Developing a Northwestern Ontario Definition of Significant Water Crossings in Response to the Proposed Energy East Pipeline

Developing a Northwestern Ontario Definition of Significant Water Crossings In Response to the Proposed Energy East Pipeline

Report Prepared For: Common Voice Northwest, Energy East Task Force Under the National Energy Board Participant Funding Program

June 20, 2017

349 Mooney Avenue Thunder Bay, Ontario Canada P7B 5L5 Business: (807) 345-5445 www.kbm.ca

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

Contents

Executive Summary ...... 4 Introduction ...... 8 Review of TransCanada Highly Sensitive Receptors and Major Water Crossing Analysis ...... 9 TransCanada’s Approach to Water Crossings ...... 9 Highly Sensitive Receptors ...... 10 HSR Data Sources and Methodology ...... 11 Values that Do Not Meet HSR Criteria ...... 14 Identified Ecological Highly Sensitive Receptors ...... 14 Major Water Crossings and TransCanada’s Valve Siting Optimization Process ...... 18 Identifying values and areas of concern through community meetings and online surveys ...... 20 Meeting Schedule and Participation ...... 20 Defining Significant Water Crossings ...... 21 Community Meetings ...... 21 Online Survey ...... 25 List of Management Agencies and Stakeholder Groups That Provided Information ...... 27 Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas ...... 27 Drinking Water Intakes ...... 27 Lake Superior Drainage Basin ...... 28 Lake Nipigon and Its Tributaries ...... 31 Critical Habitat for Aquatic Species at Risk ...... 32 Aquatic Protected Areas ...... 37 Dog and Kaministiqua Rivers, ...... 39 Savanne River and Lac Des Mille Lacs ...... 39 Winnipeg River ...... 40 Assessment of Potential Impacts to Provincial Natural Heritage Values ...... 41 Ontario Drainage Basins ...... 41 Data Layers Used ...... 45 Results: Concentrations of Values ...... 46 Conclusions and Summary ...... 49 APPENDIX A: COMMON VOICE NORTHWEST APPLICATION TO PARTICIPATE ...... 53 APPENDIX B: CVNW AD FOR CONSULTANTS ...... 59

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT EFFORTS AND OUTCOMES ..... 61 APPENDIX D: MEDIA COVERAGE ...... 64 APPENDIX E: LIST OF DATA SOURCES USED IN ANALYSIS ...... 67 Land Information Ontario Datasets ...... 67 Other Data ...... 67 APPENDIX F: CONCENTRATIONS OF VALUES BY QUATERNARY WATERSHED ...... 68 APPENDIX G: AREAS OF CONCERN IDENTIFIED AT COMMUNITY MEETINGS ...... 71 APPENDIX H: INVITATION LIST FOR COMMUNITY MEETINGS ...... 75 APPENDIX I: KBM RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT REPORT ...... 83

List of Figures

Figure 1. Inland commercial fisheries in NW Ontario (Source: OMNRF 2016)...... 15 Figure 2. North American distribution of white wood aster (Source: Argus et al., 1987)...... 17 Figure 3. TransCanada’s valve siting optimization process (Source: TransCanada Consolidated Application, Volume 4 Pipeline Design)...... 19 Figure 4. Community meeting locations...... 21 Figure 5. Number of responses to a list of values posted at community meetings...... 22 Figure 6. Areas of concern identified by meeting participants...... 24 Figure 7. Results of values ranking – CVNW Energy East online survey...... 26 Figure 8. Participant awareness of significant areas – CVNW Energy East online survey...... 26 Figure 9. Lake Superior drainage basin (Source: Environment and Climate Change Canada)...... 29 Figure 10. Map of pipeline relative to Nipigon Bay RAP Area of Concern...... 30 Figure 11. Fisheries Management Zone 9 (Source: OMNRF)...... 31 Figure 12. Designatable units used in COSEWIC report...... 33 Figure 13. COSSARO status of NW Ontario lake sturgeon populations...... 33 Figure 14. Known locations of shortjaw cisco...... 34 Figure 15. Known occurrences of blackfin cisco in Ontario (Source: Ontario Fishes)...... 35 Figure 16. Northern brook lamprey in Ontario (Source: OMNRF)...... 36 Figure 17. Known locations of kiyi in Lake Superior (Source: DFO) ...... 37 Figure 18. Lake of the Woods drainage basin...... 40 Figure 19. The Laurentian Divide (a continental divide separating Ontario drainage basins)...... 42 Figure 20. Flow direction in primary watersheds (NW Ontario) ...... 43 Figure 21. Potential area of impact resulting from overland flow or direct downstream impacts...... 44 Figure 22. Concentrations of values within the area of potential overland flow by quaternary watershed. .... 47

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

List of Tables

Table 1. List of identified significant water crossings and sensitive areas...... 6 Table 2. Energy East Task Force members...... 8 Table 3. List of attributes that meet HSR criteria...... 13 Table 4. List of attributes that do not meet HSR criteria...... 14 Table 5. Concentrations of active inland commercial fishing licences in NW Ontario...... 16 Table 6. Identified Major Water Crossings...... 19 Table 7. Community meeting schedule...... 21 Table 8. Survey respondents...... 25 Table 9. Criteria for drinking water HSR...... 28 Table 10. Description of values in protected areas...... 38 Table 11. S1-S3 species identified 05PD-01 quaternary watershed 05PD-01...... 48 Table 12. Polygon values identified in quaternary watershed 05PD-01 ...... 49 Table 13. Point values identified in quaternary watershed 05PD-01...... 49 Table 14. List of significant water crossings and sensitive areas...... 50

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

Executive Summary

The proposed Energy East pipeline consists largely of the conversion of an existing gas pipeline to transport crude oil from Alberta and Saskatchewan to the refineries of Eastern Canada and a marine terminal in New Brunswick. Because a significant portion of the pipeline already exists, the consolidated project application by TransCanada and its assessment of effects was limited to new construction. TransCanada did not file information about the hundreds of waterbodies crossed or in proximity to the converted pipeline, although a pipeline failure could occur at any location along the pipeline route. The scope of the review concerned Common Voice Northwest (CVNW), a not-for-profit organization that researches public policy issues related to the economy of Northwestern Ontario. In April of 2016, CVNW applied to obtain participant funding through the Participant Funding Program of the National Energy Board to intervene in hearings on the Energy East Mainline project. The purpose of the review is to develop a NW Ontario definition of ‘significant water crossing’ and identify sensitive areas to ensure proper safeguards for these are in place, should the pipeline conversion be approved. Feedback from a public engagement process carried out by KBM Resources Group in January 2017 included a strongly-voiced response from some members of the public and participating interest groups that all water was equally important and that it is not possible to rank some areas as more significant than others. We feel it is important to reflect these concerns as they were voiced by participants. However, other viewpoint were also represented and some participants did identify specific values in the public meeting forum and through the online survey. The top three values of concern identified through public meetings and an online survey were as follows: 1. Drinking water sources; 2. Fisheries and wildlife, especially species at risk; and, 3. Protected areas. In addition to using public input, KBM reviewed available provincial data, conducted literature reviews and interviewed local experts and stakeholders. This review suggests that several downstream areas have notable and globally significant fisheries, including Lake Superior and all of its tributaries, as well as the Nipigon River. Rivers with aquatic species at risk were also identified, including all those water bodies where critical lake sturgeon habitat is found. Drinking water intakes for communities were also flagged as areas of high concern and vulnerability. Some rivers not captured in TransCanada’s identification of Major Water Crossings as well as provincial protected areas were identified due to their regional significance or concentrations of values. Based on the input from meetings, a survey and interviews, the following definition of a ‘significant water crossing’ is suggested: A significant water crossing is an area that is crossed by the pipeline and has downstream areas that: 1) Contain one or more of the key values identified during local public consultation a. drinking water sources; b. habitat for fish and wildlife, especially species at risk; and/or is c. located in or upstream of a protected area. 3) Contain a concentration of values. 4) Are identified using standard methodology as a HSR (Highly Sensitive Receptor) due to one or more of the following reasons: a. populated area;

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

b. commercially navigable waterway; c. municipal drinking water intake; d. ecologically sensitive area. In the context of TransCanada’s project application, HSR analysis is a key input for identifying potentially significant water crossings and sensitive areas. HSR are defined by the proponent, as per the criteria listed above. Based on the available information from the consolidated application, KBM noted the following deficiencies in TransCanada’s HSR assessment that lead to questions about the credibility and thoroughness of the HSR approach and analysis. These are as follows: 1. The criteria for HSR are too narrowly defined. 2. Only federal species at risk data was used in the assessment of HSR. 3. Only three unusually sensitive ecological HSR were identified in the 1,923 km stretch of pipeline from Hearst to the Manitoba border, crossing almost 400 streams and rivers: o two of the three identified “ecological HSR” in the TransCanada report are a) a rare plant species not known to occur in Northwestern Ontario (white wood aster) or b) a commercial fishery that is no longer operating (Nipigon Bay at Lake Superior). 4. The HSR analysis looks at values in isolation and does not consider concentrations of values. While the HSR work submitted by TransCanada as part of its consolidated application may satisfy legal requirements, we suggest it is not of sufficient depth to satisfy the public that all reasonable measures have been taken to identify and ground-truth sensitive values to ensure that water and other significant areas are appropriately protected. The following recommendations are directed at TransCanada in the interest of improving the company’s approach to the identification of significant (major) water crossings and HSR: 1. TransCanada should make a summary list of all HSR (including operator-defined HSR) available to the public as part of the consolidated application. 2. TransCanada should include provincial species at risk data in its assessment of HSR. 3. TransCanada should include all protected areas (e.g., provincial parks and conservation reserves) containing provincially significant values, rare plants, provincially listed species at risk and/or known concentrations of values in its assessment of HSR. 4. TransCanada should review the currency and credibility of data inputs to HSR assessment and determination of MWC. 5. TransCanada should revisit the analysis of Major Water Crossings and shut-off valve siting following a review to develop more inclusive HSR criteria as inputs to the valve siting optimization process. 6. TransCanada should carry out a more detailed spatial analysis to identify areas or water crossings with concentrations of values. By aggregating information from community meetings, interviews, the online survey, and the HSR data review and GIS exercise, KBM identified regionally significant water crossings and other sensitive values of interest in Northwestern Ontario that would be most directly and significantly impacted by a pipeline failure and that required additional protection. This report details these findings. The following locations were identified by participants and stakeholder groups as being areas of concern or ‘significant water crossings’, based on the above criteria. It is not necessarily an exhaustive list, but provides a

