To: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St

To: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON, M4T 1M2 Fax: 416-952-1573

From: Adolfo Aranda and Ludmila Aranda << personal information removed >>

Emails: << personal information removed >> << personal information removed >> Telephone: << personal information removed >>

Ref: Milton Logistics Hub Project

Our concerns regarding what aspects of the environment may be affected by this project and what should be examined during the environmental assessment:

We do not support the establishment of this project in this location. It is so close to The Greenbelt which is a permanently protected area of green space, farmland, forests, wetlands, and watersheds. The Greenbelt is part of the protected countryside of The Niagara Escarpment. There are not many such naturally beautiful places like Milton Mountain and Mount Nemo around the GTA. Why we have to add this ugly mammoth yard of rail tracks at the bottom of Mount Nemo?

So much train and truck pollution will be added. The 401 highway is narrow and absolutely incapable of supporting the extra trucks to be added between Milton and Toronto.

CN has been the victim of several scary derailments which scares many people off.

Immense thanks for taking our concerns into consideration.

Adolfo and Ludmila Aranda, Milton, ON June 19, 2015 [email protected]

To Whom it May Concern,

Re: Milton CN Intermodal

I am currently living in Mississauga while my brand new First Home is being built. Exciting right? I was very excited when I initially bought my brand new town home by myself, proud of my independence and excited that I would be in an area of Milton that I truly loved. I enjoy driving down Britannia Road daily to my job, as a teacher in Halton, and passing by farms, cows, horses, old barns and seeing the escarpment in the distance. I was especially excited when I met with my lawyer and he told me the other side of Britannia was considered green space that could not be built on, perfect! A view of trees from my balcony. However, my excitement quickly faded to anger and outrage and I questioned why I bought my house. Why? Because of the news of CN building an Intermodal just down the street from my not yet built, brand new home.

As a first time homebuyer, I’m sure you can imagine my frustration and sadness knowing that I’d now be surrounded by ugly noise pollution, air pollution, lights from the Intermodal on 24/7, and the sight, sounds and danger of 1200+ transport trucks passing by my house on the daily. I could not believe CN could allow this to be built in such an agricultural area and SO close to residential houses!!

As an Educator, I know and understand how important CN Rail is to our Country and Economy. However, as an Educator I DO NOT understand how CN can think this location is okay. Literally being placed next to people’s houses and farms who have lived there for years, and being placed across the street from current and future residential is disgusting. To think of all of the families who will be outside playing breathing in the freshly polluted air, listening to the noise and dangers of transport trucks traveling through roads that are in NO WAY ready for the surplus of truck traffic that will be using them (ie. Britannia Rd. Bronte Rd., Tremaine) and the view I will have from my balcony of the Intermodal ‘light show’ day and night is so saddening.

I write this to you to please hear my concerns; there is better land in Milton further away from the Escarpment, residential houses, schools, and farmland. The CN Intermodal MUST be moved to a different location, closer to the 401, in an industrial area where trucks can enter quickly without traveling on small one lane roads such as Britannia, Bronte, and Tremaine.

What are my exact concerns? • Traffic increase: 1500+ additional trucks daily to START! • Water Pollution & Contamination • Health Impacts • Traffic Safety, how will our streets be safe with all of those trucks on them 24/7?! • Open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year • Safety concerns. CN says they are building bike trails. Who will want to ride these trails in the midst of all of the transport trucks? • Incompatible to current and future land zoning • Increase in train length • Delays at rail crossings • Road deterioration • Increase in taxes to support the additional cost for infrastructure development and repairs required due to intermodal terminal traffic • Health and safety implications due to unknown content of intermodal containers stored at yard and passing through • Noise, Light and Air Pollution so close to residential houses, farms, schools and the escarpment • Trucks idling at the yard or on the roads with diesel emissions: a Class One Carcinogen, known to increase cancer risks • The disturbance of noise to the residents of Milton will be detrimental to our health, peace and enjoyment of our homes and park areas. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly. • The disturbance of very bright lighting will be detrimental to the residents of Milton health. Light at night is known to affect sleep patterns of residents living near a highly lighted yard. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly. • The disturbance of very bright lighting will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road. It is known that bright night light changes the breeding calls of birds in the area. CN has reported a Species at Risk on the Proposed Site. Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) and Barn Swallow. • According to Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting, Frogs have been found to inhibit their mating calls when they are exposed to excessive light at night, reducing their reproductive capacity. • According to Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting, the feeding behavior of bats also is altered by artificial light. Researchers have blamed light pollution for declines in populations of North American moths, almost all small rodents and carnivores. “We just now understand the nocturnality of many creatures,” says Chad Moore, Night Sky Program manager with the National Park Service. “Not protecting the night will destroy the habitat of many animals.” • Spawning fish, which swim from Indian Creek, across the creek under Tremaine Road, through the pond, then by stream across the proposed CN Terminal Site and continue across under First Line will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable. • Water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable. • Emergency Preparedness: increase for safety times for emergency responders • Proximity to residential development: noise, lights, vibrations, safety concerns and air pollution • Increased traffic volume makes local roads less safe for everyone. These roads are already quite busy during rush hour full of cars with families. • View from the escarpment will change forever • Increased commuting time • Diminished quality of life • Possible loss of tourism in Milton • Decrease in property values. As a First Time Home Buyer this is extremely discouraging. • Preliminary construction of a 400 acre Intermodal Rail Terminal with potential for growth to ?..

I truly hope you take into consideration what the town of Milton is saying as one voice. Please, DO NOT allow this Intermodal to be built in this Residential and Agricultural location.

Sincerely, Alessandra Travali

From: Alison Griffiths To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: comment on CN"s Milton"s intermodal proposal Date: May 28, 2015 1:13:26 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

While intermodal hubs are essential aspects of railway operations in Canada, I believe it is vital to locate them properly to avoid negative impact on the environment and nearby housing and schools.

I am familiar with switching yards and logistics hubs across the country and all those I have viewed are largely located in industrial areas. Those that are not were pre-existing in some form and housing\park projects arrived later.

The plans for the development of south Milton have been in place for years. While train tracks do bisect the planned development the noise will be mitigated by fencing, landscaping etc.

However, the impact of the 400 acre intermodal terminal cannot be mitigated in any way to avoid affecting hundreds of homes, nearby schools and, equally important, the views and recreational pleasure from the surrounding escarpment lands. Noise, light and air pollution will be constant. Additionally, the sensitive Carolina forest lands adjacent to the terminal will be ruined. Nothing CN says will change this. If you examine CN's corporate culture of cost cutting in order to boost profits and shareholder value it is very clear that once the hub is constructed CN's promises to mitigate, clean and calm will wither.

I am a CN shareholder and have vigorously demanded that CN develop far better good corporate citizenship.

I also do not believe that there are no other appropriate lands for this development. When CN's plan was to develop an over 1,000 acre parcel for an intermodal facility in 2000, it was probably true that the railway did not own a parcel of that size near or in industrial lands. But 400 acres is a different story.

The other issue of environmental and wellness concern is the fact that the 400 acres sits within that original 1200 acres, most of it purchased anonymously in the late 1990s. Once the 400 hub is developed, I expect industrial creep will overwhelm the rest of the land, currently farmland. No one will want to farm, live or do business anywhere near the terminal.

I urge you to reject this proposal.

Regards, Alison Griffiths. From: Amgad Ayad To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: CN Milton Terminal Date: June 21, 2015 7:28:37 PM

Good evening,

I am writing this E-mail to vent MY EXTREEM CONCERNS with this regard. I understand that this federal entity handles this issue.

AS you know, Milton is a small town, not even city, with narrow roads. It can not handle 1500/ day huge trucks running 24/7 through Britannia, Ontario, Derry,,, etc until they reach already congested 407, QEW, or 401. They will share roads that our little kids use in their daily commute to their schools. Who will be responsible if a truck hits a school bus? who will be held responsible for the loss of lives?? Those trucks will cause us to be late for work which is already rare. The current unemployment rate is 6.80%. !! I completely disagree with the motion that this project will create long term quality jobs.

Air pollution and gas emission is a huge concern for me. Another issue is the trucks safety failure rate . It is 38%. Who will be responsible for accidents between tracks and small cars? serious injuries and death are very expected here

This project will affect air we and our kids breath. Can you imagine putting a huge project like that in the middle of a residential area??!! Where is the planning? where is common sense ??!! What will happen to the home values?? What will happen to the new education village located few meters from the new CN project?,,,, This project will generate also noise pollution as it is in the middle of urban area. Who will be held responsible if one of those shipments explode in the meddle of that little town? CN as a federally regulated business, should respect municipalities.

My understanding that CN terminal in Calgary has a facility for FUEL Storage. CN is not forthcoming when it comes about its plans in Milton. Just recently another rail company is under settlement agreement for 430 million due to a train derailment and fuel explosion. if this happen in Milton, who will be responsible for those accredits and disasters

I encourage you to support our cry for help by doing everything in your power to change the location of this project to be out of MILTON. Expanding CN already existed and currently operational hub in Brampton is the alternative or any other location BUT MILTON

Thank you in advance and awaiting for your reply

A very concerned resident. From: Andrea Hepworth To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal Date: June 10, 2015 7:26:04 PM

Andrea Hepworth << personal information removed >>

June 10, 2015

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573

Dear Sir or Madame:

Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal

As a resident of Halton, I am very concerned about the effects the proposed CN Intermodal Terminal could have on the environment of Halton. I believe that residents surrounding the proposed area will forever suffer the long-term negative impacts of this proposed development and I believe residents from communities within the Regional Municipality of Halton will be victimized by its adverse impact. Concerns; • The disturbance of noise will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road; • The disturbance of noise to the residents of Milton will be detrimental to our health, peace and enjoyment of our homes and park areas. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly. • The disturbance of very bright lighting will be detrimental to the residents of Milton health. Light at night is known to affect sleep patterns of residents living near a highly lighted yard. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly. • The disturbance of very bright lighting will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road. It is known that bright night light changes the breeding calls of birds in the area. CN has reported a Species at Risk on the Proposed Site. Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) and Barn Swallow. • According to Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting, Frogs have been found to inhibit their mating calls when they are exposed to excessive light at night, reducing their reproductive capacity. • According to Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting, the feeding behavior of bats also is altered by artificial light. Researchers have blamed light pollution for declines in populations of North American moths, almost all small rodents and carnivores. “We just now understand the nocturnality of many creatures,” says Chad Moore, Night Sky Program manager with the National Park Service. “Not protecting the night will destroy the habitat of many animals.” • The many railway tracks could disrupt the many tributaries of Indian Creek with vibration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway Sites/Yards. This could make Indian Creek, which flows into Bronte Creek, which then flows in Lake Ontario contaminated, causing harm to the people of South Western Ontario. • Spawning fish, which swim from Indian Creek, across the creek under Tremaine Road, through the pond, then by stream across the proposed CN Terminal Site and continue across under First Line. The many railway tracks could disrupt the streams with vibration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway Sites/Yards. This could make Indian Creek which flows into Bronte Creek which flows in Lake Ontario contaminated and that are so that they are no longer usable by the fish; • Spawning fish, which swim from Indian Creek, across the creek under Tremaine Road, through the pond, then by stream across the proposed CN Terminal Site and continue across under First Line will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable. • Water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable. • The environment for the human population surrounding the proposed site would be permanently altered in a detrimental way by (1) increasing air pollution due to dust and fuel fumes from both trains and trucks; (2) make it no longer possible for the many cyclists who use local Milton roads for recreation to safely ride on our country roads; (3) cause pollution of the water table; (4) cause noise pollution from trucks and trains; (5) cause littering pollution where the wind carries garbage from CN trains and trucks; (6) cause light pollution that will put an end to star gazing in the area; (7) cause noise pollution from work on the site itself; (8) cause air pollution from the traffic congestion in the area created by the increased truck traffic which would not be on the local roads if not for the proposed CN site; (9) • In Halton, we are also very disturbed that CN has been allowed to circumvent the environmental assessment processes at the regional and provincial levels. We are deeply worried that the federal EA is not stringent or effective enough, and that CN well knows this. We ask you, at the CEAA to consider this concern seriously and to review the standards that CN MUST be held to according to municipal, regional, and provincial zoning and plans. These are just a few of my concerns. I believe the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project requires a full Environmental Assessment. I believe this is not the correct place for the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project.

Yours truly, Andrea Hepworth From: Angelika Tseben To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal Date: June 10, 2015 7:10:25 PM

Angelika Tseben << personal information removed >>

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573 Dear Sir or Madame:

Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal As a resident of Halton, I am very concerned about the effects the proposed CN Intermodal Terminal could have on the environment of Halton. I believe that residents surrounding the proposed area will forever suffer the long-term negative impacts of this proposed development and I believe residents from communities within the Regional Municipality of Halton will be victimized by its adverse impact. Concerns; • The disturbance of noise will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road; • The disturbance of noise to the residents of Milton will be detrimental to our health, peace and enjoyment of our homes and park areas. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly. • The disturbance of very bright lighting will be detrimental to the residents of Milton health. Light at night is known to affect sleep patterns of residents living near a highly lighted yard. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly. • The disturbance of very bright lighting will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road. It is known that bright night light changes the breeding calls of birds in the area. CN has reported a Species at Risk on the Proposed Site. Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) and Barn Swallow. • According to Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting, Frogs have been found to inhibit their mating calls when they are exposed to excessive light at night, reducing their reproductive capacity. • According to Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting, the feeding behavior of bats also is altered by artificial light. Researchers have blamed light pollution for declines in populations of North American moths, almost all small rodents and carnivores. “We just now understand the nocturnality of many creatures,” says Chad Moore, Night Sky Program manager with the National Park Service. “Not protecting the night will destroy the habitat of many animals.” • The many railway tracks could disrupt the many tributaries of Indian Creek with vibration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway Sites/Yards. This could make Indian Creek, which flows into Bronte Creek, which then flows in Lake Ontario contaminated, causing harm to the people of South Western Ontario. • Spawning fish, which swim from Indian Creek, across the creek under Tremaine Road, through the pond, then by stream across the proposed CN Terminal Site and continue across under First Line. The many railway tracks could disrupt the streams with vibration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway Sites/Yards. This could make Indian Creek which flows into Bronte Creek which flows in Lake Ontario contaminated and that are so that they are no longer usable by the fish; • Spawning fish, which swim from Indian Creek, across the creek under Tremaine Road, through the pond, then by stream across the proposed CN Terminal Site and continue across under First Line will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable. • Water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable. • The environment for the human population surrounding the proposed site would be permanently altered in a detrimental way by (1) increasing air pollution due to dust and fuel fumes from both trains and trucks; (2) make it no longer possible for the many cyclists who use local Milton roads for recreation to safely ride on our country roads; (3) cause pollution of the water table; (4) cause noise pollution from trucks and trains; (5) cause littering pollution where the wind carries garbage from CN trains and trucks; (6) cause light pollution that will put an end to star gazing in the area; (7) cause noise pollution from work on the site itself; (8) cause air pollution from the traffic congestion in the area created by the increased truck traffic which would not be on the local roads if not for the proposed CN site; (9) • In Halton, we are also very disturbed that CN has been allowed to circumvent the environmental assessment processes at the regional and provincial levels. We are deeply worried that the federal EA is not stringent or effective enough, and that CN well knows this. We ask you, at the CEAA to consider this concern seriously and to review the standards that CN MUST be held to according to municipal, regional, and provincial zoning and plans. These are just a few of my concerns. I believe the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project requires a full Environmental Assessment. I believe this is not the correct place for the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project.

Sincerely, << personal information removed >> Angelika Tseben

<< personal information removed >>

ROYAL LEPAGE Signature REALTY, BROKERAGE (905)568-2121 - Office, (905) 568-2588 - Fax From: Ann Lovering To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Milton CN Intermodal terminal Date: June 19, 2015 5:11:57 PM Attachments: image001.jpg

To whom it may concern,

Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal

As a resident of Halton, I am very concerned about the effects the proposed CN Intermodal Terminal could have on the environment of Halton.

I have many environmental concerns:

1. Spawning fish, which swim from Indian Creek, across the creek under Tremaine Road, through the pond, then by stream across the proposed CN Terminal Site and continue across under First Line will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable. 2. The noise will not only be detrimental to the health and peace of the residents but will also affect the many varieties of birds that stop on their migrations at the pond, just east of Tremaine Rd. 3. The constant bright lights will affect sleep patterns of residents near the hub, (which include my family) and the other residents, indirectly. As well as the tourists who come to enjoy the magnificent vista from Rattlesnake point. Breeding habits of birds could likely be affected by the lights. CN has actually reported a Series at Risk on the proposed site: Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) and the Barn Swallow . 4. Water creatures and other wildlife living along Indian Creek will be affected, including frogs, bats, moths, small rodents and carnivores; especially nocturnal creatures. CN plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is horrendous 5. Furthermore the residents surrounding the proposed site would be permanently impacted detrimentally by (i) increasing air pollution due to dust and fuel fumes from both trains and trucks; (ii) make it no longer possible for the many cyclists who use local Milton roads for recreation to safely ride on our country roads; (iii) cause pollution of the water table; (iv) cause noise pollution from trucks and trains; (v) cause littering pollution where the wind carries garbage from CN trains and trucks; (vi) cause light pollution that will put an end to star gazing in the area and the list goes on.

I have many other concerns, foremost the safety of children who daily cross many of these roads, on their way to and from schools, they are at risk of accidental death or injury due to the increase of truck traffic.

I believe the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project requires a full Environmental Assessment. I believe this is not the correct location for the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project.

Yours truly,

Ann Lovering

PS: Many Milton residents and surround rural lands depend upon ground water for drinking, bathing, farming etc… I have included only a partial list of toxic spills from CN rails. Please take into consideration the safety of our ground water. Thank you.

“CN Railway Derailments, Other Accidents and Incidents Prepared by Railroaded – Updated July 14, 2014

This is a small sample of the thousands of CN derailments, spills, fires and other accidents. The Transportation Safety Board of Canada, Railway Association of Canada and past CN employees indicate that CN intentionally does not report hundreds of derailments and other accidents. July 12, 2014. North of Three Hills, Alberta. 15 CN cars derailed about 60km NE of Calgary, causing disruptions to transportation services in the area. Most of the cars carried general consumer merchandise, while 2 contained chemicals for household and industrial use. Alberta Emergency Alert indicated a local road was closed for an undisclosed length of time. (CBC News July 13/14) July 10, 2014. Brockville, Ontario. 26 CN freight cars derailed, including 13 tanker cars carrying hazardous goods residue, 5 cars carrying carbon powder and 2 loaded auto carriers. Via Rail passenger service was disrupted due to the derailment on the main line. CN provided no further details. (Reuters July 10/14) July 4, 2014. Near Whitecourt, Alberta. 6 cars of an 81-car CN train carrying crude oil, methanol, gravel and lumber derailed and flipped over on their sides. 3 of the derailed cars carried crude oil and 1 carried highly volatile methanol. At least 1 of the tanker cars spilled an undisclosed volume of hazardous product. (QMI Agency July 4/14, Reuters July 4/14) June 27, 2014. Near Chisholm, Alberta. 11 CN grain cars derailed, blocking the main line and a railroad crossing for about a day. A Chisholm resident, Gene Crick, said, “I just don’t know what to think of it. But something’s got to be done because, what the heck, three derailments in a row?” Regarding this latest CN derailment, he said, “The mess that I’d seen was the tracks, a real mess; twisted right up in the air. It’s just like a cat came in and plowed it up.” (South Peace News July/14) June 11, 2014. Near Faust, Alberta. 20 CN cars fell off the main line tracks near Faust, about 60km west of Slave Lake: 17 cars carried dangerous goods residue (up to 2,000 gallons per tank car), 2 were grain hopper cars and 1 was a lumber car. (Global News June 11/14) June 4, 2014. Ladysmith, Wisconsin. At least 2 CN cars derailed, as the last 5 cars in a longer train became disconnected. One of the derailed cars tipped over. (LeaderTelegram June 4/14) May 30, 2014. North of Lac La Biche, Alberta. About 50,000 litres of molten sulphur spilled from 3 of 7 derailed CN cars. The spill took several days to clean up and CN’s main line was closed for an undisclosed period of time. Local residents were upset that CN did not notify them of the derailment; rather, they found out about the accident numerous days later from a Canadian Press story. (Brandon Sun June 4/14) May 23, 2014. Alberton Township, 3 miles west of Fort Frances, Ontario. 35 CN cars derailed, the majority of which were carrying potash and paper products; 2 were carrying sulphur. Local fire officials had to extinguish a grass fire started by the derailment. 2 Vehicle traffic had to be diverted around the derailment site. (Fort Frances Times May 24/14) May 9, 2014. Just outside Grand Falls, New Brunswick. 6 CN rail cars fell off the tracks as the train was exiting the main line onto a side track. 2 of the cars were carrying automobiles, 2 had fertilizer, 1 carried railway ties and 1 was empty. It is not known how long the tracks were closed to clean up the derailed cars. (4-Traders May 10/14) May 8, 2014. Slave Lake, Alberta. 9 CN cars loaded with wood pulp derailed on CN’s main line in downtown Slave Lake. Some of the cars tipped completely over on their sides, and crushed several nearby sheds. 6 nearby residences were evacuated. About 245 feet of track had to be replaced, as the main line and several road crossings were closed down for some time. (CBC News May 9/14, Edmonton Journal May 9/14, plus other sources) May 4, 2014. Racine County, Wisconsin. CN locomotive fuel tank was punctured by a piece of metal on the tracks, spilling 4,000 gallons of diesel fuel. Crews were able to clean up only about 1,600 gallons of the spilled diesel fuel and the rest soaked into the ground. Local officials were concerned about possible contamination of very shallow nearby water wells. The local fire chief said soils contaminated with hazardous liquids are typically replaced with new soil. (The Republic May 5/14) April 21, 2014. Burlington, Ontario. 3 CN cars carrying rock derailed in the Aldershot Rail Yard at a point where 2 rails crossed. (Toronto Star April 22/14) April 20, 2014. St. Norbert, Winnipeg, Manitoba. 7 CN cars carrying plastic, wood products and pipes fell off the tracks not far from several homes along Highway 75. The line where the derailment occurred was flagged for trains to slow to 16 km/h due to track and surface conditions. A day later, 2 derailed cars still hadn’t been removed; there was no word from CN when the track would be back in service. (Global News April 22/14) March 16, 2014. Saint-Laurent, Montreal, Quebec. A CN worker was crushed to death between 2 railway cars in the Taschereau Yards after one of the cars on the moving train he was on derailed. (Montreal Gazette March 17/14) March 5, 2014. Beaver County, Alberta. Two empty CN grain cars derailed and sustained damage along a stretch of track adjacent to Highway 14. (Alberta Police Report March 5/14) Feb 24, 2014. Between Prince George and Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia. 24 loaded coal cars derailed, forcing the closing of CN’s main line. The spilled coal caused an undisclosed amount of environmental damage. (250 News Feb 25/14) Feb 24, 2014. Fairbanks, St. Louis County, Minnesota. 50 CN cars plus 2 locomotives derailed. The train had a total of 116 cars. The train was loaded with iron ore pellets and was bound for Two Harbors. 2 engineers on the train were taken to a local hospital. (Duluth News Tribune Feb 25/14) Feb 23, 2014. Saint-Henri, Montreal, Quebec. 2 CN locomotives and 2 cars carrying grain fell off the rails on a CN main line close to homes, community organizations and 3 schools. About 3,500 litres of diesel fuel spilled from one of the locomotives and caused an undisclosed amount of environmental damage. (Global News Feb 24/14, Globe and Mail Feb 23/14) Feb 9, 2014. New Lenox, Illinois. 3 to 4 CN cars derailed near Lincoln-Way High School and one of the cars hit and damaged a locomotive that was stopped on an adjacent track. One of the derailed cars was carrying plastic; the others were apparently empty. Traffic was blocked and had to be rerouted. This particular area is contentious among New Lenox residents because when CN bought the former EJ&E tracks, they announced plans to quadruple the number of freight trains. Local officials tried to get CN to build an overpass at one of the major crossings to mitigate the additional train traffic, but CN refused. (CBS Chicago Feb 10/14) Jan 31, 2014. Outside New Augusta, Mississippi. 19 CN cars fell off the tracks, spilling 50,000 gallons of crude oil, 17,000 gallons of fertilizer and 10,000 gallons of petroleum distillate. Other hazardous goods reported spilled included undisclosed volumes of fuel oil, methanol and ethanol. Most of the hazardous goods spilled from 3 of the derailed tank cars, although other derailed cars were also spilling hazardous products. About 50 nearby Perry County residents were evacuated for over 2 days and sheltered in a special Red Cross facility set up for those affected by the derailment. About 100 railroad employees and 50 government officials, firemen and police officers were on site assisting with clean up efforts which were estimated to take about a week to complete. The extent of environmental damage was not disclosed; however, some of the spilled hazardous goods made its way into a local waterway. (The Republic Jan 31/14, Hattiesburg American 1 Jan 31/14, Hattiesburg American 2 Feb 4/14) Jan 28, 2014. Mundelein, Illinois. A CN freight train derailed and forced Metra commuters on the North Central Services to make other transportation plans for at least a day. The cold hampered CN from repairing the tracks and moving the derailed cars, one of which was carrying plastic pellets. Several other CN freight trains were halted on the single track and had to be moved before the Metra service could be restored. (Daily Herald Jan 28/14) Jan 26, 2014. Saint-Basile, Edmundston, New Brunswick. 5 CN freight cars jumped the tracks; 3 were carrying automobiles, one was carrying clay and the 5th car was carrying flammable liquefied petroleum gas. The cars tipped over and were lying on their side in a ditch. A local farmer had warned CN last summer that repairs were required at the site of the derailment. This was the second derailment on the same farmer’s property. About 15-20 years ago, fuel cars derailed and were upside down in the local brook, spilling hazardous product. (CBC News 1 Jan 27/14, CBC News 2 Jan 28/14) Jan 16, 2014. Crystal Springs, Mississippi. A CN train hauling coal caught fire. 2 men were able to escape from the locomotive which sustained major damage from the fire. (WJTV Jan 17/14) Jan 15, 2014. Edmonton, Alberta. 3 moving CN trains collided. 3 locomotives, 2 tank cars loaded with dangerous goods and 1 empty flat car fell off the tracks. One of the locomotives spilled an undisclosed amount of diesel fuel. CN told the Edmonton Journal they did not know what dangerous goods were in the derailed tank cars, whereas CN contacted Edmonton Fire Rescue about 1 of the derailed tank cars possibly containing 4 propane. Municipalities across Canada are concerned because CN and other rail companies are not required to provide municipalities with real- time information on what dangerous goods are travelling through their communities and when. (Edmonton Journal Jan 16/14) Jan 11, 2014. Burnaby, British Columbia. 7 cars loaded with coal from a 152-car CP train operated by a CN crew went off the CN tracks. 3 of the cars tipped over and spilled about 270 tons of coal, much of it into Silver Creek which is sensitive fish habitat. A substantial amount of coal was also carried downstream into Brunette River and Burnaby Lake. Government officials were concerned about the negative effects of the coal on salmon eggs and eggs of the endangered Western Painted Turtle. Turtles and their eggs had to be removed from the clean-up area, and a turtle beach had to be restored and basking logs cleaned. Chum salmon were observed spawning in the creek near where the coal was spilled. Coho salmon and rainbow trout were also in the area. Burnaby Lake Regional Park was negatively impacted. Local observers said Silver Creek turned black following the spill. B.C. Environment officials called CN’s follow-up reports on the spill “deficient” and “unsatisfactory”, citing significant types of information that was missing. Washed out ground under the CN tracks may be the cause of the derailment, as heavy rains had fallen in the area. Local residents were quick to denounce plans to expand coal export at the Neptune Terminals. They pointed to this derailment as proof that the recent decision by the port authority to expand coal exports was a poor one. (Vancouver Sun Jan 11/14, Globe and Mail Jan 11/14, The Straight Apr 17/14, Burnaby Now Apr 19/14) Jan 7, 2014. Near Plaster Rock, New Brunswick. A 122-car CN train derailed, with 19 cars and an unmanned locomotive falling off the tracks. A cracked wheel and an emergency brake application likely contributed to the derailment. 9 of the derailed cars were loaded with hazardous goods – 5 with crude oil and 4 with propane. A significant fire resulted with huge clouds of orange smoke and flames billowing into the air. Fires continued burning 4 days following the derailment. About 50 households (150 people) were forced to evacuate within a 2-kilometre radius of the fire, and 4 days following the derailment were still not permitted to return to their homes. Firefighters, police, ambulances and a hazardous materials team were dispatched to the site. The volume of hazardous product spilled and the extent of environmental damage were not provided by CN. An earlier derailment near Plaster Rock unreported by CN was one of 2 unreported incidents that prompted the TSB to seek a summons in 2006 ordering CN to turn over all of its accident records. A subsequent in-depth CBC investigation in 2013 uncovered that CN did not report to authorities more than 1,840 derailments and other accidents over a 6- year period, including 44 on main rail lines. (Edmonton Journal Jan 8/14, CBC News Jan 7/14) Dec 29, 2013. Killy, British Columbia. 5 CN cars derailed with 4 tipping over on their side in the Killy Yard. One of the derailed cars blocked the main track. (Vancouver Sun April 24/14) Dec 27, 2013. Wainwright, Alberta. 7 cars derailed in the CN Rail yard. Although CN provided few details, apparently 3 grain cars flipped off the tracks while 4 other cars remained upright. Derailed cars were carrying grain and salt. There was damage to derailed cars. (Star News Dec 27/13) 5 Dec 5, 2013. Two Harbors, Minnesota. Three crew members were injured when a 107- car CN train carrying iron ore derailed as it entered the Two Harbors rail yard, sending 76 cars off the tracks. Another 17 cars parked next to the moving train were also pushed off the tracks. Trains were unable to operate in that portion of the yard for some time, interrupting shipment of iron ore. The attorney representing the 3 injured CN crew members blamed the incident on CN's failure to remove snow and ice from the tracks. He said CN had been informed earlier in the day of unsafe snow and ice conditions between the Highland siding and Waldo and the 4-mile descent into the Two Harbors rail yard. The same day, another runaway train had been reported on the same track, but fortunately that train's crew was able to regain control of the train. The attorney was quoted as saying, "The railroad had advance knowledge of the storm and information from knowledgeable railroaders about conditions. If attempts were made to clear the snow, they were inadequate. As a consequence, these guys were not going to be able to control that train. The railroad knew it, but they kept sending the train on the track with deep snow." He said CN's decision-making did not reflect a regard for the well-being of its employees. "When you put profits over safety, this is what happens", he said. Neighbouring business operators said they had never seen a train pileup of this magnitude, and a retired CN engineer said the derailment was one of the 2 most serious train-related incidents he had seen since he started working on railroads in 1974. (Lake County News Chronicle Dec 15/13, Northlands News Center Dec 6/13) Nov 18, 2013. Near Tisdale, Saskatchewan. A CN crew member was killed during switching operations. CN would provide no further details, other than to suggest that CN’s safety record is good (which is their standard response lately, following a recently heightened interest by Canadians in rail safety). (Reuters Nov 19/13) Nov 11, 2013. Near Fort Frances, Ontario. A 184-car CN train derailed, spilling grain all over the tracks. A total of 39 freight cars fell off the tracks. It took several days for the spilled grain to be cleaned up and for the rail cars to be removed. (Fort Frances Times Nov 12/13) Nov 9, 2013. Near Asquith, Saskatchewan. Six CN cars carrying lumber jumped the tracks. Nearby residents expressed concern not only about derailments close to their homes, but also about challenges getting compensation from CN for damages incurred by CN-started fires. (Global News Nov 10/13) Nov 3, 2013. Near Peers, Alberta. 13 CN cars derailed. 12 of the derailed cars were loaded with lumber and 1 was carrying sulphur dioxide. CN rail traffic along its main line was shut down while mangled rail cars and spilled broken lumber were cleaned off the tracks. (CTV News Nov 3/13) Oct 19, 2013. Gainford, Alberta. A 134-car CN train carrying crude oil and liquefied petroleum gas (propane) derailed about 90 km west of Edmonton, causing explosions and a massive fire. 9 of the 13 derailed tank cars were carrying propane and 4 carried crude oil. 1 of the cars carrying propane exploded and 3 others also caught fire. The amount of petroleum product spilled and the extent of environmental and property damages were not disclosed. A state of emergency was ordered for the entire area. All 100 Gainford residents and another 25 people living within 2 km of the derailment site were evacuated for 4 days due to the fear of additional explosions, fires and noxious fumes. The intensity of the fire was so severe, firefighters were forced to let the fire burn itself out, which took 4 days. The main east-west highway (Yellowhead No. 16) and the 6 main east-west rail line (Trans- Continental) through western Canada were closed for 5 days. Evacuated residents were upset they received very limited compensation from CN, restricted primarily to out-of-pocket expenses. Residents who claimed for lost wages due to the evacuation order were not compensated. Some residents described CN’s small compensation payments as “reprehensible”. (Chicago Tribune Oct 19/13, CBC News Oct 19/13, plus additional sources) Oct 16, 2013. Sexsmith, Alberta. 4 CN tank cars carrying anhydrous ammonia derailed. One of the derailed tank cars was leaning and sinking. Anhydrous ammonia is a dangerous good. In the absence of receiving any information from CN, Sexsmith fire resources ordered an evacuation of about 150 homes. (Calgary Herald Oct 16/13) Oct 7, 2013. Brampton, Ontario. The last 4 cars of a 73-car CN train derailed, sending one CN employee to the hospital with minor injuries. A CN public relations spokesperson suggested to the media there were no injuries, whereas the Peel Emergency Services reported the CN employee suffered minor injuries. The 4 derailed tank cars carried jet fuel residue. (Rail tank car “residue” can consist of up to several thousand gallons of dangerous goods per tank car. Rail companies erroneously refer to these cars as being empty.) The derailment held up numerous Kitchener GO trains. (Toronto Star Oct 7/13) Oct 2, 2013. North Battleford, Saskatchewan. 3 CN tank cars derailed; 2 of the cars contained crude oil and the other contained asphalt. Human error likely caused the derailment when a wrong switch was aligned while connecting rail cars together. CN waited 5 hours before notifying North Battleford emergency crews about the derailment. Mayor Ian Hamilton says he was angry the City wasn’t notified right away by CN. (Global News Oct 3/13) Sept 25, 2013. Near Landis, Saskatchewan. 17 of 130 CN cars carrying oil, condensate, ethanol and mixed freight derailed. 1 tank car spilled an undisclosed amount of oil, and the derailment sparked a grass fire. The Landis school was evacuated for a day as a precaution. The extent of environmental damage was not disclosed. (Toronto Star Sept 25/13) Sept 16, 2013. About 60 km south of North Bay near South River, Ontario. 11 CN freight cars derailed, of which 1 carried methanol, 3 carried sulphuric acid residue, and 7 were hauling general merchandise and consumer goods. The tracks were closed for about 2 days. (The Nugget Sept 17/13) Aug 27, 2013. Watson Island, British Columbia. 2 CN locomotives derailed. (Vancouver Sun April 24/14) Aug 8, 2013. Near Morey, British Columbia. An intermodal flat car derailed on the Albreda Subdivision after being struck by a rock slide. (Vancouver Sun April 24/14) Aug 1, 2013. Near Tumbler Ridge, British Columbia. 15 CN cars loaded with ore derailed. (Vancouver Sun April 24/14) June 2, 2013. Symington Rail Yard, Winnipeg, Manitoba. 6 empty CN lumber cars crashed off the tracks, damaging 2 power poles and knocking power out to 1,900 customers in the Windsor Park area. (CTV Winnipeg June 3/13) 7 May 24, 2013. Chetwynd, British Columbia. A bulkhead flat car derailed in the Chetwynd Yard. (Vancouver Sun April 24/14) May 24, 2013. Quesnel, British Columbia. A CN locomotive derailed in the Quesnel Yard. (Vancouver Sun April 24/14) May 15, 2013. Near Chetwynd, British Columbia. 12 CN cars carrying sulphur derailed. (Vancouver Sun April 24/14) April 30, 2013. Near Pense, west of Regina, Saskatchewan. 11 CN cars fell off the tracks, blocking a grid road. Fertilizer spilled from some of the cars. (National Post May 1/13) April 28, 2013. Togo, Saskatchewan. A Via Rail passenger train travelling on track owned and maintained by CN derailed at a washed out section of track, only hours after the tracks had been inspected. 2 locomotives, a baggage car and the first passenger train derailed but remained upright. The diesel fuel tanks of both locomotives ruptured, spilling diesel fuel and causing the train to catch on fire. The Via crew and passengers were evacuated from the train without any serious injuries. The TSB reported the main cause of the washout was a blocked culvert combined with a rapid melt of snow, which led to the ground being saturated and the embankment weakened… … Note: There are thousands of additional CN derailments, spills, fires, other accidents and incidents. A few are investigated by the Transportation Safety Board (TSB) of Canada and the United States National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) – most are not. Hundreds of derailments, other accidents and incidents are intentionally not reported at all by CN, according to the TSB, the RAC and past CN employees, in order to falsely improve the corporation’s safety and efficiency statistics. CN is currently being sued by several parties for allegedly manipulating data to improve safety and productivity statistics and for allegedly misleading shareholders. For many derailments that the media report based on tips from the public, CN provides very little information or in some cases misleading information, in an attempt to downplay the severity of the derailments. CN public relations spokespersons have told the media CN has a policy of not discussing the injury status of its employees involved in derailments or other accidents.”

