also indicated that it preferred a new proposal for revising the risk assessment methodology in relation to the quantitative risk assessment that Trans Mountain was relying on.

Trans Mountain responded to that letter on May 14, 2019 (see Attachment 2) proposing a cooperation framework for Trans Mountain and Coldwater where the parties could work collaboratively to reach an acceptable solution in respect of a suitable route for the Expansion. Specifically, in relation to the Alternative Route Trans Mountain proposed the following:

West Alternative

Trans Mountain hereby commits to pursuing the West Alternative in consultation with Coldwater as a route alternative for the Expansion on the following terms and conditions:

1. Trans Mountain will evaluate the technical feasibility of the West Alternative as follows:

a. Trans Mountain will lead, with the assistance of Coldwater, the completion of geotechnical and other work required to assess the West Alternative;

b. Trans Mountain will consult with Coldwater on the scope of the geotechnical and other work required to assess the technical and economic feasibility of the West Alternative, including in relation to the concerns raised in your letter of May 7, 2019 regarding previous geohazard and risk assessment work;

c. Trans Mountain will share all results of the geotechnical and other technical work with Coldwater; and

d. Coldwater will be entitled to have its own consultants review the work completed by Trans Mountain in respect of the West Alternative;

(collectively, the “Feasibility Analysis”).

In a July 15, 2019 letter (see Attachment 3), you indicated that Coldwater was seeking additional collection of data to assess routing alternatives and suggested that a meeting would be beneficial to further discussion on routing alternatives. That letter also indicated that you had not received a response to your May 7, 2019 letter. In Trans Mountain’s response on July 23, 2019 (see Attachment 4), I proposed a draft schedule and

78

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) proposed a strategy to fulfill the commitment to complete a Feasibility Study on the Alternative Route. That draft schedule identified site visits and activities beginning the week of July 22, 2019 and up to and including the week of September 23, 2019 that would be required to collect information for the completion of the Feasibility Study. This would in turn facilitate the completion of the final Feasibility Study report to be filed with the Canada Energy Regulator (CER) on January 31, 2020.

In the July 23 letter, I also proposed a date of March 31, 2020 for Coldwater and Trans Mountain to reach a consensus on a proposed route through the Coldwater Valley. On August 21, 2019 (see Attachment 5) I wrote again to indicate that Trans Mountain was proceeding with an investigation program so that it could complete the Feasibility Study by January 31, 2020. I also suggested a

meeting with Coldwater to discuss the Feasibility Study as soon as possible. Trans Mountain, at this point had not received a response to its letters of May 14, 2019 and July 23, 2019. Trans Mountain received a letter from Coldwater on August 29, 2019 (Attachment 6) requesting a meeting to discuss the evaluation of route alternatives and a framework for those evaluations and also proposing a tripartite meeting with Canada in September to discuss these issues. Also, in that letter, Coldwater acknowledged the Trans Mountain letters from May 14, 2019 and July 23, 2019. Trans Mountain responded to Coldwater’s August 29, 2019 letter on September 20, 2019 (see Attachment 7) in advance of the tripartite Meeting, that was eventually arranged for September 23, 2019.

Field Plan and Activities Required

Trans Mountain is committed to completing a thorough assessment of the West Alternative Route in order to carry through with the Feasibility Analysis. As I indicated in Trans Mountain’s letter of September 20, 2019, the field reconnaissance program for the Alternative Route will include the identification and delineation of geohazards and identifying appropriate mitigations. This approach will be applied to all hydrotechnical and geotechnical hazard types (terrain stability, rock fall, landslides, river or creek scour and debris flood).

Following the identification, delineation and mitigation of geohazards, Trans Mountain’s geotechnical consultant, BGC Engineering (BGC) will perform a Frequency Loss of Containment (FLOC) analysis for each of the geohazards to identify FLOC values for pre-mitigated and post- mitigated scenarios which will be provided as input to the risk analysis to be completed by Dynamic Risk Assessment Systems, Inc. The results of the risk assessment will inform the best route to proceed with. Trans Mountain would very much appreciate the participation of Coldwater’s geotechnical consultant in these activities as we indicated previously in our letter of May 14, 2019.

Scheduling has now reached a critical point. Trans Mountain has recently received landowner approval for access and initial field reconnaissance activities have started. Field visits have been completed to assess the Alternative Route from a constructability perspective and a survey analysis has started to identify the proposed pipeline centerline. BGC will

79

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) begin investigation of geohazards in relation to the proposed centerline starting the third week of October 2019. Field work will also begin soon to identify potential locations for borehole and geotechnical investigations for the proposed Coldwater River crossings. With the participation of Coldwater’s geotechnical consultant in these activities, Trans Mountain would anticipate working towards achieving consensus on the factors that go into completing the pipeline risk assessment for each of the routing options, with the objective of determining the best route alternative for Coldwater and Trans Mountain.

Quantitative Risk Assessment

In response to Coldwater’s requests for Trans Mountain to consider Traditional Land Use (TLU) data in completing the risk assessment for potential route alternatives, Trans Mountain will work with Coldwater to incorporate the consideration of the community’s TLU information in its risk analysis. As the timing for the incorporation of any TLU data is a consideration in developing the Feasibility Study that will be filed with the CER, Trans Mountain will cooperate with Coldwater to obtain the required information as soon as possible. Any TLU information that is acquired following filing of the Feasibility Study with the CER will be considered, where reasonable, following the CER’s review.

At the conclusion of last Monday’s meeting we set a tentative date for our next meeting on October 31, 2019. Prior to this meeting I would strongly encourage a meeting of the technical teams (BGC and Cordilleran Geoscience) to coordinate participation in the field investigation of geohazards and subsequent participation in the review and collaboration of determining pre and post mitigation analysis and review of the risk assessment.

Sincerely,

TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE L.P.

Ian D. Anderson President & CEO

cc. Mitch Taylor, Natural Resources Canada Oct 3, Letter - Chief Lee Ian Anderson October 3, 2019 Trans Mountain received a letter from 2019 Incoming Spahan (TMEP) Coldwater Indian Band, dated October 3, (Coldwater Trans Mountain Corporation Attn: Ian D. Anderson, President 2019. The letter was written further to the Indian Band) 2700 - 300 5th Avenue SW Calgary, AB T2P SJ2 September 23 tripartite meeting. In the Mitch Taylor letter, CIB expressed concerns about the (NRCAN) Dear Mr. Anderson feasibility study of the West Alternative, potential geohazards and the funding for Re: Trans Mountain Expansion Project - September 23 the Traditional Land Use (TLU) study. Meeting The letter explained that it would be following up on NRCan’s offer for Via Email funding. In the meantime, however, CIB claimed it was “unwilling and unable to incur further costs to undertake this I write further to our September 23, 2019 meeting at the important work”. CIB expressed Coldwater Reserve regarding the Trans Mountain Expansion frustration at the delay to the TLU study Project and, in particular, the information needed to evaluate

80

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) the routes Trans Mountain has identified through the and blamed the delay on Trans Coldwater Valley and complete studies contemplated by Mountain’s refusal to cover its costs. Trans Mountain's Commitment to Coldwater.

In our August 29 letter, Coldwater asked Trans Mountain to respond to our concerns and information requests in writing before our next meeting, so that we could meet with our technical advisors and be properly informed for a meaningful discussion about the Commitment. Among other things, Coldwater reiterated a request that has been outstanding since May 7, 2019 for a proposal for the field evaluation of geohazards along the West Alternative route.

On September 6, 2019 you responded, advising that you were not available to meet on September 13th - a meeting date tentatively scheduled by Canada and Coldwater - but that you would be providing a full response to our August 29 letter shortly and in advance of our next meeting at a date to be proposed by Trans Mountain.

Our meeting was set for Monday, September 23 at 1:00 pm - the first day you indicated you were available to meet with us in September. Trans Mountain did not send its response to our August 29 letter until the afternoon of Friday, September 20th , without notice and less than one business day before our meeting. Our councilors had no opportunity to review those letters, let alone to discuss them with our technical advisors. We will respond separately to those letters, once we have had time to consider them. We note, however, that based on our initial review the September 20 letters do not provide the information needed to have a meaningful discussion about the Commitment and or its implementation.

As a result of Trans Mountain's last-minute letters and failure to provide a substantive response to our August 29 letter in advance of the meeting as requested, our September 23 meeting was not a serious opportunity to discuss the issues that matter to Coldwater, including the Commitment and the collection of information needed to evaluate the risks to our aquifer from routes on the east side of the Coldwater Valley and the geohazards and other risks presented by the West Alternative. Although Trans Mountain brought several technical staff members, Coldwater was not able to prepare properly for the technical talks that we still need to have regarding the scope and nature of those studies. Given the last-minute notice of the attendance of Trans Mountain technical staff, we were unable to arrange to have our technical representatives attend the meeting.

As our councilors explained at the end of the meeting, Coldwater heard nothing new on September 23rd about the expansion project from Trans Mountain or Canada. We already knew that Trans Mountain intends to send us a final Scope of Work and workplan for the hydrogeological study in

81

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) the next week or two (and that drilling has not yet begun). We already knew that Trans Mountain would be unable to meet its self-imposed (and, for Coldwater, entirely unacceptable) deadline of December 31, 2019 for completion of that study.

We also knew that Trans Mountain still has to provide more information on its plans to study the West Alternative. We are still waiting to hear about the details of the program contemplated to assess potential geohazards along the West Alternative. We clearly requested that this information be provided in advance of our meeting and understood from your September 6 letter that it would be provided soon, but we have yet to receive a substantive response - in your September 20 letter or otherwise.

When we request information in writing and in advance of a meeting, we mean it. We take our role and responsibilities seriously. We need that information to discuss and determine how we are going to understand the risks this project poses for our community and to participate effectively in fully informed discussions about potential routes. At this time, we are still waiting for Trans Mountain to collect the information needed to evaluate route alternatives.

At the end of the meeting, all three parties agreed to meet again on October 31st or November 1st because Canada's representatives are unavailable earlier in October. After discussing the matter with all of our councilors, while we are available to meeting November 1st we are hoping that you can be available to meet with us on October 28th. Please let us know if October 28th would work for our next meeting.

Unacceptable Restrictions on Hydrogeological Study

We have identified a number of concerns with the restrictions that commitments 4165-4167 (the "Commitment") impose on the hydrogeological study required by NEB Condition 39 and EAO Condition 25. Those concerns are set out in our previous letters, including letters dated June 14, June 17, and August 29, and they have not been addressed: • The Commitment was developed entirely without Coldwater's participation or input, contrary to Trans Mountain's claim that the Commitment is the result of significant consultation. • The Commitment unilaterally imposed a deadline for the hydrogeological study of December 31, 2019. • That deadline is arbitrary and contrary to the scientific principles on which Condition 39 is based. • That deadline also is impractical and unworkable, as Trans Mountain will not be able to take even the limited steps it has proposed before the end of 2019.

Despite our concerns, Coldwater has continued to work on this study with Trans Mountain. The Coldwater councilors

82

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) responsible for this work have met five times with Trans Mountain staff to discuss matters related to the implementation of the drilling program, but drilling has not yet begun. Coldwater and Trans Mountain had previously agreed on a timeline for this work, but that timeline keeps getting pushed back as a result of Trans Mountain's delays. As set out in recent correspondence, Trans Mountain still needs to complete a number of items to finalize the permit and start drilling. This is just the first phase of the hydrogeological study, and the subsequent phases - including geophysical activities and baseline monitoring - still need to be discussed and agreed to as contemplated by our June 5, 2019 MOU.

Due to these delays by Trans Mountain, and the obvious impracticality of the deadline, we were not surprised to hear you say that your "expectation is that December 31st is off the table" and that Trans Mountain is looking instead at the first quarter of 2020 to complete the hydrogeological study.

However, even if that deadline is moved by a few months, Trans Mountain will not be able to collect the baseline data required to quantify and actually assess the risks posed to our water, including the data needed to characterize the aquifer recharge sources, aquifer confinement, and the direction and speed of groundwater.

We have already explained these basic problems with your deadline in our previous correspondence. Any minor changes that Trans Mountain makes to the deadline in the Commitment may address the company's delays but will not address these fundamental and unacceptable restrictions on the study. We will review your September 20 letter regarding the imposition of a deadline on the hydrogeological study and respond more fully on this issue.

Inadequate Information on Assessment of West Alternative

During our September 23 meeting, you acknowledged that Coldwater had asked for the West Alternative to be studied years ago and that Trans Mountain had refused then but was willing to look at it now.

In letters dated May 7, July 15, and August 29, Coldwater repeatedly asked Trans Mountain to provide details about how Trans Mountain will undertake terrain stability assessments, including field visits, to assess geohazards on the West Alternative such as river scour and landslide sites. We refer you to those letters for the details of that request.

In our September 23 meeting, Trans Mountain said it would provide information about the West Alternative study, including a workplan, as soon as possible. We have not been involved in the preparation of that workplan. We do not know, for example, whether the necessary fieldwork will be possible

83

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) in winter conditions. We are frustrated that this information was not provided in advance of our meeting - as requested, and as agreed to in your September 6 letter.

You also said that Trans Mountain needs to choose a route through the Coldwater Valley by the first quarter of next year, and that Trans Mountain will need the information from both the hydrogeological study and the West Alternative study to make that choice. It is not clear that either study, even on the arbitrary and narrow terms set by Trans Mountain, will be complete by then. Neither workplan is complete. Neither study has even started yet.

Coldwater remains deeply concerned that Trans Mountain's construction schedule is preventing the collection of the information necessary to understand the risks these routes present. Trans Mountain is rushing to choose a route through the Coldwater Valley and pressuring Coldwater to identify its preferred route, before the information required to make a responsible choice is available.

Traditional Land Use Study

At the meeting Canada indicated we could apply for funding to complete the traditional land use study of route alternatives through the Coldwater Valley. We will be following up with Canada about that possibility. At this point we are unwilling and unable to incur further costs to continue this study when it is unclear if we will be reimbursed. We hope we will receive the funding needed to undertake this important work and are frustrated that it has been delayed as a result of Trans Mountain's refusal to cover our very reasonable costs in this regard.

Contamination

We also discussed the contamination from the existing pipeline on IR #1. As requested, please provide any information you have regarding access or other impediments to dealing with that contamination. We look forward to working with you on that issue.

Conclusion

Everyone at the meeting agreed that communication on this project needs to improve. In particular, when Coldwater requests information in advance of a meeting, we need to receive that information with enough time to review it, consider it, and prepare to discuss it with you. If that information is technical, we will need enough time to review it with our advisors. When this doesn't happen, meaningful dialogue is not possible.

84

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) When we meet with Trans Mountain and Canada about this project, we need to be able to have informed discussions, to exchange ideas, and to address our concerns. We cannot just receive information passively while the project moves ahead.

As noted above, we will respond to your September 20 letters when we have had a meaningful opportunity to review them. We look forward to meeting again on November 1st. We expect that work related to the initiation of the hydrogeological study will continue, and we hope that by the time we meet drilling will have begun. We also expect to receive a response to our May 7th proposal regarding geohazards along the West Alternative soon and hope that our respective technical representatives can have further discussions in the meantime. We also hope that we will be in a position to continue with the traditional land use study soon

Chief T. Lee Spahan

COLDWATER INDIAN BAND

cc. Mitch Taylor, Natural Resources Canada Oct 09, Letter - Dale August Ian Anderson From: Nichols, Trudy On Behalf Of Anderson, Ian Team Member emailed a letter to Chief 2019 Sent (Coldwater (TMEP), Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2019 12:11 PM Spahan and D. August, Coldwater Indian Indian Band), Jeff Smith To: Anderson, Ian ; Band (CIB). The letter dated October 9, Lee Spahan (TMEP), [email protected]; [email protected] 2019, from Trans Mountain President (Coldwater Cyril Jenkins Cc: Youngman, Gary ; Smith, and CEO, was follow up to the Chief and Indian Band), (TMEP), Jeff ; Thrasher, Kevin Council meeting on September 23, 2019. Mitch Taylor Trudy Nichols ; 'Taylor, Mitch The letter noted Trans Mountain's (Natural (TMEP), (NRCAN/RNCAN)' ; 'Jenkins, Cyril' commitment to provide CIB with the work Resources Harold Henry ; Mottahedeh, Neeka plan for the assessment of the Western Canada) (Stantec ; Henry, Harold Route Alternative, and related activities. Consulting Ltd.), ; Nichols, Trudy The letter stated that a letter which Neeka followed up on those commitments was Mottahedeh Subject: October 9, 2019 Letter to Chief Spahan from Ian Anderson sent on September 30, 2019. The letter (TMEP), informed that Trans Mountain had Gary Youngman Trudy Nichols on behalf of Ian Anderson provided by letter dated September 30, (TMEP), 2019, which identified the Certificate of Kevin Thrasher Afternoon Chief Spahan, please note attached letter. Possession holders who were affected (TMEP) by the access proposal that dealt with Regards, historical contamination on the Reserve. The letter advised that as requested, Trudy Nichols Trans Mountain undertook to provide Executive Assistant to Ian Anderson three documents relating to the President & Chief Executive Officer hydrogeological study, the Traffic Trans Mountain Canada Management Plan, the draft survey plans W: 403.514.6432 | for the drilling pads, and the [email protected] Environmental Management Plan. The letter stated that Trans Mountain October 9, 2019 committed to provide CIB with an updated draft schedule summary for proposed work as soon as details

85

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Coldwater Indian Band PO Box 4600 became available. The letter noted that Merritt, B.C. VIK 1B8 Attention: Chief Lee Spahan Dear Chief Spahan: the parties agreed to meet again on October 31, 2019, and that CIB wanted Re: Hydrogeological Study to change the meeting to October 28, 2019. The letter stated that This letter is following up on our meeting with you and Council on unfortunately the Trans Mountain September 23, 2019, at the Coldwater Indian Reserve #1 (Reserve). As President and CEO was unable to you recall, Trans Mountain Pipeline L.P. (Trans Mountain) committed to attend, but had instructed the senior provide Coldwater Indian Band (Coldwater) with the work plan for the team to continue engagement and follow assessment of the Western Route Alternative and a description of the up. The letter suggested a discussion activities required to carry out that plan within a week. A letter following regarding potential agenda items in up on these commitments was sent on September 30, 2019. advance of the meeting, to confirm the In addition, Trans Mountain also promised to identify the Certificate of right people would be in attendance. Possession (CP) holders that were affected by the Trans Mountain The letter noted that Trans Mountain access proposal to deal with historical contamination on the Reserve. understood that CIB wanted further Trans Mountain provided a letter to Coldwater identifying the CP holders discussion regarding the existing on September 30, 2019. pipeline, and CIB provided a letter requesting if Trans Mountain would In relation to the information requested by Coldwater pertaining to the participate in discussions between CIB hydrogeological study of the aquifer, Trans Mountain undertook to and Canada in the week of October 21, provide that information within a week, if possible, or as soon thereafter, 2019. The letter advised that Trans should it encounter any issues assembling the required material. Mountain was interested in participating in the discussions, and would have legal More specifically, Trans Mountain undertook to provide the three counsel respond to the request. The documents relating to the aquifer analysis: Traffic Management Plan letter stated that Trans Mountain looked (TMP); the draft survey plans for the drilling pads; as well as the forward to a response from CIB on a Environmental Management Plan (EMP). The draft TMP sketches and number of matters raised in the the draft survey plans for the drill pads were provided to Coldwater via September 30, 2019 letter regarding email on September 25, 2019. These were both discussed at meetings routing. The letter advised of the Trans with Coldwater on October 1 and 2, 2019 and are currently being finalized Mountain Team Member assigned to based on input from Band representatives. Trans Mountain was able to follow up with CIB on a number of confirm that the EMP was, in fact, complete at the time of the September issues, prior to the next meeting. 23, 2019 meeting at the Reserve and was previously delivered to Coldwater on September 20, 2019.