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest starting point for a closer examination by TransCanada of risk to highly sensitive values along the NW Ontario pipeline route that have not been sufficiently considered in the work submitted to date. For example, TransCanada could review all stream location that contain lake sturgeon populations or critical habitat using provincial species at risk data and consider these for inclusion in list of HSR. Or alternatively, provide a stronger rationale for why clearly sensitive values are not included or how they are protected. Table 1. List of identified significant water crossings and sensitive areas. Value/Crossing Rationale All drinking water intakes A source of clean drinking water is critical to community well-being and represents a highly significant value. Lake Superior and drainage basin Lake Superior and its tributaries are globally significant and home to many overlapping values:  Drinking water for populated areas (e.g., Thunder Bay and Nipigon water intakes)  Unique coaster brook trout population and other migratory fish that travel and spawn in tributaries  Species at risk (lake sturgeon, shortjaw cisco)  Commercial fisheries  A concentration of shoreline recreational values along the coast  The Lake Superior National Marine Conservation Area Provincial protected areas with These protected areas were designated as they contain concentrations of concentrations of values, downstream of the values as follows: pipeline, including:  Part of the the Lake Nipigon Basin Signature Site 1. Black Sturgeon River Provincial Park  Species at risk (lake sturgeon) 2. Nipigon Palisades Conservation Reserve  Species of management concern (northern brook lamprey) 3. Nipigon River Conservation Reserve  Provincially rare plant species  World class trout fisheries  Native fisheries rehabilitation efforts1  Downstream drinking water intakes  World class recreational values Nipigon River This river was identified as a Major Water Crossing by TransCanada. It has very high regional significance for its many ecological, economic and social values. Lake Nipigon and any tributaries downstream Lake Nipigon contains: of the pipeline  Specially Designated Waters2  Pelicans and nesting colonies  Possible location of blackfin cisco population  Commercial fishery  World class recreational trout fishery Blackwater River  Drinking water source for Beardmore  Tributary to downstream Lake Nipigon Critical habitat for aquatic species at risk  The Great Lakes - Upper St. Lawrence River population of lake sturgeon is provincially and federally threatened.  Critical habitat elements include: spawning areas, nursery areas, overwintering areas, staging areas and the migration corridors Dog/Kaministiqua River3  Provincially significant representation of a low gradient, strongly meandering river with numerous well developed fluvial features such as meander loops, oxbow lakes, meander scars and point bars.

1 Black Bay & Black Sturgeon River Native Fisheries Rehabilitation. 2012. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. URL: https://dr6j45jk9xcmk.cloudfront.net/documents/2614/stdprod-101432.pdf 2 Large, socially and economically important waters. URL: https://dr6j45jk9xcmk.cloudfront.net/documents/2613/271145.pdf 3 http://files.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/parks-and-protected-areas/mnr00_bcr0127.pdf

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

 Extensive and complex wetland communities provide  provincially significant moose habitat.  Significant walleye spawning habitat along the majority of the (Dog) river length  Historically significant from fur trade  Lake sturgeon spawning area (Kaministiqua River) Savanne River and Lac Des Mille Lacs  Savanne River is main inflow to Lac Des Mille Lacs - a high watershed that eventually feeds Kenora district via Seine River outflow  Complex shoreline habitats  Commercial walleye fishery  Specially Designated Waters  Regionally important socioeconomic value Winnipeg River This river was identified as a Major Water Crossing by TransCanada. It has very high regional significance for its many ecological, economic and social values.

Note: A draft of this report was reviewed by the CVNW Energy East Task Force, edits suggested, and the draft finalized by consensus. The report is being distributed across the Northwest to participants and survey respondents who provided email addresses to KBM. It will also be made available to the public through the KBM and CVNW web sites with a request that it be reviewed and further input provided. Ultimately, the CVNW Energy East Task Force in conjunction with the CVNW Board of Directors will finalize the report and submit it to the National Energy Board.

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

Introduction

The proposed Energy East Pipeline project is a 4,500km pipeline that will transport crude oil from Alberta and Saskatchewan to Atlantic Canada. The pipeline consists largely of the conversion of an existing gas pipeline that runs from Saskatchewan to Eastern Ontario, and will require new pipeline construction at either end (in Alberta, and through Quebec and New Brunswick). The consolidated project application by TransCanada and its assessment of effects for the Northern Ontario section of the pipeline conversion (1,923 km) was limited to the footprint of 28 new pump stations (each ~9 ha in size), 140 km of permanent access roads, 17 minor pipeline realignments, 2 new trenchless river crossings, and pipeline operations and maintenance activities under normal conditions4. The scope of the review concerned Common Voice Northwest (CVNW), a not-for-profit organization that researches public policy issues related to the economy of Northwestern Ontario. In the spring of 2016, CVNW applied to obtain participant funding through the Participant Funding Program of the National Energy Board (NEB) to intervene in hearings on the Energy East Mainline project. CVNW struck a working Group (Energy East Task Force) to participate specifically in the Energy East Mainline project. The Task Force members are listed in Table 2. Energy East Task Force members. ENERGY EAST TASK FORCE MEMBERS Tanice Marcella Citizen volunteer Iain Angus Thunder Bay Municipal Council Andre Blanchard Greenstone Municipal Council Conrad Morin Hearst Municipal Council Gordon McKenzie Nipigon Municipal Council Richard Harvey Mayor, Nipigon Ron Giardetti Shuniah Municipal Council Ron Lee Kam Citizen volunteer

Briefly, the application identified concerns about the definition and identification of “significant” waterbodies crossed by the pipeline that Energy East Pipeline Inc. stated it would provide enhanced protection for. The application described CVNW’s goal of conducting community meetings to gather resident knowledge and identify areas of importance on the watercourses that transect the pipeline, and proposed to present the findings to the NEB. CVNW’s intervenor application focused on the potential risks of spills on these many waterbodies and other sensitive areas along the pipeline route from Hearst, Ontario to the Manitoba border (that portion travelling through Northwestern Ontario). CVNW’s full intervenor application is attached as Appendix A.

4 Transcanada Pipelines Limited Energy East Pipeline Project. Assessment of Impacts on Pipeline Safety. 2015. Ontario Energy Board. URL: http://www.ontarioenergyboard.ca/html/oebenergyeast/documents/finalreports/final%20report_Assessment%20 of%20Energy%20East%20project%20application%20-%20Impacts%20on%20Safety.pdf

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

The application was approved by the NEB, and CVNW, following a call for proposals5 subsequently contracted KBM Resources Group (KBM) to implement the public consultation process to inform the development of a local definition of ‘significant water crossing’ and sensitive areas in relation to the proposed Energy East Pipeline. KBM Resources Group is an environmental consulting firm with approximately 40 full time staff based out of Thunder Bay, Ontario. KBM’s role in this review is not to propose mitigation measures for protection or assess the specific extent of impacts of a spill, but rather to identify regionally significant areas at risk. The role of the NEB would be to take this information into consideration as part of the review process, and impose appropriate conditions. In response to the concerns identified by Common Voice Northwest in its application, KBM has undertaken a review of values from Hearst to the Manitoba border using the following approach: 1. Reviewing TransCanada’s Highly Sensitive Receptors (HSR) and Major Water Crossing (MWC) analyses; 2. Engaging with citizens in NW Ontario through 13 community meetings and an online survey; 3. Conducting interviews with local natural resource and water management experts; and 4. Using publicly available spatial values data and basic analytical tools to identify concentrations of values at risk along the pipeline route. The review is intended to assist in highlighting areas of particular sensitivity or interest, as defined by participants and available natural heritage data. Detailed engineering of the pipeline has not yet occurred, so KBM cannot comment on the type or adequacy of protection afforded to features identified along the pipeline route. Rather, KBM has endeavoured to supplement the desktop review of HSR and Major Water Crossings (MWC) carried out by TransCanada and present a more complete picture of what is significant in Northwestern Ontario, using an enhanced approach to collecting different perspectives and values. The information presented is a subjective assessment based on aggregating information collected through community meetings, an online survey, interviews with experts and a review of available data for NW Ontario. The authors have done their best to represent and substantiate what was heard from participants.

Review of TransCanada Highly Sensitive Receptors and Major Water Crossing Analysis

TransCanada’s Approach to Water Crossings In its application to the National Energy Board, Common Voice Northwest committed to engaging with communities in NW Ontario to develop a definition of ‘significant water crossings’ and other sensitive areas. The term ‘significant water crossing’ is not used by TransCanada in its consolidated application, however it has been used in their public presentations in the region. Rather, TransCanada includes analyses of what are called “Highly Sensitive Receptors” (HSR) and “Major Water Crossings” (MWC).