Above article found at: https://railroaded.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/cn-railway-derailments- other-accidents-and-incidents3.pdf.

From: ashley.sadowski To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Milton Logistics Hub Date: June 10, 2015 8:56:06 PM

Ashley Sadowski << personal information removed >>

June 10, 2015

Milton Logistics Hub Project CEAA 55 St. Clair Ave East, Suite 907 Toronto, ON. M4T 1M2

Dear Sir or Madame,

Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal

As a resident of Halton, I am very concerned about the proposed CN Intermodal Terminal could have on the environment of Halton. I believe that residents surrounding the proposed area will forever suffer the long-term negative impacts of this proposed development and I believe residents from communities within the Regional Municipality of Halton will be victimized by its adverse impact. Concerns:

-the disturbance of noise will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations North and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road;

- the disturbance of noise to the residents of Milton will be detrimental to our health, peace and enjoyment of our homes and park areas. The proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly.

- The disturbance of very bright lighting will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations North and South at the pond just east of Tremaine Road. It is known that bright night light changes the breeding calls of birds in the area. CN has reported a Species at Risk on the Proposed Site. Bobolink, Eastern Meadowlark and Barn Swallow.

- According to Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting, the feeding behaviour of bats also altered by artificial light. Researchers have blamed light pollution for declines in population of North American moths, almost all small rodents and carnivores. "We just now understand the nocturnality of many creatures," says Chad Moore, Nighr Sky Program manager with the National Park Service. "Not protecting the night will destroy the habitat of many animals."

The many railway tracks could disrupt the many tributaries of Indian Creek with vibration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway Sites/Yards. This could make Indian Creek, which flows in Lake Ontario contaminated, causing harm to the people of South Western Ontario. - Spawning fish, which swim from Indian Creek, across the creek under Tremaine Road, through the pond, then by stream across the proposed CN Terminal Site and continue across under First Line. The many railway tracks could disrupt the streams with vibration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway Sites/Yards. This could make Indian Creek which flows in Lake Ontario contaminated and that are so that they are no longer usable by the fish;

- water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN's plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable.

- the environment for the human population surrounding the proposed site would be permanently altered in a detrimental way by 1) increasing air pollution due to dust and fuel fumes from both trains and trucks; 2) make it no longer possible for the many cyclists who use local Milton roads for recreation to safety ride on our country roads; 3) cause pollution of the water table; 4) cause noise pollution from trucks and trains; 5) cause littering pollution where the wind carries garbage from CN trains and trucks; 6) cause light pollution that will put an end to Star gazing in the area; 7) cause noise pollution from work on the site itself; 8) cause air pollution from the traffic congestion in the area created by the increased truck traffic which would not be on the local roads if not for the proposed CN site;

- in Halton, we are also very disturbed that CN has been allowed to circumvent the environmental assessment processes at the regional and provincial levels. We are deeply worried that the federal EA is not stringent or effective enough, and that CN well knows this. We ask you, at the CEAA to consider this concern seriously and to review the standards that CN MUST be held to according to provincial, municipal and regional zoning and plans.

These are just a few of my concerns.

Yours Truly,

Ashley Sadowski

Sent from Samsung Mobile Date

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573

Dear Sir or Madame:

Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN lntermodal Terminal

As a resident of Halton, I am very concerned about the effects the proposed CN lntermodal Terminal could have on the environment of Halton. 1believe that residents surrounding the proposed area will forever suffer the long-term negative impacts of this proposed development and I believe residents from communities within the Regional Municipality of Halton will be victimized by its adverse impact. Concerns;

·The disturbance of noise will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road;

·The disturbance of noise to the residents of Milton will be detrimental to our health, peace and enjoyment of our homes and park areas. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Mihan. This site will affect thousands of residents directly.

• The disturbance of very bright lighting will be detrimental to the residents of Milton health. Light at night is known to affect sleep patterns of residents living near a highly lighted yard. The Proposed CN Mihan Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly.

·The disturbance of very bright lighting will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road. It is known that bright night light changes the breeding calls of birds in the area. CN has reported a Species at Risk on the Proposed Site. Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) and Barn Swallow.

·According to Ecological Consequences of Artiftcial Night Lighting, Frogs have been found to inhibit their mating calls when they are exposed to excessive light at night, reducing their reproductive capacity.

·According to Ecological Consequences of Artiftcial Night Lighting, the feeding behavior of bats also is ahered by artificial light Researchers have blamed light pollution for declines in populations of North American moths, almost all small rodents and carnivores. "We just now understand the nocturnality of many creatures; says Chad Moore, Night Sky Program manager with the National Park Service. "Not protecting the night will destroy the habitat of many animals."

·The many railway tracks could disrupt the many tributaries of Indian Creek with vibration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway Sites/Yards. This could make Indian Creek, which flows into Bronte Creek, which then flows in Lake Ontario contaminated, causing harm to the people of South Western Ontario. migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road. It is known that bright night light changes the breeding calls of birds in the area. CN has reported a Species at Risk on the Proposed S~e. Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) and Barn Swallow.

• According to Ecological Consequences of Artiftcial Night Lighting, Frogs have been found to inhib~ their mating calls when they are exposed to excessive light at night, reducing their reproductive capac~.

· According to Ecological Consequences of Artiftcial Night Lighting, the feeding behavior of bats also is ahered by artiftciallight. Researchers have blamed light pollution for declines in populations of North American moths, almost all small rodents and carnivores. "We just now understand the no cturn al~ of many creatures; says Chad Moore, Night Sky Program manager w~h the National Park Service. "Not protecting the night will destroy the h a b ~at of many animals."

· The many railway tracks could disrupt the many tributaries of Indian Creek w~h vibration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway S~es/Yards. This could make Indian Creek, which flows into Bronte Creek, which then flows in Lake Ontario contaminated, causing harm to the people of South Western Ontario.

• Spawning ftsh, which swim from Indian Creek, across the creek under Tremaine Road, through the pond, then by stream across the proposed CN Terminal S~e and continue across under First Line. The many railway tracks could disrupt the streams with vibration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway S~es/Yards. This could make Indian Creek which flows into Bronte Creek which flows in Lake Ontario contaminated and that are so that they are no longer usable by the fish;

• Water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN's plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable.

• The environment for the human population surrounding the proposed s~e would be permanently altered in a detrimental way by (1) increasing air pollution due to dust and fuel fumes from both trains and trucks; (2) make~ no longer possible for the many cyclists who use local Milton roads for recreation to safely ride on our country roads; (3) cause pollution of the water table; (4) cause noise pollution from trucks and trains; (5) cause littering pollution where the wind carries garbage from CN trains and trucks; (6) cause light pollution that will put an end to star gazing in the area; (7) cause noise pollution from work on the s~e itself; (B) cause air pollution from the trafftc congestion in the area created by the increased truck trafftc which would not be on the local roads if not for the proposed CN site; (9)

Yours truly, ~---~------' From: Jo-Anne To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: CN Intermodal Terminal Date: June 10, 2015 10:08:07 PM

<< personal information removed >>

June 10, 2015

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573

Dear Sir or Madame:

Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal

As residents of Halton, we are very concerned about the effects the proposed CN Intermodal Terminal could have on the environment of Halton. We believe that residents surrounding the proposed area will forever suffer the long-term negative impacts of this proposed development and we believe residents from communities within the Regional Municipality of Halton will be victimized by its adverse impact. Concerns;

• The disturbance of noise will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road;

• The disturbance of noise to the residents of Milton will be detrimental to our health, peace and enjoyment of our homes and park areas. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly.

• The disturbance of very bright lighting will be detrimental to the residents of Milton health. Light at night is known to affect sleep patterns of residents living near a highly lighted yard. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly.

• According to Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting, Frogs have been found to inhibit their mating calls when they are exposed to excessive light at night, reducing their reproductive capacity. • According to Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting, the feeding behavior of bats also is altered by artificial light. Researchers have blamed light pollution for declines in populations of North American moths, almost all small rodents and carnivores. “We just now understand the nocturnality of many creatures,” says Chad Moore, Night Sky Program manager with the National Park Service. “Not protecting the night will destroy the habitat of many animals.”

• Spawning fish, which swim from Indian Creek, across the creek under Tremaine Road, through the pond, then by stream across the proposed CN Terminal Site and continue across under First Line. The many railway tracks could disrupt the streams with vibration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway Sites/Yards. This could make Indian Creek which flows into Bronte Creek which flows in Lake Ontario contaminated and that are so that they are no longer usable by the fish;

• Water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable.

• The environment for the human population surrounding the proposed site would be permanently altered in a detrimental way by (1) increasing air pollution due to dust and fuel fumes from both trains and trucks; (2) make it no longer possible for the many cyclists who use local Milton roads for recreation to safely ride on our country roads; (3) cause pollution of the water table; (4) cause noise pollution from trucks and trains; (5) cause littering pollution where the wind carries garbage from CN trains and trucks; (6) cause light pollution that will put an end to star gazing in the area; (7) cause noise pollution from work on the site itself; (8) cause air pollution from the traffic congestion in the area created by the increased truck traffic which would not be on the local roads if not for the proposed CN site; (9)

These are just a few of our concerns. I believe the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project requires a full Environmental Assessment. I believe this is not the correct place for the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project. We have lived here for 36 years and have always been proud living in this community; raising our children who now have children of their own. We want for our Grandchildren to know the beauty and peace we’ve enjoyed all these years.

Yours truly, Bill & Jo-Anne Van Slingerland From: Brian Graham To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Concerned Citizen - Milton Logistics Hub Project Date: June 10, 2015 8:07:00 PM

Brian Graham << personal information removed >>

June 10th, 2015 Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573

Dear Sir or Madame: Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal As a resident of Milton, Ontario, I am very concerned about the effects the proposed CN Intermodal Terminal could have on the environment of Halton. Additionally, living within a subdivision that is located less than 2 kilometres from the border of the CN property, as well as within 200 metres of a main arterial route which will handle heavy trucks, I believe that myself, as well as the residents surrounding the proposed area will forever suffer the long- term negative impacts of this proposed development and I believe residents from communities within the Regional Municipality of Halton will be victimized by its adverse impact. Concerns;

• The disturbance of noise will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road; • The disturbance of noise to the residents of Milton will be detrimental to our health, peace and enjoyment of our homes and park areas. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly. • The disturbance of very bright lighting will be detrimental to the residents of Milton health. Light at night is known to affect sleep patterns of residents living near a highly lighted yard. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly. • The disturbance of very bright lighting will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road. It is known that bright night light changes the breeding calls of birds in the area. CN has reported a Species at Risk on the Proposed Site. Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) and Barn Swallow. • According to Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting, Frogs have been found to inhibit their mating calls when they are exposed to excessive light at night, reducing their reproductive capacity. • According to Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting, the feeding behavior of bats also is altered by artificial light. Researchers have blamed light pollution for declines in populations of North American moths, almost all small rodents and carnivores. “We just now understand the nocturnality of many creatures,” says Chad Moore, Night Sky Program manager with the National Park Service. “Not protecting the night will destroy the habitat of many animals.” • The many railway tracks could disrupt the many tributaries of Indian Creek with vibration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway Sites/Yards. This could make Indian Creek, which flows into Bronte Creek, which then flows in Lake Ontario contaminated, causing harm to the people of South Western Ontario. • Spawning fish, which swim from Indian Creek, across the creek under Tremaine Road, through the pond, then by stream across the proposed CN Terminal Site and continue across under First Line. The many railway tracks could disrupt the streams with vibration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway Sites/Yards. This could make Indian Creek which flows into Bronte Creek which flows in Lake Ontario contaminated and that are so that they are no longer usable by the fish; • Spawning fish, which swim from Indian Creek, across the creek under Tremaine Road, through the pond, then by stream across the proposed CN Terminal Site and continue across under First Line will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable. • Water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable. • The environment for the human population surrounding the proposed site would be permanently altered in a detrimental way by (1) increasing air pollution due to dust and fuel fumes from both trains and trucks; (2) make it no longer possible for the many cyclists who use local Milton roads for recreation to safely ride on our country roads; (3) cause pollution of the water table; (4) cause noise pollution from trucks and trains; (5) cause littering pollution where the wind carries garbage from CN trains and trucks; (6) cause light pollution that will put an end to star gazing in the area; (7) cause noise pollution from work on the site itself; (8) cause air pollution from the traffic congestion in the area created by the increased truck traffic which would not be on the local roads if not for the proposed CN site; (9) • In Halton, we are also very disturbed that CN has been allowed to circumvent the environmental assessment processes at the regional and provincial levels. We are deeply worried that the federal EA is not stringent or effective enough, and that CN well knows this. We ask you, at the CEAA to consider this concern seriously and to review the standards that CN MUST be held to according to municipal, regional, and provincial zoning and plans.

Yours truly, Brian Graham From: Christopher Olson To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Milton Logistics Hub Project Date: June 10, 2015 9:07:44 PM

Dear Sir or Madame:

• The disturbance of noise will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road; • The disturbance of noise to the residents of Milton will be detrimental to our health, peace and enjoyment of our homes and park areas. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly. • The disturbance of very bright lighting will be detrimental to the residents of Milton health. Light at night is known to affect sleep patterns of residents living near a highly lighted yard. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly. • The disturbance of very bright lighting will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road. It is known that bright night light changes the breeding calls of birds in the area. CN has reported a Species at Risk on the Proposed Site. Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) and Barn Swallow. • According to Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting, Frogs have been found to inhibit their mating calls when they are exposed to excessive light at night, reducing their reproductive capacity. • According to Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting, the feeding behavior of bats also is altered by artificial light. Researchers have blamed light pollution for declines in populations of North American moths, almost all small rodents and carnivores. “We just now understand the nocturnality of many creatures,” says Chad Moore, Night Sky Program manager with the National Park Service. “Not protecting the night will destroy the habitat of many animals.” • The many railway tracks could disrupt the many tributaries of Indian Creek with vibration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway Sites/Yards. This could make Indian Creek, which flows into Bronte Creek, which then flows in Lake Ontario contaminated, causing harm to the people of South Western Ontario. • Spawning fish, which swim from Indian Creek, across the creek under Tremaine Road, through the pond, then by stream across the proposed CN Terminal Site and continue across under First Line. The many railway tracks could disrupt the streams with vibration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway Sites/Yards. This could make Indian Creek which flows into Bronte Creek which flows in Lake Ontario contaminated and that are so that they are no longer usable by the fish; • Spawning fish, which swim from Indian Creek, across the creek under Tremaine Road, through the pond, then by stream across the proposed CN Terminal Site and continue across under First Line will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable. • Water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable. • The environment for the human population surrounding the proposed site would be permanently altered in a detrimental way by (1) increasing air pollution due to dust and fuel fumes from both trains and trucks; (2) make it no longer possible for the many cyclists who use local Milton roads for recreation to safely ride on our country roads I road in the proposed area this past sunday. Counted approximately 150 other cyclists in groups of various sizes. 1500 trucks per day and all those cyclists is a recipe for death. ; (3) cause pollution of the water table; (4) cause noise pollution from trucks and trains; (5) cause littering pollution where the wind carries garbage from CN trains and trucks; (6) cause light pollution that will put an end to star gazing in the area; (7) cause noise pollution from work on the site itself; (8) cause air pollution from the traffic congestion in the area created by the increased truck traffic which would not be on the local roads if not for the proposed CN site; (9) • In Halton, we are also very disturbed that CN has been allowed to circumvent the environmental assessment processes at the regional and provincial levels. We are deeply worried that the federal EA is not stringent or effective enough, and that CN well knows this. We ask you, at the CEAA to consider this concern seriously and to review the standards that CN MUST be held to according to municipal, regional, and provincial zoning and plans.

Christopher Olson << personal information removed >>

From: Damiano Magnoli To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal Date: June 10, 2015 9:02:00 PM

Damiano Magnoli << personal information removed >>

June 10, 2015

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573

Dear Sir or Madame:

Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal

Dan Vo and Claudia Romero << personal information removed >>

June 14th, 2015 Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573

Sent from my ASUS notebook From: Daniela Magnoli To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal Date: June 10, 2015 9:00:27 PM

Daniela Magnoli << personal information removed >>

June 10, 2015

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573

Dear Sir or Madame:

Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal

To whom it may concern, re: Milton Logistics Hub Project / CN Intermodal Terminal

As a resident of Halton, I am very concerned about the effects the proposed CN Intermodal Terminal will have on Halton’s environment.

I have many environmental concerns:

1. Spawning fish, which swim from Indian Creek, across the creek under Tremaine Road, through the pond, then by stream across the proposed CN Terminal Site and continue across under First Line will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. 2. The noise will not only be detrimental to the health and peace of the residents; but, will also affect the many varieties of birds that stop on their migrations at the pond, just east of Tremaine Rd. 3. The constant bright lights will affect sleep patterns of residents near the hub, (which include my family) and the other residents, indirectly. As well as the tourists who come to enjoy the magnificent vista from Rattlesnake point. Breeding habits of birds could likely be affected by the lights. CN has actually reported a Series at Risk on the proposed site: Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) and the Barn Swallow 4. Water creatures and other wildlife living along Indian Creek will be affected, including frogs, bats, moths, small rodents and carnivores; especially nocturnal creatures. CN plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. 5. Furthermore the residents surrounding the proposed site would be permanently impacted detrimentally by (i) increasing air pollution due to dust and fuel fumes from both trains and trucks; (ii) make it no longer possible for the many cyclists who use local Milton roads for recreation to safely ride on our country roads; (iii) cause pollution of the water table; (iv) cause noise pollution from trucks and trains; (v) cause littering pollution where the wind carries garbage from CN trains and trucks; (vi) cause light pollution that will put an end to star gazing in the area and the list goes on.

I have many other concerns, including the safety of children who daily cross many of these roads, on their way to and from schools. They are at risk of accidental death or injury due to the increase of truck traffic.

“CN Railway Derailments, Other Accidents and Incidents Prepared by Railroaded – Updated July 14, 2014 … Note: There are thousands of additional CN derailments, spills, fires, other accidents and incidents. A few are investigated by the Transportation Safety Board (TSB) of Canada and the United States National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) – most are not. Hundreds of derailments, other accidents and incidents are intentionally not reported at all by CN, according to the TSB, the RAC and past CN employees, in order to falsely improve the corporation’s safety and efficiency statistics. CN is currently being sued by several parties for allegedly manipulating data to improve safety and productivity statistics and for allegedly misleading shareholders. For many derailments that the media report based on tips from the public, CN provides very little information or in some cases misleading information, in an attempt to downplay the severity of the derailments. CN public relations spokespersons have told the media CN has a policy of not discussing the injury status of its employees involved in derailments or other accidents.”

Above article found at: https://railroaded.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/cn-railway-derailments- other-accidents-and-incidents3.pdf.

I believe the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project requires a full Environmental Assessment. I believe this is not the correct location for the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project.

Yours truly,

David Lovering

From: Curt-Dee Beck To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Cc: << personal information removed >> Subject: Milton says NO. Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal Date: June 10, 2015 11:38:16 PM

Deanna Beck << personal information removed >>

June 10, 2015 Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573 Dear Sir or Madame: Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal As a resident of Halton, I am very concerned about the effects the proposed CN Intermodal Terminal could have on the environment of Halton. I believe that residents surrounding the proposed area will forever suffer the long-term negative impacts of this proposed development and I believe residents from communities within the Regional Municipality of Halton will be victimized by its adverse impact. Concerns; • The disturbance of noise will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road; • The disturbance of noise to the residents of Milton will be detrimental to our health, peace and enjoyment of our homes and park areas. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly. • The disturbance of very bright lighting will be detrimental to the residents of Milton health. Light at night is known to affect sleep patterns of residents living near a highly lighted yard. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly. • The disturbance of very bright lighting will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road. It is known that bright night light changes the breeding calls of birds in the area. CN has reported a Species at Risk on the Proposed Site. Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) and Barn Swallow. • According to Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting, Frogs have been found to inhibit their mating calls when they are exposed to excessive light at night, reducing their reproductive capacity. • According to Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting, the feeding behavior of bats also is altered by artificial light. Researchers have blamed light pollution for declines in populations of North American moths, almost all small rodents and carnivores. “We just now understand the nocturnality of many creatures,” says Chad Moore, Night Sky Program manager with the National Park Service. “Not protecting the night will destroy the habitat of many animals.” • The many railway tracks could disrupt the many tributaries of Indian Creek with vibration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway Sites/Yards. This could make Indian Creek, which flows into Bronte Creek, which then flows in Lake Ontario contaminated, causing harm to the people of South Western Ontario. • Spawning fish, which swim from Indian Creek, across the creek under Tremaine Road, through the pond, then by stream across the proposed CN Terminal Site and continue across under First Line. The many railway tracks could disrupt the streams with vibration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway Sites/Yards. This could make Indian Creek which flows into Bronte Creek which flows in Lake Ontario contaminated and that are so that they are no longer usable by the fish; • Spawning fish, which swim from Indian Creek, across the creek under Tremaine Road, through the pond, then by stream across the proposed CN Terminal Site and continue across under First Line will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable. • Water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable. • The environment for the human population surrounding the proposed site would be permanently altered in a detrimental way by (1) increasing air pollution due to dust and fuel fumes from both trains and trucks; (2) make it no longer possible for the many cyclists who use local Milton roads for recreation to safely ride on our country roads; (3) cause pollution of the water table; (4) cause noise pollution from trucks and trains; (5) cause littering pollution where the wind carries garbage from CN trains and trucks; (6) cause light pollution that will put an end to star gazing in the area; (7) cause noise pollution from work on the site itself; (8) cause air pollution from the traffic congestion in the area created by the increased truck traffic which would not be on the local roads if not for the proposed CN site; (9) • In Halton, we are also very disturbed that CN has been allowed to circumvent the environmental assessment processes at the regional and provincial levels. We are deeply worried that the federal EA is not stringent or effective enough, and that CN well knows this. We ask you, at the CEAA to consider this concern seriously and to review the standards that CN MUST be held to according to municipal, regional, and provincial zoning and plans. These are just a few of my concerns. I believe the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project requires a full Environmental Assessment. I believe this is not the correct place for the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project. Yours truly, Deanna Beck

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network. From: Derek Wild To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: CN Intermodal Terminal in Milton is a Bad Idea Date: June 10, 2015 7:11:23 PM

Derek Wild << personal information removed >>

Dominika Billik << personal information removed >>

June 21, 2015 Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573

Yours truly, Dominika Billik From: Rhonda Avery To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Milton Logistics Hub Date: June 13, 2015 6:39:14 AM

Erik and Rhonda Avery << personal information removed >>

June 12, 2015

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573

Dear Sir or Madame:

Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal

Yours truly,

Erik and Rhonda Avery From: Frank To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: CN hub ref# 80100 Date: June 10, 2015 11:29:10 PM

Yongxin Sun << personal information removed >>

Jun 10, 2015

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573 Email: [email protected]

Dear Sir or Madame:

Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal

As a resident of Halton, I am very concerned about the negative effects the proposed CN Intermodal Terminal could have on the environment of Halton, especially on Milton area.

I believe that residents surrounding the proposed area will forever suffer the long- term negative impacts of this proposed development and I believe residents from communities within the Regional Municipality of Halton will be victimized by its adverse impact. The 7/24 day and night noise and lighting and traffic is nightmare for surrounding environment and residents especially got kids.

Environmental concerns cover many aspects, just a few of which include:

The disturbance of noise will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road;

The disturbance of noise to the residents of Milton will be detrimental to our health, peace and enjoyment of our homes and park areas. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly.

The disturbance of very bright lighting will be detrimental to the residents of Milton health. Light at night is known to affect sleep patterns of residents living near a highly lighted yard. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly.

According to Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting, Frogs have been found to inhibit their mating calls when they are exposed to excessive light at night, reducing their reproductive capacity.

The many railway tracks could disrupt the many tributaries of Indian Creek with vibration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway Sites/Yards. This could make Indian Creek, which flows into Bronte Creek, which then flows in Lake Ontario contaminated, causing harm to the people of South Western Ontario.

Spawning fish, which swim from Indian Creek, across the creek under Tremaine Road, through the pond, then by stream across the proposed CN Terminal Site and continue across under First Line. The many railway tracks could disrupt the streams with vibration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway Sites/Yards. This could make Indian Creek which flows into Bronte Creek which flows in Lake Ontario contaminated and that are so that they are no longer usable by the fish;

Water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable.

These are just a few of my concerns.

I believe the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project requires a full Environmental Assessment.

I strongly believe it is NOT a right location for CN logistics hub.