In addition, based on the recent direct discussions with Coldwater, Trans Mountain committed to provide Coldwater with an updated draft schedule summary for proposed work as soon as further details become available (e.g. suitability of the Bands gravel source for the hydrogeological work project (Project)). Trans Mountain is currently working with its construction team to finalize contracts and begin planning potential early works to get the Project moving in a timely fashion.

At the September 23, 2019 meeting, the parties agreed to meet again on October 31, 2019. I understand the Band wants to change the meeting to October 28, 2019. Unfortunately, I cannot attend a meeting on October 28, 2019, but have instructed our senior team to continue engagement and follow up. To ensure that our respective teams' next visit is as productive as possible, I suggest we discuss potential agenda items in advance to determine and confirm the right people to be in attendance.

We also understood that Coldwater would be contacting Trans Mountain for further discussion regarding the current Trans Mountain Pipeline. On

86

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) October 7, 2019, I received a letter from you asking if Trans Mountain would participate in discussions between Coldwater and Canada in the week of October 21, 2019. Trans Mountain would be interested in participating in those discussions, and I will have our legal counsel respond to this request

We also look forward to a response from Coldwater on a number of matters raised in our September 30, 2019 letter regarding routing. As there are a number of issues that can be discussed between now and our next meeting, I have assigned Gary Youngman, Project Management Lead (Coldwater) to follow up directly with you.

Please let me know if you have any questions or wish further information.

Ian . Anderson / President & CEO

cc: Mitch Taylor, Natural Resources Canada Gary Youngman, Trans Mountain Kevin Thrasher, Trans Mountain Cyril Jenkins, Trans Mountain Neeka Mottahedeh, Trans Mountain Harold Henry, Trans Mountain Oct 24, Letter – Lee Spahan Ian Anderson October 24, 2019 Trans Mountain received a letter of 2019 Incoming (Coldwater (TMEP) Via Email October 24, 2019. The letter expressed Indian Band), frustrations at the lack of meaningful Mitch Taylor Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC response to CIB’s May 7 letter and (Natural Attn: Ian D. Anderson, enclosed memorandum. The letter Resources President 2700-300 5th Avenue SW requested a meeting to discuss Trans Canada) Calgary, AB T2P 5J2 Mountain’s Quantitative Risk Assessment and indicated that CIB’s Dear Mr. Anderson: geoscientist would be available in early November. Re: Route Alternatives for Trans Mountain Expansion Project

I write on behalf of the Coldwater Indian Band further to your letter dated September 30, 2019 and an email from your Geotechnical Advisor on October 23, 2019 that I was copied on.

Outstanding Concerns for Assessment of the West Alternative

Your letter referred to the September 23 meeting as well as previous correspondence between Coldwater and Trans Mountain concerning the assessment of the West Alternative, particularly the feasibility of that route and the assessment of potential geohazards.

To be clear, Coldwater has not received a meaningful response to the concerns raised in our May 7, 2019 letter and the enclosed memo from our geoscientist. We have repeatedly requested a detailed response to those concerns,

87

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) including our extensive concerns regarding Trans Mountain's Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA), in letters such as our letter dated August 28, 2019. We have also explained that the generic information previously provided did not respond to our detailed questions and concerns. These concerns were reiterated at our September 23rd meeting.

Trans Mountain's responses to our concerns regarding QRA are necessary to design and conduct an appropriate terrain stability assessment of the West Alternative, including field visits. Those responses are also critical to understanding how Trans Mountain will assess the risks that other routes pose to our aquifer. These are serious issues that, as explained in our August 28 letter, Trans Mountain had previously dismissed in a footnote indicating it has no intention of changing its approach to QRA.

However, on October 23, our geoscientist did receive a request from your "in-house Geotechnical Advisor" to discuss Trans Mountain's approach to risk assessment. We very much want that conversation to take place, but we will need to be present during that conversation. We understand our geoscientist will be available in early November and would like to schedule a meeting to discuss Trans Mountain's approach to risk assessment then.

We expect Trans Mountain to take meaningful steps to address the serious issues that have been identified, which threaten to mischaracterize and underestimate the risks these routes present to our aquifer, our lands, and our rights. We also expect the outcomes of those discussions to be incorporated into any assessment of the West Alternative.

With respect,

COLDWATER INDIAN BAND

Chief Lee Spahan

cc. Mitch Taylor, Natural Resources Canada Oct 28, In person Chief Lee Kevin Thrasher Trans Mountain met with Coldwater 2019 Spahan (TMEP), Indian Band to discuss various issues, (Coldwater Regan including a short discussion on the West Indian Band), Schlecker Alternative feasibility study. The parties Corrina Manuel (TMEP), agreed that their technical teams should (Coldwater Gary Youngman meet to discuss the study and issues Indian Band), (TMEP), associated with it. The meeting would be Gerome Garcia Samantha Brett targeted during the dates November 12 - (Coldwater (TMEP) 15. Coldwater agreed to advise Trans Indian Band), Mountain of the date once it discussed Larry Antoine with its constituents. . (Coldwater Indian Band),

88

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Nathan Hume (Ratcliff), Kimberly Lavoie (Natural Resources Canada), Christopher Sheppard (Natural Resources Canada), Paul Shenher (Department of Justice). David Russell (Indigenous Services Canada) Nov 03, Email - Dale August Randy Brake From: Youngman, Gary Team Member emailed representatives 2019 Outgoing (Coldwater (TMEP), Sent: Sunday, November 3, 2019 4:24 PM of Coldwater Indian Band, Natural Indian Band), Regan To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Resources Canada and the Department Lee Spahan Schlecker [email protected]; [email protected]; of Justice and provided summary notes (Coldwater (TMEP), [email protected]; [email protected]; Emma Hume and actions items from the tripartite Indian Band), Max Nock ; Nathan Hume ; Lavoie, meeting held on October 28, 2019. Corrina Manuel (TMEP), Kimberly (NRCAN/RNCAN) ; Shenher, (Coldwater Cyril Jenkins Paul ; Sheppard2, Christopher Meeting summary notes included: Indian Band), (TMEP), (NRCAN/RNCAN) ; Schlecker, -Hydrogeological (Aquifer Study) Gerome Garcia Harold Henry Regan ; Thrasher, Kevin -Western Alternative Feasibility Study (Coldwater (Stantec ; Brett, Samantha -Traditional Land Use Study Indian Band), Consulting Ltd.), -Regular Scheduled Tripartite Monthly Laura Antoine Neeka Cc: Jenkins, Cyril ; Henry, Harold Meeting (Coldwater Mottahedeh ; Mottahedeh, Neeka -Community Meetings Indian Band), (TMEP), ; Rizkalla, Moness -Route Selection Issues and Concerns Wendy Hall Gary Youngman ; Nock, Max (Coldwater (TMEP), ; Brake, Randy Indian Band), Moness Rizkalla Emma Hume (TMEP), Subject: Coldwater Tripartite Meeting October 28. 2019 - Summary Notes (Coldwater Samantha Brett and Action Items Indian Band), (TMEP), Nathan Hume Kevin Thrasher (Coldwater (TMEP) As follow up to our tripartite meeting on October 28th I provide my Indian Band), summary notes and action items. Please let me know if I have missed Kimberly Lavoie anything or stated anything incorrectly. (Natural Resources Agenda Item 1 - Hydrogeological (Aquifer Study) Canada), Christopher Samanatha provided an update on the work underway at this point Sheppard moving towards the pre-drilling program. CW raised the issue of BCGW (Natural having sufficient information to prepare a budget. TM responded that we Resources understood they did and would be submitting a budget soon. Discussion Canada), took place regarding the community meeting set for November 21th so Paul Shenher that community members can be aware of the work that will be taking (Department of place. Justice)

89

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Action - TM and CW will continue to work together on the drilling program and the community meeting set for November 21st

Agenda Item 2 - Western Alternative Feasibility Study

It was agreed that TM and CWs technical teams should meet to discuss the study and issues associated with it. The meeting would be targeted during the dates November 12 -15.

Action - CW to advise TM of the date once they discuss with their consultants.

Agenda Item 3 - Historic Contamination Site

The September 30th letter from TM to CW outlined the issue and CP holders involved. Full discussion took place around ways to address this issue. It was discussed that if TM could get full access by the end of 2019 that work could be done in the spring of 2020. CW advised they (Chief or Chief and some Council members) would meet and discuss with Janice Antione. TM offered to have someone present if it was felt this would be helpful. Canada also offered to have someone present. CW requested further background information before they started discussions with Janice and the other two CP holders.

Action - TM to provide further background information to CW. CW to talk to Janice to determine if she is prepared to meet and who should be at the meeting.

Agenda Item 4 - TLUS Study

Canada advised that it can fund the TLUS proposal that CW submitted. On the issue of whether funding would constitute an accommodation CW and Canada agreed to disagree on that issue but funding would be provided regardless.

Action - Canada to provide CW with the necessary documentation within the next few days for signature by CW.

Agenda Item 5 - Regular Scheduled Tripartite Monthly Meeting

Discussions took place around the this issue. It was discussed that monthly meeting could go to at least March 2020. Both TM and Canada indicated their support. CW wanted to bring this issue back to their full Council for discussion.

Action - CW to raise issue at their next full Council meeting and will get back to the table on their decision.

Agenda Item 5 - Community Meetings

Discussions took place around the idea of holding community meetings/workshops to discuss issues of safety or other issues Chief and Council or community members might feel helpful. After a full discussion it was clear that CW didn't think these sort of workshops would be helpful

90

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) at this point in the relationship.

Action - None

Agenda Item 6 - Route Selection Issues and Concerns

TM reviewed the 6 scenarios for existing line and expansion line options. Discussions took place around CP holdings and maps showing where CP lands were located. Canada indicated they had that information and would provide to CW for review before it was forwarded to TM.

After further discussion CW's legal counsel wanted these discussion to take place at the Tripartite meeting of legal counsel.

Action - Canada to provide CW with maps of CP holdings on reserve. CW to review and then provide to TM. Issues associated with the existing line will continue to take place at the tripartite meetings of legal counsel.

Meeting adjourned at 4:00 pm.

Gary Youngman Coldwater Project Management Lead Nov 07, Letter - Lee Spahan Ian Anderson From: O'Connor, Dolores Trans Mountain President and CEO, 2019 Sent (Coldwater (TMEP), Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2019 3:48 PM emailed a letter dated November 7, 2019 Indian Band), Regan To: 'Dale August' ; to Chief Spahan Coldwater Indian Band Dale August Schlecker [email protected] (CIB), in response to letter received (Coldwater (TMEP), Cc: Youngman, Gary ; Smith, dated October 24, 2019 regarding Route Indian Band), Jeff Smith Jeff ; Thrasher, Kevin Alternatives for the Trans Mountain Emma Hume (TMEP), ; Taylor, Mitch (NRCAN/RNCAN) Expansion Project (TMEP) and more (Coldwater Cyril Jenkins ; [email protected]; specifically, concerns with the Indian Band), (TMEP), [email protected]; [email protected]; assessment of feasibility of the Western Laura Antoine Trudy Nichols [email protected]; [email protected]; Alternative route proposal. The letter (Coldwater (TMEP), [email protected]; [email protected]; stated the Study had begun and Trans Indian Band), Harold Henry [email protected]; [email protected]; Van Mountain was committed to studying the Leah Collins (Stantec Walleghem, Rob ; Shenher, feasibility of the Western Alternative to (Coldwater Consulting Ltd.), Paul ; [email protected]; address the CIB's concerns regarding Indian Band), Dolores [email protected]; [email protected]; Mottahedeh, Neeka the approved Eastern route. The letter Wendy Hall O'Connor ; Jenkins, Cyril mentioned that a meeting was (Coldwater (TMEP), ; Nichols, Trudy encouraged with the respective technical Indian Band), Rob Van ; Henry, Harold teams to coordinate participation in the Corrina Manuel Walleghem ; Schlecker, Regan field investigation of geohazards and (Coldwater (TMEP), ; subsequent participation in the review Indian Band), Neeka '[email protected]' and collaboration of determining pre and Cheryl Aljam Mottahedeh ; Rizkalla, Moness post mitigation analysis and review of the (Coldwater (TMEP), ; '[email protected]' risk assessment. The letter stated that Indian Band), Gary Youngman ; Rizkalla, Moness Trans Mountain had reached out to Mike Smithers (TMEP), Cordilleran, and a meeting had been (Coldwater Moness Rizkalla Subject: Letter to Chief Lee Spahan, Coldwater Indian Band proposed for one day during the week of Indian Band), (TMEP), November 12-15, 2019 but were Gerome Garcia Kevin Thrasher Sent on behalf of Ian Anderson. awaiting on CIB's confirmation of a (Coldwater (TMEP) meeting date. The letter acknowledged Indian Band), Please see our letter of today’s date attached. CIB’s concerns regarding TMEP’s Annie Major Quantitative Risk Assessment (Coldwater methodology. The letter indicated that

91

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Indian Band), Trans Mountain had addressed those Nathan Hume concerns in previous correspondence as (Coldwater Dolores O’Connor well as in committing to engage with CIB Indian Band), W: 403.514.6608 on the scope of the geotechnical and Christopher Dolores_o’[email protected] other work required to complete the Sheppard Study. The letter stated the meeting that (Natural E: [email protected] | W: transmountain.com would take place in November 2019 Resources Follow: @TransMtn would provide a forum for a technical Canada), discussion on the risk assessment Kimberly Lavoie ------process for the Study. The letter outlined (Natural some proposed agenda topics for the Resources November 7, 2019 proposed meeting. The letter concluded Canada), that Trans Mountain would continue to Mitch Taylor work with CIB on the Western Alternative (Natural Coldwater Indian Band Study and address CIB’s concerns. Resources Canada), PO Box 4600 Paul Shenher Merritt, B.C. V1K 1B8 (Department of Justice), Attention: Chief Lee Spahan Carol Thomas (Department of Dear Chief Spahan: Justice)

Re: Route Alternatives for Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMEP) This letter is in response to your letter dated October 24, 2019 (“Letter”) regarding routing alternatives for TMEP and more specifically, concerns with the assessment of feasibility of the Western alternative route proposal (the "Western Alternative").

Trans Mountain Pipeline L.P. (“Trans Mountain”) is committed to studying the feasibility of the Western Alternative to address the Coldwater Indian Band's (“Coldwater”) concerns regarding the approved Eastern route. Our understanding continues to be that Coldwater wants to explore the feasibility of the Western Alternative as a potential preferred route for TMEP. In response to Canada’s proposal of June 7, 2019 and based on Coldwater’s expressed concerns about routing during Canada’s reinitiated Phase III, Trans Mountain committed to undertaking a feasibility study (“Study”) of the Western Alternative (Commitment 4165 from the Condition 6 Commitment Tracking Table) and file the Study with the Canadian Energy Regulator on or before January 31, 2020. Trans Mountain further committed to work with Coldwater and attempt to reach a consensus on routing for TMEP by March 31, 2020 (Commitment 4167).

As you are aware, Trans Mountain has begun the Study. Previous letters from Trans Mountain dated May 14, 2019, July 23, 2019 and September 30, 2019 outline Trans Mountain’s position on various issues associated with the Western Alternative. In my September 30 letter, I encouraged a meeting of our respective technical teams to coordinate participation in the field investigation of geohazards and subsequent participation in the

92

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) review and collaboration of determining pre and post mitigation analysis and review of the risk assessment. Our team has reached out to Cordilleran, and I understand a meeting has been proposed for one day during the week of November 12-15 and that we are awaiting Coldwater's confirmation of a meeting date. Your Letter reiterates that Coldwater has concerns regarding TMEP’s Quantitative Risk Assessment (“QRA”) methodology. Trans Mountain believes that it has addressed those concerns in previous correspondence as well as in committing to engage with Coldwater on the scope of the geotechnical and other work required to complete the Study. The meeting that will take place in November will provide a forum for a technical discussion on the risk assessment process for the Study. I will leave our respective technical teams to decide on potential agenda items to discuss, but I have been informed by our team that possible agenda topics for the proposed meeting include the following: 1. Assumed Lateral Extent of the Aquifer; 2. Zero FloC Values for Kwinshatin and Skuagam Creeks; 3. Consequence Modelling; 4. Consequence Assessment; 5. Field Based Assessment; and 6. Coldwater's interests in field work (including the TLUS work committed to by Canada) and the Study review. I trust this letter addresses your concerns and Trans Mountain will continue to work with Coldwater on the Western Alternative Study. Sincerely,

TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE L.P.

Ian Anderson President & CEO cc. Mitch Taylor, Natural Resources Canada Kimberly Lavoie, Natural Resources Canada Christopher Sheppard, Natural Resources Canada Gary Youngman, Trans Mountain Regan Schlecker, Trans Mountain Harold Henry, Trans Mountain Moness Rizkalla, Trans Mountain Kevin Thrasher, Trans Mountain Cyril Jenkins, Trans Mountain Neeka Mottahedeh, Trans Mountain

93

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Nov 10, Email - Lee Spahan Regan From: Youngman, Gary Team Member emailed Chief Spahan, 2019 Outgoing (Coldwater Schlecker Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2019 1:56 PM Coldwater Indian Band (CIB), and Indian Band), (TMEP), To: [email protected]; [email protected]; informed that the meeting for the Dale August Max Nock [email protected]; [email protected]; Western Feasibility Study would not (Coldwater (TMEP), [email protected]; Nathan Hume ; happen during the week of November Indian Band), Cyril Jenkins Emma Hume 12-15, 2019 due to lack of response from Corrina Manuel (TMEP), Cc: Lavoie, Kimberly (NRCAN/RNCAN) ; CIB regarding date conformation. Team (Coldwater Harold Henry Shenher, Paul ; Sheppard2, Member requested that CIB provide Indian Band), (Stantec Christopher (NRCAN/RNCAN) ; available dates during the week of Gerome Garcia Consulting Ltd.), Thrasher, Kevin ; Henry, Harold November 18-22, 2019, confirm agenda (Coldwater Neeka ; Henry, Harold items and, who from CIB would be Indian Band), Mottahedeh ; Rizkalla, Moness attending. Laura Antoine (TMEP), ; Kochatt, Biju (Coldwater Gary Youngman ; Jenkins, Cyril Indian Band), (TMEP), ; Mottahedeh, Neeka Emma Hume Moness Rizkalla ; Schlecker, Regan (Coldwater (TMEP), ; Nock, Max Indian Band), Kevin Thrasher Nathan Hume (TMEP) Subject: Re-Scheduling Meeting Nov 12-15 re: Western Feasibility Study (Coldwater Technical Meeting Indian Band), Kimberly Lavoie Chief Spahan (Natural Resources Further to my numerous emails attempting to confirm a meeting date for Canada), the Western Feasibility Study it appears that this meeting will not happen Christopher during the coming week of Nov 12-15 as I have not received any Sheppard response regarding confirmation. In TM's letter, dated November 7th, we (Natural also provided a list of 6 possible agenda items for discussion to which we Resources have also not received a response. Canada), Paul Shenher The meeting date range of Nov 12-15 was agreed to at our last tripartite (Department of meeting on October 28. The specific day within that range was to be Justice) provided by Coldwater. As we have previously discussed, to make our tripartite meetings as productive as possible it is important to agree on dates and agenda items in advance. This is important to make travel arrangements, ensure the proper people can attend and the items for discussion are clear and meaningful.

In order to re-schedule the meeting can Coldwater provide available dates during the week of Nov 18-22, confirm agenda items and let us know who on behalf of Coldwater will be attending. We would very much appreciate a least 3 working days advance notice of any proposed meeting date.

Look forward to your response.