5 See ad attached as Appendix

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

HSR are used as one of several inputs to define MWC - both get at the question of what kinds of things along the pipeline route are significant and merit engineering to protect identified values (specifically in the case of MWC, this Definition of Highly Sensitive Receptors is sectionalizing values on either side of a MWC). Following is a • populated areas discussion of TransCanada’s work on HSR and MWC. • commercially navigable Highly Sensitive Receptors waterways • municipal water intakes The following is an excerpt from an analysis of HSR completed • ecologically sensitive areas by Stantec Consulting Ltd. on behalf of TransCanada as part of • operator defined HSRs its application. Operator-defined HSRs are areas “Canada does not have federal pipeline regulations (the identified as HSRs by TransCanada Onshore Pipeline Regulations) that specifically require a that may or may not meet specific pipeline operator to identify HSRs and quantify hazards to HSR definitions as described above. these areas. Operator-defined HSRs are often Therefore, the process of identifying and categorizing based on agreements for additional Canadian HSRs is based largely on regulations enforced by the protection made with federal, US Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration provincial, or local governments. (PHMSA), the agency that regulates the safety and integrity of interstate crude oil pipelines in the US. Canadian HSRs are those areas where significant impacts potentially can occur and include: • high-density population areas; • commercially navigable waterways; and, • areas that are unusually sensitive to environmental damage (ecologically sensitive areas and municipal drinking water resources). HSR areas are also locations where corporate risk is higher: “Identification of an HSR and its associated buffer does not preclude a pipeline from being routed through the HSR area, but TransCanada would consider methods to mitigate risks in these areas as a priority, since a spill in these areas would result in a higher magnitude of impacts compared to non-HSR areas.” Consequently, TransCanada may consider processes that will monitor and mitigate risks. In its HSR report, TransCanada acknowledges the evolution of HSR methodologies: “Canadian pipeline safety regulations will continue to advance and TransCanada’s methodology can be updated and modified to incorporate regulatory changes as they occur. While the philosophy of selecting HSRs will continue to focus on those areas where impacts could be the most significant, the selection of specific HSRs may evolve in the future as priorities change and as further data are gathered. Regular evaluation of HSRs and incorporation of relevant changes will help protect the human and natural environment, while simultaneously reducing TransCanada’s corporate risk.” As discussed in more detail below, KBM found that the criteria that define HSR as used by TransCanada are arguably narrow – we suggest that the findings presented in this report could be used to inform a more complete review and consideration of HSRs that will provide assurances to the public that values have been appropriately considered and protected.

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

HSR Data Sources and Methodology According to Stantec, HSR data are compiled from a variety of sources, including federal and provincial agencies (e.g., provincial drinking water agencies, Environment Canada, and field survey data). As per the report, identification of sites where a pipeline spill could have potentially significant impacts is considered highly sensitive information. For this reason, site-specific information is not incorporated into publicly available text or maps.

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

Table 3 outlines those features which are considered possible HSR if they are identified in the area of interest along the pipeline route (e.g., within an 80.5 km buffer from the route centreline), as per Stantec’s report.

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

Table 3. List of attributes that meet HSR criteria. Type of Data HSR Rationale

First Nation Reserves Yes Meets HSR Criteria

Population Data Yes Highly Populated and Other Populated areas meet HSR criteria. Impacts could potentially affect a large number of people (refers to a location with a population of at least 1,000 people and a population density of at least 150 people per square km)

Navigable Rivers or Rivers with Yes Because Canada does not distinguish between Navigable Commercial Maritime Traffic Waterways and Rivers with Commercial Maritime Traffic, waterways are included if they are listed in the Navigable Waters Protection Act*

Municipal Intakes Yes Municipal surface water intakes, HSR meet criteria. Impacts could potentially threaten water resource for community.

Municipal Wellheads Yes Wellhead data. HSR meet criteria. Impacts could potentially threaten water resource for community.

Colonial and Semi-Colonial Yes These areas meet the HSR criteria for migratory terrestrial and Nesting Birds waterbird concentration and breeding areas.

Large-scale Commercial Yes These areas are presumed to meet HSR criteria where Fisheries Associated with the significant financial impacts would occur. Great Lakes and Oceans including Anadromous Species

Marine Protected Area Yes These areas are presumed to meet HSR criteria.

Migratory Bird Sanctuary Yes These areas meet the HSR criteria for migratory waterbird concentration area.

Critical Habitat for Federally Yes These areas would meet HSR criteria. listed SARA Species

Known Occurrence of Yes Known occurrences of plant SARA species are considered Federally-listed Plant SARA HSRs. Species

Known Occurrence of Yes Known occurrences of aquatic or semi-aquatic SARA species are Federally-listed Aquatic and considered HSR. Semi-Aquatic SARA Species

Known Occurrence of Yes Known occurrences of terrestrial SARA species assemblages are Federally-listed Terrestrial SARA considered HSR. Species Assemblages

*The Navigable Waters Protection Act was amended to the Navigation Protection Act, which came into force in 2014.

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

Values that Do Not Meet HSR Criteria Table 4 lists some of the values that do not meet HSR criteria (partial list only to provide examples). Table 4. List of attributes that do not meet HSR criteria. Provincially Significant No Unless these areas contain areas with special status species or Wetlands their critical habitats, these areas do not meet HSR criteria. Rare Vegetation Communities No Rare Vegetation Communities are not officially designated as such in Canada. Rare plants are captured under Known Occurrence of Federally-listed Plant Species and Critical Habitat for Federally-listed SARA Species HSR categories.

Protected Areas (in Ontario, No Unless these areas contain areas with special status species or this includes Provincial Parks their critical habitats, these areas do not meet HSR criteria. and Conservation Reserves) Environmentally Significant No Only those areas that meet ecological significance criteria Areas for HSRs are included. Private Individual Wells * No Wellhead data. Does not meet HSR criteria. Impacts are not of the magnitude required for HSR classification. Wellhead Protection Areas** No Wellhead protection areas do not exist in Canada as they do in the US. Groundwater protected resources are captured in municipal intakes and wells listed in this section. * Individual private water intakes from streams, lakes or rivers are not included in the list of possible HSR. **The Lakehead Source Protection Plan identifies a Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA) at Rosslyn Village Subdivision (Thunder Bay District). Ontario Source Protection Plans identify WHPA across the province, which can be seen here.

There is no publicly available summary of HSR provided in the consolidated application, making it difficult for the public to comment on the thoroughness of the review. As discussed, a detailed HSR list or map is not included as part of the company’s consolidated application as it may contain sensitive or confidential information. However, as part of KBM’s review of the HSR criteria and findings TransCanada did provide a general summary list of the highly sensitive receptors (HSRs) that are found within an 80.5 km buffer centered on the Energy East proposed pipeline, from the Manitoba-Ontario border, to Hearst, Ontario.

Recommendation 1: TransCanada should make a summary list of HSR available to the public as part of the consolidated application. Identified Ecological Highly Sensitive Receptors Within this area of interest, GIS analysis identified a total of 219 HSRs as follows: • 176 drinking water unusually sensitive areas (USAs); • 39 other populated areas (refers to a location with a population of at least 1,000 people and a population density of at least 150 people per square km); • 1 commercially navigable waterway (Winnipeg River); and, • 3 ecological unusually sensitive areas (USA) consisting of: o a commercial fishery at Nipigon Bay (commercial fishery HSR)

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

o the Lake Superior National Marine Conservation Area (marine protected area HSR) o a white wood aster occurrence (federal plant species at risk HSR). KBM’s review focuses primarily on the ecological unusually sensitive areas (USA) identified in the analysis, as the criteria for these USA are ambiguous (e.g., “areas that are unusually sensitive to environmental damage”) compared to others (e.g., “a population of at least 1,000 people and a population density of 150 people per square km”). Furthermore, an existing body of work by interest groups, some of which are also intervenors, is looking more specifically at risks to human health and drinking water sources in Canada and Ontario.6 Ecological HSRs represent a subset of ecological resources identified that could be significantly at risk from inadvertent release of oil from the proposed pipeline. According to TransCanada’s HSR analysis report, unusually sensitive areas (USA) ecological HSRs were identified using publicly available and field survey data sources and follow the US criteria (49 CFR 195.6) as guidance. Following is a review of the three USA ecological HSR identified by TransCanada’s review. Nipigon Bay Commercial Fishery7 There are many commercial food fisheries on the Great Lakes but also on large inland lakes such as Lake of the Woods and Lake Nipigon in NW Ontario. There are approximately 500 active commercial licences, including approximately 100 held by Indigenous communities and individuals in Northwestern Ontario. Figure 1 shows the location of inland commercial fisheries in NW Ontario.

Figure 1. Inland commercial fisheries in NW Ontario (Source: OMNRF 2016).

6 Energy East: A Risk to Our Drinking Water. 2016. Environmental Defense. URL: file:///C:/Users/rburkhardt/Downloads/EE-Drinking-Water-Risks-EN_0%20(3).pdf. Also, Environmental Defense intervenor application URL: file:///C:/Users/rburkhardt/Downloads/A68057- 1%20Application%20To%20Participate%20-%20A4J1G3%20(2).pdf 7 Boudreau, S.A. and L.M. Fanning (2016). Fisheries Management and Decision Making in Canada’s Inland Waterways of Ontario. (Marine Affairs Program Technical Report #13). Available at Marine Affairs Program: http://www.dal.ca/faculty/science/marine-affairs-program/research/research-news/map-technical- seriesreports.html

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

There are a few larger inland lakes in NW Ontario that have a concentration of active fishing licences (compared to single licences), including Lake Nipigon, Lake of the Woods and Rainy Lake (Table 5). Table 5. Concentrations of active inland commercial fishing licences in NW Ontario. Lake OMNRF # Active Species District Licences Lake Nipigon Nipigon 10 Pike, Lake Trout, Whitefish, Perch, Smelt, Other Lake of the Woods Kenora 13 Walleye, Pike, Whitefish, Perch Rainy Lake Fort Frances 5 Walleye, Pike, Whitefish, Perch, Other (Source: OMNRF 2016) The only commercial fishery identified as an ecological USA by TransCanada was at Lake Nipigon Bay (on Lake Superior) - no rationale was provided as to why this fishery was deemed more significant than others. Furthermore, according to the Upper Great Lakes Fisheries Management Unit out of Thunder Bay the Nipigon Bay commercial fishery is no longer active. In its assessment of impacts to commercial fisheries, TransCanada identified Rainy Lake, Rainy River and Lake Winnipeg as outside the TLRU Regional Assessment Area, due to their distance from the pipeline route. While Rainy Lake is in fact downstream of the pipeline route within the Seine River watershed, the magnitude of impacts and level of risk are relatively less compared to areas that have more direct links and significant risk from a spill (e.g., Nipigon River). The rest of the commercial fisheries are individual licenses for different lakes. TransCanada should review its assessment of commercial fisheries that could be affected by a pipeline failure and provide a rationale for why some, but not all, concentrations of commercial fisheries are not included in the list of HSR (e.g., Lake Nipigon). Occurrence of White Wood Aster (Eurybia divaricate) Rules applied to Species at Risk Act (SARA)-listed species for the identification/development of HSRs include: • National-level threatened and endangered species are considered “SARA-listed species” (provincial level species and other special status species [sensitive or species of special concern] are not considered for HSR). • Occurrence data for SARA-listed species that is older than 10 years at the time of analysis are not considered for HSRs. By default, occurrence data that does not have a specified occurrence record date will be included for HSR consideration. No rationale is provided as to why only federal species at risk data is considered. White wood aster is the only federally species at risk occurrence identified by TransCanada. In Canada, white wood aster is classified as threatened. According to both COSEWIC and Ontario reports, Eurybia divaricata occurs in scattered populations in the Niagara Region of southern Ontario and in a few woodlots in southwestern Quebec (Figure 2).8 The Manitoba Conservation Data Centre (MCDC) notes one occurrence of white wood aster in a report dated 2008.9