Frank sun From: Gilda Stevens To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Milton Logistics Hub Date: June 15, 2015 10:56:25 AM

I think it would be an unfortunate decision by CN to go ahead with the proposed location for this huge endeavour. From my understanding CN said it would not go ahead with the Intermodal Terminal at the Milton location around 2008. Why would they even consider such a facility in this, the most rapidly growing housing area, in Ontario. Milton, by the powers that be, has been designated for this population explosion for the next several years and has been carefully planned for this. Nowhere does the increased amount of truck traffic fit into the picture, especially with the number of houses set to be built and already sold nearby. I live on the east side of Milton, far enough away from the proposed terminal, but the amount of additional truck traffic on the main thoroughfares will surely impact my travels.

CN should sell this site so it can kept as farmland and find a suitable location such as the Trafalgar site, near a highway and not close to growing populations.

Sincerely Gilda Stevens From: Gilles Paquette To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: BY EMAIL - Milton Logistics Hub Project Date: June 10, 2015 7:45:36 PM

BY EMAIL

On this 10th day of June 2015

Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project (aka CN Intermodal Terminal)

To: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573

To whom this may concern,

• The disturbance of noise to wildlife will be very evident e.g. (to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road);

• The disturbance of very bright lighting will be detrimental to the residents of Milton health. Light at night is known to affect sleep patterns of residents living near a highly lighted yard. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly.

• The disturbance of very bright lighting will be very evident to the wildlife in the area. e.g.( the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road.) It is known that bright night light changes the breeding calls of birds in the area. CN has reported a Species at Risk on the Proposed Site. Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) and Barn Swallow.

• Water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable.

These are just a few of my concerns. I believe the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project requires a full Environmental Assessment. I strongly believe this is NOT the correct place for the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project. Yours truly,

Gilles Paquette << personal information removed >>

<< personal information removed >> Gwen Gent << personal information removed >>

June 21, 2015

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573 Email: [email protected]

Hello

Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal

CN has made a proposal for an intermodal line in south rural Milton, ON. I believe CN is using a ruling for railway lines to try to get an intermodal yard passed. I believe the rights the rail company has been given in the past to be able to put in rail lines have been hijacked to try and get rail yards built. Building a rail yard is not a rail line. Transportation is not direct and items are being moved about on the yard, not passing through on the train, never leaving the tracks. That said, I will now go into my opinions on the intermodal yard plan and the impact ot the surrounding area.

I do not believe CN could ever make an intermodal yard or logistics hub a facility that should be in the middle of Halton Region. A class 3 industrial facility should be in an industrial area, not less than kilometer from residences. In 2008, CN told the Region of Halton and the Town of Milton they were not going to build an intermodal yard at this location. Now, just because a new CN executive wants to build in Milton, thousands of people are being put at risk from the pollution produced by an intermodal yard.

The risk to wildlife on the proposed site and around the proposed site is huge. The light pollution will affect the growth rates, feeding habits, mating habits, sleep habits and travel patterns of many flying, crawling and walking creatures (humans included). How will the light pollution risk to creatures on and around the proposed site really be dealt with? With a yard paved and a large as the CN proposal, the reflected light will be almost impossible to keep from affecting the surrounding areas. Will CN get away with the disturbance to living things around the proposed site so they can just make more money while the local citizens suffer? The excessive light of the proposed yard may also affect the trees planted at the Halton Waste Management Site. How will those trees be protected from the Proposed Intermodal Site?

Air pollution from the trucks travelling within the proposed site and also travelling from and to the proposed intermodal yard will have a devastating effect on the citizens and the wildlife around and in the proposed intermodal site. Smog rates for the area will be higher as the trucks idle while waiting for the cargo to be loaded and unloaded. Particulate will be devastating to anyone with a lung or heart issue. How will the citizens be protected?

Vibration from speakers has been known to cause hazards to people so it would be assumed that the vibration from idling trucks and trains and tractors will be hazardous to the people and wildlife in and around the intermodal yard. How will the vibrations be dealt with?

Noise is a major issue at a rail yard. How will the wildlife and the human be protected from the noise of the trains, tractors, trucks and other equipment present on the intermodal yard? Sound burms are known to transfer the sounds to another location, but that just makes the sound affect some other area. How will the excessive noise of the proposed yard be dealt with to prevent other areas from having harm? The trees that have been mention that will be planted on the burms will suffer from the excess light and may not thrive.

Plants have been shown to hold onto leaves longer than they should in the Autumn due to artificial light. This puts the plant life at risk due to extra weight on the branches or stems when snow or ice accumulates. Sap in trees does not go to roots for the winter until the leave are gone from most branches. How will the risk to the local trees be managed?

If this proposal is actually allowed, then the trucks that would be coming to Milton and Halton and not travelling through on the highways but actually travelling to the proposed site and causing pollution, road wear and tear and noise and traffic issues that do not currently exist.

Recently CN has had a great number of reported derailments. CN had a poor safety record with newspaper articles stating a 73% increase in derailments recently. I believe CN is more concerned with profits than with safety. Will we all need to keep a bag packed and wait for the call to evacuate due to some spill or accident at an intermodal yard run by CN in my community?

I do not think this facility belongs in the location CN has proposed.

Yours truly, Gwen Gent

Legislative and Planning Services Office of the Regional Clerk 1151 Bronte Road Oakville ON L6M 3L1 Email: [email protected]

VIA EMAIL

June 18, 2015

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Carl Johansson Canadian Transportation Agency, Paul LaCoste City of Burlington, Angela Morgan Town of Halton Hills, Suzanne Jones Town of Milton, Troy McHarg Town of Oakville, Vicki Tytaneck Niagara Escarpment Commission, Debbie Pella Keen Conservation Halton, Ken Phillips Eleanor McMahon, MPP, Burlington Indira Naidoo-Harris, MPP, Halton Kevin Flynn, MPP, Oakville Ted Arnott, MPP, Wellington-Halton Hills Mike Wallace, MP, Burlington The Honourable Lisa Raitt, PC, MP Halton The Honourable Michael Chong, PC, MP, Wellington-Halton Hills Terence Young, MP, Oakville Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Larry Clay

Please be advised that at its meeting held Wednesday, June 17, 2015, the Council of the Regional Municipality of Halton adopted the following resolution:

RESOLUTION: LPS75-15 – Response to Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency – Review of Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines for the Proposed CN Logistics Hub

1. THAT Report No. LPS75-15, “Response to Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency – Review of Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines for the Proposed CN Logistics Hub” be endorsed and that the Region’s comments/recommendations on the Draft Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines be forwarded to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency for consideration in the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement for this project.

2. THAT Report No. LPS75-15 be forwarded to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the Canadian Transportation Agency, the City of Burlington, the Town of Halton Hills, the Town of Milton and the Town of Oakville, Niagara Escarpment Commission, Conservation Halton, Halton MP’s, Halton MPP’s and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for information.

Included please find a copy of Report No. LPS75-15 for your information.

• Staff are of the view that the draft Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines must utilize consistent terminology throughout and would benefit significantly from the inclusion of clear definitions, so as to provide certainty in terminology and expected outcomes of the study.

• The geographic area which will be the subject of the Environmental Impact Assessment should be clearly defined early in the process and it is recommended that this study area be established on a watershed or sub-watershed basis.

• It is the Region’s intention to request access to all terms of reference and technical studies in relation the completion of the Environmental Impact Assessment.

Background

As Council will recall, in January, 2015, CN approached the Region and the Town of Milton with a revised proposal to build a logistics hub for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) to be located in the Town of Milton that will transfer cargo containers from rail cars to trucks, in order to facilitate the movement of goods into the Toronto area and throughout North America. CN owns approximately 450+ ha of land in southwest Milton and is proposing that the CN Logistics Hub be located on approximately 160 ha of this land. The proposed facility would be bordered by Tremaine Road to the west, Britannia Road to the north and Lower Base Line to the south.

On April 8, 2015, the CEAA, pursuant to section 11 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, requested that the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) review the Project Description and assess the need for CTA review and approval of CN’s proposal. On May 13, 2015, the CTA issued a Notice of Decision ordering CN to submit an Application for Approval to construct railway lines to be known as the Milton Logistics Hub. The decision also states that “the Project could impact existing crossings located within the Project area. Pursuant to subsection 101(3) of the Canadian Transportation Act, upon application, the CTA may approve the reconstruction of crossings and related works and apportion construction and maintenance costs if parties cannot reach an agreement”.

The CEAA provided notice of its Decision on May 22nd, 2015 ordering CN to complete an environmental assessment. The Agency considered the following factors in making its determination: the description of the project provided by CN on March 23, 2015; the possibility that the carrying out of the project may cause adverse environmental effects; and all comments received within the 20 day comment period. The Notice of Decision includes Draft Guidelines for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, which has been posted on the CEAA website. Comments on these Draft Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines must be submitted to CEAA by June 21, 2015. Regional and local municipal staff have now completed a joint review of the EIA Guidelines, with a peer review also having been undertaken. The purpose of this report is to provide Regional Council with staff’s recommended response to the CEAA in this regard.

Discussion

The CEAA Draft Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines take a precautionary and ecosystem-based approach to impacts on the environment. Regional staff supports this approach for the completion of the Environmental Impact Assessment for this project. Staff’s recommendations/comments on amendments to the Draft Guidelines are set out in Attachment No. 1 to this Report, which will be forwarded to the CEAA prior to the June 21 st submission date.

The precautionary approach and the ecosystem approach are not defined terms in the Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines. In order to avoid any misunderstanding and to provide certainty in the preparation of the Environmental Impact Assessment, the inclusion of definitions is critical. Furthermore, the geographic area which will be the subject of the Environmental Impact Assessment should be clearly defined early in the process and it is recommended that this study area be established on a watershed or sub-watershed basis and that this be clearly delineated in the Environmental Impact Assessment document.

The Environmental Impact Assessment contemplated for this project is comprehensive in nature but lacks clarity with respect to the principles and approach upon which it will be developed. There are numerous terms used in relation to the assessment of the environment that seem to be used interchangeably and without definition. It is imperative that the document be amended to ensure that there is consistency in the use of terminology throughout and that clear definitions are established. Staff will also be advising the CEAA that the Region must be fully engaged throughout the Environmental Impact Assessment process and that Regional staff be provided with the opportunity to review the Term of Reference for this project and that all supporting technical studies are made available to the Region.

The Region, in support of the precautionary approach and ecosystem based approach is requesting that the Environmental Impact Assessment include a “hierarchy” of environmental assessment. The Draft Guidelines released for consultation appear to suggest that environmental impacts will result from the proposal and that mitigation is required. In staff’s opinion, this statement runs counter to the precautionary approach. Instead, Staff recommends a hierarchy analysis be undertaken which provides for: a) firstly, the avoidance of impacts; b) secondly, no negative impact on the ecosystem; and lastly, c) mitigation only as a last resort. This hierarchy would better support the precautionary approach put forward in the Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines.

Finally, the Draft Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines includes a section on Monitoring. It is recommended that these Monitoring requirements be expanded to include:

a. the requirement for monitoring during pre-construction, during construction and during operations to assess and maintain the integrity of the ecosystem;

3 2.2 Public participation The proponent is There has been limited information required to provide provided by the proponent on the current information project to date. The Municipalities about the project to would request through the EIA that the public and all information and terms of especially to the reference for study be provided to communities likely to the municipalities for review and be most affected by comment. Municipalities should be the project. consulted in establishment of the Terms of Reference 4 2.4 EIS, the proponent will The term The precautionary approach should demonstrate that all precautionary manner establish a hierarchy with respect to aspects of the project or approach would the environment a. avoidance, b. benefit from a demonstration of no negative have been examined and definition impact on the environment and c. planned in a careful and environmental impact and precautionary manner in mitigation only as a last resort. order to avoid significant adverse environmental The terms The draft guidelines should contain effects. “significant”, definition at the start of the process “adverse” and for the expected outcome with “environmental respect to significance, adverse and effects” would all environmental effects. The Draft benefit from a EIA guidelines define the term definition. Cumulative effects so these should also be defined.

Throughout the draft The use of terminology should be EIA guidelines there consistent throughout the EIA are several references guideline. In a number of areas of to “adverse the guideline it would appear that environmental different terminology is requesting effects”, “potential the same answer. Adverse, adverse potential adverse, significant environmental adverse and significant all when effects”, “significant making reference to environmental adverse effect. The terminology should be environmental defined and consistently used. effects”, “significant environmental effects” , “cumulative effects”, “cumulative environmental effects” and “significance of effect”

5 3.1 Designated Project The scope of the The following are being requested federal to be included as part of the environmental designated project - Connections to and crossing of assessment for the Britannia Road and other Milton Logistics crossings throughout the Region Hub Project is that have the potential to be focused on matters impacted. within the care - Travel Demand to and from the site and potential impacts and control of the including determining the proponent and potential significance of the environmental noise of additional trucks on effects as defined public roadways in Section 5 of - throughout the Region. For example, intersection and link CEAA 2012. Level-of-Service (AM & PM peak periods) - Entrance permits - Noise assessment of construction and ongoing operations - Dark Sky theory on light Impact - Fuel Storage and mitigation measures - Visual impact assessment - Identification of Primary and Secondary truck routes, if an incident closes or restricts the use of a Primary Route - Potential impacts to pavement quality (Primary and Secondary Routes) due to increased truck volumes - Identification of road infrastructure improvements, but not limited to, intersections, roadways, etc. - Construction of walls and fences with the watershed and along common property boundaries 6 3.2 Fact ors to be considered - environmental The use of terminology should be effects of the project, consistent throughout the EIA including the guideline. The guideline to provide clarity could benefit from a environmental definition for cumulative effects of environmental effects. malfunctions or accidents that may 3 occur in connection The project as presented occupies with the project and 160ha of 485ha owned by the any cumulative proponent; will the EIS address the proposed use of all of the environmental proponent’s lands? effects that are likely to result from the The cumulative environmental project in effects analysis should consider the combination with combined effects of emissions and other physical impacts from the subject site and activities that have other major facilities in the area been or will be such as the Halton Region carried out; Landfill;

the significance of Consistent use of terminology. In effects addition the definition of significant would benefit at the outset of the

EIA.

The definition is requested to include a hierarchy a. avoidance, b. no negative impact and c. mitigation

Would request the inclusion of comments from public agencies and municipalities.

- alternative means of Does this require the proponent to look at other sites are part of the carrying out the EIA so assess the criteria for project that are “alternative”? technically and economically feasible and the environmental effects of any such alternatives;

Additional Factor that is requested to be added is the inclusion of a risk assessment from the operation on

the environment and surrounding existing and plan land uses.

The factors to be considered appear to deal only with matters of mitigation to the environment. Give the precautionary approach is

the preferred approach why is there no demonstration of negative impact; this is requested to be added as a factor to be considered.

It is recommended that the inclusion of an Environmental Management Plan that would address environmental monitoring including noise monitoring during construction, during operations and complaint and remediation.

7 3.3.1 Changes to the In scoping the It is requested that additional Environment potential changes to environmental impact factors the environment that Dust, Noise, Light pollution, Visual impact assessment and level of may occur, CO2 emissions are considered pre proponents should and post development including consider any changes to the existing background potential changes in sound levels. the physical Note omission of qualifier before environment such as third “quality” in sentence in changes to air original text of guideline document. quality, water quality and quantity, and It is requested the reference to physical disturbance “water quality and quantity” be expanded to “the quality and of land that could be quantity of surface water and reasonably be groundwater, including water expected to occur. balance.”

8 3.3.2 Valued Components to be VC’s refer to It is suggested that the VC analysis Examined environmental specifically address Natural biophysical or Heritage and Water Policies of the PPS. This would include ANSIs human features that (earth and life science) Significant may be impacted. Woodlands, S. Wetlands, S. Wildlife Habitat, and S. Valleylands. It should consider features already designated as well as features that meet the Natural Heritage Reference Manual 5

definitions but not previously evaluated. The Region is seeking confirmation that the “valued components” being assessed are generally applied across all stakeholders, locations, and issues.

9 3.3.3 Spatial and Temporal The proponent is The basis for the EIA would benefit boundaries encouraged to from parameters established early consult with the and would recommend the inclusion of a watershed or sub- Agency, federal and watershed as the basis for the provincial spatial boundaries. government departments and Who makes the final determination agencies, local of the boundaries of the EIS? government and Aboriginal groups, and take into account public comments when defining the spatial boundaries used in the EIS.

10 4.2 St udy strategy and - If such matters are It is requested that Municipalities me thodology omitted from the be included in the grouping to EIS, the proponent provide comment and input on the EIS. will clearly indicate it, and provide a justification so the Agency, federal authorities,

Aboriginal groups, the public and any other interested party have an opportunity to comment on this

decision.

This analysis will It is requested that the analysis include not only the historical and 6 include present activities but also the environmental planned activities. conditions resulting from historical and present activities in the local and regional study area

The nature of the EIA will take a In describing and ecosystems approach, the assessing effects to Guidelines would benefit from a the physical and definition of Ecosystem Approach. biological The approach should look at the environment, the protection of feature, enhancement areas, linkages and buffers to proponent will take provide for the long term health of an ecosystem the ecosystem. approach that considers both scientific and traditional knowledge and perspectives regarding ecosystem health and integrity.

The proponent will consider the resilience of relevant species populations, communities and their habitats. It is requested that the inclusion of The assessment of a watershed or sub-watershed basis the effects of each of be included in the assessment. the project components and physical activities, in all phases, will be based on a comparison of the biophysical and human environments

between the predicted future conditions with the project and the predicted future conditions without the project. In undertaking the environmental effects assessment, the proponent will use best available information and methods. 11 4.3.1 Sc ientific advice Section 20 of CEAA How is this information available to 2012 requires that municipalities? It is requested that every federal any information shared with the proponent be also shared with the authority with municipalities. specialist or expert information or knowledge with respect to a project subject to an EA make that information or knowledge available to the Agency. The Agency will advise the proponent of the availability of any pertinent information or knowledge so that it can be incorporated into the EIS, along with, as appropriate, expert and specialist knowledge provided by other levels of government.

12 4.3.3 Existi ng information In preparing the EIS, When utilizing existing data is there the proponent is a sunset on when the data can no encouraged to make longer be relied upon? use of existing information relevant to the project. 13 4.5 Sum mary of the A summary of the It is requested that the specific Environmental Impact consultation reference to “government agencies” St atement conducted with be clarified to include local, regional and provincial level of Aboriginal groups, government and their associated the public, and agencies. government agencies, including a summary of the

issues raised and the proponent’s responses

It is requested that the summary be expanded to include “socio- economic effects on existing and planned communities, including the transportation network” PART 2 14 1.3 Pro ject Location The EIS will contain a description of the geographical setting

in which the project will take place. This description will focus on those aspects of the project

and its setting that are important in order to understand the potential environmental

effects of the project. The following information will be included:

To truly understand the impacts current land use in proposed land uses should also be the area, considered. It is requested the scope be expanded to include current and proposed land uses and planned function in the area. For example, lands which may be currently vacant but which are designated or zoned for residential or other noise sensitive uses should be considered to be noise sensitive and be fully assessed, in addition to any existing residential locations.

It is requested that the list be expanded to include: water courses environmentally and fish habitat. sensitive areas, such as national, It is requested the word or be provincial and deleted and replace with the word “and” to ensure species are regional parks, protected both federally and ecological reserves, provincially wetlands, estuaries, and habitats of federally or and provincially listed species at risk and other sensitive areas

15 1.4 Reg ulatory framework and The EIS will It is requested to expand this the role of government identify: section to include any necessary - the environmental site works approvals required.

and other regulatory approvals and legislation that are applicable to the project at the federal,

provincial, regional and municipal levels - any all It requested that is be expanded to relevant land use include any amendments required 10

plans at the to those plans for the proposal. provincial, regional and local level, land It is requested the section be expanded to clearly indicate all zoning by-laws, or relevant planning documents are community plans included.

It is also recognized that approval is required by the Canadian Transportation Agency, is it requested that specific reference to this approval be included in the Regulatory Framework.

16 2.2 Al ternative means of In its alternative It is requested that in the ca rrying out the project means analysis, consideration of alternative in the proponent carrying out the project the proponent should be required to will address, at a justify the location and that other minimum, the sites have been looked at. following project components:

− water supply It is requested this be expanded to include wastewater.

17 3.1 Project Components The EIS will describe It is requested to delete the word the project, by “the” and add the word “all” presenting the project suggested to emphasize that the components, proponent must supply all relevant associated and information and that some of that ancillary works, and information may extend beyond the specific list provided; not all other characteristics project components may be fully that will assist in known at this point and thus their understanding the environmental emissions may not environmental effects. be fully known at this point. This will include

It is requested that Building location and attribute, and location of adjacent natural features should be included. It is requested to add “Waste 11

Disposal area” and “Walls and similar infrastructure” to the list to be shown.

18 3.2.1 Site Preparation and It is requested that the provision of Construction any municipal approvals necessary would be identified and in order 3.2.2 Operation prior to any works commencing.

It is requested that “any other relevant activities under this category” be added to this section. This is to emphasize that the proponent must supply all relevant information and that some of that information may extend beyond the specific list provided; not all project components may be fully known at this point.

It is request that all goods and material to be handled on the site, as well as incident and spill strategy.

It is requested that the requirements for watercourse alteration and supporting design criteria be included in this section

19 6 Biophysical and biological the EIS Guidelines include environments reference to biophysical and biological environments, as well as the application of an “ecosystem approach”, the EIS Guidelines should also require that the proponent provide the following information for the baseline assessment and the effects assessment:

Ecosystem Level • Significance of woodlands as per regionally designated Significant Woodlands • Significance of wetlands as per provincial standards

• Significance of natural heritage features from a regional natural heritage system perspective. • Study area boundary delineation and justification. • Description and assessment of impacts of the proposed development on regional wildlife connectivity. This should take into consideration predicted traffic volumes. • Description and assessment of impacts of road mortality on local wildlife populations. • Identification of and assessment of impacts to Significant Wildlife Habitat (as described in provincial guidance documents).

Site-specific • Description and assessment of vegetation community types (as well as smaller vegetation patches) using provincial standards (i.e. the Ecological Land Classification system). Comprehensive spring, summer and fall botanical surveys to document the full range of plant species present. Species lists should reference current local, regional, and provincial conservation status. • Comprehensive and seasonally appropriate surveys of the wildlife communities present. This should, as a minimum, include nocturnal amphibian call surveys and breeding bird surveys. Provincial protocols should be followed to aid in assessment of results. Species lists should reference current local, regional, and provincial conservation status. •A description and assessment of impa cts on local wil dlife 13

connec tivity. •Identification of and assessment of impacts to Significant Wildlife Habitat (as described in provincial guidance documents). •Impacts of noise on wildlife associated with predicted traffic volumes.

20 6.1.1 At mospheric Environment ambient air quality in It is requested that the section be the project areas and, rewritten as follows “ambient air for the project site, the quality in the project areas and, for results of a baseline the project site, the results of a baseline survey of ambient air survey of ambient air quality, including, at minimum, the quality, including the following contaminants: Carbon following Monoxide (CO), total suspended contaminants: Carbon particulates, fine particulates Monoxide (CO), total (PM2.5), particulate matters up to suspended 10 micrometers in size (PM-10), particulates, fine particulate species of relevance to the project, sulfur oxide (SOx), particulates (PM2.5), volatile organic compounds (VOCs) particulate matters up and nitrogen oxide (NOx) to 10 micrometers in However, once all project size (PM-10), sulfur components have been identified, oxide (SOx), volatile and their air emissions identified, organic compounds the baseline survey may need to be (VOCs) and nitrogen extended to other contaminants outside of the specific list provided. oxide (NOx) Further the baseline survey should

account for all spatial and temporal variations in baseline air quality levels in the surrounding area;” This is to emphasize that the proponent must account for all relevant contaminants emitted and that some sources of pollutants may

emit contaminants beyond the specific list provided

historical records of It is requested this section be total precipitation rewritten as follows: historical records of relevant meteorological (rain and snow), parameters including, but not mean, maximum and 14

minimum limited to, total precipitation (rain temperatures and snow), mean, maximum and minimum temperatures.

It is requested the assessment of dust be included in the list.

It is requested that the assessment of sediment transport, bank erosion, bed scour, channel migration and understanding and characterization of the channel function and dynamics, to establish a baseline for the impact assessment.

It is requested that wind speed and direction be included among the historic records. 21 6.1.3 Topography and Soil Baseline mapping and It is suggested that the proponent description of undertake a Significant Valleyland landforms and soils. boundary mapping as per the Natural Heritage Resource Manual. 22 6.1.4 Groundwater and Surface Local and regional The use of ground and surface Water potable groundwater water for agricultural supply should supplies, including be included in the assessment. their current use and

potential for future

use. It is requested that the monitoring protocol include well records of adjacent neighbouring and nearby wells for a minimum period which will clearly indicate historical trends for water levels and quality in wells.

It is requested the following be added to this section “regarding the baseline assessment for groundwater and surface water:

•Features of hydrologic and hydrogeologic significance. •The monitoring protocol for collection of existing stream flow data and rainfall data. 15

•Ins tantaneous pe ak flows and Regulatory Storm flows. •Floodline mapping. •Hydraulic structure inventory. •Hydrologic and hydraulic model calibration and validation. •Monitoring protocol for collection of existing surface water and groundwater quality. •Seasonal water quality field and lab analytical results for various contaminants of concern (i.e. water temperature, turbidity, pH, dissolved oxygen profiles, TSS, metals, hydrocarbons, oil and grease, phosphorus, and other contaminants of concern). •Any local and regional potable groundwater resources. •Groundwater protection zones.

23 6.1.7 Species at Risk The section is very specific to Federal species at risk. In Ontario there are a number of Provincially identified species at risk. It is requested that the EIA list be expanded to include Federal and Provincial Species at Risk. 24 6.1.9 Hu man environment - the current use of It is requested the consideration be land in the study area, expanded to include current and including a planned use of the land.

description of hunting, recreational and commercial fishing, trapping, gathering, and outdoor

recreational activities

Footnote#7 refers to a dead link please update

25 6.2.1 Changes to the - Changes in air It is requested to specifically state Atmospheric Environment quality what is to be assessed e.g. Co2 emissions etc.

It is requested to add at the end of this section “relative to baseline data” 26 6.2.2 Changes to Groundwater - It is requested the following be and Surface water added to this section • Changes to peak flows within and downstream of the project site during all events up to and including the Regional Storm event. • Changes to flood levels within, upstream, and downstream of the project site during all events up to and including the Regional Storm event. • Changes to hydroperiod and water levels at significant environmental features 27 6.2.3 Changes to Terrestrial - Changes to critical It is requested the list be expanded Landscape habitat for federally to include provincial listed species listed species at risk; at risk. 28 6.3.3 Species at Risk - for each habitat unit, It is requested the list be expanded the potential effects to include provincial listed species of the project on at risk. federally listed species at risk and those species listed by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada classified as extirpated, endangered, threatened or of special concern (flora and fauna) and their critical habitat 29 6.3.5 Ot her Socio-economic The Regions landfill site abuts the Conditions and Heritage proposed logistics hub. The Resources proposal has the potential to impact the existing facility. It is requested that the EIA be expanded to include the assessment of the potential long 17

term cumulative impacts on the Regions landfill site.

It is requested that the following be added “the impacts to the economic value of adjacent lands.”

30 6.4 Mitigation The EIA Guideline suggests that there will be an environmental impact and that mitigation is the alternative. It is requested consideration be given to a hierarchy of assessment a. avoidance, b. no negative impact to the ecological or biological value of the ecosystem or c. as a last resort mitigation.

The suggestion that you can have an environmental impact and mitigation without the need for other consideration does not support the precautionary approach or the ecosystem approach that is the basis of the EIA guideline.

The Region is seeking clarification that the significant environmental effects are upon the “valued components” defined in the background?

It is requested that this section be expanded to include the following “The EIS shall document and demonstrate conformance with the precautionary approach” 31 6.6.1. Atmospheric Environment It is request that the lists be expanded to include the effects generally of climate change

32 6.6.2 Effec ts of the environment The EIS will This suggests that the project will on the project provide details of have environmental impacts. It is planning, design requested consideration be given to a hierarchy of assessment a. and construction avoidance, b. no negative impact to strategies intended the ecological or biological value of 18

to minimize the the ecosystem or c. as a last resort potential mitigation. environmental effects of the environment on the project.

33 6.3.3 Cumulative Effects It is requested that this section be Assessment expanded to include “Impacts to public health and safety” and “documentation and demonstration of conformance with the precautionary approach”

34 7 Summary of Proposed mitigation It is requested that the words “in Environmental Effects measures to address Part 6” be added for clarity Assessment the effects identified “in Part 6” above

35 8.1 Follow-up Program It is requested “Process and anticipated timelines for obtaining municipal approvals” be added to this section

36 8.2 Monitoring The proponent will The monitoring program should prepare an include all components of the environmental project and timing to maintain the environment. It is requested that monitoring program the monitoring section be expanded for all phases of the to include: project. This program a. Monitoring plan for pre will help ensure that construction, during the project is construction, post construction and an operational management implemented as plan. proposed, that the b. A requirement for an annual mitigation or environmental monitoring compensation report on the health of the measures proposed to ecosystem c. Environmental complaint and minimize the project’s compliance protocol during environmental effects construction and operation of are effectively the facility. implemented, and that the conditions set at The monitoring at all phases should 19 the time of the include physical factors such as project’s authorization noise, air quality, dust and other and the emissions. requirements pertaining to the relevant laws and regulations are met. The monitoring program will also make it possible to check the proper operation of works, equipment and facilities. If necessary, the program will help reorient the work and possibly make improvements at the time of construction and implementation of the various elements of the project.

Rodney Northey << personal information removed >>

June 19, 2015

By Fax: (416) 952-1573 and Email: [email protected]

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2

Re: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Guidelines to Canadian National Railway Company (CN) for its Milton Logistics Hub Project Reference No. 80100

We write on behalf of the Regional Municipality of Halton and four local municipalities impacted by this project.

Halton Region, the Town of Milton, the Town of Oakville, the City of Burlington, and the Town of Halton Hills (collectively, the “Halton municipalities”) have written three previous letters to you on this project.

The purpose of this letter is to respond to your deadline of June 21, 2015 to provide comments on your draft EIS Guidelines to CN for its Milton Logistics Hub Project.

Legal Concerns

We raise two fundamental legal concerns. Both relate to the Halton municipalities’ concern that there not be a regulatory vacuum around key aspects of this project.

Non-compliance with s.18 of CEAA

Our first concern is your lack of compliance with s.18 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA). As the Agency with responsible authority linked to this project, s.18 requires that you offer to consult and cooperate with jurisdictions. We are not aware of any offer to address this obligation with the Halton municipalities.

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2

June 10, 2015

Dear Sir/Madam

The proposed CN lntermodal will be located within 100 yards of my home. Despite CN's claim that they have contacted 'resident's I have not seen anyone other than a person dropping off a 'flyer' and telling me the lntermodal will be up and running by 2017 regardless of what anyone has to say about it!

Evervone is opposed to CN building the lntermodal south of Milton between Britannia and lower Base line. Nobody is opposed to it being built north of the 401 in the 'industrial area' of Milton.