Gary Youngman Project Management Lead (Coldwater) Nov 26, Email - Lee Spahan Ian Anderson From: Anderson, Ian Trans Mountain President and CEO 2019 Outgoing (Coldwater (TMEP) Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 1:01 PM emailed Chief Spahan, Coldwater Indian Indian Band) To: [email protected] Band, and requested to meet in person Subject: Hi Lee to discuss all outstanding issues including remediation of historic As I have tried, I would really appreciate the opportunity to meet with you contamination, Condition 39

94

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) personally to talk about all matters we have going on – the contamination, hydrogeological study and the Project the aquifer study and the western route study. I will do my best to be at routing considerations. your service wherever and whenever, thanks Lee Dec 16, In person Chief Lee Kevin Thrasher Trans Mountain met with Coldwater 2019 Spahan (TMEP), Indian Band to discuss various issues, (Coldwater Gary Youngman including the West Alternative feasibility Indian Band), (TMEP), study. Trans Mountain offered to attend Corrina Manuel Harold Henry at the Coldwater reserve to review maps (Coldwater (TMEP), and plans for the West Alternative Route Indian Band), Regan with Coldwater. Coldwater indicated that Annie Major Schlecker it would need to consult with his (Coldwater (TMEP), membership regarding a date for such a Indian Band), Alex Baumguard meeting. Nathan Hume (BGC (Ratcliff), Engineering), Pierre Friele (engineer), Kimberly Lavoie (Natural Resources Canada), Christopher Sheppard (Natural Resources Canada), Paul Shenher (Department of Justice) Dec 30, Letter - Lee Spahan Ian Anderson From: Lord, Kathern Trans Mountain President and CEO, 2019 Sent (Coldwater (TMEP), Sent: Monday, December 30, 2019 2:43 PM emailed a letter dated December 30, Indian Band), Regan To: [email protected] 2019 to Chief Spahan, Coldwater Indian Nathan Hume Schlecker Cc: '[email protected]' ; Nathan Band (CIB), regarding the Trans (Coldwater (TMEP), Hume ; [email protected]; Mountain Route Decision for the Indian Band), Cyril Jenkins [email protected]; Anderson, Ian Coldwater Valley. The letter stated it was Corrina Manuel (TMEP), ; Thrasher, Kevin critical for the overall project schedule (Coldwater Harold Henry ; Youngman, Gary that the hydrogeological study report, Indian Band), (Stantec ; 'Henry, Harold' West Alternative feasibility study, and Kimberly Lavoie Consulting Ltd.), ; Denby, Allison route determination process proceed (Natural Kathern Lord ; Jenkins, Cyril without delay in 2020. The letter Resources (TMEP), ; Mottahedeh, Neeka mentioned to maintain its planned in- Canada) Neeka ; Brett, Samantha service date in late 2022, Trans Mottahedeh ; Schlecker, Regan Mountain required certainty regarding its (TMEP), routing plans no later than September Gary Youngman Subject: Trans Mountain Route Decision for the Coldwater Valley 2020. The letter noted any delay to the (TMEP), planned in-service date would be Allison Denby Good afternoon, prejudicial to Trans Mountain, workers, (TMEP), companies, Indigenous groups and Samantha Brett Please find attached correspondence sent on behalf of Ian Anderson. governments relying on project (TMEP), operations to commence in 2022. The Kevin Thrasher Regards, letter stated Trans Mountain had (TMEP) proposed to file the hydrogeological Kathern Lord study report, or a substantive update on Legal Assistant |Assistante Juridique that report, with Canada Energy

95

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) 2700, 300 – 5th Avenue SW | Calgary, AB, T2P 5J2 Regulator by March 31, 2020 and in the T: 403.206.6962 | E: [email protected] next three months, Trans Mountain would work with the available relevant ------information relating to CIB’s aquifer to prepare a hydrogeological study report December 30, 2019 or a substantive update in compliance with C39 and the Coldwater Commitments. The letter also noted in Coldwater Indian Band parallel with the hydrogeological study, Trans Mountain would continue to work PO Box 4600 on the West Alternative feasibility study and Trans Mountain looked forward to Merritt, B.C. V1K 1B8 receiving CIB’s traditional land use study Attention: Chief Lee Spahan for the West Alternative and Trans Dear Chief Spahan: Mountain understood that CIB would complete the report by Q1 2020. Lastly Re: Trans Mountain Route Decision for the Coldwater Valley the letter noted Trans Mountain was hopeful that it would achieve consensus In light of the current uncertain state of our ability to conclude a with CIB on a route through the cooperative agreement for Trans Mountain’s routing plans for the Coldwater Valley but if consensus could Coldwater Valley, I write today regarding: (i) the hydrogeological study not be achieved, Trans Mountain must mandated by Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity Condition proceed to make its routing decision for 39 (C39) and British Columbia Environmental Assessment Certificate the project and submit its preferred route Condition 25; and, (ii) the West Alternative feasibility study and route to the Commission for approval for determination process described in commitments 4,165 and 4,167 certainty on the route by September (Coldwater Commitments). 2020. The letter concluded if there were It is critical for overall project schedule that the hydrogeological study any questions or if CIB wished to meet report, West Alternative feasibility study, and route determination process in-person to discuss further, Trans proceed without delay in 2020. To maintain its planned in-service date in Mountain looked forward to continued late 2022, Trans Mountain requires certainty regarding its routing plans engagement with CIB in the New Year. by no later than September 2020. Any delay to the planned in-service date would be prejudicial to Trans Mountain, workers, companies, Indigenous groups and governments relying on project operations to commence in 2022. Therefore, Trans Mountain must proceed with its project plans efficiently, and in the Canadian public interest.

Hydrogeological Study Report Trans Mountain has proposed to file the hydrogeological study report, or a substantive update on that report, with the Canada Energy Regulator by March 31, 2020. In the next three months, Trans Mountain will work with the available relevant information relating to Coldwater’s aquifer to prepare a hydrogeological study report or a substantive update in compliance with C39 and the Coldwater Commitments. This update will include applicable information and data collected in Trans Mountain’s geotechnical program planned for the approved, off-reserve right of way, as well as additional analysis specifically targeted to assess risk to the aquifer. Trans Mountain will continue to work with Coldwater to obtain its consent for the planned on-reserve drilling so that preliminary data or a progress update can be included in Trans Mountain’s March 31st filing. However, if Coldwater does not permit Trans Mountain to commence on- reserve drilling by early February 2020, Trans Mountain will proceed to obtain other sources of reliable data in order to maintain the planned in-

96

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) service date. In this scenario, Trans Mountain will complete the hydrogeological study report without on-reserve drilling data.

West Alternative Feasibility Study In parallel with the hydrogeological study, Trans Mountain will continue work on the West Alternative feasibility study. Trans Mountain is focusing efforts to complete the West Alternative feasibility study as soon as possible in 2020. Trans Mountain has already met with Coldwater several times to discuss this study and welcomes additional opportunities to engage with Coldwater on the completion of this study. Additionally, Trans Mountain looks forward to receiving Coldwater’s traditional land use study for the West Alternative. Trans Mountain understands that Coldwater will complete this report by Q1 2020. In the event that Coldwater requires additional time to complete the traditional land use study, Trans Mountain can incorporate traditional land use information into its construction mitigation plans (should the parties agree to the West Alternative as a preferred route).

Route Determination Process Trans Mountain is hopeful that it will achieve consensus with Coldwater on a route through the Coldwater Valley. However, if we cannot achieve consensus, Trans Mountain must proceed to make its routing decision for the project and submit its preferred route to the Commission for approval so that it has certainty on the route by September 2020. Please let me know if you have any questions or wish to meet in-person to discuss further. Trans Mountain looks forward to continued engagement with Coldwater in the New Year. Sincerely,

TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE L.P.

Ian Anderson President and CEO cc. Kimberly Lavoie, Natural Resources Canada

Jan 02, Letter - Lee Spahan Ian Anderson From: Lord, Kathern Trans Mountain President and CEO 2020 Sent (Coldwater (TMEP), Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 1:21 PM emailed a letter dated January 2, 2020 to Indian Band) Kathern Lord To: [email protected] Chief Spahan, Coldwater Indian Band (TMEP) Cc: Anderson, Ian (CIB), regarding Trans Mountain’s Subject: Trans Mountain's Interest to Engage and Reach Pipeline Routing Interest to Engage and Reach Pipeline Consensus Routing Consensus. The letter stated it was critically important that routing Good afternoon, certainty for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project be achieved by Please find attached correspondence sent on behalf of Ian Anderson. September 2020 for construction to proceed in the valley to meet in-service Regards, commitments made to industry. The

97

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) letter suggested the Hydrogeological Kathern Lord Study Report and the Western Alternate Legal Assistant |Assistante Juridique Study could be completed in advance of 2700, 300 – 5th Avenue SW | Calgary, AB, T2P 5J2 September 2020 to provide adequate T: 403.206.6962 | E: [email protected] information to allow both Trans Mountain and CIB to make an informed ------assessment on the merits and risks posed by each routing option. The letter January 2, 2020 indicated Trans Mountain had suggested regular meeting dates to focus on those Coldwater Indian Band studies, which would provide some PO Box 4600 predictability for the CIB Council members. The letter added to ensure Merritt, B.C. V1K 1B8 that CIB did not incur a financial burden for substantive engagement on those Attention: Chief Lee Spahan matters, Trans Mountain continued to be Dear Chief Spahan: prepared to address reasonable capacity needs. The letter concluded with Trans Mountain’s President and CEO stating his sincere willingness to continue Re: Trans Mountain’s Interest to Engage and Reach Pipeline Routing meaningful engagement with CIB in Consensus parallel and as part of the study plans and he looked forward to seeing Chief Spahan soon and work towards a In my letter of December 30, 2019, I outlined Trans Mountain’s necessary solution that met Trans Mountain’s and plans towards a Route Decision in the Coldwater Valley in 2020. Those CIB’s respective needs. plans include filing the Hydrogeological Study Report (Report), or a substantive update on that Report, with the Canada Energy Regulator by March 31, 2020; and efforts to complete the Western Alternate feasibility study (Study) as soon as possible in 2020.

It is critically important that routing certainty for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project be achieved by September 2020 so that construction can proceed in the valley to meet in-service commitments made to industry. It has always been my hope that the Coldwater Indian Band would contribute meaningfully in the routing decision process. I believe that both the Report and the Study can be completed in advance of September 2020 to provide sufficient information to allow both Trans Mountain and Coldwater to make an informed assessment on the merits and risks posed by each routing option. So, while I have outlined our plans regarding a routing decision, I also want to outline my sincere interest and desire to engage with you Chief, and your Council, to explore any and all issues related to the route options including a potential project support agreement.

After years of at times strained discussion, I can assure you that I have heard your community's concerns and fears. I honestly believe that we can arrive at a new place of understanding, if not agreement, by setting aside the letter writing and legal positioning on both sides. With a commitment to find joint solutions versus the continuous critiquing of each other's position, we can succeed Chief, I believe that.

98

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim)

I appreciate that engagement on these studies can sometimes be difficult and time consuming for you and Coldwater Council members who have other roles and responsibilities in the community. Trans Mountain has suggested regular meeting dates to focus our engagement on these studies, which will provide some predictability for the Coldwater Council members that you have appointed to oversee and manage Coldwater’s participation. To ensure that Coldwater does not incur a financial burden for substantive engagement on these matters, Trans Mountain continues to be prepared to address reasonable capacity needs. I trust this letter is clear in stating my sincere willingness to continue meaningful engagement with Coldwater in parallel and as part of our study plans. I look forward to seeing you soon and working towards a solution that meets our respective needs. Most sincerely,

TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE L.P. Ian Anderson President and CEO

Jan 22, Email - Lee Spahan Regan From: Youngman, Gary Team Member emailed Chief Spahan, 2020 Outgoing (Coldwater Schlecker Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 3:53 PM Coldwater Indian Band (CIB), and Indian Band), (TMEP), To: [email protected] ; outlined a number of issues for Dale August Max Nock [email protected] ; Gerome discussion at the tripartite meetings and (Coldwater (TMEP), Garcia ; Corrina Manuel also to set a regular schedule for the Indian Band), Cyril Jenkins ; Emma Hume ; meetings in 2020. Team Member noted Gerome Garcia (TMEP), Nathan Hume the following issues that required (Coldwater Harold Henry Cc: Lavoie, Kimberly (NRCAN/RNCAN) ; discussion: regular meetings; historic Indian Band), (Stantec Shenher, Paul ; Sheppard2, contamination issue; aquifer study; Corrina Manuel Consulting Ltd.), Christopher (NRCAN/RNCAN) ; Western Alternative Feasibility study; (Coldwater Neeka Thrasher, Kevin ; Henry, Harold Traditional Land Use Study related to the Indian Band), Mottahedeh ; Jenkins, Cyril Western Alternative Feasibility Study and Emma Hume (TMEP), ; Mottahedeh, Neeka Trans Mountain's letters to CIB. (Coldwater Gary Youngman ; Schlecker, Regan Indian Band), (TMEP), ; Nock, Max Nathan Hume Kevin Thrasher (Coldwater (TMEP) Indian Band), Subject: Tripartite Meetings - Updates, Issues and Action Items Summary Kimberly Lavoie (Natural Chief Spahan Resources Canada), I would like to follow up on a number of issues related to our tripartite Christopher meetings and attempt to set a schedule for ongoing discussions now we Sheppard are in the new year. I also hope this summary will assist us in moving us (Natural forward with each of the issues in a productive way. Resources Canada), We have had three tripartite meetings since the first on September 23, Paul Shenher 2019. The second was on October 28, 2019 and the third on December 16th.

99

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) (Department of Justice) Regular Meetings

At the October 28, 2019 there was a suggestion that we have regular set meetings on at least a monthly basis so each of us can be prepare around an agreed set of agenda items. At the time it was discussed these regular meetings should go to at least March 31 but I think we should consider a schedule to the end of September 2020. My understanding was that you wanted to discuss this issue with your full Council and would get back to the table with a response. Have you been able to have that meeting with your Council and would you be prepared to schedule a set of regular meetings?

Historic Contamination Issue

At our October 28, 2019 meeting you were going to meet with Janice Antoine in an effort to get her consent to access her CP lands to address the contamination issue. I understand your legal Counsel was assisting with getting permission. Can you provide us with an update as to where you are with this issue. As mentioned, TM would like to be able to get into the area in the spring for the clean up but cannot do so without all three CP holders consent.

Aquifer Study

TM attended a community meeting on November 21, 2019 to discuss the drilling program with the understanding that shortly thereafter the program could commence. However, it became apparent that two significant issues still had to be resolved. The two issues were the 1) requirement for a Section 28 permit to access the land, and, 2) consultation with CP and rights holders regarding discharge resulting from the program. Without certainty on the timing of those two issues the drilling program was put on hold.

The Section 28 permit issue is being addressed through a series of tripartite conference calls with all parties. The next call is on January 24th. I understand that two outstanding issues still have to be resolved and those are 1) obtaining a timber permit (a required schedule for the section 28 permit) and 2) completion of the CP and rights holder's consultation, and possible consent, for the discharge.

In addition, there has been communication between TM and Coldwater with a letter dated December 12th from TM and a response from Coldwater dated January 20th. TM plans to respond to Coldwater's January 20th letter.

Western Alternative Feasibility Study

At our third tripartite meeting on December 16th, in Vancouver, Coldwater was provided with an update of the work being done which supplemented the written update provided on November 30, 2019. Given the meeting was only 75 minutes, TM committed to following up by coming to Coldwater to discuss, in more detail, the work and how Coldwater might

100

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) want to participate. Chief, you indicated that you wanted to take this issue back to your full Council for a decision. Have you had a chance to discuss this matter, and if so, can you provide us with a response?

TLUS Related to Western Alternative Feasibility Study Coldwater received funding from Canada to undertake the TLUS study associated with the Western Study. On December 16th we heard that it is well underway and would appreciate a further up date on when it is expected to be complete and when we might receive a copy.

TM's Two Letters to Coldwater 1) December 30, 2019 Re: Trans Mountain Route Decision for the Coldwater Valley and 2) January 2, 2020 Re: Trans Mountain's Interest to Engage and Reach Pipeline Routing Consensus

The December 30th letter relates to condition and commitment filing of the Aquifer Report and the Western Alternative Feasibility Study and related timing, and the January 2nd letter relates to TM interests to work together with Coldwater towards resolving all matters in a timely manner. We await your replies.

As we have a number of issues to discuss this year, TM would like to firm up scheduling of meetings. Please let me know if I have missed some issues, but as stated above, I trust this summary is helpful in us working together.

Gary Youngman

Project Management Lead, Coldwater Feb 05, Email - Nathan Hume Harold Henry From: Thrasher, Kevin Team Member emailed N. Hume, 2020 Outgoing (Coldwater (Stantec Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 3:52 PM Coldwater Indian Band, and provided Indian Band), Consulting Ltd.), To: Nathan Hume ([email protected]) mapping of the proposed western routing Paul Shenher Gary Youngman Cc: Shenher, Paul ; Youngman, Gary option. Team Member indicated there (Department of (TMEP), ; Henry, Harold was also a three dimensional fly-over Justice) Kevin Thrasher presentation of the proposed routing for (TMEP) Subject: FW: West Alternative Map Tabled on Dec 16 the western alternative that Trans Mountain would like to present to Hi Nathan, please see attached mapping of the proposed western routing community representatives at the next option. As we indicated during our meeting on December 16, 2019. Main Table meeting. Harold’s team also has a three dimensional fly-over presentation of the proposed routing for the western alternative that we would very much like to present to community representatives, perhaps at the next meeting of the Main Table. Should you have any questions whatsoever, please do not hesitate to call.

Thanks,

Kevin Thrasher Assistant General Counsel 2700, 300 – 5th Avenue SW | Calgary, AB, T2P 5J2 T: 587.956.7047 C: 403.479.0367 E: [email protected] Feb 14, Letter - Dale August Ian Anderson From: Dale August Chief Spahan, Coldwater Indian Band 2020 Received (Coldwater (TMEP), Sent: Friday, February 14, 2020 3:02 PM (CIB), emailed a letter to the Trans

101

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Indian Band), Regan To: Youngman, Gary Mountain President and CEO. The Lee Spahan Schlecker ; Lord, Kathern letter, dated February 14, 2020, was in in (Coldwater (TMEP), ; Anderson, Ian response to correspondence dated Indian Band), Cyril Jenkins ; Thrasher, Kevin December 30, 2019 regarding Trans Larry Antoine (TMEP), ; Jenkins, Cyril Mountain's route decision for the (Coldwater Kathern Lord ; Schlecker, Regan Coldwater Valley. The letter referred to Indian Band), (TMEP), Trans Mountain's letter which indicated Leah Collins Gary Youngman Cc: Lee Spahan ; Larry that Trans Mountain would be cancelling (Coldwater (TMEP), Antoine ; Leah Collins the study if drilling did not start by early Indian Band), Kevin Thrasher ; Annie Major February 2020. The letter inquired to Annie Major (TMEP) ; Tracey Aljam know if Trans Mountain was intending to (Coldwater ; Wendy Hall file a report to comply with the Canada Indian Band), ; Corrina Manuel Energy Regulator Condition 39 and BC Tracey Aljam ; Michael Smithers Environmental Assessment Office (Coldwater ; Gerome Garcia Condition 25 without data obtained Indian Band), ; Nathan Hume through the hydrogeological study as Wendy Hall ; Emma Hume agreed to based on the June 2019 (Coldwater ; Laura Antoine Memorandum of Understanding. The Indian Band), letter noted various aspects regarding Corrina Manuel Subject: Letter To Trans Mtn the completion of the Hydrogeological (Coldwater Study Report; West Alternative Indian Band), [This email message was received from the Internet and Feasibility Study; Traditional Land Use Gerome Garcia came from outside of Trans Mountain] Study and; Route Determination (Coldwater As per instructed, find attached a signed letter by Chief T. Process. The letter noted it was CIB's Indian Band), Lee Spahan. intention to contribute meaningfully to the Nathan Hume routing decision process. The letter (Coldwater Sincerely concluded with a suggestion to meet Indian Band), face to face after both the West Emma Hume Ms. Dale August Alternative Feasibility and Traditional (Coldwater Executive Administrative Assistant Land Use studies were completed and Indian Band), Coldwater Administration Office Chief and Council had an opportunity to Laura Antoine 301-230th Street, Coldwater Reserve, Merritt, BC consider the study results. (Coldwater [email protected] Indian Band) 250-378-6174 (phone), Ext. 100 250-378-6153 (fax)

------

February 14, 2020

Trans Mountain Pipeline LP Attn: Ian Anderson, President and CEO 2700, 300 5th Avenue SW Calgary, AB T2P SJ2

Dear Mr. Anderson:

Re: Trans Mountain Route Decision for the Coldwater Valley

We write in response to your December 30, 2019 letter, which comes as a shock after all of the hard work we have been doing to start hydrogeological study in early March.