8 COSEWIC 2002. COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada) assessment and update status report on the white wood aster Eurybia divaricata in Canada.. Ottawa. vi + 23 pp. https://www.registrelep- sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/sr_white_wood_aster_e.pdf 9 Rare Plant Surveys and Stewardship Activities by the Manitoba Conservation Data Centre, 2008. URL: http://www.gov.mb.ca/sd/cdc/pdf/field_report_2008.pdf

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

Figure 2. North American distribution of white wood aster (Source: Argus et al., 1987).10 As per communications with TransCanada, the data identifying the plant occurrence came from the Manitoba Conservation Data Center. Because HSRs have a buffer applied to them they were identified as part of the values set for northern Ontario as well. While KBM cannot confirm or refute the occurrence of white wood aster in Manitoba, it was confirmed by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry that it is extremely unlikely to occur in Northwestern Ontario11 so its inclusion as an HSR may be a result of an oversight in ground truthing identified values with local resource management experts. However, KBM did identify a list of S1-S3 plant and other species12 that could be potentially be affected by pipeline failure. These are described further in KBM’s review of potentially affected values (refer to list of values by quaternary watershed in Appendix E).

Recommendation 2: TransCanada’s analysis of High Sensitivity Receptors should incorporate provincial Species at Risk data. Lake Superior Marine Conservation Area As per Stantec’s HSR report, federal marine protected areas are the only protected areas that meet HSR criteria though no rationale for their inclusion is provided. Other protected areas (e.g., provincial and federal parks, conservation reserves) are not considered HSRs unless they contain areas with special status species or their critical habitats.

10 Ibid. 11 Pers. comm. Ontario Natural Heritage Information Centre, OMNRF Northwest Region Operations Division. 12 Derived from Natural Heritage Information Centre data.

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

No additional protected areas were identified as HSR in Stantec’s report, although there are several protected areas that intersect with the pipeline that include (provincial) special status species. By definition, protected areas are selected to conserve significant landscape or habitat features, including things like: • old-growth forest • lakes, rivers and wetlands • archaeological sites or other cultural values • habitat for rare or endangered plants and animals13

Where aquatic values and critical habitats are known to occur in provincial protected areas, they should be included in a list of HSR. The identification of any provincial areas in TransCanada’s HSR analysis is again limited in part by the fact that provincial species at risk data were not used as an input. Of the five protected areas that intersect the pipeline route, examples of areas that include provincial special status species or their habitats include: • Black Sturgeon River Provincial Park, • Nipigon Palisades Conservation Reserve • Nipigon River Conservation Reserves

Recommendation 3: TransCanada should include all protected areas (e.g., provincial parks and conservation reserves) containing provincially significant values, rare plants, provincially listed species at risk and/or known concentrations of values in its assessment of HSR. Major Water Crossings and TransCanada’s Valve Siting Optimization Process In the absence of federal standards, the CSA Z662-15 (Standard for Oil and Gas Pipeline) lays out mandatory requirements for NEB projects in Canada. Major Water Crossings are described in CSA-Z662 Clause 4.4.9 Note 2) as: • “Water crossings that in the event of an uncontrolled product release poses a significant risk to the public or the environment.” The CSA Z662-11 requirement to provide additional safeguards by locating shut-off valves on both sides of a water crossing is tied to the determination of major water crossings (MWC). The proponent determines what criteria are used to identify major water crossings. That definition may be subject to review/revision by the National Energy Board. According to TransCanada, CSA Z662 Clause 4.4.9 provides minimal guidance on the definition of a MWC, however, recent public statements from the NEB have suggested that “spill risk” (i.e. the potential downstream impact of a spill) and not the width of the water crossing, be used as the primary criteria for identifying a MWC. This clause, in combination with Clause 4.4.4, define the main requirements which need to be satisfied in order to properly locate shutoff valves on the proposed pipeline.14

13 Ontario’s parks and protected areas. URL: https://www.ontario.ca/page/ontarios-parks-and-protected-areas 14 April 2016. Energy East Pipeline Ltd. Energy East Project, Consolidated Application Volume 4: Pipeline Design. Appendix 4-13 Engineering Assessment for Valve Placement.

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

An engineering assessment was undertaken by TransCanada to determine the number and location of ‘sectionalizing’ valves that would allow flow to be turned off on either side of identified Major Water Crossings in the event of a pipeline spill (also referred to as ‘valve optimization’). Inputs to the valve siting optimization process are described in Figure 3 and include HSR as one input to the identification of Major Water Crossings and initial shut-off valve placement.

Figure 3. TransCanada’s valve siting optimization process (Source: TransCanada Consolidated Application, Volume 4 Pipeline Design). According to TransCanada, any portion of the pipeline that could potentially affect a Highly Sensitive Receptor was identified using potential physical transport pathways between the pipeline and HSR. The transport pathways include overland flow, subsurface flow, and/or downstream transport. The link between HSRs and MWCs is a significant one because if the HSR determination process is flawed, the identification of MWC and final valve siting may also be affected. Sectionalizing valves are an important protection measure to avoid impacts of potential spills to MWCs. As an output of the valve siting optimization process (including identified HSR as inputs), TransCanada identified the following “Major Water Crossings” in the stretch between the Manitoba border and Hearst (Table 6). Table 6. Identified Major Water Crossings. River Name Winnipeg River Wabigoon River Swanson's Creek Purdom Creek Nipigon River Postagoni River Namewaminikan River Kenogami River Shekak River Kabinakagami River

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

These crossings represent those rivers that meet the criteria for a Major Water Crossing, which include HSR as an input. KBM would suggest that the narrow interpretation of HSR may limit the number of Major Water Crossings identified. For example, the Kaministiqua River is not identified as a Major Water Crossing, even though the pipeline passes just upstream of a known lake sturgeon spawning area (a provincial species at risk).

Recommendation 4: TransCanada should review the currency and credibility of data inputs to HSR assessment and determination of Major Water Crossings. Recommendation 5: TransCanada should revisit the analysis of Major Water Crossings and shut-off valve siting following a review to develop more inclusive HSR criteria as inputs to the valve siting optimization process.

Identifying values and areas of concern through community meetings and online surveys

Meeting Schedule and Participation KBM hosted meetings in 13 communities across the Northwest in January 2017 (Figure 4 and Table 7)Table 7. Community meeting schedule. Meeting locations and times were provided to Indigenous communities and stakeholder groups, through CVNW and KBM social media sites, as well as in community calendars across the Region. CVNW also contacted media outlets in advance of the meetings to promote the event in print and on television and radio.

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

Figure 4. Community meeting locations. Email invitations and background information was also sent to Indigenous communities in NW Ontario. KBM sent email reminders a week prior to meetings and made efforts to contact Indigenous communities via telephone prior to the community meetings. A complete summary of outreach efforts is included as Appendix B. In total, approximately 168 people attended community meetings across the Region. Table 7. Community meeting schedule. LOCATION DATE & TIME MEETING VENUE NIPIGON Mon Jan 16, 5-7 pm Nipigon Community Centre RED ROCK Tues Jan 17, 5-7 pm Red Rock Community Centre SHUNIAH Tues Jan 17, 5-7 pm Macgregor Recreation Centre THUNDER BAY Thu Jan 19, 5-7 pm Oliver Road Community Centre LAPPE AREA Sat, Jan 21, 9-11 am Gorham and Ware School HEARST Mon, Jan 23, 4:30-6:30 pm Two Ice Tournament Hall KENORA Mon Jan 23, 4:30-6:30 pm Kenora Recreation Centre GERALDTON Tues Jan 24, 6:30-8:30 pm Geraldton Community Centre (Lobby)

LONGLAC Wed Jan 25, 6:00-8:00 pm Longlac Sportsplex, Le Max Meeting Room

DRYDEN Tues Jan 24, 4.30-6.30 pm Holiday Inn Express

SIOUX LOOKOUT Wed Jan 25, 11.30am-1.30 pm Sioux Lookout Library

UPSALA Thurs Jan 26, 4:30-6:30 pm Upsala Recreation & Community Sports Centre

IGNACE Fri Jan 27, 11:30-1:30 pm Ignace Municipal Board Room

KBM and CVNW conducted media interviews, describing the purpose of the meetings and the group’s intervenor work. Follow-up interviews occurred after some of the public meetings. The media attended several of the sessions and reported on the attendance, discussions and input received. A list of media reports is found in Appendix C on page 45.