Should they be made to follow the rules and regulations that every other business or person has to comply with, then the lntermodal would never be allowed to be built between Britannia and Lower base line. Yet they will force their agenda through, bypassing every level of Government opposed to them due to a long overdue to be revised Railway Act. They do not care about what is right or what is wrong, and it is wrong building the lntermodal so close to a residential area.

The people of Milton do not want the lntermodal built south of the 401, my family do not want it built 100 yards from our beautiful heritage home. The 24 hours a day noise, bright lights, pollution, and endless truck traffic will decimate the quality of our lives and the value of my home and many others.

CN Rail will have an answer to every environmental objection or concern put forward, but they have no answer to having to follow the same building application process of every other business or citizen of Canada.

Sincerely, << personal information removed >>

/ James Forte - << personal information removed >> From: Janice Fraga To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Date: June 12, 2015 8:12:44 PM

Janice Fraga << personal information removed >>

June 12, 2015

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573

Dear Sir or Madame:

Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal

• The disturbance of noise will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road;

• The disturbance of very bright lighting will be detrimental to the residents of Milton health. Light at night is known to affect sleep patterns of residents living near a highly lighted yard. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly.

• Water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable.

Yours truly, Janice Fraga

Sent from Windows Mail From: Jason Hooper To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Milton Logistics Hub Project — Public Comments Date: June 11, 2015 12:56:22 PM

As a home owner and tax payer in the town of Milton, I would like to formally submit my objection to the proposed CN Intermodal Hub Project. I specifically moved my family with 3 young kids to the town of Milton from downtown Toronto in order to get away from the industrial, urban sprawl of the city. CN’s proposed 400 acre industrial complex is exactly what I was trying to avoid when I left Toronto. The environmental consequences of CN’s project on Milton and the surrounding area will pose a direct impact on the health and well-being of my family and community. Specifically, myself and my oldest child both suffer from asthma, which studies have shown, will be directly and negatively impacted by the increased air pollution created from the +1000 daily transport trucks moving through the CN Intermodal Hub. For this reason and the additional health & environmental issues listed below, I strongly object to the CN Project in Milton.

The environmental information provided below is taken directly from Statistics Canada – Human Activity & the Environment: Annual Statistics http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/16-201-x/2006000/9515-eng.htm

- A significant portion of regional air pollution results from transportation activities. In Canada, the major air pollutant are known as 'criteria air contaminants' (CAC). Transportation is a major emitter of three of these contaminants: nearly three-quarters of the carbon monoxide (CO), more than one-half of the nitrogen oxides (NOx) and more than one-quarter of the volatile organic compounds (VOC) in 2004.

- These emissions continue to be a concern because of their potential environmental and human health impacts. For example, NOx and VOC are precursors to the formation of ground level ozone—a key component of smog. NOx is also a major contributor to acid rain. Small amounts of CO can slow human response and perception, and prolonged exposure to low levels—or brief exposure to high concentrations—can cause unconsciousness and death.

- While the bulk of CAC emissions come from road sources, not all types of vehicles contribute equally to the mix. Heavy-duty vehicles (including tractor trailers, for example) were responsible for 25% of transportation NOx emissions in 2004. Light trucks —vans, SUVs and pickups—contributed 22% of transportation VOC and 31% of transportation CO emissions.

- The risk of soil contamination from transportation and transportation infrastructure is also a concern. Corroding underground gas tanks can leak fuel into surrounding soil. Wood preservation chemicals can leach from railway ties. According to the National Pollutant Release Inventory, 2,704 tonnes of ethylene glycol, which is commonly used to de-ice airplanes, was released onto land in 2004. Oil, gasoline, diesel, antifreeze, coolants and other substances regularly spill or leak onto roads. As they wear and break down, engines, tires and brakes produce pollutants. This mix of chemicals can run off onto surrounding roadsides. Studies show that concentrations of heavy metals are higher near heavily travelled roads. Canadian producers shipped 13.8 million tonnes of salt in 2005, much of it used to de-ice roads. It is estimated that close to 5 million tonnes of road salt are used in Canada each year. Some environmental contamination risks of road salt are increased salinity of soils, damage to vegetation, contamination of ground and surface water, and fish mortality. An indirect way that transportation can contaminate soil is through acid deposition, which occurs when emissions of sulphur and nitrogen oxides fall to the ground in dry form or as acid rain, fog or snow.

- Besides consuming land, transportation infrastructure can have an impact on wildlife. Wide roads and busy highways can act as a barrier, limiting movement of small and large mammals. Wildlife habitat can also be affected by train derailments and spills.

Additional Sources: http://www.ehhi.org/reports/exhaust/exhaust06.pdf

- Over the past 10 years, hundreds of studies have been published in the peer reviewed literature demonstrating the special vulnerability to air pollution that exists among susceptible populations with serious illnesses. Tens of millions of Americans suffer from these illnesses, which include asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, and lung cancer. Also at special risk are children, the elderly, those with compromised immune systems, and those with specific genetic traits.

- Vehicle exhaust is harmful to asthmatics. It can adversely affect their lung function and may promote allergic reactions and airway constriction. All vehicles, especially diesel engines, emit microscopic particles that can penetrate lungs and inflame the circulatory system, damaging cells and causing respiratory problems such as asthma. Studies have found that even short-term exposure to vehicle exhaust may harm asthmatics.

- Asthmatic children are particularly sensitive to air pollution. They are 40 percent more likely to have an attack on high outdoor pollution days. Children living near high traffic flows are more likely to have more medical care visits per year and a higher prevalence of most respiratory symptoms.

- Studies have found that children in communities with higher levels of urban air pollution in Southern California had decreased lung function growth, and children spending more time outdoors had even larger deficits in the growth rate of lung function.

Jay Hooper | The State Group Inc. << personal information removed >>

From: Jimmy Hearn To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal Date: June 10, 2015 6:41:18 PM

Dear Sir or Madame: Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal As a resident of Halton, I am very concerned about the effects the proposed CN Intermodal Terminal could have on the environment of Halton. I believe that residents surrounding the proposed area will forever suffer the long-term negative impacts of this proposed development and I believe residents from communities within the Regional Municipality of Halton will be victimized by its adverse impact. Concerns; • The disturbance of noise will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road; • The disturbance of noise to the residents of Milton will be detrimental to our health, peace and enjoyment of our homes and park areas. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly. • The disturbance of very bright lighting will be detrimental to the residents of Milton health. Light at night is known to affect sleep patterns of residents living near a highly lighted yard. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly. • The disturbance of very bright lighting will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road. It is known that bright night light changes the breeding calls of birds in the area. CN has reported a Species at Risk on the Proposed Site. Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) and Barn Swallow. • According to Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting, Frogs have been found to inhibit their mating calls when they are exposed to excessive light at night, reducing their reproductive capacity. • According to Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting, the feeding behavior of bats also is altered by artificial light. Researchers have blamed light pollution for declines in populations of North American moths, almost all small rodents and carnivores. “We just now understand the nocturnality of many creatures,” says Chad Moore, Night Sky Program manager with the National Park Service. “Not protecting the night will destroy the habitat of many animals.” • The many railway tracks could disrupt the many tributaries of Indian Creek with vibration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway Sites/Yards. This could make Indian Creek, which flows into Bronte Creek, which then flows in Lake Ontario contaminated, causing harm to the people of South Western Ontario. • Spawning fish, which swim from Indian Creek, across the creek under Tremaine Road, through the pond, then by stream across the proposed CN Terminal Site and continue across under First Line. The many railway tracks could disrupt the streams with vibration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway Sites/Yards. This could make Indian Creek which flows into Bronte Creek which flows in Lake Ontario contaminated and that are so that they are no longer usable by the fish; • Spawning fish, which swim from Indian Creek, across the creek under Tremaine Road, through the pond, then by stream across the proposed CN Terminal Site and continue across under First Line will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable. • Water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable. • The environment for the human population surrounding the proposed site would be permanently altered in a detrimental way by (1) increasing air pollution due to dust and fuel fumes from both trains and trucks; (2) make it no longer possible for the many cyclists who use local Milton roads for recreation to safely ride on our country roads; (3) cause pollution of the water table; (4) cause noise pollution from trucks and trains; (5) cause littering pollution where the wind carries garbage from CN trains and trucks; (6) cause light pollution that will put an end to star gazing in the area; (7) cause noise pollution from work on the site itself; (8) cause air pollution from the traffic congestion in the area created by the increased truck traffic which would not be on the local roads if not for the proposed CN site; (9) • In Halton, we are also very disturbed that CN has been allowed to circumvent the environmental assessment processes at the regional and provincial levels. We are deeply worried that the federal EA is not stringent or effective enough, and that CN well knows this. We ask you, at the CEAA to consider this concern seriously and to review the standards that CN MUST be held to according to municipal, regional, and provincial zoning and plans. These are just a few of my concerns. I believe the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project requires a full Environmental Assessment. I believe this is not the correct place for the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project. Yours truly, Jimmy Hearn From: Jon Mendoza To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Milton Logistics Hub Project- Public Comment Date: June 21, 2015 8:30:27 PM

June 21, 2015 Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573

Dear Sir/Madame: Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal

I am a Halton resident that believes the proposed CN Intermodal Terminal is very detrimental to the environment of Halton, and the Halton community.

I am aware that CN is regulated at the Federal level, and therefore is subject to only the Acts from the Federal ministries and agencies (such as the Railway Act, Canada Transportation Act, Environmental Assessment etc.) It is my understanding that these Acts regulate the development, operation and maintenance of specifically train, tracks, rails, yards and stations. The CN Intermodal Hub has two main components. The first component is the intermodal/Hub itself, and its treatment may be viewed similarly to other train development projects, such as building a new train yard. However, it is my view that there is a second component to the project which goes beyond the scope of train activities, which is unique to an intermodal/hub. This component is the trucks that would be required to load/unload cargo from the train and deliver it to and from the hub. The impact of these trucks, which are a necessary component of the project, should also be considered by the CEAA. Also, it is my understanding that these trucks are beyond the scope of the railway act, since they do not constitute a vital component of the operation of trains themselves. Therefore, in my view, the assessment of the intermodal necessitates the involvement of the Region of Halton and town of Milton, both of which should be considered as jurisdictions, as defined by the CEAA.

It is my understanding that the CEAA has the option of collaborating with jurisdictions when implementing an assessment on proposed projects. I believe it is imperative that the CEAA include the Region of Halton and the town of Milton’s requirements when assessing CN’s intermodal Hub and that the CEAA require CN to be approved not only from the CEAA’s requirements, but also from the requirements imposed by these jurisdictions. The Jurisdictions of Milton and the Region of Halton, would be better able to make appropriate requirements due to the farther reaching impact of trucks to the region, which stretches beyond the hub itself. Therefore the project should not proceed if these jurisdictions determine through their requirements and assessments, that the impact of this project is too severe to the environment and community. The following list are just a few of the many areas that should also be examined during the environmental assessment:

Effects Assessment Human environment · Noise pollution particularly from loading/unloading of containers, stacking containers, and truck noise throughout Milton as trucks travel from/to intermodal in southeast corner of Milton to/from the highway, at the northeast corner of Milton. · Air pollution due to exhaust particulates from trucks that must travel across Milton due to the very inappropriate location of the intermodal. · The proximity of the intermodal, (which should be considered a heavy industrial operation due to noise, air, light pollutions and 24/7 operations), to planned and existing dense residential areas. · Consider the likely path of the trucks to/from the hub and to/from the highway. I believe that the likely target destination of most truckers is the James Snow Parkway interchange, located northeast of Milton, making the southwest hub location a very inappropriate location for the intermodal. Mitigation · Other alternatives intermodal sites have not been provided by CN. The CEAA should require CN to submit an application with Milton and the Region of Halton to determine a more suitable location that would mitigate the negative impact of the intermodal. Socio-economic Effects · Intermodal location is very detrimental to Milton and Region of Halton, since the area immediately surrounding it designed for dense residential, educational institutions, and sports& rec. areas, to name a few. By placing an intermodal at that location, it would negatively impact the economic and social well being of the town and region. It would result in lost revenue by the town; decreased property values of residents throughout Milton as residents flee the traffic chaos created by the intermodal situated at a location not designed for the truck traffic; lost businesses and institutions unwilling to locate near the intermodal. It can even cause the region’s economy to plummet as result of the traffic chaos created by the intermodal, preventing residents to get to work and customers and business being able to access other businesses due to the road congestion, ultimately forcing an exodus of many businesses and residents from the region.

Other effects to consider – Effects of potential accidents or malfunctions · Truck accidents resulting in auto collisions, rollovers, leading to spillage of contents of the trucks will have severe impact to o The environment – groundwater and surface water, streams, fish habitats, soil o Human environment – spillage of harmful truck contents can have a severe impact to human health o Socio-economic – the location of the intermodal is not suitable due to the likely path of the trucks and the roads which were not designed to accommodate this high traffic. Truck accidents would result in increased occurrence of blocked roads, with very little, if any alternatives to enter or exit Milton, causing severe economic impact to the Milton community, from lost wages of residents, lost business activity from customers and consumers unable to access businesses. · Seepage of fluid in stacked containers to the ground, leading to environmental impact

CN should not be allowed to circumvent the environmental assessment processes at the regional and provincial levels, especially since this project is not strictly only a train/railway/station-type project. The trucks travelling in and out of the hub, and passing through Milton, which are a vital component of the project, would have a far wider reaching footprint that goes beyond the impact of the hub itself. Therefore, it is necessary that the CEAA include the Jurisdictions of Milton and Region of Halton, when implementing the assessment. The CEAA should require CN to meet the requirements of the Jurisdictions, in addition the requirements of the CEAA. It is my hope that the CEAA considers my concerns and prevent CN from undermining the requirements mandated by the town of Milton, and Region of Halton jurisdictions.

Yours truly, Jonathan Mendoza << personal information removed >> From: j00mar00 To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: CEAR, Information Request Date: June 3, 2015 7:03:33 PM

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to express my concern regarding the proposed intermodal CN rail, wanting to build in our neighbourhood and backyard in Milton.

The fact that it will bring in a ton loads of truck in a small town, it would not only bring more pollution but it will also congest our Main Streets which makes cars idle which also could cause a potential environment effect in a small town! Not to mention the garbage that this will bring in our beautiful town!

The noise that this will bring to our very quit neighbourhood is very troubling! As well as the pressure on our infrastructure could cause constant repair and will add burden to all the residence.

The entire naturalistic feeling in Milton will all be diminished with this intermodal in sight! Please do not let our small town be destroyed by this! We pride ourselves living in such a beautiful town!

Hoping that you will put a stop to this proposal by CN rail!

Warm regards and concerned residence, Joy iPhone. iTypos. iApologize. Julie Forte << personal infonnation removed >>

June 10, 2015 Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573 Dear Sir or Madame: Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN lntermodal Terminal As a resident of Halton, I am very concerned about the effects the proposed CN lntermodal Terminal could have on the environment of Halton. I believe that residents surrounding the proposed area will forever suffer the long-term negative Impacts of this proposed development and I believe residents from communities within the Regional Municipality of Halton will be victimized by its adverse Impact. Concerns; • The disturbance of noise will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road; • The disturbance of noise to the residents of Milton will be detrimental to our health, peace and enjoyment of our homes and park areas. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly. • The disturbance of very bright lighting will be detrimental to the residents of Milton health. Light at night is known to affect sleep patterns of residents living near a highly lighted yard. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project Is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes In Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly. • The disturbance of very bright lighting will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road. It is known that bright night light changes the breeding calls of birds in the area. CN has reported a Species at Risk on the Proposed Site. Bobotink (Oolichonyx oryzivorus), Eastern Meadowlark (Stumella magna) and Bam Swallow. • According to Ecological Consequences of Artfficial Night lighting, Frogs have been found to inhibit their mating calls when they are exposed to excessive light at night, reducing their reproductive capacity. • According to Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting, the feeding behavior of bats also is altered by artificial light. Researchers have blamed light pollution for declines in populations of North American moths, almost all small rodents and carnivores. "We just now understand the noctumality of many creatures," says Chad Moore, Night Sky Program manager with the National Park Service. "Not protecting the night will destroy the habitat of many animals.' • The many railway tracks could disrupt the many tributaries of Indian Creek with vibration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway Sites/Yards. This could make Indian Creek, which flows into Bronte Creek, which then flows in Lake Ontario contaminated, causing harm to the people of South Western Ontario. • Spawning fish, which swim from Indian Creek, across the creek under Tremaine Road, through the pond, then by stream across the proposed CN Terminal Site and continue across under First Line. The many railway tracks could disrupt the streams with vibration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway Sites/Yards. This could make Indian Creek Which flows into Bronte Creek Which flows in Lake Ontario contaminated and that are so that they are no longer usable by the fish; • Spawning fish, which swim from Indian Creek, across the creek under Tremaine Road, through the pond, then by stream across the proposed CN Terminal Site and continue across under First Line will be affected by CN's plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable. • Water based life fonns living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN's plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable. • The environment for the human population surrounding the proposed site would be permanently altered in a detrimental way by (1) increasing air pollution due to dust and fuel fumes from both trains and trucks; (2) make it no longer possible for the many cyclists who use local Milton roads for recreation to safely ride on our country roads; (3) cause pollution of the water table; (4) cause noise pollution from trucks and trains; (5) cause littering pollution where the wind carries garbage from CN trains and trucks; (6) cause light pollution that will put an end to star gazing in the area; (7) cause noise pollution from work on the site itself; (8) cause air pollution from the traffic congestion in the area created by the increased truck traffic which would not be on the local roads if not for the proposed CN site; (9) • In Halton, we are also very disturbed that CN has been allowed to circumvent the environmental assessment processes at the regional and provincial levels. We are deeply worried that the federal EA is not stringent or effective enough, and that CN well knows this. We ask you, at the CEAA to consider this concern seriously and to review the standards that CN MUST be held to according to municipal, regional, and provincial zoning and plans. These are just a few of my concerns. I believe the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project requires a full Environmental Assessment. 1 believe this Is not the correct place for the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project. Yours trulv. << personal infonnation removed >>

JIJ)le Forte From: kamal basra To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Regarding Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal Date: June 12, 2015 7:53:39 PM

Kanwaljit Basra << personal information removed >>

June 12, 2015

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573

Dear Sir or Madame:

Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal

• The disturbance of noise will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road;

• The disturbance of very bright lighting will be detrimental to the residents of Milton health. Light at night is known to affect sleep patterns of residents living near a highly lighted yard. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly.

• Water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable.

Yours truly, Kanwaljit Basra From: << personal information removed >> To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Milton CP Hub Date: May 31, 2015 8:33:38 AM

To Whom It May Concern

After attending the information centre on James Snow, I can see that the cons far out way the pros. From increased truck noise, air pollution, road degradation and traffic, I see no way that this benefits our community. Furthermore, additional employment opportunities are few for the people of Milton. Please keep me informed of this assessment and anyway I can be of assistance.

Regards, Ken Kolody << personal information removed >> From: Kien Quach To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Milton Logistics Hub Date: June 10, 2015 8:32:31 PM

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573 Dear Sir or Madame: Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal As a resident of Halton, I am very concerned about the effects the proposed CN Intermodal Terminal could have on the environment of Halton. I believe that residents surrounding the proposed area will forever suffer the long-term negative impacts of this proposed development and I believe residents from communities within the Regional Municipality of Halton will be victimized by its adverse impact. Concerns; • The disturbance of noise will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road; • The disturbance of noise to the residents of Milton will be detrimental to our health, peace and enjoyment of our homes and park areas. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly. • The disturbance of very bright lighting will be detrimental to the residents of Milton health. Light at night is known to affect sleep patterns of residents living near a highly lighted yard. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly. • The disturbance of very bright lighting will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road. It is known that bright night light changes the breeding calls of birds in the area. CN has reported a Species at Risk on the Proposed Site. Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) and Barn Swallow. • According to Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting, Frogs have been found to inhibit their mating calls when they are exposed to excessive light at night, reducing their reproductive capacity. • According to Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting, the feeding behavior of bats also is altered by artificial light. Researchers have blamed light pollution for declines in populations of North American moths, almost all small rodents and carnivores. “We just now understand the nocturnality of many creatures,” says Chad Moore, Night Sky Program manager with the National Park Service. “Not protecting the night will destroy the habitat of many animals.” • The many railway tracks could disrupt the many tributaries of Indian Creek with vibration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway Sites/Yards. This could make Indian Creek, which flows into Bronte Creek, which then flows in Lake Ontario contaminated, causing harm to the people of South Western Ontario. • Spawning fish, which swim from Indian Creek, across the creek under Tremaine Road, through the pond, then by stream across the proposed CN Terminal Site and continue across under First Line. The many railway tracks could disrupt the streams with vibration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway Sites/Yards. This could make Indian Creek which flows into Bronte Creek which flows in Lake Ontario contaminated and that are so that they are no longer usable by the fish; • Spawning fish, which swim from Indian Creek, across the creek under Tremaine Road, through the pond, then by stream across the proposed CN Terminal Site and continue across under First Line will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable. • Water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable. • The environment for the human population surrounding the proposed site would be permanently altered in a detrimental way by (1) increasing air pollution due to dust and fuel fumes from both trains and trucks; (2) make it no longer possible for the many cyclists who use local Milton roads for recreation to safely ride on our country roads; (3) cause pollution of the water table; (4) cause noise pollution from trucks and trains; (5) cause littering pollution where the wind carries garbage from CN trains and trucks; (6) cause light pollution that will put an end to star gazing in the area; (7) cause noise pollution from work on the site itself; (8) cause air pollution from the traffic congestion in the area created by the increased truck traffic which would not be on the local roads if not for the proposed CN site; (9) • In Halton, we are also very disturbed that CN has been allowed to circumvent the environmental assessment processes at the regional and provincial levels. We are deeply worried that the federal EA is not stringent or effective enough, and that CN well knows this. We ask you, at the CEAA to consider this concern seriously and to review the standards that CN MUST be held to according to municipal, regional, and provincial zoning and plans. These are just a few of my concerns. I believe the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project requires a full Environmental Assessment. I believe this is not the correct place for the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project. Yours truly, Kien From: Kim Dottin To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: CN Intermodal Terminal Date: June 10, 2015 10:29:10 PM

K Dottin << personal information removed >>

June 10, 2015

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573

Dear Sir or Madame:

Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal

• The disturbance of noise will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road;

• The disturbance of very bright lighting will be detrimental to the residents of Milton health. Light at night is known to affect sleep patterns of residents living near a highly lighted yard. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly.

• According to Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting, the feeding behavior of bats also is altered by artificial light. Researchers have blamed light pollution for declines in populations of North American moths, almost all small rodents and carnivores. “We just now understand the nocturnality of many creatures,” says Chad Moore, Night Sky Program manager with the National Park Service. “Not protecting the night will destroy the habitat of many animals.” • The many railway tracks could disrupt the many tributaries of Indian Creek with vibration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway Sites/Yards. This could make Indian Creek, which flows into Bronte Creek, which then flows in Lake Ontario contaminated, causing harm to the people of South Western Ontario.

• Water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable.

Yours truly, Kim Dottin From: Lindsay McMaster To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Date: June 10, 2015 7:33:24 PM

Lindsay McMaster << personal information removed >>

June 10, 2015

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573

Dear Sir or Madame:

Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal

• The disturbance of noise will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road;

• The disturbance of very bright lighting will be detrimental to the residents of Milton health. Light at night is known to affect sleep patterns of residents living near a highly lighted yard. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly.

• Water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable.

Yours truly, Lindsay McMaster

From: Lou Mustillo To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Milton Logistics Hub Project Date: June 16, 2015 4:50:24 PM

Dear Sir / Madam,

The proposed Milton Logistics Hub by CN Rail is a large-scale, industrial project with the potential for significant environmental effects. A federal environmental assessment and public consultation is required for the project as well as coordination with the Government of Ontario in respect of provincial environmental standards and rules, and provincial and municipal planning regulations.

According to the proponent, CN Rail, the proposed facility would transfer cargo containers between rail cars and trucks to move goods eastward across the Greater Toronto Area and throughout North America. The facility would be approximately 2,900 metres in length and have the capacity to handle four trains per day. Once completed, the terminal would operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It will generate between 650 to 1,000 trucks a day on the roads around Milton.

The proposed facility is to be located directly adjacent to lands zoned for residential development, including schools and a nearby hospital.

There are several major environmental issues associated with the project. These include an increase in traffic, noise and air pollution, a loss of agricultural land, and negative impacts on wildlife, habitats and other environmental resources.

The project is also contrary to existing municipal and regional planning and zoning regulations.

Sincerely,

Lou Mustillo From: Luigi Iacobellis To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE); Hina Shamsi Subject: Milton Logistics Hub Project — Public Comments Invite Date: June 19, 2015 11:23:03 AM

Hello,

I would like to ensure that the Environmental Assessment for the Milton Logistics Hub Project examine the estimated impact on traffic flow and vehicular volume by classification (Class A & Class D vehicles) within the town of Milton. Specifically, it would be beneficial for local residents to understand the potential increases in volume in comparison to the current volumes.

Thanks, Luigi A. Iacobellis From: Aliperti, Marco To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal Date: June 11, 2015 3:48:24 PM

Marco Aliperti << personal information removed >>

Date JUNE 11TH, 2015

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573

Dear Sir or Madame:

Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal

• The disturbance of noise will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road;

• The disturbance of very bright lighting will be detrimental to the residents of Milton health. Light at night is known to affect sleep patterns of residents living near a highly lighted yard. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly.

• The disturbance of very bright lighting will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road. It is known that bright night light changes the breeding calls of birds in the area. CN has reported a Species at Risk on the Proposed Site. Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) and Barn Swallow. • According to Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting, Frogs have been found to inhibit their mating calls when they are exposed to excessive light at night, reducing their reproductive capacity.

• Water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable.

Yours truly,

Marco Aliperti

From: Mario Traetto To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Cc: [email protected] Subject: Milton Logistics Hub Project Date: June 18, 2015 11:26:16 PM

Mario Traetto << personal information removed >>

June 18, 2015

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573

Yours truly, Mario Traetto Sent from my iPhone From: Mark Mielcarek To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Milton Logistics Hub EIS Comments Date: June 20, 2015 8:18:11 PM

Hello,

Please consider my comments regarding this project and what aspects I believe need to be scrutinized.

CN claims to be diverting thousands of trucks of highways with this facility. Here are my questions:

What is the increase of noise and emissions pollution from the thousands of trucks which will be diverted to drive next to residential areas? What is the impact of commute times for residents with the increased truck traffic? How do the increased commute time impact noise and emissions pollution? What is the increased risk of accidents on Milton and Regional roads with the additional truck traffic? Where is the logistics assessment to support that access to this location makes sense? Where is the assessment to support that the existing infrastructure can support the increased truck traffic? Who will pay to upgrade the roads?

CN has planned to make the truck entrance next across from what will be a highly populated residential area. Why does this make more sense than an entrance off of Tremaine as far away as possible from the residential area on Britannia?

CN is planning to make berms to make the facility "invisible" from the surrounding area. Who sets the criteria on what this means?

CN has claimed a large portion of the lands they own will be to provide a buffer with the adjacent areas. What prevents CN from expanding in the future and eliminating the buffer?

CN stands to be rewarded with increased profits with this project. What does CN plan to do for the residents who currently live near the proposed site and those who have purchased homes north of Britannia who are at risk of decreased home and property values?

CN has not proposed any alternative site locations and have not justified why this location is the best suited for the hub. Without any comparison to other locations, it's impossible to assess if this site has the least environmental impact. Surely there is suitable land that is already zoned industrial for the use, and closer to highway 401 to minimize the significantly increased truck traffic impact on the town of Milton.

I have no doubt that CN can satisfy the environmental requirements on the land that they intend to build on. What is lacking is the environmental and socio-economic impact assessment that this project has on the surrounding town and residents that border Britannia, Tremaine, First Line and Lower Baseline roads. Best Regards,

Mark Mielcarek

<< personal information removed >> From: Marlon Valencia To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Cc: << personal information removed >> Subject: Milton Logistics Hub Project — Public Comments Invited Date: June 11, 2015 10:47:57 AM

Marlon Valencia & Diana Romero << personal information removed >>

Thursday, June 11th, 2015 Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Dear Sir/Madam We are writing to you as residents and property owners in the town of Milton. We own a town house located at the address above, and a new single house currently being built by Mattamy Homes adjacent to Brittania Rd and Bronte Rd . The new house that we just bought is a considerable investment for my family and is the dream house that my wife and I bought for our growing family now that our second child was born a week ago. However, we are extremely concerned about the Milton Logistics Hub project not only because of its proximity to our recently-bought property, but also because we think it will have a negative impact on the town as a whole. We moved to Milton from North York because we loved its family-oriented and eco-friendly community, surrounded by green areas, and with beautiful parks and trails. For us it is our dream town to grow a family as we can easily access its beautiful outdoors, having the beautiful Escarpment on one side; as well as visit one of the farms to pick fruit in the summer, ski in the winter or bike on one of its rural roads. Nevertheless, we feel this all could be threatened by the construction of a CN logistics hub, having an extremely negative impact on the environment, traffic (in our already congested small roads), noise levels, light pollution at night, our property value, and our lives in general. We wholeheartedly believe that there shouldn't be any place for a logistics train hub near the Escarpment as it would absolutely disturb the fragile ecosystems in place and destroy the beauty of our beloved town. Moreover, we don't think building such train logistics hub would easily accommodate the town's investment in hosting a new university campus near Britannia Rd. and Tremaine Rd, where the Panam 2015 Velodrome is located. The CN hub would simply be too close to the proposed Education commons planned in this area and would be problematic in terms of traffic, pollution (photopollution, noise, fumes, etc.), which would make this whole area unsuitable for a conducive learning environment. After learning about this project, we asked ourselves: What major urban Ontarian/Canadian university is located next to such kind of hub? A logistics hub for trains should not be by any means located in the vicinity of a protected area such as the Escarpment, a residential area (you can learn more about this by consulting with the town or you can even follow this hyperlink to see what are the houses one of the local builders has already sold in that area); and even less, a suitable learning environment for the schools and the university campus envisioned by the town and Wilfrid Laurier University. For all of the above reasons, we are convinced that the proposed CN logistics hub would certainly go against the town's bid for a much needed university campus in Milton in the near future. In addition to this, My wife, Dr. Diana Romero's practice could be negatively affected by this project. She works as a dentist in the town in two dental offices in the area: One on Derry and Bronte and the other one on Bronte and Louis St. Laurent. Having rigs and heavy trucks added to our local roads would mean more congestion, which could negatively impact her practice as less patients could choose to come to these offices. Also, for me, as a GO Transit/Metrolinx commuter to the University of Toronto (St. George campus), I think heavier traffic would be extremely detrimental to meet the residents' transportation needs. We do not have enough parking at the GO station, and have sometimes to drive to Mississauga's Lisgar GO station to be able to park our cars to get to Toronto on the GO trains. With more and heavier traffic in our local roads, this could mean a longer and more problematic commute or even a futile endeavor. Therefore, for all of the above reasons, as well as those vehemently voiced by our fellow residents, we kindly ask you to reconsider the construction and implementation of this CN train hub. Thanks for your attention to this long e-mail,

Marlon Valencia, M.A., M.A. PhD Candidate & Researcher University of Toronto

Diana Romero, DDS

From: Michael Waugh To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Milton Logistics Hub Project — Public Comments Invited Date: June 16, 2015 2:15:27 PM

Michael Waugh

<< personal information removed >>

June 16, 2015

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573

Dear Sir or Madame:

Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal

• The disturbance of noise will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road;

• The disturbance of very bright lighting will be detrimental to the residents of Milton health. Light at night is known to affect sleep patterns of residents living near a highly lighted yard. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly.