102

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Your letter appears to suggest that Trans Mountain will be cancelling the study if drilling does not start by early February 2020. Given the very serious consequence of cancelling the program we are writing to confirm whether you are, in fact, intending to file a report that purports to comply with CER Condition 39 and EAO Condition 25 without data obtained through the hydrogeological study as contemplated by our June, 2019 MOU. If this is your intention we will need to carefully consider our response.

Completion of the Hydrogeological Study Report

Your December 30, 2019 letter informed us that Trans Mountain intends to file the hydrogeological study report, or a substantive update on the report, with the Canada Energy Regulator (CER) by March 31, 2020. This language mirrors proposed revisions to Commitment 4166 that were submitted to the CER on December 9, 2019 with no notice or consultation with us. Your letter goes on to say that "if Coldwater does not permit Trans Mountain to commence on- reserve drilling by early February 2020, Trans Mountain will proceed to obtain other sources of reliable data [... and] will complete the hydrogeological study report without on-reserve drilling data."

On February 3, 2020 the CER rejected Trans Mountain's proposed revisions to Commitment 4166, finding that a "substantive update on the Condition 39 Report has the potential to lead to confusion regarding filings necessary to satisfy the condition". Rather than accept March 31, 2020 as the new deadline for filing the CER found that "the onus remains on Trans Mountain to submit its Condition 39 report when it is of the view that requirements of that Condition have been met". The CER has also requested that Trans Mountain provide a date when the report will be filed in a forthcoming update to the CER.

Given the CER has rejected Trans Mountain's self-imposed requirement to file the report, or a substantive update, by March 31, 2020 we write to confirm that Trans Mountain remains committed to proceeding with the on-reserve drilling program that we have been working on together for some time, and that we have long agreed is required to comply with Project conditions.

Your letter suggests that Coldwater has not permitted Trans Mountain to start on-reserve drilling. This is incorrect. Chief and Council authorized execution of the substantially final s. 28 Indian Act permit that is required to start the study in mid- August, 2019 - and which Trans Mountain neglected to apply for until summer 2019. We have been granting Trans Mountain access to our reserve since at least last summer to prepare plans needed to commence the drilling program. I understand that execution of the permit has been waiting until

103

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Schedules to the permit, in particular drilling program discharge plans, have been completed. As you likely know, Coldwater Council representatives, BC Groundwater and our legal counsel have been participating in regular calls with Trans Mountain and the Department of Justice since December to ensure all matters related to permitting are proceeding in a timely fashion. As a result, delay in commencing the drilling program has not been a result of Coldwater denying Trans Mountain access to our reserve as your letter suggests. Instead, delay is a result of the fact that plans needed to start drilling have yet to be finalized. I understand that Trans Mountain is in the process of finalizing discharge plans, following feedback from CP holders, and that FLNRO's comments on the drilling program Scope of Work were received on February 13th. Once the discharge plans and Scope of Work have been finalized the s. 28 permit will be executed.

I understand from the Coldwater Council representatives responsible for overseeing the hydrogeological study that the program will likely start in March, with March 15th set as the target date to begin falling timber. The pending commencement of the program was recently confirmed in a letter from Cyril Jenkins dated January 31, 2020. The fact that we are about to start the program is good news as, like you, Coldwater Chief and Council have been wanting to commence the study for some time, having authorized execution of the s. 28 permit six months ago. We have been frustrated by various delays in the program related to Trans Mountain's planning and execution of the drilling program.

Your letter suggests that "other sources of reliable data" exist that would allow Trans Mountain to complete a hydrogeological study report in compliance project conditions without drilling, let alone the collection of baseline data or further geophysical investigations that we agreed would following drilling. In our view, all of this work is required to fill significant data gaps regarding our drinking water, including those identified by Condition 39. We are not aware of any existing reliable data that would allow you to complete the hydrogeological study report at this time. Please advise what "other sources of reliable data" you intend to obtain and what possible basis you have for revoking your commitment to undertake exploratory drilling, having agreed it was required to advance knowledge about our aquifer and better resolve uncertainty about vulnerability and risk to our aquifer on October 12, 2017, a fact which has been subsequently confirmed by both sets of Trans Mountain's consultants (Waterline and Golder) and yourself.

Given the above, please confirm that Trans Mountain is not, in fact, intending to abandon the drilling program that we have been diligently working with you to start. With respect to the collection of baseline data, and further geophysical which

104

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) we agreed would following drilling in our June 2019 MOU, I understand that BC Groundwater will be providing comments on Trans Mountain's proposed baseline data and geophysical work proposals very soon and has proposed a technical meeting to discuss both on March 3 or 4th• Both aspects of the study will require discussion, including how they affect the timeline for the hydrogeological study and your desire to complete all studies required to evaluate routing options by September 2020, a matter better left to the tripartite table or a face to face meeting between you and Coldwater Chief and Council.

On the other hand, if Trans Mountain if still intending to proceed with filing a purported hydrogeological study report with the CER and EAO in the absence of data that we understand will be gathered through the drilling program as contemplated in the MOU this is a very serious matter that will require our careful consideration and response. Please clarify your intentions.

West Alternative Feasibility Study

In our meeting with the Trans Mountain team on December 16, 2019, Trans Mountain revealed for the first time that it had discovered geophysical instabilities on a portion of the proposed West Alternative route. At that meeting, Trans Mountain also introduced two new "variations" on the West Alternative route in response to those instabilities. Those route variations were not based on discussions with Coldwater, and we did not receive printed or electronic copies of those variations at that time.

Based on our discussions at that meeting, we had understood that, in light of the instabilities and the additional work required on the two new route variations, Trans Mountain may not complete the West Alternative feasibility study by March 31, 2020. We also expressed an interest in participating in the geophysical, environmental, archaeological, and other work required to complete that study. We look forward to meeting with the Trans Mountain team to discuss the timing and next steps in that process and how we can take part.

Traditional Land Use Study

Richard Inglis is currently preparing the Traditional Land Use Study of route alternatives through the Coldwater Valley. His study has not, however, incorporated the new West Alternative route variations that were shown at our December 16, 2019 meeting. We received maps of these variations on February 5, 2020. Please provide shapefiles of these alternatives as soon as possible so that can be incorporated into Mr. Inglis' study, subject to Mr. Inglis confirming that TLU data has been collected with respect to the areas impacted

105

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) by the route variations. As we have previously advised, we anticipate the Mr. Inglis will complete the Traditional Land Use Study by or before March 31, 2020. If shapefiles for the West Alternative variations are provided soon we do not anticipate the variation to delay the study.

Route Determination Process

Like you, we remain hopeful that we can achieve consensus on a route through the Coldwater Valley. Once information is available from the Traditional Land Use Study and West Alternative Feasibility study we will be in a much better position to evaluate the Western route alternatives Trans Mountain has identified and discuss them with you. At an upcoming tripartite meeting we would like to discuss how we might seek to reach consensus and a timeline for those discussions.

Your January 2, 2020 Letter

Finally, I acknowledge receipt of your January 2, 2020 letter, which appears to have been sent directly to me by email, without cc'ing Council's Executive Assistant Dale August as is your typical practice. As a result there has been delay in responding to your letter, which I only recently became aware of.

I do want to assure you that it is our intention to contribute meaningfully to the routing decision process, after all we have been seeking consultation on routing since at least 2015. Indeed, I would hope that Trans Mountain will seek to jointly agree with us upon a route option, as proposed in your March 15, 2019 letter, and keep a truly open mind with respect to alternatives despite the fact that construction along the pipeline route has started elsewhere. However, as we have maintained for many years - and as you recently agreed - until our Traditional Land Use Study and the West Alternative Feasibility study are complete, key information gaps relating to the West Alternative as a potentially acceptable route option will remain, precluding meaningful consideration of the West Alternative route. I suggest that we arrange for a face to face meeting after both the West Alternative feasibility and Traditional Land Use studies are complete and my Council and I have had an opportunity to consider the study results.

COLDWATER INDIAN BAND

Chief T. Lee Spahan Feb 20, Letter - Lee Spahan Ian Anderson From: Anderson, Ian Trans Mountain President and CEO 2020 Sent (Coldwater (TMEP), Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 3:29 PM emailed Chief Spahan, Coldwater Indian Indian Band), Trudy Nichols To: [email protected]; Dale August Band (CIB), a letter in response to Chief Dale August (TMEP), ([email protected]) Spahan’s letter from February 14, 2020. The letter, dated February 20, 2020,

106

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) (Coldwater Gary Youngman Cc: Youngman, Gary ; Nichols, reiterated Trans Mountain’s efforts to Indian Band) (TMEP) Trudy working with CIB to obtain data from on- Subject: TMC Response to Coldwater Letter February 14, 2020 reserve drilling for the Hydrogeological Study Report required by Conditions 39 Trudy Nichols on behalf of Ian Anderson and 25; however, the letter stated that CIB’s delay in providing Trans Mountain Dear Chief Spahan, please note attached letter in response to your letter with access to conduct the on-reserve dated February 14, 2020. Thank you drilling was preventing Trans Mountain from completing the Study on time. As a Regards, result, Trans Mountain was considering obtaining the data needed for the Study Trudy Nichols from sources other than the on-reserve drilling. The letter also addressed how ------CIB had yet to respond to Trans -- Mountain’s offer from two month ago to review the West Alternative Feasibility February 20, 2020 Study maps, and that Trans Mountain would need to start engagement with Coldwater Indian Band other potentially affected Indigenous VIA EMAIL: [email protected] groups on the West Alternative route. PO Box 4600 Trans Mountain President and CEO Merritt, B.C. V1K 1B8 added that if CIB’s Traditional Land Use Study was not available for Trans Attention: Chief Lee Spahan & Council Mountain’s reports that Trans Mountain would incorporate available traditional Re: Trans Mountain Route Decision for the Coldwater Valley land use information into its construction mitigation plans. Trans Mountain Thank you for your letter dated February 14, 2020 responding to my President and CEO concluded that CIB letters of December 30, 2019 and January 2, 2020. and Trans Mountain should meet as soon as possible to discuss these To be clear, Trans Mountain remains committed to working with matters. Coldwater to obtain data from an on- reserve drilling program. However, we are also committed to commencing the construction of the Project on a timely basis. Indeed, given that the Federal Cabinet has twice found the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (the “Project”) to be in the Canadian national interest, it is our responsibility to do so.

This does not mean that we would ever attempt to create shortcuts that preclude the collection of scientific and technical data that will helpfully inform how the Project is developed, constructed and operated. If the Project could not be built safely, it would not be built at all (through the Coldwater Valley or anywhere else). But we must emphasize that for a highly complex, multi-billion-dollar project, timing is critically important, and the Project cannot be delayed unnecessarily. When we executed the Memorandum of Understanding in June 2019, we never could have imagined that on-reserve drilling would be delayed into the 2020 calendar year.

It is within this backdrop that I respond to your February 14th letter.

Completion of the Hydrogeological Study Report

Trans Mountain maintains our position communicated on December 30, 2019 and January 2, 2020. Neither letter suggests that Trans Mountain is

107

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) cancelling or abandoning the on-reserve drilling program. We remain committed to on-reserve drilling, which we have been discussing with Coldwater for several years.

However, Conditions 39 and 25 remains Trans Mountain’s conditions to meet. We have an obligation to the Canadian public that will benefit from timely Project construction to file the hydrogeological study when we believe that it will fulfill the requirements of Conditions 39 and 25. As the Canadian Energy Regulator stated in its February 3rd letter: “While the Commission is satisfied that Trans Mountain appears to be working with Coldwater to come to a mutually agreeable field program, and notes that Trans Mountain must provide a description and justification for how Trans Mountain incorporated the results of its consultation with Coldwater into the assessment, the onus remains on Trans Mountain to submit its Condition 39 report when it is of the view that the requirements of that Condition have been met, notwithstanding any degree of consensus between Trans Mountain and Coldwater on the report.” (emphasis added)

It is Trans Mountain’s position that we can complete the hydrogeological study required by Conditions 39 and 25 without on-reserve drilling. This can be done based on data sources other than on-reserve drilling. For example, Trans Mountain is currently assessing off-reserve drilling data from two test holes undertaken recently along the approved route. We believe that data may be used to inform the hydrogeological study report.

I do not believe that it is constructive to engage in a back and forth in response to your allegations that Trans Mountain is the cause of delay to the drilling program. It is not in our interests to delay any program related to the Project. In fact, we were prepared to commence on-reserve drilling in September 2018 but were not permitted to do so by Coldwater for reasons that we still do not understand.

As stated, Trans Mountain remains committed to an on-reserve drilling program. We believe this data may be helpful. However, Conditions 39 and 25 do not require a specific type of program to be successful to comply with the spirit and intent.

West Alternative Feasibility Study

The geophysical instabilities that you refer to have been known and communicated to Coldwater and others for many years. In fact, these instabilities are among the reasons that the West Alternative has never been Trans Mountain’s preferred route. The route variations that you refer to relate only to the final 20% of the West Alternative (the northern crossing of the Coldwater River). The remaining 80% of the route remains as contemplated.

At the conclusion of the December 16th meeting, Trans Mountain offered to meet at Coldwater’s office at any time to go over these maps in detail with members of Council and interested community members. Two months later, we still have not heard from Coldwater in response to this offer. Chief, I understand, and I am sympathetic to the fact that your community has many competing priorities that require your attention.

108

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) However, for a study as important as the West Alternative feasibility study, we cannot wait two months for a meeting.

While consultation on the West Alternative has been ongoing with Coldwater for some time, Trans Mountain plans to commence engagement with other potentially affected Indigenous groups on the West Alternative either this week or next week.

Traditional Land Use Study

We appreciate your update on Coldwater's traditional land use work. As stated in my December 30, 2019 letter, if the report is not available in time for our report, Trans Mountain will, to the extent possible, incorporate traditional land use information into its construction mitigation plans, should the parties agree to the West Alternative as a preferred route.

Further, I have asked my team to provide you with the requested shapefiles.

Route Determination Process

I am encouraged by your statements that Coldwater wants to contribute meaningfully to the route decision process. Trans Mountain looks forward to that contribution. However, rather than wait until after March 31, 2020 to meet face to face I encourage Coldwater to meet with us as soon as possible. Routing through the Coldwater Valley is a very high priority for Trans Mountain, and I would be pleased to sit down with you, Chief to Chief, to find a common path forward.

Sincerely,

Ian Anderson President & CEO Trans Mountain Pipeline L.P.

cc: Dale August Gary Youngman Feb 25, Letter - Lee Spahan Jamie Kereliuk From: Youngman, Gary Team Member emailed a letter and draft 2020 Sent (Coldwater (TMEP), Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 6:40 PM annotated Table of Contents for C39 and Indian Band), Regan To: [email protected]; [email protected]; C25 to Chief Spahan and group Dale August Schlecker [email protected]; [email protected]; Emma Hume representatives of Coldwater Indian (Coldwater (TMEP), ; Nathan Hume Band (CIB). The letter dated February Indian Band), Max Nock Cc: Lavoie, Kimberly (NRCAN/RNCAN) ; 25, 2020 was a follow up to the letter Gerome Garcia (TMEP), Shenher, Paul ; Thrasher, Kevin from Trans Mountain President and (Coldwater Cyril Jenkins ; Henry, Harold CEO, dated February 20, 2020, which Indian Band), (TMEP), ; Jenkins, Cyril requested a meeting with CIB as soon as Emma Hume Harold Henry ; Mottahedeh, Neeka possible for discussion on important (Coldwater (Stantec ; Schlecker, Regan issues including the Western Alternative Indian Band), Consulting Ltd.), ; Nock, Max Route Feasibility Study, completion of Nathan Hume Neeka ; [email protected]; Kereliuk, the Hydrogeological Study, and the (Coldwater Mottahedeh James (Jamie) process for route determination. The Indian Band), (TMEP), Subject: Condition 39 and 25 Reports - Annotated Table of Contents and letter stated that Trans Mountain Kimberly Lavoie Kevin Thrasher On-reserve Drilling Program intended to file a report with the Canada (Natural (TMEP) Energy Regulator (CER) by March 31, Resources Please see attached letter and draft annotated Table of Content. Please 2020 to satisfy Condition 39 and British

109

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Canada), circulate to other team members that I may have missed. Please call 604 Columbia Environmental Assessment Paul Shenher 312-9897 if you have any questions. Office Condition 25, and wanted to (Department of discuss Trans Mountain's plans with CIB Justice), Gary for the Study and the contents of the Carol Thomas Study Report. The letter advised that the (Department of See attached letter and draft Annotated Table of Contents for C39 and Western Alternative Route Feasibility Justice) C25 Study work was ongoing with two additional test holes to be drilled, and the ------Feasibility Report would be filed with the -- CER, and provided to CIB, on or before Chief Spahan & Council March 31, 2020. The letter acknowledged that CIB wanted to meet I am writing to you in follow up to Ian Anderson's letter dated February with Trans Mountain and discuss the 20th encouraging Coldwater to meet with us as soon as possible to Feasibility Study Report and how CIB discuss a number of important issues including the Western Alternative could take part. The letter noted that Route Feasibility Study, completion of the Hydrogeological Study and the Trans Mountain wanted to meet as soon process for route determination. as possible and welcomed CIB's input. The letter stated the CIB indicated they Regarding the Hydrogeological Study, and as previously noted in Trans wanted to discuss how to reach Mountain’s February 20 letter, Trans Mountain intends to prepare a report consensus with respect to the route to satisfy Condition 39 (CER) and 25 (EAO) and file it with the CER by determination process for discussions at March 31, 2020. I am aware that Trans Mountain and Coldwater, and a tripartite meeting. The letter advised their respective consultants, have differing views with respect to the need that Trans Mountain was prepared to for on-reserve drilling to complete the Study and satisfy the Conditions meet with CIB and Canada on the (and there will be a process before the Commission to address those process, as soon as possible. The letter views). Regardless, we would very much like to discuss Trans Mountain’s referenced that Trans Mountain agreed plans for the Study and the contents of the Study Report with you and, in to an on-reserve drilling program, but particular, receive your input on how Trans Mountain can best address unfortunately the data would not be Coldwater’s concerns based on available information. In that regard, I am available in time for the filing of the attaching an annotated Table of Contents (TOC) for the Study Report. Hydrogeological Study Report. The The TOC provides an overview of how Trans Mountain intends to letter stated that Trans Mountain address the requirements of Condition 39 (CER) and 25 (EAO). We believed the existing Section 28 tripartite would like to discuss this further with you and, in the interim, would working group would be a good forum to appreciate any comments you have at this time. discuss the appropriate scope for the on- reserve drilling program, and the terms Regarding the Western Alternative Route Feasibility Study, work is of access to the Reserve. The letter ongoing with two additional test holes to be drilled. Starting this Friday noted that Trans Mountain and CIB had (February 28) the first hole will be started and work will go on for a meetings scheduled for March 3 and 4, duration of approximately 10 days. The second test hole will start March 2020, and suggested the following 3 or 4th and again will have an approximate 10 day duration. As agenda items for discussion. discussed with you on December 16th, this work is required for testing 1. Update on the Hydrogeological Study the two routing options around the geohazard site. The Feasibility Report Report, including the TOC; will be filed with the CER and provided to Coldwater on or before March 2. Western Alternative Route Feasibility 31, 2020. Coldwater states in its February 14th letter that it looks forward Study - Updates and Coldwater's to meeting with the Trans Mountain team to discuss the timing and next participation; steps and how Coldwater can take part. We would like to have that 3. Route Determination – Process and meeting as soon as possible and welcome Coldwater’s input on the schedule; Feasibility Study. 4. On-Reserve Drilling Program – Options for moving forward and timing; With respect to the route determination process, Coldwater, in the 5. Historical Contamination Site Updates February 14th letter, has indicated it wants to discuss how we might seek and Next Steps; and to reach consensus and a timeline for those discussions at an upcoming 6. New Business. tripartite meeting. Again, Trans Mountain is prepared to meet with The letter acknowledged that it was an ambitious agenda and that CIB and

110

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Coldwater and Canada on this process and believes talks should begin Canada might not be able to mobilize the as soon as possible. necessary resources for the meeting, and suggested it could be rescheduled to There also remains outstanding issues from previous meetings including the week of March 9, 2020. The letter the historic contamination issue. Trans Mountain has also provided a plan requested CIB's response to the to re-assess the previous hyrdrovac sites for contamination and would proposal by February 28, 2020. like the opportunity to discuss that plan with Coldwater as soon as possible. We are hopeful that these items could be added to the next meeting agenda.