Defining Significant Water Crossings

Community Meetings When asked how to define a significant water crossing or sensitive area, some of the key messages were as follows: • All water is equally important – it’s not possible to prioritize some areas or water crossings over others • All water is connected – a spill in one part of the watershed could affect the entire drainage • Concerns that conversion of a former gas pipeline to transport oil is not appropriate from an ecological or public safety standpoint

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

• Serious concerns about the safety and failure rate of the pipeline and adequacy of control and mitigation measures (e.g., leak detection, spill response time, etc.), particularly in remote areas with difficult access sections of the pipeline that cross through NW Ontario • There have been insufficient opportunities for people to get information about the project and what it means for their communities Other perspectives heard from participants: • They could support the pipeline if it were properly engineered and enough protections were in place • They had lived beside a pipeline for many years and never experienced issues with it, citing TransCanada as a good corporate citizen that has contributed to the community • If we have to use oil, a pipeline is a safer option than transporting oil by train Participants had the opportunity to identify values of importance by type, as well as specific geographic areas of interest. Figure 5 shows a summary of the top values identified by the meeting attendees, which were generally consistent with the results of the online survey (with the exception of species at risk specifically). The top three areas of concern were: 1. Drinking water 2. Fisheries values (spawning and nursery areas) 3. Protected areas.

Prioritizing Terrestrial and Aquatic Values*

Drinking water intakes Fish spawning and nursery areas Provincial parks and conservation reserves Moose aquatic feeding areas Important recreational rivers Cottage lakes and rivers Species at Risk Recreational/sport fisheries Coldwater fisheries Provincially Significant Wetlands Commercial fisheries Baitfishing areas Rare or uncommon vegetation communities Cultural heritage sites Colonial bird nesting areas (American pelicans) Wild rice harvesting areas Caribou calving areas Productive agricultural soils Waterfowl staging areas Great Lakes Lake Nipigon watershed 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

*Based on 163 responses collected at 13 community meetings (individual respondents may choose multiple values) Figure 5. Number of responses to a list of values posted at community meetings.

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

Locations of local concern were also identified on maps provided – not surprisingly, these tend to centre around communities (Figure 6). For that reason, KBM aggregated the location results with other context and values information to develop the list of significant crossings or areas. Figure 6 shows a map of the locations identified by meetings participants and survey respondents as being significant from a local perspective. While not everyone provided a description of the sites and values, where possible, details of these sites by meeting location are included as Appendix G. About a third of survey respondents indicated they could not identify a specific geographic location of concern. For this reason, the approach included questions about types of values (e.g., drinking water, fisheries, recreation, etc.), which were also considered as inputs to a final list of significant water crossings.

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

Figure 6. Areas of concern identified by meeting participants.

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

Online Survey KBM posted an online survey on the company website from December 12, 2016 to February 28, 2017 which received 78 responses (Table 8). The survey link was distributed twice through an email stakeholder list, again through the Common Voice Northwest membership and contact lists, and posted three times on the KBM Facebook page as well as on the Common Voice Northwest Facebook page. The survey was also advertised to participants at each of 13 community meetings. Table 8. Survey respondents.

Respondent Type Responses

% # Interested Citizen 55.8 43 Member of a local community interest group 10.4 8 (anglers/hunters/trappers/tourism, other) Elected official 3.9 3 Environmental Non-Governmental Organization 1.3 1 First Nation community member or representative 11.7 9 Metis community member or representative 1.3 1 Student/academic 1.3 1 Government employee/expert 2.6 2 Natural resource professional 6.5 5 Other (please specify) 5.5 4

The survey responses were relatively consistent with what KBM heard in community meetings, in that the top three concerns were related to potential impacts of the pipeline on drinking water, fisheries, and wildlife/species at risk (Figure 7). Tourism and recreation had the least weight, suggesting that more people are concerned about possible impacts to human health and local ecology.

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

Figure 7. Results of values ranking – CVNW Energy East online survey.

Figure 8. Participant awareness of significant areas – CVNW Energy East online survey. The following is a list of specific locations identified in the online survey: • Lake Superior and watershed (also north shore tributaries and streams) • Gorge Creek • Keemle Creek • Cash Creek • Nipigon River (identified as a ‘Major Water Crossing’ by TransCanada) • Wolf River • Cold Creek • Black Sturgeon River • Black Bay

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

• Lake Nipigon and watershed • Sturgeon River • Partridge Lake • Winnipeg River (identified as a ‘Major Water Crossing’ by TransCanada) • Pakashkan, Metionga and Harmon Lake water systems • Flemming, Esnagami, O'sullivan Lake, Abamazagi, Melchett and Ogoki Lake water systems • Kenogamisis Lake and surrounding area • English River • Lake of the Woods and watershed • Jack Pine River • Lake Helen Of these locations, the Nipigon and Winnipeg Rivers have already been identified as “Major Water Crossings” by TransCanada, which require shut-off valves sites to be installed on either side. A review of the other named locations in context of further examination of values and interviews have resulted in KBM’s recommendations for additional protection of some of these streams also identified by the public (e.g., high concentration of values, high risk due to size and proximity, provincial significance, species at risk, local importance and interviews with management agencies/interest groups). List of Management Agencies and Stakeholder Groups That Provided Information • North Shore Steelhead Association • Lakehead Conservation Authority • Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources o Regional Operations Division o Natural Heritage Information Centre • Kenora Resources Consultants Inc. • Northern Bioscience • Lakehead University • Info Superior: Lake Superior Research and Information Network • Resolute Forest Products • Animbiigoo Zaagi’igan Anishinaabek

Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas

Drinking Water Intakes All rivers and waterbodies that have drinking water intakes are critically important to the public in NW Ontario. TransCanada has used drinking water inputs to its assessment of Highly Sensitive Receptors (HSR), and included municipal intakes and wellheads (e.g., areas serving more densely populated areas across the province) but not individual wells in its list of HSR (Table 9). From a corporate risk management perspective, this may be an appropriate approach. However, given the universal and high level of concern about possible impacts to drinking water resources, TransCanada will need to rationalize its approach to the protection of all drinking water sources across the province. Input

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest from public meetings does not suggest a high level of confidence in the company’s ability to protect this critical resource. Table 9. Criteria for drinking water HSR. Municipal Intakes Yes Municipal surface water intakes, HSR meet criteria. Impacts could potentially threaten water resource for community.

Municipal Wellheads Yes Wellhead data. HSR meet criteria. Impacts could potentially threaten water resource for community.

Private Individual Wells No Wellhead data. Does not meet HSR criteria. Impacts are not of the magnitude required for HSR classification. Wellhead Protection Areas No Wellhead protection areas do not exist in Canada as they do in the US*. Groundwater protected resources are captured in municipal intakes and wells listed in this section.

Lake Superior Drainage Basin Many respondents at community meetings and through interviews and the online survey identified Lake Superior and all of its tributaries as being critically important to the health of fisheries and people. Tributaries include large rivers like the Nipigon River, Sturgeon River, Dog River, and Kaministiqua River many of which provide habitat for steelhead trout which migrate and spawn in these rivers. Lake Superior is the largest freshwater lake in the world by surface area. Lake Superior and its drainage basin spans over 209,000 square kilometres, and includes the province of Ontario and the states of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan. The Canadian waters of Lake Superior are highly significant in that they have:15 • the largest surface area of any freshwater lake in the world • some of Lake Superior's most unique aquatic and terrestrial environments • provincially and nationally protected features, including the proposed Lake Superior National Marine Conservation Area • important recreational, commercial and tourism-based fisheries • prominent fisheries for native lake trout, walleye, yellow perch and (coaster) brook trout, as well as introduced species such as Chinook salmon, coho salmon and rainbow trout in both open waters and tributaries • Designated Great Lakes Areas of Concern (under Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement) with Remedial Action Plans that have invested decades and millions of dollars in clean-up and restoration efforts • an active commercial fishery that targets lake whitefish, walleye, cisco, lake trout and yellow perch. Lake Superior Remedial Action Plan

Error! Reference source not found.Figure 9 shows the Lake Superior drainage basin, including identified Areas of Concern (AOC), which along the pipeline route include Nipigon Bay and Thunder Bay. Great Lakes

15 Fisheries Management Zone 9 (FMZ 9). Information about fishing and how fish resources are managed in Fisheries Management Zone 9 (Lake Superior). Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. URL: https://www.ontario.ca/page/fisheries-management-zone-9-fmz-9

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

AOCs are subject to Remedial Action Plans, the purpose of which are to “develop and implement a systematic and comprehensive ecosystem approach to restoring beneficial use” in the identified area. The 2012 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement reaffirms both countries’ commitments to restoring water quality and ecosystem health in Great Lakes Areas of Concern (AOCs). AOCs are locations within the Great Lakes identified as having experienced high levels of environmental harm. There are four AOCs on the Canadian side of Lake Superior. These are: • Thunder Bay (North Harbour) • Nipigon Bay • Peninsula Harbour • Jackfish Bay Area in Recovery

Figure 9. Lake Superior drainage basin (Source: Environment and Climate Change Canada). According to interviews, the Energy East project has been discussed amongst the participants involved in implementing the Lake Superior RAP. However, it has not been the focus of any intensive discussion or review given that long-standing pollution issues are still the primary focus of RAP work (e.g., large scale industrial contaminants from past operations). The creosote contamination in the Thunder Bay Harbour is an example of an area that has had about 25 million dollars of remediation and is still a long way from complete. Of the four RAP project locations, Nipigon Bay has the highest potential for direct impacts from a pipeline failure as it is directly downstream of the pipeline crossing at the Nipigon River and less removed by distance from the shoreline locations at Thunder Bay, Terrace Bay and Marathon (Figure 10). Anecdotally, and consistent with our findings from public meetings and an online survey, the Nipigon site has also elicited a

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest high level of interest from RAP participants and committees16. This is likely due to its size, nearby population and the many ecological, recreational and tourism values within the watershed.

Figure 10. Map of pipeline relative to Nipigon Bay RAP Area of Concern. Fisheries Management Zone 9

Lake Superior (identified as FMZ 9Error! Reference source not found.) encompasses a highly significant p rovincial fisheries management zone (Figure 11). According to OMNRF, the FMZ has: • the largest surface area of any freshwater lake in the world • some of Lake Superior's most unique aquatic and terrestrial environments • provincially and nationally protected features, including the proposed Lake Superior National Marine Conservation Area • important recreational, commercial and tourism-based fisheries • prominent fisheries for native lake trout, walleye, yellow perch and (coaster) brook trout, as well as introduced species such as Chinook salmon, coho salmon and rainbow trout in both open waters and tributaries • an active commercial fishery that targets lake whitefish, walleye, cisco, lake trout and yellow perch • the Black Bay & Black Sturgeon River Native Fisheries Rehabilitation project.