• Water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable.

Yours truly, Michael Waugh

From: Michelle Kostya To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Milton Logistics Hub Project/CN Intermodal Date: June 20, 2015 8:29:32 AM

Michelle Kostya << personal information removed >>

June 20 Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573 Dear Sir or Madame: Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal As a resident of Halton, I am very concerned about the effects the proposed CN Intermodal Terminal could have on the environment of Halton. I believe that residents surrounding the proposed area will forever suffer the long-term negative impacts of this proposed development and I believe residents from communities within the Regional Municipality of Halton will be victimized by its adverse impact. Concerns; • The disturbance of noise will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road; • The disturbance of noise to the residents of Milton will be detrimental to our health, peace and enjoyment of our homes and park areas. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly. • The disturbance of very bright lighting will be detrimental to the residents of Milton health. Light at night is known to affect sleep patterns of residents living near a highly lighted yard. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly. • The disturbance of very bright lighting will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road. It is known that bright night light changes the breeding calls of birds in the area. CN has reported a Species at Risk on the Proposed Site. Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) and Barn Swallow. • According to Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting, Frogs have been found to inhibit their mating calls when they are exposed to excessive light at night, reducing their reproductive capacity. • According to Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting, the feeding behavior of bats also is altered by artificial light. Researchers have blamed light pollution for declines in populations of North American moths, almost all small rodents and carnivores. “We just now understand the nocturnality of many creatures,” says Chad Moore, Night Sky Program manager with the National Park Service. “Not protecting the night will destroy the habitat of many animals.” • The many railway tracks could disrupt the many tributaries of Indian Creek with vibration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway Sites/Yards. This could make Indian Creek, which flows into Bronte Creek, which then flows in Lake Ontario contaminated, causing harm to the people of South Western Ontario. • Spawning fish, which swim from Indian Creek, across the creek under Tremaine Road, through the pond, then by stream across the proposed CN Terminal Site and continue across under First Line. The many railway tracks could disrupt the streams with vibration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway Sites/Yards. This could make Indian Creek which flows into Bronte Creek which flows in Lake Ontario contaminated and that are so that they are no longer usable by the fish; • Spawning fish, which swim from Indian Creek, across the creek under Tremaine Road, through the pond, then by stream across the proposed CN Terminal Site and continue across under First Line will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable. • Water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable. • The environment for the human population surrounding the proposed site would be permanently altered in a detrimental way by (1) increasing air pollution due to dust and fuel fumes from both trains and trucks; (2) make it no longer possible for the many cyclists who use local Milton roads for recreation to safely ride on our country roads; (3) cause pollution of the water table; (4) cause noise pollution from trucks and trains; (5) cause littering pollution where the wind carries garbage from CN trains and trucks; (6) cause light pollution that will put an end to star gazing in the area; (7) cause noise pollution from work on the site itself; (8) cause air pollution from the traffic congestion in the area created by the increased truck traffic which would not be on the local roads if not for the proposed CN site; (9) • In Halton, we are also very disturbed that CN has been allowed to circumvent the environmental assessment processes at the regional and provincial levels. We are deeply worried that the federal EA is not stringent or effective enough, and that CN well knows this. We ask you, at the CEAA to consider this concern seriously and to review the standards that CN MUST be held to according to municipal, regional, and provincial zoning and plans. These are just a few of my concerns. I believe the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project requires a full Environmental Assessment. I believe this is not the correct place for the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project. Yours truly, Michelle Kostya

Michelle Kostya << personal information removed >>

Contributor to book to be published by Pearson, PLC: How Companies Succeed in Social Business: Case Studies and Lessons from Adobe, Cisco, Unisys, and 18 More Brands

From: Mike Shen To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal Date: June 11, 2015 9:36:20 PM

Mike Shen << personal information removed >>

June 11, 2015

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573 Email: [email protected]

Dear Sir or Madame:

Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal

As a resident of Halton, I am very concerned about the effects the proposed CN Intermodal Terminal could have on the environment of Halton.

Environmental concerns cover many aspects, just a few of which include:

The disturbance of noise will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road;

The many railway tracks could disrupt the many tributaries of Indian Creek with vibration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway Sites/Yards. This could make Indian Creek, which flows into Bronte Creek, which then flows in Lake Ontario contaminated, causing harm to the people of South Western Ontario.

Water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable.

These are just a few of my concerns.

I believe the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project requires a full Environmental Assessment. I believe this is not the correct place for the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project.

Yours truly,

Mike Shen

CN Milton Logistics Hub Project

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines Review

Prepared for: Milton Phase 3 Landowners Group (MP3)

Introduction and Purpose

The Canadian National Railway Company (CN) is proposing the construction of a logistics hub (Milton Logistics Hub Project) in the Town of Milton, Region of Halton. The Project Description Summary notes that “the project will be built on approximately 400 acres of CN-owned land adjacent to CN’s Halton Subdivision, which is one of CN’s existing main rail corridors in the western half of the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area”(Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2015, p. 1). Furthermore,“ the project will include both the construction of a new hub and the realignment and extension of the existing mainline” and is intended to “accommodate the growing demand for intermodal services and ensure service and fluidity through the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area” ”(Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2015, pp. 1 and 2).

On May 22, 2015, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (Agency) issued a Notice of Environmental Assessment Determination, stating that a federal environmental assessment (EA) is required for the Milton Logistics Hub Project (the Project). This assessment must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012). This decision was made following the submission and review of a description of the project submitted by CN to the Agency on March 23, 2015. Subsequently, the Agency invited public comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Guidelines that have been prepared for the Project.

The Milton Phase 3 Landowners Group Inc. (MP3) is a corporation that represents a number of landowners within the Boyne Survey Secondary Plan Area in the Town of Milton. The lands encompassed by this Plan are located immediately to the north of the proposed yard component of the Project. Some Project components, such as intersection improvements and new rail tracks, are located on lands within the Boyne Survey Secondary Plan. The MP3 landowners have committed significant time, money and other resources as key players in the on-going and cooperative planning process for this planned community.

The purpose of this document is to provide MP3’s comments on the Draft EIS Guidelines that have been prepared for the Project. This submission is further to the April 23, 2015 letter submitted on behalf of MP3 by Goodmans LLP and the April 24, 2015 letter submitted on behalf of Great Gulf Group (an MP3 member) by Ms. Kathleen Schofield. Both letters asserted that a federal EA is required for the Project. MP3 is making this further submission on the Draft EIS Guidelines because of concerns which

CN Milton Logistics Hub Project Draft EIS Guidelines Review June 18, 2015 Prepared for Milton Phase 3 Landowners Group Page 1 Prepared by D.C. Damman and Associates arise as a result of the proximity of the Boyne Survey Secondary Plan lands to the proposed Project.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (ECAA 2012) Requirements

The proposed Project is a designated project, in accordance with section 25(b) of the Regulations Designating Physical Activities under CEAA 2012. On May 22, 2015, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (Agency) determined that an environmental assessment (EA) for the Project must be conducted, in accordance with CEAA 2012.

The Agency subsequently commenced the EA for the Project. Draft EIS Guidelines, which are intended to outline the components of the environment that may be affected by the Project, as well as the nature, scope and extent of the information required to be addressed in the EA, were developed by the Agency. Written comments on the Draft EIS Guidelines must be submitted to the Agency by June 21, 2015.

Background and Context

The lands immediately to the north of the proposed Project site are within the Boyne Survey Secondary Plan. This land use plan has been in development for the past 15 to 18 years. The lands were initially identified by the Region of Halton for development in 1999 and by the Town of Milton in 1997, each following an extensive public consultation process that included public meetings. The provincial government and Conservation Halton were also key participants in this review process.

Figure 1, which is appended to this submission, illustrates the location of the Boyne Survey Secondary Plan relative to the location of the CN lands and the proposed Project footprint boundary on lands to the south of Britannia Road. Appended Figure 2, which has been extracted from the Project Description Summary (Stantec, 2015), illustrates the extension of the Project footprint onto lands within the Boyne Survey Secondary Plan.

The Boyne Survey Secondary Plan was subject to extensive public consultation and agency review. The Province of Ontario, Region of Halton, Town of Milton and Conservation Halton were all active participants in the planning process for this community, along with area residents and other stakeholders. The extensive review and planning process was undertaken to facilitate the development of this area.

The Boyne Survey Secondary Plan, which covers approximately 940 hectares (2,323 acres), accommodates growth which is mandated by the Province and is intended to be integrated with the Town of Milton’s existing built-up urban area. The identification of areas where such growth can be accommodated is mandated by the Province through the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006 (GPGGH). Information posted on the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing’s (MMAH) web site notes that this 25- year plan aims to:

CN Milton Logistics Hub Project Draft EIS Guidelines Review June 18, 2015 Prepared for Milton Phase 3 Landowners Group Page 2 Prepared by D.C. Damman and Associates  “create complete communities that offer more options for living, working, learning, shopping and playing;

 provide housing options to meet the needs of people at any age;

 curb sprawl and protect farmland and green spaces;

 reduce traffic gridlock by improving access to a greater range of transportation options” (MMAH web site).

The Boyne Survey Secondary Plan, which was adopted by the Town of Milton in 2010 and approved with modifications by the Region of Halton in 2013, will fulfill a need for community growth that meets broader provincial policy and direction.

An ultimate population of 50,000 is anticipated within the Boyne Survey Secondary Plan. Draft plans of subdivision within the secondary plan have been filed by individual landowners, with municipal approval of these plans anticipated in the summer of 2015. The development process for these lands is well underway, with house construction anticipated to commence in 2016. Photos which depict the current development process on the lands at the northwest corner of Britannia Road and Highway 25 are appended to this submission.

The Region of Halton, relying on financing from landowners including MP3, has invested over $600 million dollars in servicing infrastructure in order to support the development of these new communities. Most of this financing has either been spent or committed through tendered contracts and financial agreements with the developers. The completion of infrastructure works construction is anticipated by the end of 2018.

In summary, the community encompassed by the Boyne Survey Secondary Plan has been carefully and extensively planned to accommodate mandated Provincial objectives, following extensive public consultation. During the lengthy planning and consultation process for these lands, there was no indication from CN of its intent to build an intermodal facility at the proposed site. In addition, a 2011 Transportation Master Plan completed by Halton Region, which addressed the Region’s transportation system to the year 2031, did not anticipate a project such as that being proposed by CN.

Treatment of Health and Socio-economic Effects in Draft EIS Guidelines

While the Draft EIS Guidelines acknowledge that the effect of a change that may be caused to the environment and the effect of that change on health and socio-economic conditions will be addressed in the EIS (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 2015a, p. 6), there are no details provided as to how this assessment will be undertaken or the components that will be examined. There is no indication of the level of detail or the parameters that will be evaluated to assess potential impacts on the adjacent community, including a significant residential population within the Boyne Survey Secondary Plan.

CN Milton Logistics Hub Project Draft EIS Guidelines Review June 18, 2015 Prepared for Milton Phase 3 Landowners Group Page 3 Prepared by D.C. Damman and Associates Section 3.3.2 of the Draft EIS Guidelines outline valued components (VCs) that “may be impacted by a project” and that “may have been identified as having scientific, social, cultural, economic, historical, archaeological or aesthetic importance” (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 2015a, p. 6) (bold added by author). The Draft EIS Guidelines note that “the final list of VCs to be presented in the EIS will be completed according to the evolution and design of the project and reflect the knowledge acquired on the environment through public consultation” (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 2015a, p. 6).

Rationale for Meaningful Consideration of Health and Socio-economic Effects in EIS

The following provides a rationale as to why health and socio-economic effects should be given paramount importance in the assessment of the proposed Project, and subject to a full and meaningful assessment rather than a cursory overview.

 Exercise of a Power or Performance of a Duty or Function by a Federal Authority

On May 13, 2015, the Canadian Transportation Agency advised CN that they must obtain federal approvals under the Canadian Transportation Act for the construction of railway lines as part of the overall Project.

CEAA 2012 subsection 5(1) outlines the environmental effects that are to be taken into account. CEAA 2012 subsection 5(2) outlines the additional environmental effects that must be considered “if the carrying out of the physical activity requires a federal authority to exercise a power or perform a duty or function conferred on it under any Act of Parliament other than this Act”.

The Draft EIS Guidelines outline this provision, noting that the EIS will address changes“ that may be caused to the environment and that is directly linked or necessarily incidental to the exercise of the federal power or function” and “the effect of that change … on health and socio-economic conditions” (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 2015a, p. 6) (bold added by author).

 Sustainable Development

Section 4(1)(h) of CEAA 2012 states that one of the purposes of the Act is:

“to encourage federal authorities to take actions that promote sustainable development in order to achieve or maintain a healthy environment and a healthy economy”.

While the Draft EIS Guidelines acknowledge the role of EA as a planning tool for “decision-makers to take actions that promote sustainable development” (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 2015a, p. 2), there is no indication of how the proposed Project will promote sustainable development. MP3 suggests that the proponent’s consideration of health and socio-economic effects is an important element in assessing whether the proposed Project promotes sustainable development.

CN Milton Logistics Hub Project Draft EIS Guidelines Review June 18, 2015 Prepared for Milton Phase 3 Landowners Group Page 4 Prepared by D.C. Damman and Associates

Linked to the issue of sustainable development, the Draft EIS Guidelines note that “the EIS will also describe the predicted environmental, economic and social benefits of the project. This information will be considered in assessing the justifiability of any significant adverse residual environmental effects, if such effects are identified” (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 2015a, p. 14). MP3 questions the purpose and location of this proposed Project. MP3 supports the commitment to describe the economic and social benefits of the Project, and suggest that this assessment have regard for the regional setting and land use planning decisions that have been made to date to provide community growth in support of provincial policy.

The proponent should present the purpose and rationale for the project, along with the rationale for the proposed project location, within the context of its contribution to sustainable development within a regional planning context.

 Precautionary Principle

Section 4(1)(b) of CEAA 2012 states that one of the purposes of the Act is:

“to ensure that designated projects that require the exercise of a power or performance of a duty or function by a federal authority under any Act of Parliament other than this Act to be carried out, are considered in a careful and precautionary manner to avoid significant adverse environmental effects”.

CEAA 2012 also states that responsible authorities and federal authorities“ must exercise their powers in a manner that protects the environment and human health and applies the precautionary principle” (bold added by author).

The Draft EIS Guidelines note that “the proponent will demonstrate that all aspects of the project have been examined and planned in a careful and precautionary manner in order to avoid significant adverse effects” (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 2015a, p. 3).

Section 2.1 of the Draft EIS Guidelines recognizes EA as “a planning tool used to ensure that projects are considered in a careful and precautionary manner” (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 2015a, p. 2). As a planning tool, the proponent should evaluate their Project within a regional context and relative to other planned and approved land uses.

MP3 supports the precautionary principle, especially since the Project is proposed to be located on lands adjacent to planned residential development and has the potential for significant adverse health and socio-economic effects. As previously noted, some Project components are located on lands within the planned residential development. The scope and level of detail of the analysis and investigations conducted for the EIS should be appropriate to the scale and magnitude of the proposed Project.

 Potential for Significant Adverse Health and Socio-economic Effects

CN Milton Logistics Hub Project Draft EIS Guidelines Review June 18, 2015 Prepared for Milton Phase 3 Landowners Group Page 5 Prepared by D.C. Damman and Associates

The proposed Project has the potential for significant adverse environmental effects. At the completion of the EA process, the Minister of the Environment will determine whether the Project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects, taking into account mitigation measures. It is, therefore, imperative that the proponent prepare an EIS that is comprehensive and broadly scoped so that the environmental effects associated with the Project are captured.

Project Location

The potential for significant adverse health and socio-economic effects associated with the Project is directly related to the facility location. The Project is generally located in the area bounded by Britannia Road, with residential and mixed used development located immediately adjacent on the north side of Britannia Road. MP3 believes that the proposed Project is in an inappropriate location and is an incompatible land use, given the social and land use setting adjacent to and in the vicinity of the CN site.

Truck and Rail Traffic

The MP3 landowners have a particular concern with adverse environmental effects resulting from truck traffic. It is important to note that the Draft EIS Guidelines make no mention of anticipated traffic and transportation effects. It is essential that these considerations be part of the assessment of health and socio-economic effects.

Truck traffic will be travelling immediately adjacent to the residential community within the Boyne Survey Secondary Plan, and trucks will be entering and exiting the Project on Britannia Road. This means that there is the potential for significant truck traffic to move through the community. The increase in rail and truck traffic through the community is of paramount concern to MP3.

The Draft EIS Guidelines do not outline predicted truck volumes. The Project Description Summary notes that the Project will be “designed to accommodate approximately 800 trucks per weekday entering and exiting the hub, which includes 650 inbound and 650 outbound trucks at the beginning and up to 800 trucks each way by 2020” (Stantec, 2015, p. 5). This amount of truck traffic is significant. MP3 is concerned about the impacts of this truck traffic on residents and other uses within the Boyne Survey Secondary Plan development. Noise, dust, air quality, access and vibration effects associated with these truck movements in the community should be components of the Project assessment, along with the identification of appropriate measures to mitigate any adverse effects. These measures should be consistent with the design of the planned residential community and all applicable provincial guidelines and standards.

CN Milton Logistics Hub Project Draft EIS Guidelines Review June 18, 2015 Prepared for Milton Phase 3 Landowners Group Page 6 Prepared by D.C. Damman and Associates Facility Construction and Operations

Potential significant adverse environmental effects associated with the facility include noise, night lighting, odour, vibration and air quality. These effects are associated with both the construction and operation of the proposed facility. CN should identify appropriate measures to mitigate any adverse effects, consistent with the design of the planned residential community and all applicable provincial guidelines and standards.

The Project Description Summary indicates that “new sources of air emissions during construction and operation are not predicted to exceed applicable air quality criteria for the contaminants of concern at the residential receptors in all directions around the Project site” (Stantec, 2015, p. 6). This conclusion is premature given the assessment of air emissions has not yet been undertaken. The Draft EIS Guidelines do not provide any information to indicate how this conclusion was derived.

The Draft EIS Guidelines note that baseline information “in sufficient detail to enable the identification of how the project could affect the VCs” will be collected, including“ current ambient noise levels at key receptor points (e.g., nearby residences)”. MP3 suggests that existing ambient noise levels and night light levels should be also measured at locations within the Boyne Survey Secondary Plan (i.e., at the location of future residential units or receptors).

The Draft EIS Guidelines note that “a complete Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) examining all exposure pathways for pollutants of concern may be necessary to adequately characterize potential risks to human health” (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 2015a, p. 28). Given the proposed location of the Project and the potential for significant adverse health and socio-economic effects, MP3 supports the requirement for the proponent to conduct a HHRA as part of the EIS.

Land Use Compatibility

As previously noted, MP3 views the proposed Project as an incompatible land use. The Draft EIS Guidelines note that “the EIS will include a description of the environment (both biophysical and human) … the description will be sufficiently detailed to characterize the environment before any disturbance to the environment due to the project … this analysis will include environmental conditions resulting from historical and present activities in the local and regional study area” (CN, 2015, p. 8).

The Draft EIS Guidelines fail to acknowledge a consideration of planned and approved land use plans in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Project site (e.g., development associated with the Boyne Survey Secondary Plan). Given the pending development of these lands, it is essential that they be given consideration in the EIS’s inventory and assessment of environmental conditions in the local and regional study area. A complete inventory and description of the local and regional land use is essential in order to“ identify, assess and determine the significance of the potential adverse environmental effects of the project” (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 2015a, p. 8).

CN Milton Logistics Hub Project Draft EIS Guidelines Review June 18, 2015 Prepared for Milton Phase 3 Landowners Group Page 7 Prepared by D.C. Damman and Associates

MP3 further notes the Draft EIS Guidelines reference to“ current land use in the area” as an example of information that will be provided in the“ description of the geographic setting in which the project will take place” (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 2015a, p. 13). This current land use should include the Boyne Survey Secondary Plan.

The Project Description Summary describes the existing land uses in the area as being “comprised of agricultural land, the majority of which is row crops with some pasture land and hay fields … there are a few residences fronting First Line, Tremaine Road and Lower Base Line” (Stantec, 2015, pp. 5 and 6). The Draft EIS Guidelines do not provide a more detailed or accurate description of land uses in the area. In failing to acknowledge the planned and approved development associated with the Boyne Survey Secondary Plan, the Project Description Summary and Draft EIS Guidelines are remiss in describing the social and land use setting of the Project. Without an understanding of these conditions, the proponent will not have an accurate baseline upon which to assess environmental effects.

Permanence of the Facility

The Draft EIS Guidelines state that “these predicted changes to the environment are to be considered in relation to each phase of the project” (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 2015a, p. 25), including decommissioning and abandonment. The Project Description Summary notes that there are no expectations that the Project will be decommissioned. This means that the effects on the neighbouring mixed use community resulting from the operation of the Project will exist in perpetuity. Given the permanence of the facility and its associated environmental effects, it is paramount that impacts on the neighbouring community be adequately assessed and appropriate mitigation and monitoring measures considered. CN should identify appropriate measures to mitigate any adverse effects, consistent with the design of the planned residential community and all applicable provincial guidelines and standards.

 Malfunctions and Accidents

Section 19(1) (a) of CEAA 2012 requires that an EA must take into account the environmental effects of malfunctions and accidents that may occur in connection with a designated project. MP3 is concerned about the potential for malfunctions and accidents associated with the construction and operation of the Project (e.g., spills, derailments, truck collisions with local automobile traffic).

It is also noted that natural gas will be delivered to the facility by truck. This means that trucks carrying natural gas will be potentially travelling through a residential community.

While the Draft EIS Guidelines note that the proponent will “conduct an analysis of the risks of accidents and malfunctions”, including“ an identification of the magnitude of an accident and/or malfunction” and a description of “the safeguards that have been established to protect

CN Milton Logistics Hub Project Draft EIS Guidelines Review June 18, 2015 Prepared for Milton Phase 3 Landowners Group Page 8 Prepared by D.C. Damman and Associates against such occurrences” (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 2015a, p. 30), the Draft EIS Guidelines do not specifically state that the health and socio-economic effects of malfunctions and accidents will be addressed.

The EIS for the Project should include a detailed assessment of potential malfunctions and accidents and their impact on local residents, including detailed emergency response procedures.

 Lack of Provincial EA Requirements

The Draft EIS Guidelines do not outline other legislative and regulatory approvals required for the Project. The Project Description Summary notes that no other provincial approval requirements are anticipated for the Project (Stantec Consulting Ltd., 2015, p. 2). Therefore, the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act (EA Act) is not anticipated to apply to the Project. The Ontario EA Act requires a fulsome assessment of socio-economic effects. In the absence of this requirement, a rigorous and thorough assessment of health and socio-economic effects as a result of the construction and operation of the Project would only receive consideration within the context of the federal EA process. MP3 believes that this reinforces the need for a full and meaningful assessment of health and socio-economic effects, rather than a cursory overview.

Alternative Means of Carrying Out the Project

CEAA 2012 requires the consideration of “alternative means of carrying out the designated project that are technically and economically feasible and the environmental effects of any such alternative means”.

The Draft EIS Guidelines note that the proponent will address the“ project site location, approved transportation corridors and routes for truck traffic for vehicles owned and operated by the proponent, access points to the site” and “location of key project components” in the analysis of alternative means (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 2015a, p. 15). The Agency should require the proponent to consider health and socio-economic effects in the alternative means analysis.

MP3 has concerns with the purpose and location of the Project, as a starting point, given the Project’s location immediately adjacent to the Boyne Survey Secondary Plan. The proposed Project is also not close to a 400 series highway, resulting in significant increased truck traffic passing through residential development. The EIS should consider whether there are more appropriate locations for the proposed Project.

In addition, MP3 has concerns with the proposed truck access point on Britannia Road and transportation corridors and truck movements through the local urban area. It is recommended that the proponent evaluate other site access points. There is a future planned intersection at Highway 401 and Tremaine Road, and the potential for a future intersection at Highway 407 and Tremaine Road.

CN Milton Logistics Hub Project Draft EIS Guidelines Review June 18, 2015 Prepared for Milton Phase 3 Landowners Group Page 9 Prepared by D.C. Damman and Associates Cumulative Environmental Effects

CEAA 2012 requires an assessment of “any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the designated project in combination with other physical activities that have been or will be carried out”. With a project of this magnitude, there is the potential for significant adverse cumulative effects, especially given the proposed location of the facility and associated transportation corridors.

The Agency’s Technical Guidance for Assessing Cumulative Environmental Effects notes that “a cumulative effects assessment generally starts with addressing VCs for which residual environmental effects are predicted after consideration of mitigation measures recommended for the environmental effects of the project, regardless of whether those residual environmental effects are predicted to be significant” (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 2014, p. 5).

The Draft EIS Guidelines also recognize that “a cumulative effect on an environmental component may, however, be important even if the assessment of the project’s effects on this component reveals that the effects of the project are minor” (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 2015a, p. 31). MP3 believes that this is an important point relative to the cumulative effects assessment to be undertaken for the Project, particularly in reference to health and socio-economic effects.

An important consideration in the identification of other projects and activities for consideration in the cumulative effects assessment will be the recognition of development within the Boyne Survey Secondary Plan.

The proponent should ensure that the spatial and temporal boundaries for the cumulative effects assessment are broad enough to capture any potential health and socio-economic effects. Planned and approved development within the local and regional setting should be captured within these spatial and temporal boundaries. The Agency’s Operational Policy Statement on assessing cumulative environmental effects reinforces this by noting that the“ temporal boundaries for assessing a VC should take into account past and existing physical activities, as well as future physical activities that are certain and reasonably foreseeable” (Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 2015d, p. 3) (bold added by author). The Boyne Survey Secondary Plan is both certain and reasonably foreseeable.

As part of the cumulative effects assessment for the Project, the proponent should be required to provide information on development plans for the balance of the CN-owned lands. CN owns approximately 485 hectares (1,200 acres) at this location, with the Project expected to occupy 160 hectares (400 acres). CN’s plans for the future development of these lands will be required in order to have a complete understanding of land use planning in the area and potential adverse environmental effects.

CN Milton Logistics Hub Project Draft EIS Guidelines Review June 18, 2015 Prepared for Milton Phase 3 Landowners Group Page 10 Prepared by D.C. Damman and Associates

Closing Remarks

The MP3 landowners have committed significant time, money and other resources as key players in the on-going and cooperative planning process. The issuance of building permits for the planned residential development within the Boyne Survey Secondary Plan is expected to occur soon. It is critical that the potential environmental effects of the proposed Project fully consider the health and socio-economic effects on the future residents of this planned community.

During the lengthy planning and consultation process for these lands, there was no indication from CN of its intent to build an intermodal facility at the proposed site.

The Agency’s web site notes that “an EA will consider a comprehensive set of factors that include cumulative effects, mitigation measures and comments received from the public”. MP3 has outlined our concerns and recommendations regarding the considerations to be addressed in the EIS, including a comprehensive and meaningful assessment of health and socio-economic effects. This would include identifying health and socio-economic effects as a valued component in the cumulative effects assessment undertaken for the project.

Public consultation is an integral part of the federal EA process under CEAA 2012. As members of a broadly defined “public”, MP3 appreciates the Agency’s consideration of our comments on the Draft EIS Guidelines, and trust that the Agency will facilitate the preparation of an EIS that addresses concerns that have been raised relative to the Project. MP3 will continue to engage in the public participation process for this Project to ensure that its concerns, and those of the future residents of the Boyne Survey Secondary Plan Area, are considered.

References

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. S.C. 2012, C. 19, s. 52. Last amended on December 31, 2014. Current to May 25, 2015.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. 2014. Technical Guidance for Assessing Cumulative Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. December 2014. Draft.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Web Site. Overview – Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. 2015a. Draft Guidelines for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. Milton Logistics Hub Project. May 2015.

CN Milton Logistics Hub Project Draft EIS Guidelines Review June 18, 2015 Prepared for Milton Phase 3 Landowners Group Page 11 Prepared by D.C. Damman and Associates Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. 2015b. Practitioners Glossary for the Environmental Assessment of Designated Projects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Ac, 2012. March 2015.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. 2015c. Operational Policy Statement. Addressing“Purpose of” and“Alternative Means” under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. Updated March 2015.

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. 2015d. Operational Policy Statement. Assessing Cumulative Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. Updated March 2015.

Goodmans Barristers & Solicitors. April 23, 2015 Letter re. Milton Logistics Hub Project. From Mark Noskiewicz to Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Reference No. 80100.

Great Gulf Group. April 24, 2015 Letter re. Milton Logistics Hub Project. From Kathleen Schofield, Executive Vice President, Land Development to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Reference No. 80100.

Halton Region. 2011. The Road to Change. Halton Region Transportation Master Plan 2031. Prepared by Dillon Consulting Limited in association with GHD Inc. and Aecom. September 2011.

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Web Site. Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006.

Regulations Designating Physical Activities. 2912. SOR/2012-147. Current to May 25, 2015. Last Amended on December 31, 2014.

Stantec Consulting Ltd. 2015. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency – Project Description Summary. Milton Logistics Hub. Prepared for Canadian National Railway Company. April 1, 2015.

Town of Milton Web Site. 2015. CN Rail Proposal: Milton Logistics Hub. Project Updates.

CN Milton Logistics Hub Project Draft EIS Guidelines Review June 18, 2015 Prepared for Milton Phase 3 Landowners Group Page 12 Prepared by D.C. Damman and Associates Figure 1: Location of Boyne Survey Secondary Plan Relative to the Proposed Project

CN Milton Logistics Hub Project Draft EIS Guidelines Review June 18, 2015 Prepared for Milton Phase 3 Landowners Group Page 13 Prepared by D.C. Damman and Associates Figure 2: Proposed Project Footprint Boundary

CN Milton Logistics Hub Project Draft EIS Guidelines Review June 18, 2015 Prepared for Milton Phase 3 Landowners Group Page 14 Prepared by D.C. Damman and Associates Photographs of Current Development within Boyne Survey Secondary Plan

Photos taken: June 15, 2015

CN Milton Logistics Hub Project Draft EIS Guidelines Review June 18, 2015 Prepared for Milton Phase 3 Landowners Group Page 15 Prepared by D.C. Damman and Associates

CN Milton Logistics Hub Project Draft EIS Guidelines Review June 18, 2015 Prepared for Milton Phase 3 Landowners Group Page 16 Prepared by D.C. Damman and Associates

CN Milton Logistics Hub Project Draft EIS Guidelines Review June 18, 2015 Prepared for Milton Phase 3 Landowners Group Page 17 Prepared by D.C. Damman and Associates

Date June 15 2015

To Templar Trinaistich

<< personal information removed >> From William Maria, P.Eng. Tel

Subject Review of the CN Logistics Hub Draft EIS Guidelines Job no.