In Trans Mountain's letter of February 20th, we also committed to an on- reserve drilling program, but unfortunately data from that program will not be available in time for the filing of the Hydrogeological Study Report. Nevertheless, Trans Mountain acknowledges that an on-reserve drilling program may be of value to your community and would like to discuss how best to tailor the program to address the needs of Trans Mountain and Coldwater outside the context of Condition 39 (CER) and 25 (EAO). For example, on-reserve drilling may provide an additional avenue to monitor water quality in the Aquifer.

In that regard, Trans Mountain believes the existing Section 28 tripartite working group that has been working to get access to the Reserve for the purposes of drilling may provide a suitable forum to discuss the appropriate scope for the on-reserve drilling program and the terms of access to the Reserve. On that matter, I note that the most recent version of the terms of the Section 28 permit are, in Trans Mountain’s view, very restrictive and not likely to be practical. We are committed to working with Coldwater to discuss this issue further and to explore how best to leverage the exiting work on the drilling program and terms of Reserve access going forward.

Trans Mountain and Coldwater currently have meetings scheduled for March 3 and 4, 2020. Coldwater has suggested these meetings should be focused on the details of the on-reserve drilling program. However, in light of the above, we believe this meeting time would be best directed toward addressing the various items currently underway and the issues that Coldwater has indicated a desire to discuss. Specifically, I suggest the following can be agenda items for discussion, understanding that Coldwater and Canada may have additional items: 1. Update on the Hydrogeological Study Report, including the TOC; 2. Western Alternative Route Feasibility Study - Updates and Coldwater's participation; 3. Route Determination – Process and schedule; 4. On-Reserve Drilling Program – Options for moving forward and timing; 5. Historical Contamination Site Updates and Next Steps; and 6. New Business.

My intention is not to resolutely address every detail with respect to all of these items. Rather, Trans Mountain hopes to advance the dialogue with Coldwater on these matters so that we may proceed with a common understanding of the parties’ views and expectations, including with respect to process and timing.

111

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Nonetheless, I appreciate this is an ambitious agenda and Coldwater and Canada may not be able to mobilize the necessary resources for March 3 and/or 4, 2020. In that case, we could reschedule for the following week if necessary and agreeable.

We would appreciate your response to this proposal by February 28th in order for all to prepare.

Finally, I acknowledge that Coldwater (including BC Groundwater) has provided invoices to Trans Mountain in relation to work done to date on this file. We will address that matter soon by separate correspondence.

Sincerely Gary Youngman - Project Manager, Coldwater

C: Natural Resources Canada

Mar 02, Email - Lee Spahan Susan Stobbart From: Stobbart, Susan Team Member emailed Chief Spahan, 2020 Outgoing (Coldwater (TMEP), Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 10:53 AM Coldwater Indian Band (CIB), regarding Indian Band), Max Nock To: '[email protected]' consultation for the potential Western Dale August (TMEP), Cc: '[email protected]' ; Laura Alternative Route around the Coldwater (Coldwater Gary Youngman Antoine ; Nock, Max Reserve #1. The letter informed CIB that Indian Band), (TMEP) ; Youngman, Gary Trans Mountain was considering the Laura Antoine Western Alternative Route (Western (Coldwater Subject: Coldwater Indian Band - REQUEST FOR COMMENTS by March Route) for further analysis and Indian Band) 20 - TMEP Consultation Regarding Potential Western Alternative Route discussion as a potential option to address concerns related to protection of Greetings, the Coldwater aquifer. The letter requested CIB’s input for the potential On behalf of Trans Mountain, please find the attached correspondence Western Route and the placement of the (with map) for your consideration. new 36 inch expansion line on a route located west of the Coldwater Reserve Thank you, #1. In addition to the letter, the email provided a map of the route. Team Susan Stobbart Member requested that CIB provide their comments by March 20, 2020. Mar 13, Letter - Lee Spahan Ian Anderson From: Dale August Trans Mountain President and CEO, 2020 Received (Coldwater (TMEP), Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 12:05 PM received a letter via email from Chief Indian Band), Jamie Kereliuk To: Anderson, Ian Spahan, Coldwater Indian Band (CIB). Emma Hume (TMEP), Cc: Youngman, Gary The letter dated March 13, 2020 stated (Coldwater Regan ; Kereliuk, James that it was written in response to various Indian Band), Schlecker (Jamie) ; Thrasher, communications from Trans Mountain Corrina Manuel (TMEP), Kevin ; Jenkins, Cyril which lead to Trans Mountain's (Coldwater Scott Stoness ; Henry, Harold cancellation of the March 3 and 4, 2020 Indian Band), (TMEP), ; Schlecker, Regan meetings that were scheduled to ensure Gerome Garcia Max Nock ; Brett, Samantha the hydrogeological study would start on (Coldwater (TMEP), ; Nock, Max March 14, 2020. The letter expressed Indian Band), Cyril Jenkins ; Mottahedeh, Neeka CIB's frustrations regarding the Thierry Carriou (TMEP), ; Stoness, Scott advisement that Trans Mountain would (Coldwater Harold Henry ; Emma Hume file the reports to be in compliance with Indian Band), (Stantec ; Corrina Manuel the Canada Energy Regulator Condition Laura Antoine Consulting Ltd.), ; Gerome Garcia 39 and Environmental Assessment (Coldwater Neeka ; Thierry Carriou Office 25 by March 31, 2020, without Indian Band), Mottahedeh ([email protected]) ; completing the hydrogeological study.

112

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Dale August (TMEP), Lee Spahan ; Laura Antoine The letter stated that if Trans Mountain (Coldwater Samantha Brett acted upon that decision, it would Indian Band) (TMEP), Subject: TM Suspension of Hydrogeological Study Ltr threaten to undermine the proponent Kevin Thrasher commitment that the Crown's approval (TMEP) [This email message was received from the Internet and was based on, and all the work both came from outside of Trans Mountain] Trans Mountain and CIB had done to As instructed find attached a signed letter by Chief T. Lee gather information needed regarding the Spahan East and West alternatives routes. The letter further provided CIB's positions Sincerely that they would object to any Condition 39 and Conditon 25 filings completed Ms. Dale August without the hydrogeological study, Executive Administrative Assistant comments on the Table of Contents for Coldwater Administration Office the hydrogeological report, the West 301-230th Street, Coldwater Reserve, Merritt, BC feasibility study, and the route [email protected] determination process. The letter 250-378-6174 (phone), Ext. 100 advised that CIB did not see a path 250-378-6153 (fax) forward on the East alternative route given Trans Mountain's revocation of the See attached letter from Coldwater Indian Band. commitment to complete the hydrogeological study. The letter ------expressed that CIB hoped the ------disagreements could be put aside with the respect and understanding that when March 13, 2020 the Project was built it would have generational impacts on their people. Via Email The letter advised that CIB wanted to schedule and meeting with Trans Trans Mountain Corporation Mountain to find a path forward. Attn: Ian Anderson, President and CEO Suite 2700, 300 5th Avenue SW Calgary, AB T2P SJ2

Dear Mr. Anderson:

Re: Trans Mountain's Suspension of Hydrogeological Study

I write in response to your February 20, 2020 letter, an undated letter received February 25, 2020, and subsequent communications leading to Trans Mountain's cancelation of March 3 and 4th meetings scheduled to ensure the hydrogeological study could start March 14th.

It is hard to express the frustration and disappointment my council and I feel having been told that Trans Mountain will being filing reports in purported compliance with CER Condition 39 and EAO Condition 25 by March 31, 2020 without completing the hydrogeological study we have long agreed to and despite the fact that there is no deadline on completion of these filings. This decision - if acted upon - threatens to undermine the proponent commitment that the Crown's approval is based on and all of the work both Trans Mountain and Coldwater have been doing to gather the information needed to evaluate the East and West alternative

113

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) routes through the Coldwater Valley. The hydrogeological study, in particular, is essential for any evaluation the East Alternative which is your preferred route through the Valley despite our very serious concerns regarding potential impacts and risks to our water.

Trans Mountain's Decision to Suspend the Hydrogeological Study

Trans Mountain's decision to file Condition 39 and 25 reports without completing the hydrogeological study that Canada, BC, Coldwater, and Trans Mountain agreed is necessary appears to have no scientific basis, but is instead grounded in the fact that the program was scheduled to commence four weeks after a unilaterally imposed deadline of "mid- February".

No Scientific Basis to Cancel Agreed to Hydrogeological Study

Any scientific basis for your recent decision appears limited to the assertion that data sources other than on-reserve drilling exist. As stated in your letter "Trans Mountain is currently assessing off-reserve drilling data from two test holes undertaken recently along the approved route. We believe that data may be used to inform the hydrogeological study report." No specifics on the apparently new off-reserve drilling data have been provided, we do not even know where the wells are, let alone what data has been collected from them. To the best of our knowledge, the only way to gather the data required to comply with Conditions 39 and 25 is through the hydrogeological study we have agreed to.

Trans Mountain's new position also contradicts our June 2019 MOU which outlines that exploratory drilling, some level of baseline monitoring and further geophysical work is required to "ensure that an evidence based-decision regarding the route of the proposed Trans Mountain Expansion Project can be made." Your February 20, 2020 letter states that when you executed the MOU, you never imagined on-reserve drilling would be delayed into the 2020 calendar year. The same cannot be true when you gave sworn evidence in mid-November 2019 that: "[w]e would agree entirely [with Coldwater] that some amount of drilling• obviously we have agreed on the six holes - and then understanding the behavior of the aquifer in those locations, the direct[ion] of the flow of the water" is needed to comply with Condition 39. Your recent decision to proceed with Condition 39 and 25 filings without undertaking the hydrogeological study is also inconsistent with this sworn evidence you gave as part of the judicial review before the Federal Court of Appeal which accepted the forthcoming hydrogeological study and related proponent commitment as adequate in the circumstances.

114

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim)

Trans Mountain's Construction Schedule Cannot Justify Collection of Essential Information

The only apparent basis for your decision to proceed with Condition 39 and 25 filings without completing the agreed to hydrogeological study is that the drilling program was to commence on March 14th, rather than by the "mid-February" deadline that you unilaterally determined. Given Trans Mountain does not anticipate starting construction in the Coldwater Valley until June 2021, I cannot comprehend how starting the drilling program on March 14th, rather than "mid- February", can possibly justify the revocation of your commitment to complete the hydrogeological study before the Condition 39 report is filed.

We do not see how the passage of a few weeks, during which both Coldwater and BC Groundwater have been actively and cooperatively working towards initiation of the hydrogeological study and drilling program, can possibly justify the previously undisputed need for the data that the program would provide.

Compounding our frustration with the apparent "mid- February" deadline is that fact that it was never communicated to the dedicated team of Coldwater representatives, including special appointed Council representatives, on regular conference calls that were held November 13, 2019, December 11, 2019, January 10 and 24, 2020, and February 12, 2020 to ensure all necessary work was completed and Indian Act permits obtained before the drilling program started. Not once was the mid-February deadline raised on these calls. Instead, Trans Mountain regularly informed Coldwater representatives that they were supportive of ensuring all effected CP holders consented to the program and that the timber permit was issued to ensure there were no unanticipated delays once field work began and expensive drilling rigs were mobilized. Indeed, as late as February 18, 2020, Trans Mountain personnel confirmed their availability for the March 3 and 4th meetings to ensure a March 14th start date.

Status of the Hydrogeological Study in Serious Question

Even after your February 20, 2020 letter was received we understood that the drilling program would continue as planned. Indeed, your letter states that Trans Mountain "remains committed to working with Coldwater to obtain data from an on-reserve drilling program" and that you would never "attempt to create shortcuts that preclude the collection of scientific and technical data that will helpfully inform how the Project is developed, constructed and operated." However, after receiving Mr. Youngman's undated letter on February 25, 2020, and subsequent emails seeking to

115

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) proceed with the scheduled March 3 and 4th meetings to discuss the March 14th start of field work were rebuffed, it became clear that the conduct of the drilling program and further geophysical work is, in fact, in serious question.

A March 3rd conference call - scheduled to discuss any outstanding matters related to the initiation of the hydrogeological study - made it clear that while virtually all work required to start the study was done, Trans Mountain was no longer willing to proceed as agreed. On the call it was made it clear that while you remained committed to drilling six boreholes, the full scope of the hydrogeological study, including the type of drilling and timing of the program, is now in question. While Trans Mountain envisions a change to the hydrogeological study your representatives, including hydrogeologists, were unable to articulate what that change was. I understand that Trans Mountain will be clarifying how, and whether, it is proposing to change the program in a written proposal. I understand that Trans Mountain will specify how and if it would like to change the agreed to Scope of Work for the drilling program and whether you still intends to proceed with the geophysical work and pumping tests proposed by Golder.

At this time BC Groundwater, our forester, and contractors who had been set aside time in their schedule to start work on March 14th have stood down until such time as the project scope is finalized and there is certainty as to the program start date. We will not be asking these individuals to put off other secured work while Trans Mountain decides if it will or will not proceed with the program.

We will be objecting to any Condition 39 and 25 Filings Completed without the Hydrogeological Study

For the reasons that have been repeatedly set out by our hydrogeologist we remain of the strong view that exploratory drilling at a minimum of six boreholes, baseline monitoring and further geophysical work is required to comply with Conditions 39 and 25. We will be raising our very strong objection to your decision to file Condition 39 and 25 reports without essential information about our aquifer with the Crown and Crown regulators.

Comments on the Table of Contents Hydrogeological Report

We have reviewed the "Summary Report - Table of Contents" for the Condition 39 and 25 reports prepared by Golder and enclosed with Mr. Youngman's February 25, 2020 letter. Given the lack of any information on the data Golder intends to rely on in preparing its report and a similar lack of detail on the models, underlying assumptions and inputs that will be used in preparing the report, we are unable to provide any meaningful comment on the Table of Contents at this time.

116

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim)

It remains our view that exploratory drilling, baseline data collection and further geophysical work is required to comply with Conditions 39 and 25. Please see BC Groundwater's February 26, 2019 memo re: Recommended Path Forward: Continuation of Hydrogeologic Investigations Leading to an Understanding of Aquifer Vulnerability from the Proposed Trans Mountain Expansion Project for our views on the information requirements that any report filed in compliance with Conditions 39 and 25 should meet.

West Alternative Feasibility Study

We look forward to receiving details of the West Alternative feasibility study, including the identification of mitigation for any geohazards that may exist along that route. We are also encouraged to hear that you have commenced engagement with other potentially affected Indigenous groups on the West Alternative. We have requested that Mr. Inglis incorporate the two route variations into the Traditional Land Use Study that he is preparing. As a result, we do not think that a community presentation from Trans Mountain on the variations to the West Alternative is necessary at this time.

I do apologize we have been unable to schedule a meeting with you to discuss the West Alternative feasibility study this year. As you say, we have a number of competing priorities that require our attention. However, I want to assure you that grappling with the impacts of Trans Mountain Expansion Project, particularly through the heart of our valley, remains a top priority for my Council and I. We very much look forward to receiving the West Alternative Feasibility Study, or draft, as soon as it is complete.

Route Determination Process

My Council and I are in the process of considering the results of the Traditional Land Use Study of the East and West Alternatives. As you know, we have long requested this work be completed so that we are in a position to evaluate the relative impacts of the alternative routes on our collective rights and title interests.

I must say that given the revocation of your commitment to complete the hydrogeological study I do not see how we can find a path forward on the East Alternative route in the absence of the information we have agreed is needed to evaluate that route. Nonetheless, I hope that we can put our disagreements aside and that you come to Coldwater respecting and understanding that wherever the Trans Mountain Expansion project is built through our Valley, and up into the Coquihalla, it will have generational impacts on our people. These impacts are a very heavy burden to bear

117

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) and I hope that we can find a way to avoid and manage the most serious impacts through the Coldwater Valley. We would like to schedule a meeting with you to see if we can find a common path forward. Council's executive assistant will be in touch with you with meeting dates soon.