16 Pers comm. Lakehead University Remedial Action Plan Office. February 2017.

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

Figure 11. Fisheries Management Zone 9 (Source: OMNRF). Coaster Brook Trout

Lake Superior’s populations of coaster brook trout are a unique and declining resource. “The coaster brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) is a form of brook trout that spends part of its life in the nearshore waters of the upper Great Lakes. Historically, most of Lake Superior's 3,000 miles of shoreline and tributary streams supported fishable coaster populations.17 Restoration and protection of tributary habitat is essential for achieving the brook trout goal.“18 Coaster brook trout abundance remains extremely low in Lake Superior. Genetic studies show that remnant coaster populations form discrete stocks at Isle Royale, Salmon Trout River, Nipigon Bay, and Lake Nipigon (Wilson et al. 2008; Stott et al. 2010; Scribner et al. 2012). 19 The Nipigon River in Ontario contains the most- robust population in the Lake Superior basin. Cold water species like trout are still widely found across Ontario. However, populations in some areas of the province with high use and development pressures have experienced declines. Contributing factors include changes in habitat from development projects, the introduction of invasive species as well as fishing pressure as road access improves. Lake Nipigon and Its Tributaries At 484,800 ha in size, Lake Nipigon is the 38th largest lake in the world, the largest body of water wholly within the province of Ontario and the largest headwater to the Great Lakes St. Lawrence waterway. In 1999,

17 https://www.fws.gov/midwest/fisheries/coaster-brook-trout.html 18 http://www.glfc.org/pubs/SpecialPubs/Sp03_1.pdf 19 Ibid.

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest the Lake Nipigon Basin was identified as one of nine featured areas in the Ontario’s Living Legacy Land Use Strategy and is recognized as having a range of highly significant natural and cultural values that warrant special strategies and protection.20 Some of the many values found in the Lake Nipigon area include significant earth and life science features including rare, threatened and endangered species and a variety of resource uses (commercial and sport fishing, recreational and traditional land uses). Lake Nipigon supports 46 species of fish, several of which are at risk in Ontario. Both the sport fishery and commercial fishery are considered to be world class. The Nipigon River, which flows south into Lake Superior, also has a reputation for its outstanding brook trout fishery.21 Lake Nipigon tributaries that cross the pipeline are all identified as significant - all rivers that contain migratory fish (steelhead, sturgeon, salmon, whitefish) such as Namewaminikan River, Nipigon River, Black Sturgeon River, Kenogamisis River. The Nipigon and Namewaminikan Rivers have been identified as Major Water Crossings by TransCanada. The Blackwater River crosses the proposed pipeline at Beardmore, and is significant for two key reasons: • It has the drinking water intake for the town of Beardmore • It flows west for 25km until it empties into Lake Nipigon. Due to the nature of the Lake Nipigon area topography, there is westward flow into the Lake from rivers that cross the pipelines east of the lake. This puts Lake Nipigon values at risk of contamination from pipeline failures. Critical Habitat for Aquatic Species at Risk Species at risk data is held by the provincial government and provided to project proponents through data sharing agreements. For reasons of sensitivity, Species at Risk data is not publicly available. This limits our ability to identify specific waterbodies that contain critical habitat for aquatic species at risk in the scope of this review. However, we include all critical habitat for aquatic species at risk as part of the list of sensitive water crossings or areas, and recommend that TransCanada do a further analysis of where these areas are found as part of their HSR and MWC review (see previous recommendation on including provincial species at risk data). Following is a discussion of those aquatic species at risk that are known to occur in Northwestern Ontario. Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens)22,23 In Ontario, lake sturgeon is found in the rivers of the Hudson Bay basin, the Great Lakes basin and their major connecting waterways, including the St. Lawrence River. Based on the freshwater ecological areas used by COSEWIC and published genetic studies, there are two populations identified in Northwestern Ontario that include COSEWIC Designatable Units 8 and 4-6 (Figure 12).

20 Lake Nipigon Signature Site. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. URL: http://www.ontla.on.ca/library/repository/mon/8000/235534.pdf 21 Ibid. 22 http://www.glfc.org/pubs/SpecialPubs/Sp16_01.pdf 23 https://www.ontario.ca/page/lake-sturgeon-species-risk

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

Figure 12. Designatable units used in COSEWIC report24. Figure 13 below shows the distribution and status of the NW Ontario populations as classified by COSSARO.25

Figure 13. COSSARO status of NW Ontario lake sturgeon populations. Great Lake - Upper St. Lawrence River Population, Northwestern Ontario population (DU 8)

24 https://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=620309F4-1&printfullpage=true#fig6 25 http://files.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/species-at-risk/stdprod_086034.pdf

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

Provincial Status - Threatened Federal Status - Threatened The Lake Superior population of lake sturgeon was listed as “Threatened” by the Province of Ontario and is recommended for listing as Threatened under the federal Canadian Species-At-Risk Act by the COSEWIC. Assessments during 2006-2011 confirmed that natural reproduction is occurring in the Kaministiquia, Black Sturgeon, Nipigon, Pic, White, Batchawana, and Goulais Rivers of Ontario.26 Northwestern Ontario Population (DU 4-6) Provincial Status – Threatened Federal Status – Threatened The Ontario Recovery Strategy recommends that “the area prescribed as habitat in the habitat regulation protect important habitat features for the Northwestern Ontario and the Great Lakes-Upper St. Lawrence River populations of lake sturgeon. Important habitat features include spawning areas, nursery areas, overwintering areas, staging areas and the migration corridors connecting them. Important habitats should be identified within the river and lake systems currently occupied by Lake Sturgeon and afforded protection.”27 Shortjaw Ciso (Coregonus zenithicus)28 Provincial Status – Threatened Federal Status - Threatened According to OMNRF, the Shortjaw Cisco spends most of the year in deep water. During the breeding season, (spring or fall depending on the lake), it migrates to shallower water to mate and lay eggs. In Ontario, it is found in Lake Superior, Lake Nipigon and in some smaller inland lakes. It is considered extirpated from lakes Michigan, Erie and Huron (Figure 14Error! Reference source not found.).

Figure 14. Known locations of shortjaw cisco.

26 http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=842 27 http://files.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/species-at-risk/stdprod_086034.pdf 28 https://www.ontario.ca/page/shortjaw-cisco

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

The threatened status of this species is one of the reasons provided for identifying both Lake Nipigon and Lake Superior as highly sensitive areas as part of this review. Blackfin Cisco (Coregonus nigripinnis) COSEWIC Status – data deficient SARA Status: Schedule 2, Threatened Provincial status - SU Schedule 2 species are those which have been assessed by COSEWIC as being at risk, but require reassessment according to new criteria, and may eventually be added to Schedule 1 (species listed in Schedule 2 and Schedule 3 of SARA).29

The blackfin cisco has historically been found in the Great Lakes, but never confirmed in Lake Superior or Lake Ontario. However, blackfin cisco have been captured at depths of 104m in Lake Nipigon and in shallower riverine locations, possibly due to spawning though little is known of its biology (Figure 15). Other populations have been reported in the Little Jackfish River, a tributary north of of Lake Nipigon though its occurrence there is considered unusual.30 Its current conservation status is uncertain and although listed under Schedule 2 of SARA, it received no protection as a species at risk. The presence of blackfin cisco in Lake Nipigon is one of the reasons provided for designating Lake Nipigon as a highly sensitive area.

Figure 15. Known occurrences of blackfin cisco in Ontario (Source: Ontario Fishes).31 Northern Brook Lamprey (Ichthyomyzon fossor)32 Provincial Status – Special Concern COSEWIC Designation - Special Concern

29 http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=73 30 http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/virtual_sara/files/cosewic/sr_coregonus_nigripinnis_e.pdf 31 http://www.ontariofishes.ca/fish_detail.php?FID=90 32 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. URL: https://www.ontario.ca/page/northern-brook-lamprey

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

In Ontario, the Northern brook lamprey lives in rivers draining into Lakes Superior, Huron and Erie, and the Ottawa River. The use of lampricide for the control of the invasive Sea lamprey has likely contributed to declines in Northern brook lamprey populations around the Great Lakes where the two fishes coexist. Additional threats to the Northern brook lamprey include pollution and changes in water levels and temperature.

Figure 16. Northern brook lamprey in Ontario (Source: OMNRF). The conservation status of northern brook lamprey as a special concern is part of the rationale for identifying Lake Superior and its tributaries as a significant area in this review. Upper Great Lakes Kiyi (Coregonus kiyi kiyi)33 Provincial Status - Special Concern COSEWIC Status - Special Concern The Upper Great Lakes population (Coregonus kiyi kiyi) is believed to currently exist only in Lake Superior (Figure 17Error! Reference source not found.). Kiyi appears to be widely distributed in the deep waters of the offshore (generally most abundant at depths of 150 m) making up a significant proportion of the fish community in Lake Superior. They are also found in reduced numbers in the shallow waters of the nearshore. Kiyi move to shallower water depths at night, typically less than 50 m, in search of their prey.