GHD has on behalf of the Milton Phase 3 Landowners Group completed a review of the Draft Guidelines released by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for the Milton Logistic Hub Project in Milton Ontario. The purpose of the Guidelines is to identify the information required as part of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to be prepared pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012).

Based on its review of the project description provided by the Canadian National Railway Company, the Agency has determined that an environmental assessment is required under CEAA 2012 and it will include the construction and operation of the following specific transportation components:

 Truck entrance/gate;  Lower Base Line Road crossing;  Intersection improvements; and  Vehicular activity within the project footprint or awaiting access to the project site.

The Draft Guidelines require the EIS to describe the project including all permanent and temporary linear infrastructures such as roads and railroad lines and identifying the route of each of these. Also, all interactions and crossings with existing linear infrastructures such as crossings, ramps and intersections with the adjacent road network must also be presented.

We concur that the operation characteristics of the HUB must be included in the EIS in order to properly determine the impacts on the surrounding area including:

 On-site logistics and traffic plan (on and off-loading rates, site capacity for trucks, anticipated daily truck volumes);  Anticipated daily, monthly and seasonal schedules for rail transport;  Anticipated rail volumes  Anticipated quantities of transportation materials by type; and  Number of employees, transportation of employees, work schedule, loading requirement on site and off site.

Section 2.2 of the Guidelines require that the EIS identify alternative means of

GHD Inc. 6705 Millcreek Drive Unit 1 Mississauga Ontario L5N 5M4 Canada 1 T 1 416 213 7121 F 1 905 890 8499 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com

carrying out the project, identify the effects of each technically and economically feasible alternative means and select the approach for the analysis of alternative means.

In analyzing the alternatives, we agree that the following project components should be included:

 Project site location;  Approved transportation corridors and routes for truck traffic for vehicles owned and operated by the proponent;  Access points to the project site; and  Location of key project components.

While the Draft Guidelines address a number of concerns we have with development of the Hub, the truck traffic associated with the proposed Hub (approximately 800 trucks per day plus employee traffic) has not been accounted for in any of the previous Transportation Master Plans or traffic impact studies that have been completed for this area, either by the Region, the Town or the MP3 Landowners. As such, the Guidelines should provide more specific considerations for the EIS to fully assess the potential transportation impacts of this proposal on the planned road network already established for the Boyne Survey Secondary Plan Area, including:

 The Region recently completed Class EAs for both Tremaine Road and Britannia Road to identify future road needs and timing of such improvements. What is the impact of the additional truck and vehicle traffic generated by the Hub on these roads?

 What is the impact of the additional truck traffic on the operation and capacity of the existing roundabouts at Main Street, Louis St. Laurent and Britannia Road?

 The analysis of future traffic conditions should include full build-out of the Boyne Secondary Plan Area as well as the Education Village to ensure there is sufficient road and intersection capacities.

 The EIS should consider the impact on Transit and HOV lanes along both Tremaine Road and Britannia Road considering that Britannia Road and Tremaine Road (north of Britannia to Hwy 401) are planned with four travel lanes and an HOV/Rapid Bus Lane.

 Both Tremaine Road and Britannia Road are also designated as on street bike lane routes. The EIS should consider the impact of truck traffic on the Town’s planned Active Transportation Plan.

 The planned interchange of Tremaine Road with Hwy 401 and the potential interchange of Tremaine Road with Hwy 407 should be included in the assessment considering they will most likely be a part of the haul routes identified for the Hub.

 Any access to the Hub from Britannia Road should include an assessment of the delays that heavy, slow moving trucks will have on the flow of traffic over the planned overpass at the CN Rail line.

 The EIS should identify and analyze associated haul routes for the Hub. The study should also identify a contingency plan for alternate haul routes in the event of road closures due to construction and/or short-term emergencies, and determine any impacts on the future operation of intersections along the routes.

3 R.A.I.L. Residents Affected by Intermodal Lines c/o Rita Post << personal information removed >>

June 21, 2015

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573 E-mail: [email protected]

To Whom it May Concern:

Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project 80100 - Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal

As residents of Halton, we are very concerned about the effects the proposed CN Intermodal Terminal would have on the environment in both Milton and Halton Region. We believe residents surrounding the proposed area will forever suffer the long-term negative impacts of this proposed development and believe residents from communities within the Regional Municipality of Halton will be victimized by its adverse impact.

Intermodal in a Community. The proposed intermodal terminal by CN is contradictory to all that has been planned by our elected officials who have spent more than five million dollars to create the Official Plan of Halton Region and the Official Plan of the Town of Milton. We have a beautiful community in Milton and Halton Region and we want to keep it that way. We have serious and justifiable concerns with health, safety, security, environmental and economic impacts within our community as well as impacts to the environment and people.

Location The three major highways in Halton Region are HWY 401, the QEW and HWY 407; and they are 11.5 and 7.5 km from the proposed location. This would bring a tremendous amount of truck traffic and gridlock to the Region. Increasing health risks and risks of accidents in the region.

The land around the facility is agricultural not a highly developed industrial area with warehousing and manufacturing. By CN’s own numbers they estimate the intermodal hub would attract 5-7 million square feet of warehouse space; which in turn would further increase the logistics movements in the Region.

CEAA, EIS letter June21, 2014 -- Milton R.A.I.L. (Residents Affected by Intermodal Lines) 1 Milton Logistics Hub Project 801000 From our research we have learned of many other communities throughout North America and the world who have experienced the long lasting negative impacts from the development of intermodal terminals in their communities. Many have witnessed the sensitive commerce which previously existed in their communities go through a huge shift, only to be replaced with temp service offices and check-cashing facilities and warehouses; it changes the whole dynamic of the workforce with low-wage jobs.

Tourism From the research we have read the communities have reported that the containers are often stacked up seven and eight high saturating their community. They stated it was the part you could not even imagine as there were as many containers throughout the community and not just on the intermodal site.

The proposed site in in plain view from the Niagara Escarpment—a World Class Biosphere and this terminal will impact the value of the view as well as the natural vegetation and habitat of many wildlife creatures.

The proximity of the yard will bring with it noise, light, dust, particulate matter and emissions all of which will impact the Escarpment Country.

Noise Residents from other communities have stated that every locomotive that passes through the yard is load tested before it leaves the yard. It goes through a diagnostic routine as the workers tune it up and test the train engines at high notch, which basically means they step on the on the gas for about 15-20 minutes. Every train that goes through the yard is put through this particular test. The testing alone is invasive with the noise of the engines and the vast amount of diesel emissions being added into the air and the community.

Light Pollution The huge stadium lights will have an impact to everything in the community; wildlife, plants, trees and people. Homes in the area required special window treatments and blocks to prevent the light trespass and address noise issues. Air filtration systems were required for the air quality in the homes. Double pane windows were required to mitigate some of the noise. How will this light impact the wildlife, vegetation and aquatic life?

Emissions Residents in other communities shared concerns over the yard hustlers; these are the tractors that move the containers around the yard. However are not regulated for the public roads yet they continue to use them on the local roads despite the fact they don’t have the same safety requirements. They also have higher diesel emissions.

We understand emissions in the air can cause health issues for students and children. There are subdivisions planned immediately adjacent to the proposed site and the builders have started Phase III. There is a high school and middle school 1.5 km from the proposed site and our local hospital is 3 km away–just up the road. The documents we have read all state that being within 1 km of a rail yard or intermodal dramatically increases your risk of cancer. Again if it is bad

CEAA, EIS letter June21, 2014 -- Milton R.A.I.L. (Residents Affected by Intermodal Lines) 2 Milton Logistics Hub Project 801000 form residents how will this impact the natural environment? Clearly there would be a link to health concerns and environmental impacts.

Safety Other communities have stated the intermodal trucks continually run through the community despite the community’s effort to restrict particular routes.

The Milton District Hospital is 3 km from the proposed location. A high school and middle school are 1.5 km from the proposed site. We have concern about their safety with trucks driving in areas not designated from the intermodal route. We understand that CN has no jurisdiction over the trucks once they leave the site and that local authorities would be required to police the roads. How does a community possibly manage a minimum of 2000 trucks per day?

A freight train; a runaway freight train was intentionally derailed—the rail company decided to derail it in the neighborhood which resulted in four leveled homes. Fortunately, lumber was being carried on this particular train and not one of a variety of chemical containers, and luckily there was nobody in the homes as the derailment occurred during work and school hours. Luckily nobody was injured, however they were certainly impacted from the incident. They community renamed the street—Miracle Street.

Water Our understanding is some of the water tanks on site are designated for water treatment tanks for maintenance on the locomotives; the locomotives are covered with soot, oil, sulfur and particulate matter and need to be cleaned for maintenance. How do they treat the water?

There was an incident where a huge leek completely flooded a neighborhood. Approximately 20 percent of the fluid was diesel fuel, which completely ruined the neighborhood, resulting in people not being able to grow the plants or the food, which they had previously grown. We are concerned to know what would happen if this leaked into the Indian Creek which flows into Lake Ontario.

The creek and waterways through the property CN proposes to develop will essentially be destroyed as will the natural ecosystem in that area.

The site is not water dependent the intermodal site doesn't need water from the creek. It just happens that CN has chosen a site, which happens to have a creek; the Indian Creek running though the proposed site location to Bronte Creek and then into Lake Ontario. There must be other practical alternatives for the location of the logistics hub proposed by CN; other practical alternatives where there are no wetlands.

Rail experts have told us it is not a matter of “if” there is derailment; it is a matter of “when.” When there is a spill from any one of a great number of hazardous and toxic volatile chemicals at the yard, it will carry through Indian Creek, which runs into Bronte Creek and Lake Ontario poisoning the community drinking water.

CEAA, EIS letter June21, 2014 -- Milton R.A.I.L. (Residents Affected by Intermodal Lines) 3 Milton Logistics Hub Project 801000 Many local residents adjacent and down stream from the proposed location site rely on well water. How can CN possibly prevent contamination to the well water? A disruption to our drinking water and any potential contamination to our drinking water source is something that needs to be looked into. This cannot possibly be mitigated.

There are things you can do, measures you can take to prevent spills and to cleanup and contain spills once they happen but the fact is there are going to be spills on rail yard sites—its unavoidable. Rail experts have told us that 80% of all derailments occur in rail yards and go unreported. Spills will make their way into surface water, groundwater and in the watershed with drinking water wells. Our drinking water wells will be threatened by groundwater contamination from spills from the site. Our understanding is there are many abandoned wells on the site location, which will need to be sealed, is this something CN will be doing? Once the contaminants are in the water shed it will be next to impossible to clean up.

One inch of rain over a 400 acre concrete or asphalt platform. Area: 1 acre equals 27,154 gallons or 102,789 litres of rainwater. Area: 400 acres equals 10,861,600 gallons or 41,115,600 litres of rainwater plus the contaminants it picks up from the run off.

Now add contamination of oil, dust and particulate matter, all running into the local creek or those containment ponds. We also can’t forget the salt that will be required in the winter months for parking lots. Are train engines and container de-iced during the winter months, this will add to the chemical run off?

There will be a substantial amount of chemical run off in the yard. In the winter months will the “natural” waterways still freeze or would the chemical contaminates in the water prevent the water from freezing. This will impact the natural cycle of wildlife, plants and vegetation will it not? What is to be expected in the spring after the snow melts and the water levels dramatically increase? How is this managed to not create flooding. How will this impact the water table? Flooding is also serious concern, as it will carry contaminants into the environment. Once again it is a threat to drinking water, and groundwater and to properties adjacent to the proposed site. Some of the properties currently have a run off from the site location under the roads to adjacent properties, how will the water run off impact them?

Property will also be devalued if the wells and ground water are contaminated. Will residents be compensated when properties have been devalued?

How much water can the retention ponds handle? CN will need to handle a number of chemical waste recalcitrant chemicals in the filtration ponds. What can they handle? What happens with overflow and how is contaminated land cleaned up after an over flow? Is it ignored? The amount of treatment that the ponds can achieve depends upon the nature of the pollutants— and CN won’t divulge the great variety of highly volatile chemicals and toxins it carries, so how can we be assured it is enough? How can Environment Canada make the correct calculations to determine what is required? Does the CEAA have something in the report to address long-term monitoring and rebuilding if necessary? If the capacity of the system is not big enough to hold a

CEAA, EIS letter June21, 2014 -- Milton R.A.I.L. (Residents Affected by Intermodal Lines) 4 Milton Logistics Hub Project 801000 five-inch rainfall, the water and the contaminants don’t just sit there and wait, the overflow will go in to the surrounding land and water course and straight into Indian Creek and eventually into Lake Ontario.

There will be many hundreds of acres of non-permeable surfaces in the location. How will this impact the temperature of the land surface and the surrounding wildlife and aquatic life? Would it increase the temperature of the water and therefore impede the already low possibility for aquatic life to reestablish in the realigned creek? How will it impact the plant life and vegetation? Would the warmer temperatures reduce the life cycle of mosquitos and other insects? Would this increase the insect population?

We suggest CN be required to have wastewater tested externally from the Conservation Authority and Halton Region. Perhaps a water discharge permit with parameters for monitoring and standards to be meet in order protect our drinking water and the drinking water of local wildlife.

Testing should be done for oxygen demand in the waste, as oil and grease suck oxygen. They should be looking at salinity temperature and pH in the water. The animals would be drinking from the watercourse and it should be safe to drink should it not?

Air Quality We understand the impact from the rail yards will make it worse for children and family members who currently suffer from asthma and will likely increase the numbers of people with this illness.

Fine particulate matter is a health risk, diesel emissions are a health risk, fugitive dust which is the dust that will be kicked up as the truck, trains, trailers, site vehicles and employee’s vehicles come in and out of the facility along the site path as well as the roads leading up to and away from the proposed site.

How will CN monitor air quality? Will it be set at an unspecified location opposite the wind patterns to throw off the readings?

What is the health risk assessment or environmental assessment? Currently we have construction in Milton and have dust, which is not typical for the area. When the modeling reports from CN show higher levels that are not typical for this area, how is this calculation being taken in to account while the environmental studies are being done? Air quality sensors must be placed on the yard and in several areas immediately adjacent to the yard in all directions and not in inappropriate locations where particles will not be measured accurately. There must be a full and accurate account of the impacts for future mitigation measures.

To start 2000 trucks per day will be trucks lined up on the get into and out of the site. These vehicles will be idling and stopping and starting. When a diesel engine starts big black billows of diesel smoke and emissions are thrown in to the air. It is unreasonable to think that only the trucks on the site would be taken in to consideration. The intermodal site is bringing the trucks

CEAA, EIS letter June21, 2014 -- Milton R.A.I.L. (Residents Affected by Intermodal Lines) 5 Milton Logistics Hub Project 801000 to the location. The intermodal site would not work without it. The ideas that only the federal regulations apply and that the trucks fall under provincial regulations is unfathomable. Diesel emissions are a Class I carcinogen known to increase cancer. This needs to be reconsidered. More than 50% of the activity of the yard operations relies on trucks, which are regulated by the province. Yet the yard is being considered through the federal laws. How is it that an industrial business is not being monitored by the province and local municipal and town regulations? This does not make sense. This is not just a rail line with trains passing through a community. This is an industrial development, a business, which relies equally if not more so on the trucks. Our understanding is the ratio of trucks to train containers is greater as not every truck coming in to the yard is leaving with a container and visa versa. We have not even addressed the number of vehicles required to work on the yard. This leads us to believe that the rail yard is far less than 50% rail activity and far greater with other modalities. Again – how and why is this regulated under the Railway Act or CTA? This is something that needs to be addressed.

Studies show isometric Plath's, which indicate the cancer risk relating to your proximity to a rail yard. They know people who live closest to the rail yards have the highest cancer risks. The further you get away from the rail yard the lower your risk is, but in they found that even a mile away from the fence line of the rail yard the diesel cancer risk was still at 100 in a million and that means if you are exposed and live there for your whole life, breathing that diesel exhaust one hundred people at a million people living there would be more likely to get cancer. Again we ask why is a new yard even being considered within a residential area?

We understand with the health effects of air pollution there are demographics, which are more susceptible; children and the elderly highly susceptible. Children are susceptible for several reasons; children inhale much more air per body weight than adults do. They have a high respiratory rate and smaller lungs so the net effect shows they are inhaling much more air. Children are also outside more and are susceptible because they have developing organ systems. Lungs can develop until the age of 18 or 21 so if children are expose during the developmental periods they will likely suffer from health affects.

Conclusion Clearly communities are already experiencing many serious negative impacts from intermodal terminals and rail yards, which are located close to residential areas—this is a fact. The reason this application is even being considered is something, which needs to be seriously examined and scrutinized. Clearly a development of a Class III industrial facility such as an intermodal terminal does not belong near residential developments.

CN needs to be proactive and take care of the problem now—locate the facility on existing industrial land, land already planned for such a development, land immediately adjacent to a major highway—NOT on the land currently proposed by CN. History has shown an intermodal terminal near residential areas does not make sense and only creates a negative environment for the community.

CEAA, EIS letter June21, 2014 -- Milton R.A.I.L. (Residents Affected by Intermodal Lines) 6 Milton Logistics Hub Project 801000 Wildlife, Plants, Aquatic Life Environmental concerns cover many aspects, just a few of which include: Wals' 1942 paper saying that all species of bats, badgers and most smaller carnivores, most rodents (besides squirrels), 20% of primates, and 80% of marsupials are nocturnal, and many more are active both night and day. (Walls, G. L. 1942. The vertebrate eye and its adaptive radiation. Cranbrook Institute of Science Bulletin No. 19, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan.) Thus it would be surprising if night lighting did not have significant effects on mammals, Beier says. Various light levels affect animals in different ways. In general, light favors a predators' attempt to find food, which is why so many prey animals seek the cover of darkness. So when it is dark, predators are at a disadvantage. Coyotes howl more during the darkness of a new moon, as it is harder to hunt mice then. Owls hunt more successfully in brighter conditions, but more of their prey hides then. While in dark nights, it is harder for them to find prey, so they have to work harder to find it. Other small species increase their activity, for it is easier for them to find their insect prey, such as bats, and some rodents. • What impact will the lighting of the proposed yard have on the various species native in this area? • Will the Species at Risk in the proposed site be more at risk due to the lighting required for the nighttime operations? • Will the mammals on the site become more or less abundant? How will this affect the other forms of wildlife?

Why CN Rail doesn't want to talk about soil contamination along the Okanagan rail corridor By John McDonald Source: http://infotel.ca/newsitem/why-cn-rail-doesnt-want-to-talk-about-soil-contamination- along-the-okanagan-rail-corridor/it20488

Matapedia River salmon breeding ground damaged by CN, say conservationists. Fisheries and Oceans Canada says railway company didn’t respect conditions of work permit. • How will CN deal with the harm that will come to the wildlife on the proposed intermodal yard site if the site is approved? • How will this be enforced? • Will the public be informed of any harm to creeks, air, mammals, air, birds, reptiles, amphibians, plant life, or insects? • How will this be enforced? • What will be the penalty for not informing the required parties of any harm done to the mammals, air, birds, reptiles, amphibians, plant life, or insects? • What contaminants will be on the proposed site that may affect the animal life and the humans? • In the past, CN has not had a great record for safety. How will our environment and people be protected from CN’s poor safety record?

CEAA, EIS letter June21, 2014 -- Milton R.A.I.L. (Residents Affected by Intermodal Lines) 7 Milton Logistics Hub Project 801000 • If CN is found to be at fault in any way for harm to wildlife on the proposed site before, during or after the build (if accepted), will CN be allowed to pay a fine and continue operations with no changes to the proposed site? • Will CN be allowed to pay a fine for any infractions and then continue with the same practices?

Disruption of Foraging Behaviour and Increased Risk of Predation Bright artificially glowing skies at night make every night seem as if lit by a full Moon, resulting in animals being continually underfed. • With multiple endangered species actually mentioned by CN in the proposal for the proposed site, plus other species not yet discovered on the site, what affect the lighting of the proposed yard will have on the feeding habits of the wildlife in the area?

Disruption of Biological Clocks Studies demonstrate that 10 to 15 minute exposures to moderately bright light, equivalent to twilight levels, can shift the circadian clock by 1-2 hours for nocturnal animals. (Halle, S., and N. C. Stenseth (eds.). 2000. Activity patterns in small mammals: an ecological approach (Ecological Studies, 141). Springer, Berlin.). This finding suggests that artificial night lighting can disrupt circadian patterns in the wild. The light regime and the circadian clock also influence production of some hormones, notably melatonin, which mediates almost every physiological or behavioral rhythm in mammals (Bartness and Goldman. 1989. Mammalian pineal melatonin: a clock for all seasons. Experientia 45:939-945) • What impact will the lighting of the proposed yard have on the various species native in this area in relations to the circadian clock? • What impact will the lighting of the proposed yard have on the circadian patterns of the human mammals in the area surrounding the site? • How will the wildlife on or around the proposed site be affected if their circadian clocks become altered due to the light pollution on the proposed site? • Will the Species at Risk in the proposed site be more at risk due to the lighting required for the nighttime operations and the affect to their circadian patterns?

The Fatal Light Awareness Program reports that researchers have used radar imagery to determine how birds respond to lit environments. They observed that once birds fly through a lit environment, they'll return to that lit source and then hesitate to leave it, and in doing so, become trapped in cities that offer little food for them.

• What affect will a CN intermodal yard have on the birds migrating through or to the proposed area? • Humans are mammals. What risk will this proposed yard have on the people surrounding the site? Will people have issues with navigation due to the light pollution?

CEAA, EIS letter June21, 2014 -- Milton R.A.I.L. (Residents Affected by Intermodal Lines) 8 Milton Logistics Hub Project 801000 Source: Associated Press - Fri Oct 22nd, 2010 7:14 pm ET KAPAA, Hawaii - The annual emergence of the Newell's shearwater fledgling birds have been disrupted by the football stadium lights of local high schools in Kauai County. The young birds mistake the bright lights at sports fields, hotels, parking lots and other places for the Moon and stars, leading them to repeatedly fly around in circles. They become exhausted and eventually drop to the ground, where they're often attacked by cats or hit by cars unless volunteers rescue them.

• How will the CN Proposed yards light affect the local bird population? • What impact will the lighting of the proposed yard have on the various species native in this area in relations to the circadian clock? • How will the wildlife on or around the proposed site be affected if their circadian clocks become altered due to the light pollution on the proposed site? • Will the Species at Risk in the proposed site be more at risk due to the lighting required for the nighttime operations and the affect to their circadian patterns? • What issues will the human mammals in the surrounding area have due to the lighting of the proposed yard? • How will CN lessen the gravity of the light pollution on the human mammals in the surrounding area?

Artificial Night Lighting Affects Dawn Song, Extra-Pair Siring Success, and Lay Date in Songbirds Source: Current Biology, 16 September 2010, Volume 20, Issue 19, pages 1735-1739. 10.1016/j.cub.2010.08.028. Some effects of light pollution can be disruptive as it can directly affect a species, such as moths' fatal attraction to light or the way that lighted towers can also attract, confuse and kill birds. However other effects are subtler in that they interfere with natural timing patterns that a species depends on. Such cases warrant additional investigations to understand how this affects a species, which is the point of this study. In four of those five species, males near streetlights started singing significantly earlier in the morning than did those males in other parts of the forest. Example, for the 19 days that the study ran, the robins in area without artificial lights started singing 45 - 67 minutes before dawn, while those near streetlights started singing 105 - 145 minutes before dawn. These earlier dawn songs falsify the males advertised "quality" and can help these males of lower quality breed. What this does to the species as a whole over the long term needs to be looked at. . The change was that, on average, females near lights laid their eggs 1.5 days earlier than those in the dark, this may lead to a mismatch between the timings of peak food demand from their baby chicks and the peak timing of food that is available. • What will the addition of the proposed CN lighted yard do to the bird life in the area? • Will food be more or less available to birds in the Proposed yard site?

CEAA, EIS letter June21, 2014 -- Milton R.A.I.L. (Residents Affected by Intermodal Lines) 9 Milton Logistics Hub Project 801000 • Will poisons from the exhaust of the trucks and trains contaminate the food that is available for the birds in the proposed yard site? • What issues will the human mammals in the surrounding area have due to the lighting of the proposed yard? Will reproduction systems be altered due to the change in light in the area?

Light pollution: its real, destructive consequences are seldom recognized, but it is a problem with easy solutions that make economic sense. All living creatures rely on the Earth's regular rhythm of day and night to regulate internal cycles. Many use the protection of darkness to safely forage and mate. We exist in a balance with our environment, a delicate balance that we are shifting. In the process we are also losing our connection to the night sky and the universe beyond. • What effect will the well-lit proposed CN Intermodal Yard have on the wildlife in the area? Some wildlife will travel in and out of the proposed site in air, water and on land. • What affect will the well-lit proposed CN Intermodal Yard have on the transient wildlife?

We rarely stop to think that the night is necessary and good for life. Therefore, we do not realize that protecting the night sky is a valuable step to conserving bio-diversity. Most people think that, as we sleep at night, the rest of the species do the same, with a few exceptions, so it is of no concern if we send out a little light into the nighttime environment—a crass error. Naturalists know—and it would help if they said so more often—that the biological activity of our fauna is more intense at night than during the day and that this fauna needs the night for their normal activities. –

Source: The Importance of Protecting the Night Sky, Pere Horts Deputy Chairman of Cel Fosc. Catalonia. Spain A new study reports that lights on at night can worsen smog conditions for a city! Sunlight breaks down the nitrate radical NO3, so its levels build up during the night. As it does so, it neutralizes some of the other nitrogen oxides (NOx) that contribute to smog. But it is not just sunlight that can break down NO3; any light can do this, especially those city lights that are left on all night long. Streetlights are often immediately next to the sources of the exhaust creating smog and are measured to be about 25 times stronger than the light of a full Moon. This combined effect reduces the natural cleaner NO3's levels down by 7%, which then increases the smog components by a non-negligible 5%.

Source: http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/night-lights-worsen-smog/

• What affect will the well-lit proposed CN Intermodal Yard have on the air pollution and smog in the area? To assume that other living organisms on this planet are just going to "adapt" to our newly created lighting schedules for commercial convenience is apathetically ignorant and insane. Unfortunately, it is far, far easier to setup a badly installed light outside than it is to understand the negative effects it casts down-light from it.

CEAA, EIS letter June21, 2014 -- Milton R.A.I.L. (Residents Affected by Intermodal Lines) 10 Milton Logistics Hub Project 801000 • What affect will the well-lit proposed CN Intermodal Yard have on the all local living things? • What affect will the increase in smog due to the lighting at the proposed CN intermodal yard have on the human mammal in the surrounding area? • How will CN lessen the gravity of the higher levels of smog due to the light pollution on the human mammals in the surrounding area? • How many deaths due to smog created at the CN proposed yard are considered acceptable? Two thirds of the animal protein consumed on our planet comes from insects. They lie at the bottom of the global predator-prey food pyramids. Humans are among those that occupy the peak. If the foundation becomes eroded, then the entire pyramid becomes compromised and our food sources are sorely disrupted.

Effects on Artificial Night Lighting on Moths Source: Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Catherine Rich & Travis Longcore (eds). 2006. Island Press. Pages 305-344. Kenneth D. Frank Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine

Flight Activity Moths that fly to lights may land nearby and remain there for the rest of the night. These inactive hours represents a high cost of reproductive opportunity or feeding to those species that only live for a week as an adult. • How will the breeding of the wildlife on or around the proposed site be affected by the light pollution on the proposed site? • How will CN protect the natural cycles of the animals in the surrounding areas? • How will CN protect the natural cycles of the humans in the surrounding areas?

Effects of Noise on Wildlife Human-induced noise pollution is one of many factors contributing to the depletion of wildlife populations. Laboratory studies and limited field research have uncovered four major ways in which animals are adversely affected by noise pollution:

• hearing loss, resulting from noise levels of 85 db or greater; • masking, which is the inability to hear important environmental cues and animal signals; • non-auditory physiological effects, such as increased heart rate and respiration and general stress reaction; and • behavioral effects, which vary greatly between species and noise characteristics, resulting in, for example, abandonment of territory and lost reproduction.

CEAA, EIS letter June21, 2014 -- Milton R.A.I.L. (Residents Affected by Intermodal Lines) 11 Milton Logistics Hub Project 801000 Studies on Rhesus Monkeys in the lab have shown that a 30% increase in blood pressure following exposure to as an average 85 db (lower at night, higher during the day) for eight months resulted in a permanently higher blood pressure and heart rate even after one month of quiet time!

Sound, stressed mice have been shown to be much more susceptible to disease, less able to learn mazes, and to experience 40-100% resorption of embryos and 66% reduction in fetal weight when exposed to 82-85 db (equivalent to a power lawn mower) for eight hours per day.

Exposure of Desert Kangaroo Rats to dune buggy sounds (95 db at 4 meters, on and off for 500 seconds) caused a major reduction on detection distance for its principal predator the Sidewinder (Rattlesnake). In fact, the distance for the normal sand kicking response to the snake's presence was reduced from 40 cm. to 2 cm., and it took three weeks for the rat to recover. Surely in the field, this nocturnal rodent could not have survived at such a disadvantage!

Plenty of evidence exists to indicate that serious damage is occurring to animals in the wild. Long-term effects from medium to low level noise intrusion need much more study, with emphasis on threatened and endangered species. The synergistic effects of noise with other stressors on animals also need investigation.

Source: http://www.naturesounds.org/conservENW.html Dave Cornman, Nature Sounds Society

• How will this impact the affect the birds claiming territory through song? • How will this impact the bats in the area?

Dust and Particulates Virtually no one has looked at the effects of airborne particles on wildlife, although many laboratory studies show that inhaled dust can damage both the hearts and lungs of dogs, mice and other animals. In one investigation, dogs exposed to levels of particulates no higher than those found in many U.S. cities experienced significant changes in their heart rhythms. And last year, scientists at Duke University warned that increasing amounts of atmospheric dust from the prolonged drought in the Sahel region of Africa have begun to threaten coral reefs in different parts of the planet. The dust, which is five times as thick as normal due to the dry spell, contains bacteria, viruses and fungi. Included is a soil fungus called Aspergillus that has killed more than 90 percent of the Carribbean’s sea fans, a form of soft coral.

Source: http://www.nwf.org/news-and-magazines/national-wildlife/green- living/archives/2001/particles-and-air-pollution.aspx

How will the dust and particulates impact the aquatic life in the area?

CEAA, EIS letter June21, 2014 -- Milton R.A.I.L. (Residents Affected by Intermodal Lines) 12 Milton Logistics Hub Project 801000 • How will the dust and particulates impact the small rodents in the area? • If the small rodents in the area reduce in numbers the birds of prey will loose their food source?

These are just a few of our concerns. R.A.I.L. believes this is not the correct location for an intermodal yard or logistics hub. We also believe we should not be required to prove the location is unsuitable, NO location surrounded by neighbourhoods, and so close to schools and hospitals should even be considered. Highway access should be immediate and not 7km or more away from the proposed site location.