Chief T. Lee Spahan COLDWATER INDIAN BAND Mar 17, Letter - Lee Spahan Ian Anderson From: Anderson, Ian Trans Mountain President and CEO, 2020 Sent (Coldwater (TMEP), Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2020 7:37 AM emailed a letter dated March 13, 2020 to Indian Band), Trudy Nichols To: [email protected]; Dale August Chief Spahan, Coldwater Indian Band Dale August (TMEP) ([email protected]) (CIB), regarding the on-reserve drilling (Coldwater program. The letter expressed to CIB Indian Band), Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Emma that Trans Mountain shared its frustration Gerome Garcia Hume ; [email protected]; and disappointment that the on-reserve (Coldwater [email protected]; Hargrove, Glenn (NRCan/RNCan) program could no longer be incorporated Indian Band), ; '[email protected]' into the hydrogeological study report. Emma Hume ; Braun, Nathan EAO:EX The letter explained that the on-reserve (Coldwater ; Shenher, Paul data was not a regulatory requirement Indian Band), ; [email protected] nor required to conduct a proper analysis Nathan Hume Subject: Letter to Coldwater Indian Band - March 17 2020 of risk to the aquifer. The letter explained (Coldwater that Trans Mountain had emphasized the Indian Band), On behalf of Ian Anderson importance of obtaining data efficiently, Kimberly Lavoie especially considering Trans Mountain's (Natural Please note attached correspondence in response to March 13, 2020 commitment to link the hydrogeological Resources correspondence. study report to consultation on route Canada), alternatives. The letter disagreed with Paul Shenher Regards, CIB assertion that there is “no deadline” (Department of to file the hydrogeological study report Justice), Trudy Nichols with regulators. To the contrary, there is Glenn Hargrove Executive Assistant to Ian Anderson a deadline to file the Report with the (Natural President & Chief Executive Officer CER in Commitment #4,166. Initially, Resources Trans Mountain Canada that deadline was December 31, 2019; Canada) Nathan however, due to delays to the Program, Braun (BC ------Trans Mountain later extended that EAO), -- deadline with leave of the Commission to and Edwin March 31, 2020 and has now extended Hubert (BC March 17, 2020 that deadline to May 15, 2020. The letter EAO) stressed that Trans Mountain has an VIA EMAIL: [email protected] obligation to avoid unnecessary delays VIA EMAIL: [email protected] and proceed to file the hydrogeological study report and is confident that the off- Coldwater Indian Band PO Box 4600 reserve data it has obtained will support Merritt, B.C. V1K 1B8 Attention: Chief Lee Spahan Dear Chief Spahan: a technically and scientifically robust report that complies with Conditions 39 Re: Decoupling the On-Reserve Field Program from the and 25, including an assessment of risks Hydrogeological Study Report to the aquifer and potential mitigation. The letter invited CIB to discuss plans for I write in response to your letter of March 13, 2020. the report, including the Annotated Table of Contents and the data sources that At Trans Mountain, we share your frustration and disappointment that will be incorporated in the work done by data from the on-reserve Field Program (the “Program”) can no longer be Trans Mountain’s experts. The letter incorporated into the hydrogeological study report (the “Report”) to be asked CIB not to prejudge the adequacy filed pursuant to Canadian Energy Regulator (“CER”) Condition 39 and of the report before CIB and BCGW had

118

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office (“EAO”) Condition 25. a chance to review it. The letter also Our company has committed significant personnel and resources to a reiterated Trans Mountain’s continued program to obtain on-reserve data for the Report. This is not a regulatory commitment to open and honest requirement nor is it required to conduct a proper analysis of risk to the discussions with CIB about routing, aquifer. Rather, the original Program was a response to requests to Trans including the near-term discussions and Mountain from the Coldwater Indian Band (“Coldwater”). those that may occur in the months following the completion of the report. Throughout our engagement on the Program our team emphasized the Trans Mountain accepted CIB's invitation importance of obtaining data efficiently. The need to do so became even to meet to find a common path forward more critical when Trans Mountain committed to link the Report to on routing through the Coldwater Valley consultation with Coldwater on route alternatives and the Commission of and other issues of importance to CIB. the CER’s (“Commission”) determination of the best possible route for the Trans Mountain indicated that it was Trans Mountain Expansion Project (“TMEP”). available on April 2, 3 and 9, 2020 for such a meeting. You say in your letter that there is “no deadline” to file the Report with regulators. To the contrary, there is a deadline to file the Report with the CER in Commitment #4,166. Initially, that deadline was December 31, 2019 a date put forward by Canada when it proposed to link the filing of the Report with consultations between Trans Mountain and Coldwater and the Commission’s determination of TMEP routing through the Coldwater Valley. The Governor in Council later approved the TMEP for a second time based on that same deadline. Due to delays to the Program, Trans Mountain later extended that deadline with leave of the Commission to March 31, 2020 and has now extended that deadline to May 15, 2020. We are now in March 2020. The Program has not started, and BC Groundwater’s own schedule does not contemplate the on- reserve drilling component of the Program commencing until mid-May.

Given the many Canadians that are relying on Trans Mountain to construct the TMEP on a timely basis and maintain the planned in-service date, we have an obligation to avoid unnecessary delays and proceed to file the Report when we believe we have satisfied regulatory requirements.

Trans Mountain strongly disagrees that the Program is “the only way to gather data required to comply with Conditions 39 and 25”. Trans Mountain is confident that the off-reserve data it has obtained will support a technically and scientifically robust Report that complies with Conditions 39 and 25. This includes the assessment of risks to the aquifer and potential mitigation.

In your March 13th letter, you have raised concerns regarding the Report and the status of the Program. Shortly after Trans Mountain received your letter, Cyril Jenkins provided Coldwater with a letter describing additional information regarding the Report and the Program, including the fact that, in response to Coldwater’s requests, Trans Mountain has committed to continue with the Program and scope of work as previously designed. I invite Coldwater to respond directly by return correspondence to Mr. Jenkins. I would also like to reextend Trans Mountain’s invitation to discuss plans for the Report, including the Annotated Table of Contents and the data sources that will be incorporated in the work done by Trans Mountain’s experts and reflected in the Report.

119

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) We respectfully ask that Coldwater not prejudge the adequacy of the Report (as you have done in your letter) before Coldwater and BC Groundwater review the Report. We would welcome Coldwater’s views on that matter after the Band and BC Groundwater have reviewed the Report. In that regard, I reiterate our continued commitment to open and honest discussions with Coldwater about routing. This includes our near- term discussions and those that may occur in the months following the completion of the Report.

Finally, you have made serious allegations in your letter about my sworn testimony, the Federal Court of Appeal proceeding, and the veracity of Trans Mountain’s statements and commitments. With respect, these allegations are baseless. However, I do not believe that it is constructive for us to engage in a back and forth on such issues as Trans Mountain’s evidence, the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision and our correspondence and engagement with Coldwater speak for themselves.

Next Steps

I would be pleased to accept your invitation to meet to find a common path forward on routing through the Coldwater Valley and other issues of importance to Coldwater. I am available on April 2, 3 and 9, 2020 for such a meeting. As you know, I have offered to meet with you on these issues many times and look forward to our discussion.

I sincerely believe that if we can approach our engagement with open minds and a mutual respect and understanding of each other’s interests and needs, Coldwater and Trans Mountain can create a strong relationship for generations to come.

Sincerely,

TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE L.P. Ian Anderson President and CEO

cc. Dale August (Coldwater) Councilors Garcia and Manuel (Coldwater) Laura Antoine (Coldwater) Emma Hume and Nathan Hume (Ratcliff) Glenn Hargrove and Kimberly Lavoie (Natural Resources Canada) Nathan Braun and Edwin Hubert (BC EAO) Paul Shenher (DOJ Canada)

Mar 24, Meeting – Chief Lee Cyril Jenkins Coldwater, Trans Mountain and 2020 Teleconfer Spahan (TMEP), representatives from various ence (Coldwater Neeka Government of Canada departments met Indian Band) Mottahedeh to discuss the status of the West Gerome Garcia (TMEP), Alternative feasibility study, the (Coldwater Samantha Brett hydrogeological study, the on-reserve Indian Band) (TMEP), field program and Coldwater’s traditional Corrinna Manuel Kevin Thrasher land use study. With respect to the West (Coldwater (TMEP), Alternative feasibility study, Trans Indian Band) Harold Henry Mountain explained that one of the two (TMEP), routes that it was considering for the West Alternative is feasible (the GB

120

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Larry Antoine Gary Youngman route). Trans Mountain plans to provide (Coldwater (TMEP), a copy of the study report to Coldwater Indian Band) Jamie Kereliuk on March 31, 2020, and submit the Annie Major (TMEP), report to the CER on April 15, 2020. (Coldwater Scott Stoness Trans Mountain welcomes Coldwater’s Indian Band) (TMEP), comments on the report prior to its filing Leah Collins Max Nock with the CER and afterwards as the (Coldwater (TMEP), parties attempt to reach a consensus on Indian Band) Reagan a route in accordance with Commitment Emma Hume Schlecker 4,167. Additionally, Trans Mountain (Ratcliff) (TMEP), provided options to display maps of the Nathan Hume Wayne Speller potential West Alternative route for (Ratcliff) (Golder), members of Coldwater’s Council and Thierry Carriou Sander community to review. Trans Mountain (BC Duncanson will complete additional work on the Groundwater (Osler) West Alternative over the late spring Consulting Sean Sutherland (depending on weather and COVID-19 Services Ltd.) (Osler) developments). Rick Cronin (BC Groundwater Consulting Services Ltd.) Kimberly Lavoie (Natural Resources Canada), Christopher Sheppard (Natural Resources Canada), Paul Shenher (Department of Justice), Carol Thomas (Department of Justice), Joseph Whiteside (Indigenous Services Canada) Mar 30, Letter - Laura Antoine Ian Anderson From: Laura Antoine L. Antoine, Coldwater Indian Band (CIB) 2020 Received (Coldwater (TMEP), Jamie Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 3:58 PM emailed a letter to Trans Mountain Indian Band), Kereliuk To: Anderson, Ian President and CEO. The letter dated Lee Spahan (TMEP), Regan Cc: Henry, Harold ; March 30, 2020 from Chief Spahan was (Coldwater Schlecker Thrasher, Kevin ; follow up to the March 24, 2020 meeting Indian Band), (TMEP), Scott Schlecker, Regan ; with Trans Mountain regarding the status Emma Hume Stoness Nock, Max ; Stoness, of various studies underway, including (Coldwater (TMEP), Max Scott ; Kereliuk, the West Alternative Feasibility Study Indian Band), Nock (TMEP), James (Jamie) ; and the Hydrogeological Study. The Thierry Carriou Cyril Jenkins [email protected]; [email protected]; letter referenced that the West (Coldwater (TMEP), Harold [email protected]; Alternative Feasibility Study would be Indian Band), Henry (Stantec [email protected]; provided to CIB by Mach 31, 2020, and

121

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Larry Antoine Consulting Ltd.), [email protected]; submitted to the Canada Energy (Coldwater Neeka [email protected]; Jenkins, Cyril Regulator on April 15, 2020. The letter Indian Band), Mottahedeh ; Mottahedeh, Neeka stated that after CIB's review they would Gerome Garcia (TMEP), Gary ; Youngman, be able to provide Trans Mountain with (Coldwater Youngman Gary ; Lee Spahan comments on the report. The letter Indian Band), (TMEP), Kevin ; Larry Antoine communicated Coldwater’s desire for a Corrina Manuel Thrasher ; Gerome Garcia meeting, prior to April 15, 2020, for Trans (Coldwater (TMEP) ; Corrina Manuel Mountain to present the details of the Indian Band), ; Michael Smithers West Alternative Feasibility Study to Tracey Aljam ; Tracey Aljam Chief and Council remotely given the (Coldwater ; Leah Collins current COVID-19 situation. The letter Indian Band), ; Annie Major expressed CIB's concerns related to the Leah Collins ; Wendy Hall unilateral collection of data adjacent to (Coldwater ; Nathan Hume the Coldwater Reserve for the Condition Indian Band), ; Matthew Kirchner 39 report, without discussion with CIB. Annie Major ; Dale August The letter requested information (Coldwater regarding the recent field work, raw data Indian Band), Subject: Trans Mountain - Letter in follow-up to March 24th and drill cuttings, and noted a proposal Wendy Hall Meeting for follow up work by CIB to ensure (Coldwater [This email message was received from the Internet and proper abandonment of the boreholes. Indian Band), came from outside of Trans Mountain] The letter stated that CIB was glad that Nathan Hume Please find attached documentation in follow up to March 24, the on reserve drilling program and (Coldwater 2020 meeting. geophysical work was going to proceed. Indian Band), The letter advised that Trans Mountain Dale August Respectfully yours, would prepare an execution plan for the (Coldwater Coldwater Indian Band drilling and geophysical programs for Indian Band), Laura Antoine - Band Administrator CIB's review, and that CIB scheduled a Kimberly Lavoie Box 4600 full day planning session on April 17, (Natural Merritt, BC 2020 to finalize the execution plan and Resources V1K 1B8 agree to next steps. The letter Canada), [email protected] requested a draft copy of the execution Christopher See attached Letter and BC Groundwater Memos plan be provided to CIB by April 9, 2020. Sheppard ------The letter informed that CIB's legal (Natural March 30, 2020 counsel and Canada were working Resources Trans Mountain Corporation together to finalize the s. 28 permit, Canada), F. Attn: Ian Anderson, President and CEO Suite 2700, 300 5th based on the March 27, 2020 revisions Matthew Avenue SW Calgary, AB T2P 5J2 provided by Trans Mountain. The letter Kirchner (Ratcliff Dear Mr. Anderson: stated that CIB was making their best & Company), Re: Trans Mountain Expansion Project - March 24th efforts to provide the Traditional Land Paul Shenher Meeting Use Study by mid-April 2020. The letter (Department of thanked Trans Mountain for the meeting Justice), Carol I write further to a meeting my Council and I had with your on March 24, 2020, and that CIB looked Thomas team on March 24th to discuss the status of the various forward to future meetings and moving (Department of studies underway as a result of Trans Mountain's forward with more transparency and Justice) Commitment to Coldwater, including the West Alternative respect. Feasibility Study and the Hydrogeological Study.

West Alternative Feasibility Study

Based on the update provided at our meeting we understand that the West Alternative Feasibility Study will be provided to Coldwater by March 31st and submitted to the Canada Energy Regulator (CER) on April 15th. It was good to hear from Harold Henry that the West Alternative route is feasible,

122

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) and that you have found an alternative around the slide area that was previously identified as a geotechnical challenge. We understand that this minor change to the West Alternative alleviates the concerns Trans Mountain had with the route, is more direct, and allows for an HDD crossing of the Coldwater River.

We look forward to receiving the report, which we understand will have lots of new information and be much more comprehensive than any previous analysis of the West Alternative route to date. We will wait to hear from you about the additional archaeological work that needs to be done along the route and are available to discuss how we might be involved in that. Your team indicated this work would not take place until the summer. As I said, Coldwater needs advance notice of what is going to happen, and a schedule, so we can be involved.

We understand that we will have an opportunity to review the West Alternative Feasibility Study and provide comments to you after receiving it. We were told at the meeting that the April 15th filing date with the CER is not the deadline for Coldwater's comments. Council and I did not have comments or questions based on what Trans Mountain told us about the report, but as Councillors Antoine and Major said, they expect to have questions once they see the report. Given the report is to include a summary of consultation with Coldwater on the report itself, including "a description and justification of how Trans Mountain has incorporated the results of this consultation, including any recommendations from Coldwater" it seems likely that the April 15th filing date will need to be postponed. I propose that we discuss an appropriate deadline for our comments once we have had a chance to review the report and determine the extent of any comments we have.

We also discussed how your technical team will be in touch with Council's Executive Assistant to try and arrange a way for Trans Mountain to present the details of the West Alternative Feasibility Study, including a number of large maps, to my Council and I remotely given the current COVID- 19 situation. We do not want logistical difficulties, or physical distancing requirements, to preclude discussion of this important study. Once we know that the technology is in place to allow for the review of the report, it was agreed we would set a date for a meeting. This meeting should be before April 15th if you are planning to file the report with the CER by then.

We do look forward to learning more about the feasibility of the West Alternative, the only route that will avoid risk to our aquifer and that we have long requested be seriously considered. We are hopeful that we can now have a serious and informed discussion about the construction of this route.

123

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) This discussion will also need to be informed by our Traditional Land Use Study.

Unilateral Collection of Data Adjacent to Coldwater Reserve for Condition 39 Report

Since the fall of 2017, I have understood that you were committed to consulting Coldwater on the Condition 39 Report, including the underlying data. Trans Mountain's recent conduct suggests that this commitment no longer stands. The decision to collect data on the hill above our reserve for the purposes of preparing a Condition 39 report, without notice or consultation with us, and certainly without collaborating or even notifying Coldwater representatives specifically appointed to work with Trans Mountain on the Hydrogeological Study is very concerning. The fact that this has occurred in conjunction with the recent revocation of your commitment to complete the Hydrogeological Study in advance of a Condition 39 filing further violates the trust we had that you would be working with us to ensure a comprehensive and complete understanding of risks and impacts from the Modified East Alternative before applying to have that route finally approved by the CER.

As part of the reinitiated Crown consultation process in 2019 we confirmed our agreement to work collaboratively on a Hydrogeological Study to gather information needed to comply with CER Condition 39 and EAO Condition 25. Until February 25, 2020, I thought our teams were working productively together to start work on IR 1 by March 14th, having long ago agreed to the details of the program. As set out in our MOU, the intention was to collaboratively gather information to understand the consequences of the existing and proposed transmission pipelines on our drinking water and to ensure an evidence-based decision regarding the Trans Mountain Expansion Project can be made. Important context for this commitment to collaboration is the fact that in 2017, Trans Mountain conducted geophysical work (ERT) on IR 1 without our involvement and without required Indian Act permits, and in June 2017 came to a meeting with a purportedly draft Condition 39 report based on this highly limited geophysical work. Trans Mountain subsequently committed to working with Coldwater to comply with Condition 39. This collaboration is particularly important given there is nothing more important to us than access to adequate supplies of clean drinking water on our reserve. At our March 24th meeting, we were informed that Trans Mountain would be filing a report in purported compliance with Condition 39 based on two new boreholes that were drilled on the pipeline right of way directly above IR 1 along with geophysical work (again, ERT), also undertaken on the Modified East Alternative right of way. Coldwater's hydrogeologist and Council representatives who have been actively working with Trans Mountain and Canada to start the

124

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) on-reserve drilling and geophysical work (TEM) were never informed about this work, despite regular phone calls to discuss the Hydrogeological Study, most recently on January 10 and 24th, February 12th and March 3rd, site visits to IR 1 to prepare for the on-reserve drilling program, the exchange of multiple letters regarding the hydrogeological program, and regular email correspondence with our hydrogeologist and Council representatives.

That Trans Mountain would choose to proceed with drilling and ERT geophysical work without even notifying our dedicated Hydrogeological Study team is completely unacceptable. As our hydrogeologist said during our meeting, having been planning the drilling program for over two years, in a cooperative and transparent fashion, we would have expected the basic courtesy of notice and an invitation to participate.

Based on your letters of February 20th and March 17th we understood that Trans Mountain intended to file a report in purported compliance with Condition 39 without the Hydrogeological Study program at IR 1 we have long agreed to. We informed you of our strong objection to this decision. Your February 20th letter indicated that "Trans Mountain is currently assessing off-reserve data from two test holes undertaken recently along the approved route. We believe that data may be used to inform the Hydrogeological Study report." No further details on the off-reserve data were provided in the letter. Your March 17th letter was similarly lacking in detail, alluding to "off-reserve data" that had been obtained to support a Condition 39 filing. There was no discussion of alternative or additional sources of data, no invitation to discuss the data or plan to obtain it, and certainly no indication that boreholes would be drilled above Coldwater IR 1 in our aquifer's recharge zone.

Not only does this unilateral conduct fly in the face of our joint commitment to collaborate on the Hydrogeological Study, but it may have had serious impacts on our sole source of drinking water. The fact that Trans Mountain would drill in the recharge zone of our aquifer, without talking to us first to ensure appropriate mitigation measures and drilling techniques are used, is unacceptable. I have told you, and your teams, on multiple occasions that nothing is more important to us than our water. That Trans Mountain would do anything - even what you may consider minor drilling - that might have an impact on our aquifer without first picking up the phone and talking to me, or my Council if I was not available, is profoundly troubling.

You should know that I told the Trans Mountain representatives on the March 24th conference call that Trans Mountain's conduct was absolutely unacceptable, sneaky and even shameful. The collection of any data intended to

125

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) comply with Condition 39 should have been discussed with Council representatives Garcia and Manual and our hydrogeologist BC Groundwater. Your personnel had ample opportunity to do so. To act unilaterally, outside of our agreed upon process is disrespectful, speaks to the true extent of your commitment to consult Coldwater on the Condition 39 report, and further undermines any trust we had that your company truly cares about our rights or our drinking water. Immediate Request for Information Regarding Recent Field Work, Raw Data and Drill Cuttings and Proposal for Follow- up Work

While we disagree with the decision to obtain data about our aquifer, from above our reserve and within the aquifer recharge zone, without talking to us, we have no choice but to move forward now that the data has been obtained. It is very important that we review the data and drill cuttings and understand how the data was collected. We would also like to do a follow-up investigation to ensure the boreholes has been properly completed and pose no threat to our aquifer. We were told that two boreholes were drilled to a depth of 100 or 110 m. We were also told that an ERT line was run along the right of way. At this point, that is all we know about the work that was done. At the meeting we asked when the drilling and geophysical work was conducted. Your team committed to following up with this information and also providing all documents that purportedly notified us about this work.

Our hydrogeologist from BC Groundwater also explained how it is absolutely imperative that he have an opportunity to review the drill cuttings from the two boreholes that were drilled. Your consultant said that you had this information and could provide it. As set out in the enclosed March 25, 2020 memo re: March 24, 2020 Meeting with TMEP and Government of Canada, BC Groundwater is available to pick up the drill cutting splits the week of March 30 - April 3rd• We understand from our meeting that they can be made available.