33 http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/profiles-profils/kiyi-eng.html

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

Figure 17. Known locations of kiyi in Lake Superior (Source: DFO) Issues including degraded water quality (from the continuing pressures of contaminant and nutrient inputs in the Great Lakes) are ongoing, with likely impacts on Kiyi survival and habitat. Climate change has been identified as a possible factor that could worsen the situation in the future. Lastly, certain pathogens, particularly viral hemorrhagic septicaemia (VHS), have the potential to generate mass mortality in a variety of fish species. Detected in Lake Superior watershed in 2010, future outbreaks of VHS could decimate the remaining Kiyi population. The status of Lake Superior kiyi is part of the rationale for identifying Lake Superior and its tributaries as a significant area in this review. Aquatic Protected Areas The converted pipeline segment crosses five protected areas in the study area, including: Three Provincial Parks • Winnange Lake • Black Sturgeon River (part of the Lake Nipigon Basin Signature Site) • Nagagamisis River Two Conservation Reserves • Nipigon Palisades (part of the Lake Nipigon Basin Signature Site) • Nipigon River (part of Lake Nipigon Basin Signature Site) No special mitigation for protected areas (other than the Lake Superior National Marine Conservation Area) is proposed in TransCanada’s Consolidated Application (see Section 4). TransCanada’s Supplemental Report No. 1 states that three provincial parks are encountered in the Project Development Area (PDA) of new pump stations or access roads, two of which are in NW Ontario (including Black Sturgeon River and Winnange Lake). In addition, the Nipigon Palisades Conservation Reserve slightly overlaps the PDA of the Nipigon pump station. To date, there are no detailed protection plans proposed for parks, conservation reserves, conservation areas, wetlands or other environmentally sensitive areas (see Section 4).

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

Some of the values identified in these areas, including species at risk, are described in Table 10. Table 10. Description of values in protected areas. Protected Area Provincially Significant Values Black Sturgeon River Provincially significant resources include: Provincial Park34 • The Nipigon Moraine remnant • Unconsolidated transverse ridges • Lake sturgeon and northern brook lamprey populations in the Black Sturgeon River • One of only nine Lake Superior tributaries currently used for spawning by lake sturgeon • Blackfin cisco, which is a threatened species of fish that may inhabit Black Sturgeon Lake • Provincially rare Smooth woodsia (Woodsia glabella) • Diabase cliffs and talus slopes • Nesting bald eagles Winnange Lake Provincial • Natural environment class park to protect earth science features for Site Park35 District 4S-5 and to provide water-based recreation. • Contains lake(s) designated for lake trout management Nagagamisis Provincial • A good diversity of aquatic resources is present Park36 • Portions of three provincially significant earth science features are present within the park: Newlands Township Shoreline Bluff, Arnott Lake Interlobate Moraine and a calcareous re-advance till. • Unusual for this area is the presence of numerous fossils Nipigon Palisades CR37 • Prominent geological canyon/ravine feature, which includes a major moose travel corridor (Cash Creek), diabase sill tablelands, well-known scenic geologic features, and microclimates favourable for arctic and rare plant species • Important habitat for bird species at risk including the bald eagle and the peregrine falcon • The reserve also harbours reptiles and amphibians requiring warmer- than-normal habitats such as the western painted turtle • Contains lake(s) designated for lake trout management • Part of this area is subject to the Range Management Policy in Support of Woodland Caribou Conservation and Recovery Nipigon River CR38 • Contains an extremely diverse and world-class fishery, eagles, osprey, provincially rare artic-alpine plants as well as archaeological and historical sites of provincial significance • Habitat for specie at risk (lake sturgeon, peregrine falcon, bald eagle)39 • Important recreational waterway

34 Crown Land Use Policy Atlas. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid. 38 Ibid, 39 Anishinabek/Ontario Fisheries Resource Centre. Red Rock First Nation - Nipigon River Lake Sturgeon Assessment. 2014. http://www.aofrc.org/aofrc/2014/10/update-red-rock-first-nation-nipigon-river-lake-sturgeon- assessment.html

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

The presence of multiple overlapping and sensitive values in some of these protected areas would lead to the conclusion that additional protection measures around these areas may be required, based on a more detailed review of the location of sensitive values. Others are not as high risk (e.g., Nagagamisis and Winnange Lake were designated in part for earth science features, which are less vulnerable to the impacts from a pipeline failure). Dog and Kaministiqua Rivers40,41 The Dog River is a provincially significant representation of a low gradient, strongly meandering river with numerous well developed fluvial features such as meander loops, oxbow lakes, meander scars and point bars. The NHIC (as per Noble 1979) describes the Dog River as including an extensive complex of marshes from its outlet into Dog Lake upstream for several miles. The river meanders across a narrow, flat valley dominated by lacustrine deltaic sands. NHIC explains that the low gradient and the deltaic material has led the Dog River to wander back and forth across the flood plain, resulting in the development of extensive peatland communities in the abandoned meanders. Extensive and complex wetland communities provide provincially significant moose habitat. It also has significant Walleye spawning habitat along the majority of the river length. It enters the northern end of Big Dog Lake and drains at the southern end, continuing to Little Dog Lake and then to its confluence with the Matawin River to form Kaministiquia River, which contains lake sturgeon and spawning habitat. The area is also home to ducks, geese and other migratory birds. The river is also historically significant - it was a canoe route to the northwest used by fur traders. Numerous archeological sites, and cultural remains and artifacts related to voyageurs are found there. Savanne River and Lac Des Mille Lacs Lac des Mille Lacs is a large (24,510 ha) lake located at the headwaters of the Seine River system42. The watershed area for the Lac des Mille Lacs dam is small relative to the size of the lake, which makes up a large proportion of the watershed area (14% of total watershed area). This means that it takes a relatively long time to replace water in the lake, which limits the amount of water level fluctuation that can occur. Inflow into the lake is uncontrolled. The river flows west out of the northwest arm of Lac des Mille Lacs in the Thunder Bay District. It flows through Mosher lake, takes in the left tributary Firesteel River and briefly flows through the southeast corner of Kenora District as part of the Lake Winnipeg drainage. The named inflows are the Savanne River and McKay Creek at Sawmill Bay at the northeast, Joe's Creek at Baril Bay at the southwest, and Inwood Creek at the north. The only outflow, at the northwest tip of the lake, is the Seine River, which flows to Rainy Lake and eventually via the Nelson River to Hudson Bay. The lake has numerous arms, named bays and named islands. Lac des Mille Lacs is a highly productive fishery and a very important recreational destination supporting a number of outfitters. Fisheries management plan identified it as a special management area e.g., Specially Designated Waters which received individual management attention through a separate management plan. This can range from slightly different season start and end dates, different size limits and bait restrictions. It also includes a commercial walleye fishery. The pipeline crosses the Savanne River, which is a main inflow to Lac des Milles Lac, which connects into the Rainy River and ultimately to Lake of the Woods.

40 http://files.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/parks-and-protected-areas/mnr00_bcr0127.pdf 41 Dog River-Matawin High Conservation Value Forest Report. 42 http://seineriverwmp.com/lacdesmillelacs.html

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

Winnipeg River The proposed pipeline crosses north of Lake of the Woods at the Winnipeg River, where all waters flow north as part of the Arctic Watershed eventually draining to Hudson’s Bay. Rainy River is the largest tributary to Lake of the Woods, and contributes more than 70% of the inflow.43 Lake of the Woods can be thought of as a large lake with a river running through the centre in a northwesterly direction from the Rainy River inflow at Fourmile Bay in the south to the outlet near Kenora, Ontario in the north (Figure 18)44. Because the flow direction is north out of the lake at two main locations that are regulated by dams, the most significant impacts of a pipeline failure would occur downstream in the Winnipeg River.

Figure 18. Lake of the Woods drainage basin.45 The Winnipeg River is 235 km long from the Norman Dam in Kenora to the mouth of Lake Winnipeg. There are many lakes that are part of the system and the communities of Kenora, Minaki, and the Wabaseemoong First Nation are situated along it. Flows on the Winnipeg River are controlled by the Lake of the Woods Control Board46 - there are several run-of-the-river hydro dams located along its length. The river and the lakes offer well known fishing opportunities for walleye, muskie, pike and bass. In recognition of its unique status and management challenges, the OMNRF has identified it as Special Designated Water (SDW). While most fisheries management is done by zones, some water bodies are managed on a lake or river basis given the significance or high risk status of the fisheries.47 With respect to SDW’s, the intent of Ontario’s Ecological Framework for Recreational Fisheries Management is to manage and monitor fisheries, while acknowledging their unique and important environmental, biological and cultural challenges. The Winnipeg River and its fisheries resources are used by First Nations, resident anglers and non-resident anglers as well as commercial fishers. This river provides important recreational, economic and cultural importance to communities on and near its shores.

43 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. URL: https://www.ontario.ca/page/lake-woods 44 Rainy-Lake of the Woods State of the Basin Report 2nd edition. 2014. Lake of the Woods Water Sustainability Foundation. URL: http://ijc.org/files/publications/R-LoW_SOBR_2014_web-res.compressed.pdf 45 Ibid. 46 Lake of the Woods Control Board. URL: http://www.lwcb.ca/ 47 OMNR. 2014. Management of Fish in Ontario, Background Report Supporting Ontario's Provincial Fish Strategy, Draft – January 2014.

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

The Winnipeg River has historical and cultural significance and played a pivotal role in the settlement of the western part of Canada.48

Assessment of Potential Impacts to Provincial Natural Heritage Values

Once values and specific areas had been identified along the pipeline route through the review of HSR data, and through community meetings, surveys, and interviews, KBM conducted an analysis to determine which areas could be at risk in the event of an oil spill. The approach involved a GIS analysis using watershed and water flow data to narrow down the potential area of impact in which values are found. Specifically, KBM used the Ontario Integrated Hydrology dataset49 in conjunction with watershed boundaries to identify the areas that might be most directly affected from a pipeline failure. Two scenarios were considered: 1. The potential area affected by overland oil flow in the case of a leak or spill (e.g., terrestrial areas and wetlands, overland transport into a river or stream); and, 2. The potential downstream area of impact from a pipeline failure (spill) located directly at a water crossing. The identified areas of potential impact were overlaid with available natural heritage data (see Appendix D for a list of data layers used) as well as the information collected at community meetings and through the online survey, to identify any areas of concern within these two potential areas of impact (Figure 21). Ontario Drainage Basins A drainage basin is an area of land that contributes the water it receives as precipitation to a river or network of rivers. Drainage basins are defined by topographical features, called drainage divides, which determine the direction the water flows. The proposed pipeline route in Northwestern Ontario intersects two distinct drainages defined by the Laurentian Divide: water north of the height of land flow by rivers to Hudson Bay or directly to the Arctic. Water south of the divide makes its way to the Atlantic Ocean (Figure 19).