The citizens should be compensated by CN for the stress and uncertainty an application like this place on the town, region and individuals.

Dust and Particulates on Plant Life Deposition of dust on vegetation will be affected by the particle size distribution and the dimensions and density of foliage elements in the dispersion path. The effect of size-segregated rather than chemically speciated particulate matter on ecosystem function is mediated by effects on vigor, competitive viability, and reproductive fitness of individual plants. Large-leaved species may provide effective dust barriers close to the source of coarse dusts (e.g. roads or quarries), but less effective barriers against finer dusts that travel greater distances. Dusts effects on vegetation may be connected with the decrease in light available for photosynthetic, an increase in leaf temperature due to changed surface optical properties, and interference with the diffusion of gases into and out of leaves. It is clear that dust particle size has important and predictable effects on energy exchange properties of vegetation. Alkaline particulate matter may exert direct effects on leaf surfaces; however, the effects hardly ever reach the ecosystem level because it is difficult to identify a widespread threat to ecosystem function due to un-speciated particulate matter.

Source: http://www.iaees.org/publications/journals/environsc/articles/2012-1(1)/ecological- effect-of-airborne-particulate-matter-on-plants.pdf

• If vegetation and plant life are impacted by the dust and particulates how will this impact the wildlife that feed in the area?

Source: Barber, J. R., Crooks, K. R., & Fristrup, K. M. 2010. The costs of chronic noise exposure for terrestrial organisms. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 25(3), 180-189.

Growth in transportation networks, resource extraction, motorized recreation and urban development is responsible for chronic noise exposure in most terrestrial areas, including remote wilderness sites. Increased noise levels reduce the distance and area over which acoustic signals can be perceived by animals. Here, we review a broad range of findings that indicate the potential severity of this threat to diverse taxa, and recent studies that document substantial changes in foraging and anti-predator behavior, reproductive success, density and

CEAA, EIS letter June21, 2014 -- Milton R.A.I.L. (Residents Affected by Intermodal Lines) 13 Milton Logistics Hub Project 801000 community structure in response to noise. Effective management of protected areas must include noise assessment, and research is needed to further quantify the ecological consequences of chronic noise exposure in terrestrial environments.

• How will this affect the animals on the proposed intermodal site and surrounding area? • Will noise affect the eating habits of the birds on the proposed intermodal site and surrounding area? • What affect will this noise have on the ratio of wildlife on the proposed intermodal site and surrounding area? • How will this be dealt with? • How will the endangered prey in the area around the proposed intermodal site be protected from the predators?

Noise Source: Particelli GL and Blickley JL, 2006, Avian communication in urban noise: causes and consequences of vocal adjustment. The Auk 123(3):639-649 In this overview, we ask three questions: (1) what features of a bird’s vocalization can be adjusted to reduce masking, (2) how do these adjustments come about, and (3) what are the consequences of these changes for individual fitness and population persistence? The answers to these questions depend on the morphological, developmental, and behavioral underpinnings of the vocalization, and the context in which the vocalization is used. This is an area where knowledge of physiology, developmental neurobiology, animal behavior, and behavioral ecology all contribute to understanding how animals adjust (or fail to adjust) to anthropogenic change.

• Will the noise of the proposed intermodal site affect the bird behavior? • How will this be dealt with?

Source: Sobrian, S. K. et.al., 1997, “Gestational Exposure to Loud Noise Alters the Development and Postnatal Responsiveness of Humoral and Cellular Components of the Immune System in Offspring” Environmental Research, Vol. 73, no. 1-2 pp. 227-241

Gestational exposure of the female to environmental toxins can alter immune function in the offspring. We have recently shown that prenatal maternal stress, that is, stress applied to or induced in the female during pregnancy, can also alter the development of humoral immunocompetence in the offspring and their hormonal and immunologic responses to postnatal stress. This report presents data from two experiments on the effects of prenatal exposure to loud noise-prenatal sound stress (PSS)-on the development and responsiveness of in vitro and in vivo humoral and cellular immune function in the offspring. Pregnant rats were exposed daily from Day 15 to Day 21 of gestation to an inescapable loud noise (an 85- to 90- decibel fire alarm bell) delivered randomly for 1 hr. In developing offspring, PSS produced age-

CEAA, EIS letter June21, 2014 -- Milton R.A.I.L. (Residents Affected by Intermodal Lines) 14 Milton Logistics Hub Project 801000 dependent and mitogen-specific alterations in lymphoproliferative activity and reduced immunoglobulin G levels at Postnatal Day 21. Antibody titers to herpes simplex virus type I were also reduced. Exposure to loud noise before or after infection produced an additional reduction in titers in these offspring. Arthus skin reaction (AR) to old tuberculin was reduced by PSS. Combined prenatal/postnatal sound stress further reduced this response and the AR to bovine serum albumin (BSA). Delayed hypersensitivity reaction to BSA was reduced in PSS offspring; postnatal sound stress enhanced the reaction to both antigens, bonly in males. Antibody titers to BSA were increased by PSS; adjuvant-induced inflammation was attenuated by postnatal sound stress. These data suggest that in utero exposure to loud noise, which can occur in the workplace, is toxic to the developing immune system.

• Will the noise of the proposed intermodal site and ancillary activity put the wildlife and the human life at risk for health issues?

Stone, Eric, 2000, Separating the noise from the noise: a finding in support of the "Niche Hypothesis," that birds are influenced by human-induced noise in natural habitats. Anthrozoos, 13(4): 225-23 Controlling for the confounding influence of physical disturbance, it was possible to test the hypothesis that ambient noise alone would play a role in structuring bird communities in riparian habitats in Boulder, Colorado, USA. Point counts of birds were conducted in open space/minimally disturbed, residential, commercial and industrial neighborhoods. Within the same disturbance parameters and land use, species richness and PIF scores (a weighted value based on species importance) consistently and significantly decreased as ambient noise increased. These results can be viewed as support for the "Niche Hypothesis" (Krause 1987, 1998), that wildlife species' acoustic niches are adversely affected by human-induced noise pollution.

• Will the birdlife in proposed intermodal site and surrounding area become less vigorous and undersized due to the noise of the site? How will the birds be protected? • Will the wildlife in proposed intermodal site and surrounding area become less vigorous and undersized due to the noise of the site? How will the wildlife be protected? • How will the noise of the proposed intermodal site affect the humans in the surrounding area? How will the humans be protected?

Noise Some of the noise associated with the intermodal yard could be from: 1.5.2 Operational Activities ! Passing-by of trains on tangential tracks. ! Train movements on curved track sections, which can generate wheel squeal. ! Extended idling of locomotives on railway lines, rail sidings, or in yards. ! Trains waiting at specific or designated locations to cross another track or waiting for a signal, an inspector, or a crew change. Whistles are sounded before train movements. ! Passage of trains over rail track discontinuities such as switches, frogs, special track work, hot boxes, dragging equipment, wheel impact detectors, joints for signalization, and at- grade intersections with roads and other rail infrastructure.

CEAA, EIS letter June21, 2014 -- Milton R.A.I.L. (Residents Affected by Intermodal Lines) 15 Milton Logistics Hub Project 801000 ! Snow clearing equipment at switches in yards and along corridors (specifically on rail lines carrying relatively high volumes of rail traffic in proximity to at-grade road crossings). ! Audible warning devices of all types, whether mounted on the train or near at grade road crossings. ! Rail yard operations involving trains stopping and starting, assembling of trains, shunting of cars (switching), retarders, use of signaling devices, repair work. ! Intermodal yard operations, including the transfer of containers. ! Rapid succession of commuter train traffic particularly during morning and afternoon rush hours. ! Unscheduled train operations as a result of equipment or facility malfunctions requiring changes to operations, such as the rerouting of trains. ! Tracks in need of repair (loose joints, rough rail, ground settlements) can increase the noise from the activities described above. Increased rail traffic can also result in increased noise.

• How will the noise of the proposed intermodal site affect the humans in the surrounding area? • How will the noise of the proposed intermodal site affect the animals and birds in the surrounding area? • How will the noise of the proposed intermodal site affect the plants in the surrounding area?

Yours truly,

Sent via e-mail

Rita Vogel Post Chairman Milton R.A.I.L. – Milton Residents Affected by Intermodal Lines

CEAA, EIS letter June21, 2014 -- Milton R.A.I.L. (Residents Affected by Intermodal Lines) 16 Milton Logistics Hub Project 801000 From: Monika E. Gucma-Deras To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE); [email protected] Cc: << personal information removed >> ; << personal information removed >> ; << personal information removed >> << personal information removed >> ; << personal information removed >> Subject: A Miltonian Against Destruction of Lifestyle Date: June 20, 2015 2:00:55 PM Importance: High

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573

To Whom It May Concern:

Please be advised that when considering Milton as a place to live and to raise a family, of key importance was the natural landscape of the land, away from a central buzzing city with high rises and major commercial buildings. It was and remains of prime importance to be as close to the country as possible. We came here because we loved the view of the Escarpment, because we adored the local farmers, and enjoyed the view of as well as the noises of farm animals and local wildlife which is so abundant.

We relish in the fact that we can observe the different species of birds and other wildlife literally roaming in our back yards.

We admire the bicyclists as they ride through rolling countryside.

We love the trees as they change colours throughout the seasons. We mourn the loss of tree canopy cause by the ice storm and the Ash Borer Beetle.

We take pride in the fact that Milton has more horses and more horse farms than all of Kentucky.

Why would anyone want to destroy the lives of people who have chosen to live in this area because of what it is.

While jobs and some infrastructure are necessary, most of us moved here knowing and accepting of the fact that we will have to commute to work. This is WHY we chose to live here. We did not gravitate here hoping jobs would follow. We did not come here in hopes that the landscape would turn into something ugly, industrial, and filled with a massive trucking industry. We were also told that train traffic would be limited due to the increase in residential neighbourhoods.

On another note, your statement that this HUB will provide hundreds of jobs is erroneous. Apparently, most jobs will be indirect, meaning that the truck drivers will already be holding jobs and living in other areas. They will be driving the trucks here, but are not actually going to be employed directly by CN. The estimate I heard about new jobs in Milton at the HUB directly will be closer to 50. Yet the tax paying citizens will be subjected to 1600 ventures in and out daily on our rural roads and other infrastructure not intended to handle either the amount of traffic nor the weight of all of these vehicles.

Britannia and James Snow Parkway are too close to residential neighbourhoods. We don’t want the noise, the pollution, that will negatively affect our health, our commute to work, and our lifestyle with children and parents biking, jogging, walking their dogs along the concrete paths that have been part of our lives around our homes.

Milton and Halton are not ready for this HUB in the proposed area and never have been. We will not embrace “jobs” at the expense of our health due to increased pollution. We will not embrace “jobs” at the expense of increased gridlock. We will not embrace “jobs” at the expense of an unsightly, ugly railway terminal that has taken away more from our green earth. We will not embrace “jobs” at the expense of higher prices for foods that has to now be farmed further and further away. Our local mushroom farm is close by and is at stake! Our beautiful golf courses in the area are affected! There are other fruit farms affected. We will not embrace “jobs” at the expense of increased taxes, as CN will not be paying for the expansion of our roads. But expansion will need to be done, and it will be solely on the shoulders of us – the taxpayers and the town we have embraced and call home.

We will simply not embrace this HUB!!!

Those already living in Milton have jobs that are outside of this proposed terminal. Those who have purchased homes, that will be immediately depreciated in value due to this horrific HUB already have jobs that are outside of the proposed terminal. Chances are that those who will be employed at your HUB will be in need of commuting here, to Milton, adding to our traffic, adding to levels of pollution.

I guarantee you that around the HUB there will be little chance of lovely stores and quaint restaurants, or schools, or homes. This will be the opportunity for further ugly industrialization.

Based on what we observe to come from the Federal and Provincial Governments we are teaching our children that they cannot be trusted. That they do go back on promises made. That the only thing that matters is to provide any form of jobs, without any consideration for the environment in which they will be created, so that they can reflect on their policy to “promote the economy” and maintain their elected positions as “government employees”. Trust – our trust is gone. We realize, as our children realize that citizens do not come first. Voters do not come first. People, and humanity in general does not come first. Business, money, power, that is your mantra.

You will claim to have followed all the rules. Your environmental assessment (I believe skewed from the start) will maintain that the herons, horses, houses, children, eagles, snakes, coyotes, golf clubs, farms, conservation areas, Escarpment, traffic, etc. will not be negatively affected,….

…..when everyone knows that the lifestyle which we have all embraced will change forever in the eroding fabric of our beautiful farms, lands, and lovely residential neighbourhouds.

Our government has already demonstrated bad urban and rural planning in so many ways. Without any foresight into the future, we have problems with our infrastructure, our Great Lakes and the pollution within, our badly designed roads with almost useless HOV lanes, our badly restored roads that develop potholes causing problems for drivers and commuters, our power plants, our elementary school system, our eroding health care system, our loss of care for our vets and lowered defense budgets, E-Health, Ornge, and power plant scandals, etc. Taxpayers cannot afford federal and provincial governments that tend to erode a decent way of living at the local level and make everyone adapt to changes that impact us negatively as a society overall.

There probably is an alternative to relocate this HUB elsewhere, where it will not impact the private residences of taxpayers who wish so much to be surrounded by greenery, and beautiful scenery reflecting better on their chosen lifestyle.

Let’s please try to be more considerate of each other, our lifestyle choices, our health, and truly be reflective of the negative impact heavy truck traffic will have on the innocent lives of so many who will be affected by this endeavour. I’m sure there is another option. The current location is far from our major highways. Private truckers will not use the 407 as they currently don’t use it. The 401 is our main artery for transport. Could you not be considerate of our health, our welfare, our pleas, our time, our homes and think about an alternate site closer to the 401 away from major residential development and local farms?

I implore you to consider the impact this HUB location will make on the lives of the already thousands who have chosen to make Milton their home. I implore to be considerate of hard working taxpayers, most of whom were unaware that land deals were struck many years ago that would erode the future way of life they had envisioned.

Imploringly,

Monika Gucma-Deras << personal information removed >>

From: Muhammad Alam To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Milton Logistics Hub Project ...... We say NO Date: June 10, 2015 8:46:47 PM

Muhammad Alam/ Mariam Alam/ Noor Alam/ Tahira Parveen/ Eshal Alam/ Wania Alam/ Abdullah Alam << personal information removed >>

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573

Dear Sir or Madame:

Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal

• The disturbance of noise will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road;

• The disturbance of very bright lighting will be detrimental to the residents of Milton health. Light at night is known to affect sleep patterns of residents living near a highly lighted yard. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly.

• Water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable.

Yours truly, Muhammad Alam

Mariam Alam

Noor Alam

Tahira Parveen

Eshal Alam

Wania Alam

Abdullah Alam From: Murale Kandiah To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Milton Logistics Hub Project Date: June 20, 2015 11:37:29 PM

Murale Kandiah << personal information removed >>

20-06-2015

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2

Dear Sir or Madam: Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal As a resident of Halton, I am very concerned about the effects the proposed CN Intermodal Terminal could have on the environment of Halton. I believe that residents surrounding the proposed area will forever suffer the long-term negative impacts of this proposed development and I believe residents from communities within the Regional Municipality of Halton will be victimized by its adverse impact. Concerns;

Yours sincerely, Murale Kandiah From: Nadine Spina To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Milton Logistics Hub Project Date: June 17, 2015 2:48:11 PM

Nadine Spina << personal information removed >>

June 17, 2015

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573

Dear Sir or Madame:

Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal

• The disturbance of noise will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road;

• The disturbance of very bright lighting will be detrimental to the residents of Milton health. Light at night is known to affect sleep patterns of residents living near a highly lighted yard. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly.

• The many railway tracks could disrupt the many tributaries of Indian Creek with vibration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway Sites/Yards. This could make Indian Creek, which flows into Bronte Creek, which then flows in Lake Ontario contaminated, causing harm to the people of South Western Ontario. • Spawning fish, which swim from Indian Creek, across the creek under Tremaine Road, through the pond, then by stream across the proposed CN Terminal Site and continue across under First Line. The many railway tracks could disrupt the streams with vibration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway Sites/Yards. This could make Indian Creek which flows into Bronte Creek which flows in Lake Ontario contaminated and that are so that they are no longer usable by the fish;

• Water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable.

Yours truly, Nadine Spina

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your computer. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the YMCA of Oakville. Finally, the recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The YMCA of Oakville accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. << personal information removed >>

June 21, 2015

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency by Email: [email protected]

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2

Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project by Canadian National Railway Company (CN)

For the application process to limit the potential effects caused by the CN’s proposed intermodal terminal to their property line is an enormous injustice to the residents in the area around it, because the impact will be life altering. The project cannot function without the truck traffic. Therefore the impact of the proposed intermodal terminal on the surrounding communities is undeniable and must fairly be considered.

Just the announcement alone has had serious repercussions to my own health to which my neurologist, my endocrinologist and my general practisioner can well attest. I am normally considered to be a calm person, but the physical reaction was undeniable. In 2008 CN announced that they would not be building an intermodal terminal. Therefore it came as a total shock when the announcement was made in March 2015 that CN was planning to build after all.

Since 2008 CN has been making definite plans to proceed after all with the building of a large project in South Milton, and retained a slick public relations expert to present these plans to our community. We feel blindsided and shocked, and are as a result having some difficulty in understanding and reacting to this potentially enormous change to our community.

Between 2008 and now, The Halton Region and the Town of Milton have spent large amounts of tax resources on long range plans for the areas south of the 401 Highway surrounding the area of Milton as it was in 2008.

Since 2008 most of this area has been filled with residences, schools, small businesses and employment opportunities. The owners of the new homes directly north of the CN property which were purchased prior to the current announcement are now being caused considerable stress. They will be exposed to a lot of extra truck traffic, diesel fumes, rumbling truck and train noises, and light pollution and dust from the yard itself.

In fact, anyone in Milton, south of the 401 will be greatly impacted by the truck traffic as there are only two highway exits (James Snow Parkway and Highway 25) from which trucks can access the proposed intermodal yard. The distances from the Highway 401 exits to the proposed intermodal yard are minimally 10km.

The full route from either exit off Highway 401 must travel through these new neighbourhoods. These trucks will travel through the neighbourhoods 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. These trucks will have an enormous health effecst on the residents by causing much stress, sleepless nights as they hear heavy vehicular traffic and suffer the results of air pollution. Serious financial stress will result from the loss of real estate value impacting and the Region of Halton,home owners, small businesses, developers and realtors, as well as lower the tax base for Milton

Residents in Burlington and Oakville will also be impacted by exiting truck traffic from Highway 403, Highway 407 and the Queen Elizabeth Highway travelling to and from the proposed intermodal yard. These highways are also a minimum of 10km away.

This type of truck traffic will cause many problems as it has no option but to travel through existing residential and business areas, causing a lot of light, air, noise and vibration pollution. How will the residents be compensated with this drastic change to the environment?

Thousands of homes and businesses were built after CN stated in 2008 that they were not building the proposed intermodal terminal in Milton. Residents and businesses face huge financial losses due to CN’s change of mind. How will the residents and businesses be recompensed?

The Town of Milton and Region of Halton spent many staff hours and consultant expertise expense to develop a plan to meet the Places to Grow mandate of Ontario. How will they be compensated for this expense?

Within the development plan there would have been estimates of anticipated property tax revenues. The potential loss of tax revenues due to lower real estate values is huge for both the region and the Town of Milton. How will they be recompensed?

The roadways will suffer from the additional heavy traffic causing increased need for repairs. How will that be recompensed?

This should not be considered an appropriate property setting for CN’s Intermodal Terminal.

Thank you for considering my concerns,

Nan A.L. Gent From: Natalka B To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Milton Logistical Hub Date: June 10, 2015 8:49:45 PM

Natalka Bortkiewicz << personal information removed >>

June 10, 2015

Milton Logistics Hub Project CEAA 55 St. Clair Ave East, Suite 907 Toronto, ON. M4T 1M2

Dear Sir or Madame,

Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal

-the disturbance of noise will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations North and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road;

- Spawning fish, which swim from Indian Creek, across the creek under Tremaine Road, through the pond, then by stream across the proposed CN Terminal Site and continue across under First Line. The many railway tracks could disrupt the streams with vibration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway Sites/Yards. This could make Indian Creek which flows in Lake Ontario contaminated and that are so that they are no longer usable by the fish;

- water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN's plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable.

These are just a few of my concerns.

Yours Truly,

Natalka Bortkiewicz From: Natasha Alcorn To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Proposed CN Intermodal Terminal - Milton ON - STRONGLY OPPOSED Date: June 16, 2015 12:09:05 PM

Natasha Alcorn << personal information removed >>

June 16th 2015

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573

Dear Sir or Madame:

Concerns; • The disturbance of noise will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road; • The disturbance of noise to the residents of Milton will be detrimental to our health, peace and enjoyment of our homes and park areas. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly. • The disturbance of very bright lighting will be detrimental to the residents of Milton health. Light at night is known to affect sleep patterns of residents living near a highly lighted yard. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly. • The disturbance of very bright lighting will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road. It is known that bright night light changes the breeding calls of birds in the area. CN has reported a Species at Risk on the Proposed Site. Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) and Barn Swallow. • According to Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting, Frogs have been found to inhibit their mating calls when they are exposed to excessive light at night, reducing their reproductive capacity. • According to Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting, the feeding behavior of bats also is altered by artificial light. Researchers have blamed light pollution for declines in populations of North American moths, almost all small rodents and carnivores. “We just now understand the nocturnality of many creatures,” says Chad Moore, Night Sky Program manager with the National Park Service. “Not protecting the night will destroy the habitat of many animals.” • The many railway tracks could disrupt the many tributaries of Indian Creek with vibration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway Sites/Yards. This could make Indian Creek, which flows into Bronte Creek, which then flows in Lake Ontario contaminated, causing harm to the people of South Western Ontario. • Spawning fish, which swim from Indian Creek, across the creek under Tremaine Road, through the pond, then by stream across the proposed CN Terminal Site and continue across under First Line. The many railway tracks could disrupt the streams with vibration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway Sites/Yards. This could make Indian Creek which flows into Bronte Creek which flows in Lake Ontario contaminated and that are so that they are no longer usable by the fish; • Spawning fish, which swim from Indian Creek, across the creek under Tremaine Road, through the pond, then by stream across the proposed CN Terminal Site and continue across under First Line will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable. • Water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable. • The environment for the human population surrounding the proposed site would be permanently altered in a detrimental way by (1) increasing air pollution due to dust and fuel fumes from both trains and trucks; (2) make it no longer possible for the many cyclists who use local Milton roads for recreation to safely ride on our country roads; (3) cause pollution of the water table; (4) cause noise pollution from trucks and trains; (5) cause littering pollution where the wind carries garbage from CN trains and trucks; (6) cause light pollution that will put an end to star gazing in the area; (7) cause noise pollution from work on the site itself; (8) cause air pollution from the traffic congestion in the area created by the increased truck traffic which would not be on the local roads if not for the proposed CN site; (9) • In Halton, we are also very disturbed that CN has been allowed to circumvent the environmental assessment processes at the regional and provincial levels. We are deeply worried that the federal EA is not stringent or effective enough, and that CN well knows this. We ask you, at the CEAA to consider this concern seriously and to review the standards that CN MUST be held to according to municipal, regional, and provincial zoning and plans. These are just a few of my concerns. I believe the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project requires a full Environmental Assessment. I believe this is not the correct place for the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project.

Yours truly Natasha Alcorn Concerned Milton Resident From: Neeru To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: CN logistics hub at milton Date: June 7, 2015 10:04:29 PM

Hi, I am a resident of Milton and so disturbed hearing that a CN logistics hub is coming in milton. Town of Milton's population has grown from 35000 to 125000 in last 6 yrs and infrastructure is not sufficient to support the growth and now this CN logistics hub. It will cause more traffic congestion on streets and with that comes delays, air pollution and of course safety issues. I can't believe our government is allowing this. I am so disappointed and hoping someone will stop this nonsense from happening. Mayor of milton cannot let such a stupid thing happen in milton. Please stop this Regards Neeru

Sent from my iPhone From: Nicole Starcevic To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: CN"s proposed Milton Intermodal Date: June 10, 2015 8:50:33 PM

Nicole Starcevic << personal information removed >>

June 10, 2015

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573

Dear Sir or Madame:

Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal

Yours truly, Nicole Starcevic From: onkar sekhon To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Regarding Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal Date: June 12, 2015 8:05:08 PM

Onkar Sekhon << personal information removed >>

June 12, 2015

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573

Dear Sir or Madame:

Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal

• The disturbance of noise will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road;

• The disturbance of very bright lighting will be detrimental to the residents of Milton health. Light at night is known to affect sleep patterns of residents living near a highly lighted yard. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly.

• Water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable.

Yours truly, Onkar Sekhon From: Pablo Faria To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal Date: June 10, 2015 8:25:03 PM

Pablo Faria << personal information removed >>

June 10th 2015 Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573

Yours truly, Pablo Faria From: Paula To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: federal environmental assessment - Milton CN Logistic Hub Date: June 10, 2015 7:52:07 PM

Paula Porter << personal information removed >>

June 11, 2015

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573

Dear Sir or Madame:

Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal

• The disturbance of noise will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road;

• The disturbance of very bright lighting will be detrimental to the residents of Milton health. Light at night is known to affect sleep patterns of residents living near a highly lighted yard. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly.

• Water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable.

Yours truly, Paula Porter From: Peter Mascarin To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Rail Yard Expansion Milton Date: June 10, 2015 9:49:32 AM

This is an issue that is totally unacceptable due to the fact we have traffic problems during the day and especially during rush hour. The highways that are to be used are at a standstill now. The amount of trucks in and out of this yard would only exasperate this problem. The feeder roads into this facility are not built for the loads and volume that are going to come when this rail yard is running at full capacity witch is double the the traffic that they project due to the fact there is one truck in and one truck out. 800 trucks in is actually 1600 trucks in and out per day to start. Further the environmental impact of the trucks running and the diesel fumes, dust and noise of these trucks is not acceptable due to it's proximity to residential areas. This highway is already a main feeder line for truckers going from QEW to 401 as well as the recycling and garbage trucks. The railway took too long to expand in this area and now the residential impact is too great ! The county did not anticipate this would happen and did not plan for it. The railway needs to totally rethink this expansion.

Peter Mascarin

Sent from my iPad From: PUNEET BAGGA To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Regarding Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal Date: June 12, 2015 8:05:15 PM

Puneet Bagga << personal information removed >>

June 12, 2015

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573

Dear Sir or Madame:

Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal

• The disturbance of noise will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road;

• The disturbance of very bright lighting will be detrimental to the residents of Milton health. Light at night is known to affect sleep patterns of residents living near a highly lighted yard. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly.

• Water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable.

Yours truly,

Puneet Bagga From: raman basra To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Regarding Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal Date: June 12, 2015 8:05:26 PM

Ramanjit Basra << personal information removed >>

June 12, 2015

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573

Dear Sir or Madame:

Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal

• The disturbance of noise will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road;

• The disturbance of very bright lighting will be detrimental to the residents of Milton health. Light at night is known to affect sleep patterns of residents living near a highly lighted yard. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly.

• Spawning fish, which swim from Indian Creek, across the creek under Tremaine Road, through the pond, then by stream across the proposed CN Terminal Site and continue across under First Line will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable. • Water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable.

Yours truly, Ramanjit Basra From: Randy McMaster To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Date: June 10, 2015 7:35:33 PM

Randall McMaster << personal information removed >>

June 10, 2015

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573

Dear Sir or Madame:

Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal

• The disturbance of noise will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road;

• The disturbance of very bright lighting will be detrimental to the residents of Milton health. Light at night is known to affect sleep patterns of residents living near a highly lighted yard. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly.

• Water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable.

Yours truly, Randall McMaster

From: Ren Dan To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Cc: Lisa Raitt Subject: Milton Logistics Hub Project Date: June 12, 2015 7:19:54 PM Importance: High

Renata Barrera

<< personal information removed >>

June 12, 2015

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573

Dear Sir or Madame:

Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal

• The disturbance of noise will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road;

• The disturbance of very bright lighting will be detrimental to the residents of Milton health. Light at night is known to affect sleep patterns of residents living near a highly lighted yard. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly.

• Water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable.

Yours truly,

Renata Barrera

From: Rene Royers To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal Date: June 10, 2015 6:53:02 PM

Rene Royers << personal information removed >>

Dear Sir or Madame: As a resident of Halton, I am very concerned about the effects the proposed CN Intermodal Terminal could have on the environment of Halton. I believe that residents surrounding the proposed area will forever suffer the long-term negative impacts of this proposed development and I believe residents from communities within the Regional Municipality of Halton will be victimized by its adverse impact. Concerns;

Yours truly, Rene Royers

Sent from my iPhone From: Richard Laughton To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: CEAR, Information Request Date: May 31, 2015 7:35:29 PM

RE: Milton Logistics Hub

Just a few fundamental questions, as I expressed that in my initial submission but I do not see any clarification. As I said then and can confirm now, I am neither for or against this project, I just want to ensure that the process is conducted properly by all parties. In order to proceed I will need the CEAA to address the following and ensure that I am provided with this information.

QUESTIONS:

1. The CEAA “Draft Guidelines for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement” categorically state that the proponent (CN) must address the “alternative means of carrying out the project” (page 11 Section 4.5, #3). As per page 10 (4.3.4) any such reports are “made available to the public upon request”. As such I am officially asking for copies of the CN reports that address the issue of the alternative means to carry out this project at all sites applicable to this project (Canada/Ontario/GTA/Halton/Milton). In particular I am seeking the reports that evaluated the land in the industrial area of Milton north of the 401, but all other reports as well. There is no question that CN purchased the southern lands to build the Intermodal Facility / Logistics Hub so it is essential that it be proven that there was no other alternative to the Milton Location at Tremaine and Lower Baseline. Leaving the project as a situation where “the land is already owned by CN so the Hub will be installed there and the EA will make it fit” would be a serious error in the EA process. I will be quite happy to accept that there is NO OTHER LOCATION after I have the opportunity to review the reports on the alternative means of carrying out the project, if the reports are conclusive.

2. On a related issue under Section 4.3.4 I would need to see any reports that relate to the future development of the Milton Logistics Hub relative to the similar CN project at the Calgary Logistics Hub ( http://cwmarketing.ca/CN Logistics Park/CN park network.pdf ). This may be addressed by CN simply stating that there are no current or future plans for warehousing at the Milton Logistics Hub and the project that they describe in their submission is the final project (i.e. no further expansion will be sought or allowed at any time in the future). If it is the intent of CN to expand the Milton Logistics Hub to include warehousing, which I see is a reasonable position given the land they now own, it is only important that such issues are addressed in the current EA. The alternative to that is a categorical statement (with appropriate legal documents) that confirm there will be no expansion on the site at any time.

It is my belief that the remainder of the generic environmental issues will be addressed in the EA document.

Thank you for your assistance in the public review of this most important project. As CN has stated, they welcome the EA and if it is done properly we will all end up with the best project, as the best location, with the minimal impact on the environment.