The enclosed BC Groundwater memo outlines additional data and other information associated with the drilling and geophysics work that is requested. We anticipate you will provide a full answer to the questions and data requests given the commitment in our MOU that Trans Mountain and its consultants will share "any and all data" collected during the course of the MOU, including any data collected "on IR 1 or surrounding area". We would like to receive the requested information as soon as possible and certainly well before the completion of the hydrogeological report, which we now understand is not anticipated until mid-May. BC Groundwater has also recommended that Coldwater conduct a drill site inspection as soon as possible, before samples degrade, and to ensure proper abandonment of the

126

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) boreholes so that any artesian flow risk (and resulting impacts to our aquifer) is managed. If proper drilling and abandonment did not occur it is entirely possible that the borehole drilling in our recharge zone will have a serious impact on our drinking water. Investigation of the boreholes is therefore a priority for us.

In addition to the March 25, 2020 memo requesting details and data associated that work that has been done, we also enclose a March 27, 2020 memo re: Investigation of drilling carried out above IR 1 in the community well aquifer recharge area. This memo contains BC Groundwater's budget estimate for the immediate investigation of drilling carried out above IR 1 in our aquifer recharge area, collection of drilling cuttings and review of the data. Please confirm your agreement to cover these costs.

On Reserve Drilling Program

During our March 24th call, Trans Mountain confirmed that it no longer seeks to change the scope of work for the on- reserve drilling program or the further geophysical that we had agreed to. By letter received February 25th and as discussed on a conference call on March 3rd, Trans Mountain indicated its intention to change the scope of work for the drilling program but was unable to clearly articulate how it foresaw the program changing. Then, in a letter dated March 13th, Trans Mountain seemed to revert back to the program we had agreed to. This was confirmed during our March 24th call we were told that Trans Mountain has "backtracked" on the February 25/March 3rd intention to change the program. We are glad the drilling program and geophysical work is going to proceed.

We remain very concerned that Trans Mountain maintains that it will not use the agreed to Hydrogeological Study, consisting of exploratory drilling and further geophysical (TEM) work on IR 1, to inform the Condition 39 report. We do not agree with or otherwise support that decision, as the purpose of the Hydrogeological Study was to inform that report and ultimately understand the effects of the Modified East Alternative pipeline route before routing through the Coldwater Valley is determined.

In order to move forward we understand that your team will prepare an execution plan for the drilling program and geophysical program for our review. This will complement the Scope of Work and focus on implementation of the program. We have also scheduled a full day planning session (on April 17th) to finalize the execution plan and agree to next steps. We understand that there may be some back and forth between Trans Mountain and BC Groundwater on the execution plan before then, and that a draft of the execution plan will be provided by April 9.

127

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim)

We understand that Trans Mountain has some concerns regarding the flexibility of the s. 28 Indian Act permit. Our understanding is that the permit is pretty much ready to go, and has been for some time. As Carol Thomas, at Department of Justice indicated, Canada's finalization of the permit has been on hold as they understood Trans Mountain may want to make some changes. I was glad to see your team take responsibility for delaying finalization of the s. 28 permit during our call. Please remember that Council approved a near-final version of the permit last August. As discussed at our meeting, Trans Mountain provided proposed revisions to the permit by March 27, 2020 to Canada and our legal counsel and are now working together to finalize that permit.

Traditional Land Use Study

We provided a brief update on the Traditional Land Use Study. It is very near completion. There has been some minor delay due to the incorporation of the West Alternative re-route into the study. We are making best efforts to provide it to you and Canada by mid-April. In any event, Council has reviewed a preliminary draft and has the initial information needed to have some discussion with you regarding routing.

Closing

We would like to thank your team again for meeting with us during the evening of March 24th. We know this can be late for your team, many of whom are based in Calgary. As I said, we look forward to future meetings and to moving forward with more transparency and respect. My best wishes to you all during this hard time. I do look forward to our chief to chief meeting set for April 9, for 6 to 8:30 pm PST. Hopefully we can have video conferencing set up by then so we can meet "face to face".

We also ask that you provide the requested data regarding recent drilling and ERT work above our reserve and approve BC Groundwater's budget for necessary follow-up investigation as soon as possible. BC Groundwater is available to pick-up the drill cuttings this week.

kwukwscemxw (Thank you)

COLDWATER INDIAN BAND

Chief T. Lee Spahan

Encl. March 25, 2020 BC Groundwater Memo re: March 24th Meeting with TMEP and Government of Canada,

128

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) March 27, 2020 BC Groundwater Memo re: Investigation of drilling carried out above IR 1 in the community well aquifer recharge area

cc. Kimberly Lavoie, [email protected], NRCan, Christopher Sheppard, [email protected], NRCan, Paul Shenher, [email protected], Department of Justice, Carol Thomas, [email protected], Department of Justice, Coldwater Council, T. Carriou, [email protected], BC Groundwater, E. Hume, [email protected], Ratcliff & Company LLP Mar 31, Letter - Lee Spahan Regan From: Schlecker, Regan Team Member emailed a letter to Chief 2020 Sent (Coldwater Schlecker Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 4:13 PM Spahan, Coldwater Indian Band (CIB) Indian Band), (TMEP), Kevin To: Lee Spahan ; Gerome Garcia dated March 31, 2020 and enclosed a Dale August Thrasher ; Corrina Manuel draft of the Feasibility Study Report for (Coldwater (TMEP), Scott ; Laura Antoine review by Coldwater. The letter Indian Band), Stoness ; Dale August explained that Trans Mountain intends to Gerome Garcia (TMEP), Cyril ; 'Emma Hume ([email protected])' finalize and file the Feasibility Study (Coldwater Jenkins (TMEP), ; [email protected]; Thierry Carriou Report with the Canada Energy Indian Band), Neeka ([email protected]) Regulator on April 15, 2020. The letter Corrina Manuel Mottahedeh Cc: Lavoie, Kimberly (NRCAN/RNCAN) ; concluded inviting Coldwater to make (Coldwater (TMEP), Harold Shenher, Paul ; Thrasher, Kevin comments on the draft report and Indian Band, Henry (TMEP), ; Stoness, Scott explaining that Trans Mountain would be Laura Antoine James Kereliuk ; Jenkins, Cyril pleased to discuss the report further. (Coldwater (TMEP), Max ; Mottahedeh, Neeka Indian Band), Nock (TMEP), ; Henry, Harold Thierry Carriou Gary Youngman ; Kereliuk, James (Jamie) (Coldwater (TMEP) ; Nock, Max Indian Band), ; Youngman, Gary Emma Hume ; Whiteside2, Joseph (Coldwater (AADNC/AANDC) ; Indian Band), [email protected]; Sheppard2, Christopher (NRCAN/RNCAN) Nathan Hume (Coldwater Indian Band), Subject: Trans Mountain Expansion Project - FINAL DRAFT Report - Kimberly Lavoie Feasibility Study of the Coldwater IR West Alternative Route (Natural Resources Importance: High Canada), Glen Hargrave Dear Chief Spahan and Council: (Natural Resources I hope this message finds you safe and healthy during this time of Covid- Canada), Paul 19 measures. Shenher (Department of Further to our meeting of March 24, 2020, and commitment to share a Justice), copy of the Feasibility Study of the Coldwater IR West Alternative Route, Christopher please find the attached Report for your review and comment. Sheppard As communicated during our meeting, Trans Mountain will be filing this (Natural Report with the Canadian Energy Regulator (CER) on April 15, 2020. Resources Canada), Sincerely, Joseph Regan Whiteside Regan Schlecker, M.A.

129

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) (Indigenous Director, Indigenous Relations Services Trans Mountain Corporation Canada), ------Nathan Braun BY ELECTRONICAL MAIL (BC Ministry of Indigenous March 31, 2020 Relations and Reconciliation) Coldwater Indian Band 301- 230th Street Coldwater Reserve No. 1, BC Attention: Chief Lee Spahan

Dear Chief Spahan:

Re: Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC (Trans Mountain) Trans Mountain Expansion Project (Project) OF-Fac-Oil-T260-2013-03 61, OF-Fac-Oil-T260-2013-03 63 Detailed Route Hearing Order MH-004-2020 Draft Feasibility Study Report for Review

Trans Mountain is enclosing a draft of the Feasibility Study Report for review by the Coldwater Indian Band (Coldwater). As previously discussed, Trans Mountain intends to finalize and file the Feasibility Study Report with the Canada Energy Regulator on April 15, 2020 (C05514-1). We welcome Coldwater’s comments on the draft report and would be pleased to discuss this report further with you.

Yours truly,

Regan Schlecker Director, Indigenous Relations Trans Mountain Canada Inc. Encl. cc: D. August, Coldwater Councillors Garcia and Manuel, Coldwater L. Antoine, Coldwater E. Hume and N. Hume, Ratcliffe & Company (Counsel to Coldwater) Glenn Hargrove and Kimberly Lavoie, Natural Resources Canada Paul Shenher, DOJ Canada Apr 03, Letter - Lee Spahan Regan From: Schlecker, Regan Team Member emailed a letter to Chief 2020 Sent (Coldwater Schlecker Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 6:41 PM Spahan, Coldwater Indian Band (CIB). Indian Band), (TMEP), Kevin To: Lee Spahan ; Gerome Garcia The letter dated April 3, 2020 was Gerome Garcia Thrasher ; Corrina Manuel regarding the teleconference held on (Coldwater (TMEP), Scott ; Laura Antoine March 24, 2020 and in response to a Indian Band), Stoness ; Dale August March 30 letter sent to Trans Mountain Laura Antoine (TMEP), Cyril ; 'Emma Hume ([email protected])' President and CEO Ian Anderson. The (Coldwater Jenkins (TMEP), ; [email protected]; Thierry Carriou letter invited Coldwater to make Indian Band), Neeka ([email protected]) comments on the Feasibility Report Dale August Mottahedeh Cc: Lavoie, Kimberly (NRCAN/RNCAN) ; provided on March 31, 2020. The letter (Coldwater (TMEP), Harold Shenher, Paul ; Thrasher, Kevin indicated that while Trans Mountain was Indian Band), Henry (TMEP), ; Stoness, Scott pleased to hear that Coldwater would be Emma Hume James Kereliuk ; Jenkins, Cyril providing comments on the Feasibility (Coldwater (TMEP), Max ; Mottahedeh, Neeka Report, it respectfully declined to delay Indian Band), Nock (TMEP), ; Henry, Harold the filing of the Feasibility Report, Nathan Hume Gary Youngman ; Kereliuk, James (Jamie) explaining that Trans Mountain would file (Coldwater (TMEP) ; Nock, Max the report on April 15, 2020. The letter

130

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Indian Band), ; Youngman, Gary explained that there was no practical Thierry Carriou ; Whiteside2, Joseph difference between Coldwater providing (Coldwater (AADNC/AANDC) ; comments on the Feasibility Report prior Indian Band), [email protected]; Sheppard2, Christopher (NRCAN/RNCAN) to April 15, 2020, as opposed to a Kimberly Lavoie reasonable time after that date. As Trans (Natural Subject: Trans Mountain Response Letter RE: March 24th Mountain informed Coldwater on the Resources Teleconference Meeting & March 30th Letter Teleconference, the Feasibility Report is Canada), Importance: High the starting point for our discussions on Christopher Dear Chief Spahan and Council: routing, not the end point. The letter Sheppard I hope this message finds you and the Coldwater community safe and requested that Coldwater provide an (Natural healthy during this time of Covid-19 measures. expected date for when it would be Resources Further to our meeting of March 24, 2020, and your letter of March 30, providing the Traditional Land Use Canada), Paul 2020, please find our attached response for your consideration. Study. In addition, the letter confirmed Shenher Sincerely, that Trans Mountain will provide (Department of Regan Coldwater with a draft execution plan for Justice), Joseph Regan Schlecker, M.A. the on-reserve field program on or before Whiteside Director, Indigenous Relations April 9th. The letter asked Coldwater to (Indigenous Trans Mountain Corporation provide further clarity on whether there Services Office 604 268.3012 were any outstanding issues relating to Canada), Cell 778 686.8177 reserve access for the s. 28 permit. The Nathan Braun [email protected] letter concluded indicating that Ian (BC Ministry of ------Anderson looked forward to his meeting Indigenous April 3, 2020 with Chief Spahan. Relations and Coldwater Indian Band PO Box 4600 Reconciliation) Merritt, B.C. V1K 1B8 Attention: Chief Lee Spahan Dear Chief Spahan, Re: March 24th Teleconference Meeting and March 30th Letter

I write further to our teleconference held on March 24, 2020 (the “Teleconference”) and in response to your letter of March 30, 2020 (the “Letter”).

The Letter is addressed to Ian Anderson. However, as Mr. Anderson did not participate in the Teleconference he asked me to provide you with Trans Mountain’s response to your comments on the West Alternative feasibility study, data from off-reserve geotechnical work that Trans Mountain will rely on to meet Canada Energy Regulator (“CER”) Condition 39 and Environmental Assessment Office (“EAO”) Condition 25, the on-reserve field program, and the traditional land use study (“TLUS”).

As a preliminary comment, we were disappointed and frustrated by the tone and accusations in your Letter. Trans Mountain fully understands that these issues are important to Coldwater; however, we do not consider it to be productive for the parties to spend considerable time and resources drafting letters after every meeting subjectively characterizing (and in some cases mischaracterizing) the content of the meeting. Trans Mountain is committed to engaging with Coldwater in good faith on routing through the Coldwater Valley, as we always have been. We hope that going forward, both parties can focus their efforts on trying to cooperate and achieve consensus on this important matter.

West Alternative Feasibility Study

131

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Trans Mountain provided Coldwater with a copy of the West Alternative feasibility study report (“Feasibility Report”) on March 31, 2020 (as we committed to do on the Teleconference). The Feasibility Report confirms that the West Alternative is feasible from a technical perspective. It is based on substantial work by our team, including meaningful adjustments to avoid geological challenges that would have made the route unfeasible.

It is good news that the potential route is technically feasible. However, contrary to your Letter, there are many other issues associated with the West Alternative beyond technical feasibility and Trans Mountain has more work to do before it will be in a position to make a decision on routing. We look forward to engaging with Coldwater about the West Alternative and discussing our concerns (and how they may be addressed) in accordance with Commitment 4,167.

We also look forward to receiving your comments on the Feasibility Report. As noted on the Teleconference, we will file the Feasibility Report with the CER on April 15, 2020. Among other things, the Feasibility Report summarizes Trans Mountain’s consultations with Coldwater and describes and justifies how Trans Mountain has incorporated Coldwater’s comments into that report and/or additional work that Trans Mountain will complete in the near future, including archaeological work that will occur as soon as the snow melts and when the ground has thawed. Your Letter incorrectly suggests that we said the work would occur in the summer; however, Trans Mountain has stated orally, and in writing, that it expects the work to start in spring 2020 (see, for example, the February 28th letter from Max Nock). We would be pleased for Coldwater to participate in this archaeological work, where appropriate, including through monitoring. We (again) ask that Coldwater identify individuals for training to be completed in advance of the archaeological work commencing.

Trans Mountain respectfully declines to delay filing the Feasibility Report. On July 23, 2019, Trans Mountain requested Coldwater’s comments on a proposed schedule of steps for the West Alternative feasibility study that would have facilitated a collaborative process, including regular tripartite meetings, site visits to collect information, and a consultation period for Coldwater to provide comments on a draft report. Trans Mountain followed-up with Coldwater about this schedule in several letters sent in August and September 2019. However, Coldwater did not accept Trans Mountain’s proposal for next steps or provide Trans Mountain with a substantive response to its proposal, nor did Coldwater accept Trans Mountain’s offers for technical meetings and on- reserve presentations while the West Alternative feasibility study was ongoing. We are pleased to hear that you anticipate providing us with comments on the Feasibility Report but we cannot, at this late date, revert to the process that we proposed in summer 2019.

In any event, there is no practical difference between Coldwater providing comments on the Feasibility Report prior to April 15, 2020, as opposed to a reasonable time after that date. As Trans Mountain informed Coldwater on the Teleconference, the Feasibility Report is the starting point for our discussions on routing, not the end point. Trans Mountain welcomes

132

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Coldwater’s comments on the Feasibility Report while we seek a consensus on routing in accordance with Commitment 4,167. As we proposed on the Teleconference, Trans Mountain has already reached out to Coldwater to discuss the logistics for a virtual presentation of the Feasibility Report, including several large maps. We have proposed Wednesday, April 8th to set-up and test the equipment. We look forward to receiving your response. We confirm that we will deliver the large maps at the same time.

Trans Mountain’s Geotechnical Work on the Approved Right-of-Way During the Teleconference, Wayne Speller of Golder delivered a presentation to Coldwater on the content of the hydrogeological study report (the “Hydrogeological Report”) that Trans Mountain is preparing to meet the requirements of CER Condition 39 and EAO Condition 25. Mr. Speller’s presentation included, among other things, a summary of data sources that Trans Mountain will rely on to supplement data sources available to Trans Mountain in 2017, such as:

(1) geotechnical data obtained from two boreholes drilled off-reserve, on the approved (east) right-of-way (the “ROW”); and (2) geophysical data off-reserve, on or near the ROW. (3) It was these two data sources that Coldwater raised questions about during the Teleconference. However, there are additional new information sources that Trans Mountain intends to rely on, including: (4) field data from the 2019 pre/post-freshet program that Trans Mountain funded; (5) available off-reserve groundwater and surface water sampling; (6) publicly available data such as the Nicola Watershed Aquifer Classification and Mapping published by the BC Ministry of the Environment & Golder; and (7) various Trans Mountain documents, reports and data sets such as Trans Mountain’s risk assessment for the Expansion Project and (previously confidential) modelling of potential spill scenarios. With respect to the geotechnical work on the ROW (the “Off-Reserve Geotechnical Work”), Cyril Jenkins explained on the Teleconference that the work was pre-planned. The work was approved to be conducted by the BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (“MOTI”) on MOTI lands, through permits attached at Tab A (which include a map of the two boreholes: BH- BGC20-CQC-02, which is 51.6 m deep, and BH-BGC20- CQC-03, which is 58.8 m deep).

As Mr. Jenkins further explained, this work was planned for exploratory geotechnical purposes (including confirming/validating the planned construction design). As originally contemplated, it was not related to the scope of the planned Hydrogeological Study. However, when it became clear that the on-reserve field program was well behind schedule because Coldwater had (still) not granted Trans Mountain access to Coldwater IR #1 to commence that program, Trans Mountain elected to work with its geotechnical team to gather data from the geotechnical boreholes that it hoped would be useful for the Hydrogeological Report. On the Teleconference, Coldwater accused Trans Mountain of engaging in the Off-Reserve Geotechnical Work without notice to Coldwater. Councilor Garcia accused Trans Mountain of going behind Coldwater’s

133

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) back. Councilor Manual accused Trans Mountain of moving forward in a “bullshit” way.

In your Letter, you further accused Trans Mountain of proceeding without notice to Coldwater, and characterized Trans Mountain’s conduct as “sneaky” and “shameful”. Directing this type of language at Trans Mountain professionals that have dedicated significant time and effort to working with Coldwater over the past several months and years is disrespectful and counterproductive to moving our relationship forward. As noted above, the Off-Reserve Geotechnical Work was carried out on MOTI lands. As the work was carried out to explore geotechnical features associated with Trans Mountain’s approved route and was confined to MOTI lands, there was limited or no potential impacts to Coldwater. Notwithstanding this, Trans Mountain did provide Coldwater with notice of the Off-Reserve Geotechnical Work well before that work began. On December 30, 2019, Ian Anderson stated the following in a letter addressed to you with copies to Kimberly Lavoie (Natural Resources Canada), your legal counsel (Nathan Hume), and Councilors Manual and Garcia:

In the next three months, Trans Mountain will work with the available relevant information relating to Coldwater’s aquifer to prepare a hydrogeological study report or a substantive update in compliance with C39 and the Coldwater Commitments. This update will include applicable information and data collected in Trans Mountain’s geotechnical program planned for the approved, off-reserve right of way, as well as additional analysis specifically targeted to assess risk to the aquifer. Trans Mountain will continue to work with Coldwater to obtain its consent for the planned on-reserve drilling so that preliminary data or a progress update can be included in Trans Mountain’s March 31st filing. However, if Coldwater does not permit Trans Mountain to commence on-reserve drilling by early February 2020, Trans Mountain will proceed to obtain other sources of reliable data in order to maintain the planned in-service date. In this scenario, Trans Mountain will complete the hydrogeological study report without on-reserve drilling data. (Underlining added.)