Respectfully Submitted.

Richard Laughton << personal information removed >> From: << personal information removed >> To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Cc: Jeff and Rita Kent Subject: Reference number 80100 Date: June 16, 2015 10:36:13 PM

This email is in regards to the proposed Milton Logistics Hub project, reference number listed above. Public comments are welcome until June 21, 2015. Please confirm receipt of my email.

This proposal is ignoring the needs of the residents of Milton and the large outcry of people opposed to this project. Upon reviewing the proposal by CN I can see there will be an increase in traffic noise, air pollution, loss of agricultural land, negative impacts on wildlife and other environmental resources, to name a few reasons this proposal should not go forward.

With alterations to Indian Creek and its tributary there will be impacts on fish and other wildlife as well as concerns from altering the natural landscape.

There will be negative impacts on the New Credit First National including negative effects of railway noise and negative effects of railway air pollution.

With the construction of entrances for trucks at Tremaine Rd and Britannia Rd, the construction of an employee entrance on Tremaine Rd. there will be a significant increase in traffic, traffic noise, air pollution and not to mention there are already residences fronting First Line, Tremaine Rd. and Lower Base Line all in close proximity to this proposed logistics hub. These residences have been in place long before this proposal has, and there should be some respect and moral guidance to build such a hub in a non-residential area and an area that hasn't already been growing such as Milton. If this proposal goes forward it is my belief Milton will face significant barriers in the future development in not only this town but the surrounding communities as well.

Please listen to the voice of citizens who are living here: this proposal is NOT GOOD FOR MILTON AND OUR SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES!!!

Sincerely, Rita Kent, B.Sc. (Hons)

Sent from my BlackBerry® PlayBook™ www.blackberry.com From: Robert Szyngiel To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal Date: June 15, 2015 10:06:26 PM

Robert Szyngiel << personal information removed >>

Monday June 15, 2015

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573

Dear Sir or Madame:

Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal

• The disturbance of noise will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road;

• The disturbance of very bright lighting will be detrimental to the residents of Milton health. Light at night is known to affect sleep patterns of residents living near a highly lighted yard. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly.

• Water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable.

Yours truly,

Robert Szyngiel

From: Roberto T To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: A mistake. Date: June 5, 2015 1:58:20 PM

Not sure if it went trhough. So I am resending.

Hi, As a Milton resident I am concerned with the project of creating a CN hub in the area so close to the UNESCO recognized area known as the Bruce-trail and the Niagara Escarpment. This mail is not to make the point of all the inconveniences the CN Hub will bring to Milton. Milton’s infrastructure is not ready to handle either the speed of growth of the residential side of the city, nor the Industrial area. It requires more time. Milton is just not ready for that. We already have all of the inconveniences of jams trying to get to work and back from work, as well as the stops needed to cross a rail-road because of the train crosses and finally the endless constructions trying to deal with that growth. We all know about that. But from the Environmental side the more concern I have is the fact that: 1) There will be 1,500 truck on a daily basis crossing from every side the fragile area. Now, calculating the carbon footprint of a truck going down the 401 from the future Tremaine… Let’s say 12 km: 0.46 kg * (0.62 *10 ) = 2.85 kg/km. Calculating the worst case scenario: 1500*2.85 = 4,278 kg/km a day. Every day!!! 2) Now, if we consider the idle scenario, coming even higher during winter + the actual transport of the truck in the Hub, the concentration carbon footprints becomes even much more higher in that reduced area. 3) If we add here the residential footprints…. The situation becomes just critical. 4) The ling-term exposure for the residents, close by will mean a sure damage of lungs, kidneys, liver, respiratory problems. The health of the people living around the area will be in jeopardy. 5) The wild life around will be detrimental if you consider on top of the above, the noise the 1500 plus train will add to the current situation. 6) More traffic nightly would be more chances for a wild animal not to be able to cross a road, meaning more dead wild animals in the roads and the chance for specific kinds to disappear from our area. 7) I have been in transportation and warehousing for many years and I know about the spilt, storing products in containers, oil and gas spilt, truck repairs… All of that wasted will be probably just washed out going to the environment around. 8) And finally, the impact on all the livestock close to that area, that spend most of the day outdoors, this new ‘environment’ will be damaging to their health and make them dangerous for people consumption.

We should look forward for improvements and industrial development. But building something like this is detrimental in the long term to the environment around our area. Besides the inconvenience this pose to the residents of Milton, this is something that will damage one of the Environmental beauties of Ontario. Such a hub like that, has to be away from the cities and environmental fragile areas and close to highways. Ontario has plenty of areas that could be used as contingency sites for that Hub. The CN property of the land should not be a limitation to move the Hub away from Milton. Properties can be sold and bought. Building the Hub in Milton would be a Huge Mistake.

Thanks,

Roberto Tarazona

From: Roger Virdee To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Cc: Roger Virdee Subject: Milton says NO Date: June 11, 2015 7:46:48 AM

June 11, 2015

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573

Dear Sir or Madame:

Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal

• The disturbance of noise will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road;

• The disturbance of very bright lighting will be detrimental to the residents of Milton health. Light at night is known to affect sleep patterns of residents living near a highly lighted yard. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly.

• Water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable.

Roger Virdee

<< personal information removed >>

From: Salman Saeed To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Inappropriate Location Date: June 19, 2015 7:26:11 PM

Hello,

I am writing to oppose the CN Rail project in Milton. While I appreciate the need of a logistical hub for economic growth, proposed location in Milton is not the right choice.

As we all know It's the fastest growing community in Canada and thousands of families enjoy this little town because of it's scenic views, calm and quiet environment. This kind of rail yard would be last thing the families would want to see in their backyard where there will be trailers roaming around residential streets 24x7.

Please ask CN to find a better suited commercial area, probably North of hwy 401 where most of Milton's industrial area is.

Thanks!

Salman Saeed From: Sana Kay To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal Date: June 10, 2015 10:11:22 PM

Sana Khawaja << personal information removed >>

Date

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573

Dear Sir or Madame:

Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal

• The disturbance of noise will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road;

• The disturbance of very bright lighting will be detrimental to the residents of Milton health. Light at night is known to affect sleep patterns of residents living near a highly lighted yard. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly.

• Water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable.

Yours truly Sana Khawaja From: Scott Craigie To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Milton Logistics Hub Project Date: June 15, 2015 9:47:55 PM

Dear Sir or Madame:

As a resident of Halton, I am very concerned about the effects the proposed CN Intermodal Terminal could have on the environment of Halton.

Environmental concerns cover many aspects, just a few of which include:

· The disturbance of noise will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road;

· The disturbance of noise to the residents of Milton will be detrimental to our health, peace and enjoyment of our homes and park areas. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly.

· The disturbance of very bright lighting will be detrimental to the residents of Milton health. Light at night is known to affect sleep patterns of residents living near a highly lighted yard. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly.

· The disturbance of very bright lighting will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road. It is known that bright night light changes the breeding calls of birds in the area. CN has reported a Species at Risk on the Proposed Site. Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) and Barn Swallow.

· According to Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting, Frogs have been found to inhibit their mating calls when they are exposed to excessive light at night, reducing their reproductive capacity.

· According to Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting, the feeding behavior of bats also is altered by artificial light. Researchers have blamed light pollution for declines in populations of North American moths, almost all small rodents and carnivores. “We just now understand the nocturnality of many creatures,” says Chad Moore, Night Sky Program manager with the National Park Service. “Not protecting the night will destroy the habitat of many animals.”

· Spawning fish, which swim from Indian Creek, across the creek under Tremaine Road, through the pond, then by stream across the proposed CN Terminal Site and continue across under First Line. The many railway tracks could disrupt the streams with vibration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway Sites/Yards. This could make Indian Creek which flows into Bronte Creek which flows in Lake Ontario contaminated and that are so that they are no longer usable by the fish;

· Water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable.

· The environment for the human population surrounding the proposed site would be permanently altered in a detrimental way by (1) increasing air pollution due to dust and fuel fumes from both trains and trucks; (2) make it no longer possible for the many cyclists who use local Milton roads for recreation to safely ride on our country roads; (3) cause pollution of the water table; (4) cause noise pollution from trucks and trains; (5) cause littering pollution where the wind carries garbage from CN trains and trucks; (6) cause light pollution that will put an end to star gazing in the area; (7) cause noise pollution from work on the site itself; (8) cause air pollution from the traffic congestion in the area created by the increased truck traffic which would not be on the local roads if not for the proposed CN site; (9)

These are just a few of my concerns.

I believe this is not the correct place for the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project.

Yours truly,

Scott Craigie

<< personal information removed >> Scott Fleming << personal information removed >>

June 12, 2015

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573

Dear Sir or Madame:

Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal

Environmental concerns cover many aspects, just a few of which include:

• Noise disturbance to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road;

• Noise disturbance to the residents of Milton will be detrimental to our health, peace and enjoyment of our homes and park areas. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly.

• Lighting disturbance will be detrimental to our health. Light at night is known to affect sleep patterns of residents living near a highly lighted yard. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly.

• The many railway tracks could disrupt the many tributaries of Indian Creek with vibration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway Sites/Yards. This could contaminate Lake Ontario via Indian Creek, which flows into Bronte Creek, which then flows in Lake Ontario. This could cause significant harm to the people of South Western Ontario.

• Spawning fish, which swim from Indian Creek, across the creek under Tremaine Road, through the pond, then by stream across the proposed CN Terminal Site and continue across under First Line will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable. As the world is looking for more water, removing/covering what currently exists can’t even be considered.

• Water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable.

• As a cyclist, the increased truck traffic and the pollution caused by the exhaust will make it very difficult to ride the current clear roads and future structured cycling paths. Breathing in diesel exhaust, a class one carcinogen from the additional 1,500 trucks per day will now be unavoidable and significantly detrimental. The purpose of cycling in an environment that is full of fresh air and nature is to provide clean air into my lungs and the additional pollution will cause irreparable damage and counter the healthy work being done by cycling in the first place.

• The additional traffic of 1,500 trucks per day will have devastating implications on the safety for cyclists in the area. Recreational and competitive cyclists from all over Central and Southwestern Ontario may have to find other areas to ride. For those who elect to continue to ride where they have ridden for many years, there is a significant risk to their safety from large trucks on roads not built to handle large trucks. The reach of these trucks is far and wide. Not simply the traffic immediately adjacent to the facility but on route to and from major arteries which covers most of Milton, Oakville, Burlington, Halton Hills and into Mississauga. The cost to local businesses could be significantly impacted as well as cyclists move out of the area.

• The risk of accidents in the area increases significantly. CN themselves have had many accidents and derailments affecting local communities in the first quarter of 2015 alone. It is reasonable to expect the same thing to happen in the heart of our community.

• The financial costs of environmental cleanup alone, should an event occur, could be devastating to the region.

• The contamination to local crops from spewing diesel exhaust will devastate traditional crops, let alone those consciously grown as organic which will now be destroyed.

• The Milton farmer’s market on Saturday mornings will lose it’s credibility being so close to a major polluter vs it’s pristine environment today.

These are just a few of my concerns.

I believe the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project requires a full Environmental Assessment. I believe this is not the correct place for the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project.

Yours truly,

Scott Fleming From: M A To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Plz say no to CN Date: June 10, 2015 8:37:46 PM

Shamoonaabid Abid << personal information removed >>

June 10, 2015 Dear Sir/ Madam Kindly don't built the CN RAILWAY in milton. Plz don't ruin our beautiful town. Plz don't make it polluted, noisy, crowded, over traffic. Plz don't take off our towns green beauty. Plz let us live happily here. We want to see our generations growing here. WE SAY NO Thx Shamoonaabid

Sent from my iPhone From: << email address removed >>on behalf of Sherri O"Donnell To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Milton Logistics Hub Project (CN Intermodal Terminal) Date: June 21, 2015 4:22:50 PM

Sherri O’Donnell << personal information removed >>

June 21, 2015

Milton Logistics Hub Project

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573

Dear Sir or Madame:

Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project (CN Intermodal Terminal)

Concerns:

The disturbance of noise will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road; The disturbance of noise to the residents of Milton will be detrimental to our health, peace and enjoyment of our homes and park areas. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly.

The many railway tracks could disrupt the many tributaries of Indian Creek with vibration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway Sites/Yards. This could make Indian Creek, which flows into Bronte Creek, which then flows in Lake Ontario contaminated, causing harm to the people of South Western Ontario.

Water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable.

The environment for the human population surrounding the proposed site would be permanently altered in a detrimental way by (1) increasing air pollution due to dust and fuel fumes from both trains and trucks; (2) make it no longer possible for the many cyclists who use local Milton roads for recreation to safely ride on our country roads; (3) cause pollution of the water table; (4) cause noise pollution from trucks and trains; (5) cause littering pollution where the wind carries garbage from CN trains and trucks; (6) cause light pollution that will put an end to star gazing in the area; (7) cause noise pollution from work on the site itself; (8) cause air pollution from the traffic congestion in the area created by the increased truck traffic which would not be on the local roads if not for the proposed CN site; (9) In Halton, we are also very disturbed that CN has been allowed to circumvent the environmental assessment processes at the regional and provincial levels. We are deeply worried that the federal EA is not stringent or effective enough, and that CN well knows this. We ask you, at the CEAA to consider this concern seriously and to review the standards that CN MUST be held to according to municipal, regional, and provincial zoning and plans.

Yours truly, Sherri O’Donnell << personal information removed >> From: Sivanangai Murale To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Milton Logistics Hub Project - Public Comments Date: June 10, 2015 8:06:39 PM

Sivanangai Murale << personal information removed >>

10-06-2015

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2

Yours truly, S.Murale (Sivanangai Murale) From: Soledad Paucar To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Milton Logistics Hub Project — Public Comments - Soledad Paucar Date: June 11, 2015 5:49:55 PM

Soledad Paucar Morales << personal information removed >>

11 June 2015

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573

Dear Sir or Madame:

Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal

• The disturbance of noise will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road;

• The disturbance of very bright lighting will be detrimental to the residents of Milton health. Light at night is known to affect sleep patterns of residents living near a highly lighted yard. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly.

• Water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable.

These are just a few of my concerns. I believe the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project requires a full Environmental Assessment. I believe this is not the correct place for the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project. Yours truly, Soledad Paucar From: Stacey Newman To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: CEAR, Information Request Date: July 13, 2015 9:29:48 PM

Please note, we sent this in on June 19 but we did not receive a reply. We wish to know that our letter has been included in the assessment. Thank you.

**********

Stacey & Stephen Newman << personal information removed >>

June 18, 2015

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2

Dear Sir or Madame:

Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal

As a resident of Halton, I am very concerned about the effects the proposed CN Intermodal Terminal could have on the environment of Halton.

· Environmental concerns cover many aspects, just a few of which include:

· The disturbance of noise will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road;

· The disturbance of noise to the residents of Milton will be detrimental to our health, peace and enjoyment of our homes and park areas. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly.

· The disturbance of very bright lighting will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road. It is known that bright night light changes the breeding calls of birds in the area. CN has reported a Species at Risk on the Proposed Site. Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) and Barn Swallow.

· Water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable.

These are just a few of our concerns.

We believe the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project requires a full Environmental Assessment, and not just at the federal level. My husband and I believe emphatically that this is not the correct place for the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project. We are incredulous that the CEAA and our federal government has allowed CN to circumvent municipal and provincial environmental review processes too. This should not be allowed, CN should absolutely be required to submit to municipal and provincial environmental reviews also.

Yours truly,

Stacey & Stephen Newman

From: Stephan Theben To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Comments on the Draft EIS Guidelines for the Milton Logistics Hub Project Date: June 19, 2015 3:08:05 PM

Upon review of the Draft EIS Guidelines for the Milton Logistics Hub Project I have the following comments and requests:

1. The EA needs to fully assess the loss of habitat in Indian Creek and Tributary A and needs to identify compensation measures for the habitat losses. 2. It appears that the original PD submitted by the proponent does not include traffic issues. The area where the Project would be located is an area that is extensively used by cyclists and for other recreational activities. Also the access road planned for the Project is located right beside the town of Milton and the Niagara Escparpment Greenbelt. It is therefore considered appropriate that the EA include a full scale traffic study that considers the effect of the project on the areas housing and recreational activities, and, in more detail, the effects on car and cycling health and safety. 3. An air dispersion model including the effects of on and offsite-related truck traffic on cyclists and residential properties needs to be included in the EA. 4. Similar the EA needs to consider noise effects. 5. Milton has been a hub for cyclists from all over the GTA. With the commissioning of the velodrome Milton has now become one of the main cycling areas in North America. There is a potential that the large amount of traffic and associated effects can be detrimental to this development. It is therefore suggested that the EA assess the effects of the Project on the use of Milton as an important outdoor recreation and cycling hub. It is expected that to mitigate these likely significant impacts extensive mitigation measures, such and bike paths and bike crossing of the truck haul road will be required. 6. Overall the PD was lacking any aspects related to social effects. The PD even referred to ‘few houses’ in the area, which is incorrect, considering the Project’s proximity to Milton. The EA needs to include a detailed assessment of effects on social and economic indicators or VSECs. 7. Further to the points above it is not correct that the Hub would be “consistent with local land use” as the surrounding area is only used for residential, recreational and agricultural uses. A large scale rail facility and the associated truck traffic has the potential to negatively affect the land use of the area.

Regards,

Stephan Theben From: Susan Wood To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Milton Logistics Hub Project Date: June 11, 2015 8:09:43 PM

Susan Wood

<< personal information removed >>

June 11, 2015

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573

Dear Sir or Madame:

Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal

• The disturbance of noise will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road;

• The disturbance of very bright lighting will be detrimental to the residents of Milton health. Light at night is known to affect sleep patterns of residents living near a highly lighted yard. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly.

• The many railway tracks could disrupt the many tr butaries of Indian Creek with vibration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway Sites/Yards. This could make Indian Creek, which flows into Bronte Creek, which then flows in Lake Ontario contaminated, causing harm to the people of South Western Ontario.

• Spawning fish, which swim from Indian Creek, across the creek under Tremaine Road, through the pond, then by stream across the proposed CN Terminal Site and continue across under First Line. The many railway tracks could disrupt the streams with v bration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway Sites/Yards. This could make Indian Creek which flows into Bronte Creek which flows in Lake Ontario contaminated and that are so that they are no longer usable by the fish;

• Water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable.

Yours truly, Susan Wood

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com From: Sylvia Gravel To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Logistics Hub Project Date: June 11, 2015 8:44:22 AM

Sylvia Gravel << personal information removed >>

June 11, 2015 Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573

These are just a few of my concerns. I believe the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project requires a full Environmental Assessment. I believe this is not the correct place for the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project. Yours truly, Sylvia Gravel From: Tariq M To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: CN logistics hub in Milton Date: June 11, 2015 1:25:05 PM

Dear Sir or Madame:

My name is Tariq Mukhtar. I recently moved to Milton with my family (wife and 2 infants) under the impression that Milton was going to be a wonderful place to raise a family. A place where I wouldn't need to worry about excessive pollution or health and environmental concerns as both my children have severe asthma.

As a resident of Halton, I am very concerned about the effects the proposed CN Intermodal Terminal could have on the environment of Halton. Consequently, I would like to submit this letter as part of the federal environmental assessment.

I believe that creation of this intermodal hub will forever change the environment of Milton and cause children, such as my own, to suffer the long-term negative environmental impacts of this proposed development.

As part of the community who has expressed deep concern over this development we have found that there are numerous environmental concerns, a few of which include:

The disturbance of very bright lighting will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road. It is known that bright night light changes the breeding calls of birds in the area. CN has reported a Species at Risk on the Proposed Site. Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) and Barn Swallow. According to Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting, Frogs have been found to inhibit their mating calls when they are exposed to excessive light at night, reducing their reproductive capacity.

According to Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting, the feeding behavior of bats also is altered by artificial light. Researchers have blamed light pollution for declines in populations of North American moths, almost all small rodents and carnivores. “We just now understand the nocturnality of many creatures,” says Chad Moore, Night Sky Program manager with the National Park Service. “Not protecting the night will destroy the habitat of many animals.” The many railway tracks could disrupt the many tributaries of Indian Creek with vibration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway Sites/Yards. This could make Indian Creek, which flows into Bronte Creek, which then flows in Lake Ontario contaminated, causing harm to the people of South Western Ontario. Spawning fish, which swim from Indian Creek, across the creek under Tremaine Road, through the pond, then by stream across the proposed CN Terminal Site and continue across under First Line will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable.The many railway tracks could disrupt the streams with vibration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway Sites/Yards. This could make Indian Creek which flows into Bronte Creek which flows in Lake Ontario contaminated and that are so that they are no longer usable by the fish;

Water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable.

I strongly believe this is not the correct place for the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project.

Yours truly, Tariq Mukhtar

Tariq Mukhtar, PhD Medical Strategist Havas Health << personal information removed >> From: Tatiana Terekhova To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Date: June 21, 2015 7:35:52 PM

Dear Sirs and Madams: I need to express my outmost protest to CN’s proposal to build intermodal hub in Milton. Milton is a gorgeous part of Escarpment Country, natural habitat to fish, birds, animals, plants and …. Us, people, who have invested in this community. We are not saying no to the train tracks which were there for ever. We are saying no to destroying rare to find natural habitat, beautiful lands surrounding our town. 24/7 facility with multiple train tracks, over 1,500 tracks per DAY, pollution on all levels.

Please listen to the voice of us residents…. NO TO CN INTERMODAL HUB IN MILTON!!!

Tatiana Terekhova CFP, CDFA, FDS, RRC www.fairsplit.ca << personal information removed >> From: Tom Dusmet To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Milton Intermodal site Environmental assessment Date: May 24, 2015 9:41:47 PM

I understand that now that it has been decided that an environmental assessment should be started before the Milton Intermodal facility can be built the next question is – “What to study?”

My answer to that is: AIR QUALITY:

I suggest that air samples be taken at various locations which will be conduits to the intermodal facility – and hold the operator of the site responsible for the cost of policing the traffic to this site in this regard – and for remedies if the readings change. Routes which need to be monitored are Regional Rd 25, 1k 2k and 5k from the site in both directions, Britannia Rd from the site to Tremaine and to James Snow Parkway, Tremaine from Britannia to Steeles and James Snow parkway from the 401 to Britannia.

Air quality testing should start now and continue for at least 5 to 10 years after the site is in place.

Apart from all the other side effects that the increased traffic will bring – such as significantly shortened life of our roads (=higher maintenance costs at the expense of local tax payers), increased traffic and congestion of already overloaded infrastructure, etc, air quality is the biggest local concern. If our local air quality is impacted by this facility the operator should be held accountable to remedy the situation so that local air quality is preserved at current levels of pollutants or better on the routes accessing the site..

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this process.

Regards, Tom Dusmet From: Tony Cabral To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Milton Logistics Hub Project Date: June 10, 2015 10:24:19 PM

Tony Cabral << personal information removed >>

June 10, 2015

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573

Dear Sir or Madame: Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal

• The disturbance of noise will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road;

• The disturbance of very bright lighting will be detrimental to the residents of Milton health. Light at night is known to affect sleep patterns of residents living near a highly lighted yard. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly.

• Spawning fish, which swim from Indian Creek, across the creek under Tremaine Road, through the pond, then by stream across the proposed CN Terminal Site and continue across under First Line will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable. • Water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable.

• In Halton, we are also very disturbed that CN has been allowed to circumvent the environmental assessment processes at the regional and provincial levels. We are deeply worried that the federal EA is not stringent or effective enough, and that CN well knows this. We ask you, at the CEAA to consider this concern seriously and to review the standards that CN MUST be held to according to municipal, regional, and provincial zoning and plans. These are just a few of my concerns. I believe the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project requires a full Environmental Assessment. I believe this is not the correct place for the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project.

Yours truly,

Tony Cabral From: Valerie Shepherd To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Milton CN Intermodal Terminal Environmental Assessment Date: June 21, 2015 10:32:39 AM

To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to express my outrage about the proposed CN intermodal terminal for Milton, Ontario. I understand that you will be undertaking an environmental assessment. In my mind, an environmental assessment only conerns itself with potential impact on water tables and indigenous species of plants and animals. My main concern is with humanity. Milton has experienced exponential growth over the past 10 years. Our roads systems have not been able to keep up with the increase in commuter traffic. CN is proposing to increase congestion on our roads to 1500 heavy trucks per day. We have already had the opportunity to sample that experience with all of the construction projects currently underway and recently completed in Milton. The most important issues for me are: traffic congestion, noise pollution, and air quality. Heavy trucks are loud. Given that the intermodal terminal will be operating "24/7", any residents anywhere near the main transportation route the trucks will use between and the 401 will be unable to leave windows open because of the residual noise. Many of our residents moved out of Mississauga and Brampton because of noise pollution, and now that they have arrived to Milton's natural quiet, CN is threatening to destroy it. In light of Milton Hydro's proposed $49 billion upgrade to equipment over the next 5 years, I would think that any opportunity to avoid using air conditioning by opening windows should be encouraged, not discouraged because of CN's determination to build the terminal where it impacts humans the greatest. Heavy trucks are not required by law to follow the same standards of emissions tests that commuter cars are. We have all driven behind a truck on the highway with black exhaust billowing out its exhaust pipes. The construction trucks we have on our streets every day right now pollute the air in the same way. CN is offering us the opportunity to abandon our fresh air in exchange for truck exhaust. Another reason to close the windows, crank the A/C, and increase the demand on hydro. I live here because it is close to nature. I want to be able to open my windows and hear birds, not truck engines. Heavy trucks will cause extreme road congestion. While I recognize that another artery to the 401 is currently under construction on the west side of town, the people who live there do not want to see the value of their homes decrease because they now border on to a busy truck freeway instead of an unobstructed view of the Niagara Escarpment. And what if the trucks don't use that artery exclusively? We will have 1500 heavy trucks each day travelling up and down Hwy 25 past the Milton Mall, a large senior citizens residence, businesses, houses, and apartment buildings? Where is the safety for our children and our Seniors? Travel time within Milton will reach Toronto rush hour standards. Many Miltonians moved here to escape that kind of congestion, and now CN is offering all of us the chance to live that way every day. Air quality and excessive noise must be considered within the parameters of the environmental assessment. In this day where mental health is an issue at the forefront, increased stress levels due to excessive traffic congestion must be considered also. The last time CN decided to build an intermodal terminal, it didn't heed human concerns, and the terminal was built to the east of Trafalgar Rd, south of the 401. The superfurnace was also built exactly where Milton residents didn't want it to go, just north of the 401 and east of James Snow pkwy. Maybe, Miltonians can actually be taken into account this time, because I for one am starting to feel like an endangered species. -- Valerie Shepherd, 25 year Milton resident The heart has reasons that reason cannot know << personal information removed >>

Milton, Ontario << personal information removed >>

<< personal information removed >>

<< personal information removed >> << personal information removed >> << personal information removed >>

From: << personal information removed >> To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal Date: June 10, 2015 9:25:39 PM

Vicky Bryant << personal information removed >>

Milton, ON June 10, 2015

Milton Logistics Hub Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 55 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 907 Toronto ON M4T 1M2 Telephone: 416-952-1576 Fax: 416-952-1573 Dear Sir or Madame: Re: Milton Logistics Hub Project Also known as CN Intermodal Terminal As a resident of Halton, I am very concerned about the effects the proposed CN Intermodal Terminal could have on the environment of Halton. I believe that residents surrounding the proposed area will forever suffer the long-term negative impacts of this proposed development and I believe residents from communities within the Regional Municipality of Halton will be victimized by its adverse impact. Concerns; • The disturbance of noise will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road; • The disturbance of noise to the residents of Milton will be detrimental to our health, peace and enjoyment of our homes and park areas. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly. • The disturbance of very bright lighting will be detrimental to the residents of Milton health. Light at night is known to affect sleep patterns of residents living near a highly lighted yard. The Proposed CN Milton Logistic Hub Project is to be placed alongside thousands of new homes in Milton. This site will affect thousands of residents directly. • The disturbance of very bright lighting will be very evident to the many varieties of birds that nest and stop on their migrations north and south at the pond just east of Tremaine Road. It is known that bright night light changes the breeding calls of birds in the area. CN has reported a Species at Risk on the Proposed Site. Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) and Barn Swallow. • According to Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting, Frogs have been found to inhibit their mating calls when they are exposed to excessive light at night, reducing their reproductive capacity. • According to Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting, the feeding behavior of bats also is altered by artificial light. Researchers have blamed light pollution for declines in populations of North American moths, almost all small rodents and carnivores. “We just now understand the nocturnality of many creatures,” says Chad Moore, Night Sky Program manager with the National Park Service. “Not protecting the night will destroy the habitat of many animals.” • The many railway tracks could disrupt the many tributaries of Indian Creek with vibration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway Sites/Yards. This could make Indian Creek, which flows into Bronte Creek, which then flows in Lake Ontario contaminated, causing harm to the people of South Western Ontario. • Spawning fish, which swim from Indian Creek, across the creek under Tremaine Road, through the pond, then by stream across the proposed CN Terminal Site and continue across under First Line. The many railway tracks could disrupt the streams with vibration and the chemical leakage that is known to occur at Railway Sites/Yards. This could make Indian Creek which flows into Bronte Creek which flows in Lake Ontario contaminated and that are so that they are no longer usable by the fish; • Spawning fish, which swim from Indian Creek, across the creek under Tremaine Road, through the pond, then by stream across the proposed CN Terminal Site and continue across under First Line will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable. • Water based life forms living along Indian Creek will be affected by CN’s plans to change the creek or completely cover the creek. This is unacceptable. • The environment for the human population surrounding the proposed site would be permanently altered in a detrimental way by (1) increasing air pollution due to dust and fuel fumes from both trains and trucks; (2) make it no longer possible for the many cyclists who use local Milton roads for recreation to safely ride on our country roads; (3) cause pollution of the water table; (4) cause noise pollution from trucks and trains; (5) cause littering pollution where the wind carries garbage from CN trains and trucks; (6) cause light pollution that will put an end to star gazing in the area; (7) cause noise pollution from work on the site itself; (8) cause air pollution from the traffic congestion in the area created by the increased truck traffic which would not be on the local roads if not for the proposed CN site; (9) • In Halton, we are also very disturbed that CN has been allowed to circumvent the environmental assessment processes at the regional and provincial levels. We are deeply worried that the federal EA is not stringent or effective enough, and that CN well knows this. We ask you, at the CEAA to consider this concern seriously and to review the standards that CN MUST be held to according to municipal, regional, and provincial zoning and plans. These are just a few of my concerns. I believe the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project requires a full Environmental Assessment. I believe this is not the correct place for the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project. Yours truly, Vicky Bryant From: << personal information removed >> To: Logistics Hub / Pole Logistique (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Milton Date: June 19, 2015 2:35:59 PM

This is absolutely the worst possible location for the hub...makes no sense whats so ever...impacts the niagra escarpment biom and natural landscape. Huge impact on traffic in and aroun residential areas....and impacting values of homes in area....potential site is north of steeles as an alternative existing tract and lower traffic impact...... future growth and planning in milton were based on a previous decision not to build this site back in tge early 2000s...

Best

William