A copy of Trans Mountain’s December 30th letter with cover email is attached as Tab B to this letter.

Coldwater did not respond to Trans Mountain’s December 30th letter until February 14, 2020. However, your February 14th response did not mention the geotechnical program or ask Trans Mountain for any information regarding the Off-Reserve Geotechnical Work. On January 30, 2020, Susan Stobbart of Trans Mountain emailed you, Councilor Antoine, Dale August, and representatives of other nearby Indigenous groups with a Notice of Activity for Geotechnical Drilling to commence the following week. A copy of the email and Notice of Activity are attached to this letter as Tab C. The Notice of Activity invited inquiries. However, Coldwater did not respond. In contrast, two other Indigenous groups sent Trans Mountain inquiries regarding the Notice of Activity and Off-Reserve Geotechnical Work and received information packages from Trans Mountain in response.

134

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Trans Mountain again raised its Off-Reserve Geotechnical Work with Coldwater in a letter dated February 20, 2020. Coldwater did not ask Trans Mountain any questions about that work until the Teleconference held over one month later. Nor did Coldwater agree to Trans Mountain’s February 25th offer to meet to discuss the contents of the report, which would have included the Off-Reserve Geotechnical Work. Your Letter (and BC Groundwater’s memorandum in support thereof) asserts that the Off-Reserve Geotechnical Work breached Trans Mountain’s obligations under the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) between Trans Mountain and Coldwater. Respectfully, it does not.

Leaving aside the issue of notice (which Trans Mountain provided), the MOU is about an on- reserve field program that Trans Mountain had hoped to implement in a timely manner in order to obtain data to support a Hydrogeological Report to be filed in a reasonable time. The Off- Reserve Geotechnical Work is not within the scope of the MOU, nor does Coldwater’s hydrogeological consultant, BC Groundwater, have a formal role in, or right to notice about, such work. Trans Mountain’s team does not notify Coldwater’s consultants about details in letters to Coldwater that are outside the scope of work that the Band has authorized Trans Mountain to discuss with them.

Moreover, Coldwater did not mention the Off-Reserve Geotechnical Work in other forums such as conference calls regarding the on-reserve field program or scheduled calls on outstanding s. 28 permit issues. You have questioned Trans Mountain’s commitment to consult with Coldwater on the hydrogeological study. Chief, you are aware that Trans Mountain has dedicated significant personnel and resources over 2+ years of engagement for the on-reserve field program because it is very much committed to consultation and engagement with Coldwater. Indeed, Trans Mountain maintained its commitment to engage Coldwater even after Coldwater unilaterally put the on- reserve field program “on hold” for 9 months from September 2018 to March 2019.

While Trans Mountain values its relationship with Coldwater and seeks to build a long-term relationship that will be mutually beneficial to us for the lifecycle of the Expansion Project and beyond, Trans Mountain has obligations to the Canadian public to advance the Expansion Project on a timely basis and in accordance with the conditions, commitments and accommodations that the Governor in Council relied on when it approved the Expansion Project for a second time. “Consultation” does not require that Trans Mountain obtain Coldwater’s approval prior to conducting off- reserve work on its approved ROW pursuant to its statutory rights and powers under the Canadian Energy Regulator Act. This is doubly so when Coldwater has not expressed any interest in discussing that work with Trans Mountain and the work itself does not have meaningful potential to impact Coldwater’s rights or reserve. In your Letter, you express concern that the Off-Reserve Geotechnical Work may have adversely impacted Coldwater’s aquifer. In our view, there is no basis whatsoever for this concern.

First, the consultants that directed the Off-Reserve Geotechnical Work (BGC) provided appropriately qualified staff either as licensed

135

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) P.Eng/P.Geos in good standing with Engineers and Geoscientists BC (“EGBC”) and with competency in geotechnical engineering (or acting under the supervision of a licensed professional with competency in geotechnical engineering/hydrogeology in good standing with EGBC). The geophysical consultants from Golder are also licensed in their field of practice.

Second, the boreholes were drilled by certified well drillers and were completed in compliance with the BC Groundwater Protection Regulation. These are proven measures to protect groundwater resources from potential contamination as a result of borehole drilling.

Third, the geotechnical borehole logs (attached as Tab D) indicate that BH-02 was “grouted to 0.5 m below surface using cement-bentonite grout mix, then topped 0.3 m of portland cement” and that BH-03 was “grouted to 0.3 m below surface using cement-bentonite grout mix, and backfilled to surface with bentonite chip”.

Therefore, the work listed in BC Groundwater’s memorandum attached to your Letter is unnecessary and Trans Mountain will not provide funds for BC Groundwater or any other consultants from Coldwater to perform that work.

In the interests of transparency, and as a demonstration of good faith that is above and beyond what Trans Mountain would generally agree to, Trans Mountain has no issues with Coldwater accessing remaining soil and rock core samples2 at BGC Engineering’s offices, subject to BGC Engineering’s availability and any policies it has in place to protect its staff in light of the COVID- 19 pandemic. However, at all times, BGC Engineering will remain in control of the samples. Please contact Alex Baumgard at BGC Engineering ([email protected]) to discuss this matter, copying Harold Henry, Kevin Thrasher, Cyril Jenkins, Neeka Mottahedeh and myself.

We respectfully ask that any analysis conducted by BC Groundwater or any other of Coldwater’s consultants include the professional qualifications of the author(s) to opine on geotechnical matters. CER Condition 39 and EAO Condition 25 are regulatory requirements imposed on Trans Mountain. The CER and EAO, not Coldwater or its consultants, will decide whether Trans Mountain’s work satisfies those respective conditions. As the CER stated in its February 3rd letter: “the onus remains on Trans Mountain to submit its Condition 39 report when it is of the view that the requirements of that Condition have been met, notwithstanding any degree of consensus between Trans Mountain and Coldwater on the report.” Based on the data collected, Trans Mountain is confident that its Hydrogeological Report will satisfy both conditions and it is therefore obligated in the Canadian public interest to file the Hydrogeological Report on or before mid-May of this year. Coldwater will have an opportunity to provide its comments on the Hydrogeological Report once it is filed with the CER. It is appropriate that Coldwater undertake its review with an open mind, rather than prejudge the adequacy of the report (which continues to be implied by your Letter).

On-Reserve Field Program

136

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim)

Contrary to your Letter, Trans Mountain was not and is not seeking to “change the scope of work” for the on-reserve field program in light of Trans Mountain’s necessary decision to decouple that program from the Hydrogeological Report. Rather, Trans Mountain offered to discuss possible changes to that scope of work with Coldwater given that the same program is now decoupled from CER Condition 39. Coldwater ultimately expressed concerns and declined. Trans Mountain listened to your concerns and decided to proceed as agreed, so long as Trans Mountain is granted field flexibility required to execute the program in a sensible, efficient manner.

Trans Mountain’s commitment to the on-reserve field program was outlined in our March 13, 2020 letter from Cyril Jenkins. In that letter, Trans Mountain outlined a number of next steps to proceed with the program. We have not yet received a response and would appreciate receiving one well in advance of our planned April 17th meeting. Trans Mountain confirms that it will provide Coldwater with a draft execution plan for the on- reserve field program on or before April 9th. To be clear, and contrary to your Letter, Trans Mountain did not “take responsibility” for delaying the s. 28 permit after Council approved what you say was a “near-final” version last August. Trans Mountain was prepared to commence the on-reserve field program long before August 2019. The s. 28 permit “delay” issue that Trans Mountain referred to on the Teleconference was a direct result of potential revisions to reflect the fact that the program would no longer be included in the Hydrogeological Report. Further, only this past month (after Trans Mountain informed Coldwater that delays required Trans Mountain to decouple the on- reserve field program from the Hydrogeological Report) has Coldwater advised Trans Mountain that it is prepared to consent to the terms of the draft s. 28 permit so that Trans Mountain can access the reserve. Trans Mountain provided its comments on the latest draft of the s. 28 permit on March 27, 2020. We trust that these comments are satisfactory to Coldwater and that we can proceed to finalize the permit.

Trans Mountain also remains unclear as to whether all outstanding issues relating to reserve access have been addressed by Coldwater that would permit Trans Mountain to enter on the reserve once the s. 28 permit is finalized. Trans Mountain would appreciate clarity from Coldwater on that point as soon as possible so that it can proceed to move forward with the on-reserve field program.

Traditional Land Use Study

Thank you for confirming that the TLUS is “very near completion”. When Trans Mountain asked Coldwater on the Teleconference for more precise details around the timing of when the TLUS will be available, Coldwater suggested mid-April. The TLUS will likely be important in informing routing discussions between Trans Mountain and Coldwater under Commitment 4,167. As such, we would appreciate Coldwater providing a date that it expects to provide the TLUS to Trans Mountain so that Trans Mountain can plan to receive and review that information as soon as possible.

137

West Alternative Feasibility Study Consultation Log – Coldwater Indian Band (March 2020)

Event Community Coldwater Indian Band Comment Trans Mountain Comment Event Type Team Members Details Date Contacts (written comments verbatim) (written comments verbatim) Closing

Thank you again for attending an evening Teleconference and accommodating this alternative form of meeting in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. Trans Mountain agrees with Coldwater that we should not allow COVID-19 to delay or preclude our discussions on matters of importance between Trans Mountain and Coldwater. Through technology (including the audio visual equipment that Trans Mountain is providing to Coldwater), much work can be done while respecting physical distancing and other public health recommendations.

Trans Mountain looks forward to Mr. Anderson’s “Chief to Chief” meeting with you. As you know, Mr. Anderson has been asking for such a meeting for some time. We also look forward to the planning meeting scheduled for April 17 so that the on-reserve field program can get started after years of delay.

Yours truly, Gary Youngman Project Management Lead, Coldwater Trans Mountain Pipeline L.P. cc: Dale August (Coldwater) Councilors Garcia and Manuel (Coldwater) Laura Antoine (Coldwater) Thierry Carriou (BC Groundwater) Emma Hume and Nathan Hume (Ratcliff) Kimberly Lavoie and Christopher Sheppard (Natural Resources Canada) Paul Shenher and Carol Thomas (Department of Justice Canada) Scott Stoness, Harold Henry, Cyril Jenkins, Neeka Mottahedeh, Max Nock and Kevin Thrasher (Trans Mountain) Alex Baumgard (BGC Engineering) Wayne Speller (Golder Associates) 1 Trans Mountain is still waiting for BC Groundwater to provide key data from this program. 2 Soil samples and drill core were collected during drilling activities in accordance with standard geotechnical drilling practices. Selected samples were submitted to Golder’s laboratory, located in Burnaby, BC, for geotechnical testing. Remaining soil samples and drill core not selected for analyses were transported to BGC’s office in Vancouver, BC. April 9, Video Lee Spahan Ian Anderson Trans Mountain’s President and CEO, 2020 Conference (Coldwater (TMEP), Kevin Ian Anderson, held a without prejudice Indian Band), Trasher (TMEP) meeting with Chief Spahan to discuss Larry Antoine various issues surrounding the Project (Coldwater and the existing pipeline. Indian Band), Nathan Hume (Coldwater Indian Band)

138

Appendix F

February 28, 2020

Chief XXX FN XXX XXX

Dear Chief XX & Council:

Re: TMEP Consultation Regarding Potential Western Alternative Route Around Coldwater Reserve #1

As you may be aware, Trans Mountain is engaging with the Coldwater Band on routing for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project. In particular, Trans Mountain and Coldwater are currently exploring a route option, referred to as the Western Alternative Route ("Western Route") for further analysis and discussion as a potential option to address concerns related to protection of the Coldwater aquifer.

Trans Mountain recognizes that the consideration of any route alternative requires consultation with those Indigenous groups who may potentially be affected. Following, Trans Mountain respectfully seeks your input regarding the potential Western Route that is under consideration and contemplates placement of the new 36” expansion line on a route located west of the Coldwater Reserve #1.

Please refer to the enclosed map.

Background

Further to the re-approval of the TMEP by the Governor in Council (GIC) on June 18, 2019, the route approved by the Canada Energy Regulator (CER) for the Coldwater Valley, commonly referred to as the "East Alternate Route", runs outside of the Coldwater Reserve #1 and between the Coquihalla Highway. Please refer to the “current route” on the enclosed map.

As part of the GIC approval, Trans Mountain committed to undertake a feasibility study of the proposed Western Route and also committed to filing the study with the CER by March 31, 2020.

Trans Mountain respectfully seeks to consult with you regarding the proposed alternative Western Route.

Insert Office Address here

Western Route Feasibility Work

Field assessment for the Western Route is ongoing with a feasibility report due March 31, 2020. The current status of field assessment is as follows:

• Engineering- Routing, ground-truthing and right of Way foot print - COMPLETE

• Geotechnical- Bore holes, terrain mapping and identifying Geohazards - COMPLETE

o HDD bore holes (3) South end of the Western route – 2 COMPLETE, 1 PENDING permit

o HDD bore holes (5) North end of the western route - Due to geohazard (slide area) identified in the original study, Trans Mountain determined that this area is not suitable for pipeline or HDD construction and 2 alternative routes for the North end only are currently being assessed. The Southern portion of the Western alternative will remain unchanged (please refer to map) IN- PROGRESS

• Environmental- Wildlife, Aquatics, vegetation and soils assessment – COMPLETE

• Archaeology - Permit received; however, the field assessment cannot be completed until Spring 2020, following snow melt - PENDING

As indicated above, the slide area located at the North end of the Western Route has been determined to be a hazard that should be avoided. For this reason, Trans Mountain identified the following two alternative routes that are being assessed for this area and detailed in the enclosed map:

• Option 1- GB route

• This is the preferred option This option will change the start point of the original Western Route South by 1.3 km. This option is 6.2km long and will rejoin the original Western Route

• Option 2- AB route

• This option is not the preferred Route and will only be considered as a back up to option 1. This option will change the beginning of the original Western Route by 5.8 Km and will also rejoin the original Western Route.

Please note that both options will include trenchless methods under the Cold Water River.

Timeline for Assessment

Prior to being in a position to recommend a new route, each of the two routes will require additional field assessment. A preliminary route study will first be completed to identify any insurmountable challenges, prior to a more extensive field program.

January 2020 Preliminary (desktop study) - Completed

February - March 2020 Field Assessments for the new options including Geotech bore holes (BH 1-5), environmental studies and preliminary engineering

March 31 2020 Submission of feasibility study to CER

Spring 2020 Further consultation on routing followed by route selection and CER routing process

Indigenous Engagement

Please note that while feasibility studies of the Western Route must be filed with the CER by March 31, 2020, consultation with your community will continue until a final route decision is made; expected in Summer 2020.

If you have any comments or concerns regarding the above route alternatives, or require further information, please contact your TMEP Indigenous Relations Advisor directly. Trans Mountain appreciates receiving any input you may have by March 20, 2020, and will follow up with you in the interim to further discuss this matter.

Thank you in advance for your consideration. We look forward to receiving your comments and engaging further with you.

Sincerely,

Regan Schlecker Director, Indigenous Relations Trans Mountain Corporation

Encl.

Cc Advisor

NEILSON ST

1724.01 1724 1730 1726 1728 1727 AK 2 1729 # 1732 # PC7117.272 BH-4 ORIGINAL WEST 1733 1734 PC7117.273 ROUTE AB ALTERNATE ROUTE 1735 SPECTRA ± 1736 1738 PC7117.28 AK 3 PC 7117.27 ## BH-3 TELUS CABLE + ## 7PC7117.3U AK 1 GK 0 1739AK 0 BH-2 7+U ## PC7117.261 PC7117.24 PC7117.25 7+U AK 5 7+U LANDSLIDE ## PC7117.26 ADJ221.01 PC7117.22 PC7117.262 7+U PC7117.23 AREA 7+U ADJ221.02 BH-1 # 7+U # 1740 GK 5 BEGIN 7+ PC7117.21 UC W 6 - 0 1 AK 4 C W 6 - 0 1 PC7117.251 REROUTE ## PC7117.18 7+U C W 6 - 0 4 PC7117.19 1741 AK 10## 1749 7+C W 6 - 0 3 1749.01 1749.02 U 1749.03 1749.08 1749.04 7+U ROUTE GB 1749.09 1749.05 1749.06 AK 5 C W 6 - 0 5 GK 10 # PC7117.171 1749.1 # GK 1 # 1749.07 # # # PC7117.17 1750 7+U MIDDAY VALLEY ROAD PC7117.16 AR0322 C W 6 - 0 2 ADJ218.01 7+U C W 6 - G H - 0 2 7+ U C W 6 - G H - 0 1 BH-5 BH-4 PC7117.14 PC7117.15 ## BH-3 GK 3 BH-2 GK 4 ## BH-1 GK 2 COLDWATER RIVER ## PC7117.13 PC7117.12

EXISTING TMPL WEST ALTERNATE COLDWATER IR ROUTE

## AK 15

PC7117.09 PC7117.082

GK 15## COQUIHALLA HIGHWAY

APPROVED ROUTE KETTLE VALLEY TRAIL 1753.01

LEGEND PC7117.1 7+U CANCELLED BOREHOLE EXISTING TMPL SPECTRA PIPELINES PROPOSED BOREHOLE ORIGINAL WESTERN ALTERNATE ROUTE TELUS CABLE ## ROUTE AB KPs COQUIHALLA HIGHWAY COLDWATER IR ## ROUTE GB KPs ROADS LANDSLIDE AREA ROUTE AB COLDWATER RIVER AFFECTED PARCELS 1757.01 ROUTE GB HDD LINE

PAULS BASIN ROAD ADJ218 APPROVED ROUTE (SSEID 005.19) SCARPS

PC7117.084 COLDWATER ROAD TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE

1759 PC7117.081 1760 ## TRANS MOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT AK 20 ADJ216.02 ADJ216.01 0 2 COLDWATER IR REROUTE GK 19.706## KILOMETRES AK 20.599 END REROUTE COORDINATE SYSTEM: NAD 1983 UTM ZONE 10N PROJECTION: TRANSVERSE MERCATOR DATUM: NORTH AMERICAN 1983 1761 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 2020/02/27 THIS DRAWING IS PREPARED SOLELY FOR THE USE OF TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE LTD. UPI PROJECTS CANADA LTD. ASSUMES NO LIABILITY TO ANY OTHER PARTY FOR ANY ADJ215.02 REPRESENTATIONS CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING. THIS DOCUMENT IS PROVIDED BY TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE LTD. (TMPL), FOR USE BY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT ONLY. THIS SCALE ROUTE DRAWING NUMBER SHEET NO. REV INFORMATION IS CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY TO TMPL AND IS NOT TO BE PROVIDED TO ANY OTHER RECIPIENT WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF TMPL. IT IS NOT TO BE USED FOR LEGAL, ENGINEERING OR SURVEYING PURPOSES, NOR FOR DOING ANY WORK ON OR AROUND TMPL'S PIPELINES AND FACILITIES, ALL OF WHICH REQUIRE TMPL'S PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL.

SIZE: ISO A0 - VERSION: A A0- VERSION: SIZE: ISO 1:17,500 VARIOUS M002-PM02973 1 of 1 B UPI DOCUMENT NUMBER: 19731-510-GNW-00199