48 https://www.winnipegrivermuseum.com/ 49 2016. Elevation and Mapped Water Features for Provincial Scale Hydrology Applications, Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Provincial Mapping Unit.

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

Figure 19. The Laurentian Divide50 (a continental divide separating Ontario drainage basins). This is relevant to an evaluation of pipeline impacts, as flow direction will determine the movement of oil if it enters a waterbody. Impact from a pipeline failure will be naturally be greater downstream of the pipeline, which determines the area of focus for this review from a risk perspective. Figure 20 shows a closer view of the general flow direction by primary watershed in NW Ontario, and the downstream flow route from the pipeline crossing based on the lower order watersheds it crosses through. This is important for understanding the main areas of impact from a pipeline failure (i.e., greater downstream impacts).

50 http://www.northernontario.travel/northeastern-ontario/height-of-land-signs

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

Figure 20. Flow direction in primary watersheds (NW Ontario)

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

There are some areas where natural flow direction has been interrupted e.g., the Ogoki and Longlac diversions that change the primary flow direction of water from one drainage to another. In the case of the Longlac Diversion, a dam on the Kenogami River upstream of Long Lake largely prevents the normal northward flow of water from the lake, although reduced volumes still flow northward over the dam. In times where the flow is periodically reversed (e.g., when lake levels get too high in Long Lake, during spring freshet, etc.) there could be implications for water quality on the Kenogami and Albany Rivers downstream from the pipeline. TransCanada has identified the Kenogami River as one of ten Major Water Crossing in NW Ontario, requiring two shut-off valves to be installed on either side. Figure 21 shows the modelled area of impact from overland flow resulting from a spill or leak. It also shows how oil would move based on stream flow direction from the site of a direct spill into a water body.

Figure 21. Potential area of impact resulting from overland flow or direct downstream impacts. Assumptions and limitations of this analysis included the following: • Overland flow in this case is the result of localized leaks or spills, without specific consideration for unlikely impacts outside the defined catchment areas (limited by terrain) • In practice, the area identified represents an overestimation of the potential impact zone as it includes areas within the defined catchments that are uphill of the pipeline • Downstream impacts were considered broadly as a result of direct flow paths, without consideration for all linkages and possible impacts from secondary transmission between connected water bodies or wetlands; • The possible movement and distribution of oil via groundwater flow is not considered; • Detailed consideration of how other variables interact with oil movement and impacts (e.g., soil types, weather, climate, season, size and flow rates of streams and rivers, shoreline and instream features, etc.); • Lack of public access to other provincial spatial values data, such as Significant Wildlife Habitat, detailed fisheries data, seasonal concentration areas, bat hibernacula, etc.

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

The purpose of the mapping was not to derive exact predictions of where and how far oil would flow in the event of a failure, but to assist in a high-level understanding of the potential areas of most significant impact. So, for example, areas upstream of the pipeline would not be as significantly affected by pipeline failures as a result of their upstream location. Similarly, areas uphill of a leak or spill are generally not affected by overland flow as a result of topographical constraints (e.g., oil does not flow uphill). These areas of impact were then overlaid with values data to determine where the highest potential for risk to values is located. The data used in this review is described below. Data Layers Used The following (publicly available) datasets were used to determine where values occurred and where the highest number of values overlapped along the pipeline route, in the area of potential impact from overland flow. This analysis does not reflect the different sensitivity of the values – it is intended to help ascertain where there may be concentrations of values based on known information. Any values identified by participants in 13 community meetings are also included here. Land Information Ontario (LIO)51 • Calving Fawning Site • Caribou Range Boundary • Conservation Reserve • Cottage Residential Site • Den Site • Natural Heritage Area • Nursery Area Fish • Provincial Park • Recreation Camp • Source Protected Area Generalized • Spawning Area • Staging Area Wildlife • Tourism Establishment Area • Wetland -PSW • Wild Rice Stand • Wintering Area

Natural Heritage Information Centre Species data are available through the Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC). NHIC data considered in the values assessment included: • Species of conservation concern, plant communities and wildlife concentration areas (S1-S3 and restricted species)

51 Data warehouse with more than 300 data sets that include geographic information on Ontario’s e.g., road network, trails, wetlands, lakes, river and streams, parks and protected areas, soil types, heritage sites, etc.

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

Forest Resource Inventory • KBM also used the provincial Forest Resource Inventory (FRI) to identify locations of rare ecosites within the area of potential impact along the pipeline route. • Available forest resources inventory (FRI) data for three forest management units along the pipeline route did not have ecosite information.52 Canada Land Inventory (CLI)53 • The CLI data were used to identify any locations of Class 1 and 2 agricultural soils, which represent the best classes of soils for agriculture in the region (e.g., with least growing restrictions). OMNRF • List of active commercial fisheries Other Information Sources • Significant Wildlife Habitat Reports • Fisheries Management Plans (OMNRF) • High Conservation Value Forest Reports Results: Concentrations of Values As part of the process to identify significant water crossings and other sensitive areas, KBM used all publicly available spatial datasets and overlaid them to identify areas of overlapping values. These were sorted by quaternary watershed, to be able to key out potential locations with concentrations of values (Figure 22). The results by quaternary watershed are show in Error! Reference source not found. and summarized in a tabular format in A ppendix E. Digital versions of detailed values maps are also available as part of this report.

52 Forest resource inventory data as accessed through Land Information Ontario. 53 Canada Land Inventory. URL: http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/nsdb/cli/index.html

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

Figure 22. Concentrations of values within the area of potential overland flow by quaternary watershed.

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

As one example of an area with concentrations of values within the potential area of impact, Lake of the Woods is known to have high tourism, recreational and ecological values (high biodiversity due to its location in a transitional area between forest and prairie regions and abundance of complex shoreline habitats). At the quaternary watershed level, the modelled area of impact in watershed 05PD-01 (Lake of the Woods) ranked high in identified values, including 13 known S1-S3 species54 (Table 11). Table 11. S1-S3 species identified 05PD-01 quaternary watershed 05PD-01. Purple Prairie-clover, Dalea purpurea Showy Goldenrod (Boreal population), Solidago speciosa pop. 2 Hairy Bugseed, Corispermum villosum Lake Sturgeon (Northwestern Ontario population), Acipenser fulvescens pop. 1 Variable (Lineate) Darner, Aeshna interrupta lineata Floating Marsh Marigold, Caltha natans Long-stalked Panicgrass, Dichanthelium perlongum Bald Eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus Vasey's Rush, Juncus vaseyi Hoary Puccoon, Lithospermum canescens Franklin's Ground Squirrel, Spermophilus franklinii Prairie Sandreed, Calamovilfa longifolia var. longifolia White Prairie-clover, Dalea candida

While not all of these species would be at direct or high risk from a pipeline failure, TransCanada should demonstrate conclusively that risks to known sensitive values have been ruled out. This provincial data set wasn’t included in the assessment of HSR. Table 12 and Table 13 show a summary of other values (by area (polygon) or presence (point)) that were identified in the modelled catchment area. All of the values were aggregated to develop a map highlighting areas with concentrations of values along the pipeline route.

54 S1 = Critically imperiled, S2 = Imperiled, S3 = Vulnerable species conservation status at subnational level. The term "subnational" refers to state or province-level jurisdictions (e.g., California, Ontario).

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

Table 12. Polygon values identified in quaternary watershed 05PD-01 Watershed 05PD-01 Area in ha Aquatic Feeding Area 5.6 Bait harvest area 4174 Building to scale 0.7 Spawning Area 2.1 Staging Area Wildlife 0.7 Tourism Establishment Area 11.1 Wetland - not PSW 226.4 Wintering Area 54.5

Table 13. Point values identified in quaternary watershed 05PD-01. Watershed 05PD-01 Point Values Buildings 353 Fishing Access Point 2 Monitoring Station 2 Recreation Pt 2

This analysis does not represent an exhaustive review of all values within each watershed, in part because of data access and scope limitations as an intervenor project. However, it does demonstrate of the need for further analyses that TransCanada could undertake to identify vulnerable areas where many values co-exist. At a high level, the results are generally consistent with what we heard through community meetings and interviews. The map highlights concentrations of values in the Lake Nipigon watershed as well as the Kenora area watersheds, which are known areas of high biodiversity and socioeconomic value. Overlaying values data does not allow a quantitative assessment of the importance of the values counted (e.g., drinking water source compared to a fishing access point) but it does give an indication of where multiple values are clustered, based on available datasets. This review reinforces some of the patterns we noted through other forms of data collection.

Recommendation 6: TransCanada should carry out a more detailed analysis to identify areas or water crossings with concentrations of values.

Conclusions and Summary

TransCanada’s consolidated application as made available to the public is a dense body of work that is poorly organized and difficult to interpret. In order to undertake the most effective review of a complex project application, Common Voice Northwest has focused on the analyses of Highly Sensitive Receptors and Major Water Crossings, which are the closest methodologies in the application that are relevant to the identification of significant water crossings and sensitive areas as outlined in their intervenor application. In general, the approach to identifying HSR is sound although the criteria for HSR are too narrowly interpreted. Furthermore, the analysis has some noted deficiencies that lead to questions about the

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest credibility and thoroughness of the review. This has lead to recommendations for improvement that will result in a better understanding of risks to sensitive values, and consequently improved opportunities for the protection of Northwestern Ontario’s critical water resources. Recommendations follow: 1. TransCanada should make a summary list of all HSR (including operator-defined HSR) available to the public as part of the consolidated application. 2. TransCanada should include provincial species at risk data in its assessment of HSR. 3. TransCanada should include all protected areas (e.g., provincial parks and conservation reserves) containing provincially significant values, rare plants, provincially listed species at risk and/or known concentrations of values in its assessment of HSR. 4. TransCanada should review the currency and credibility of data inputs to HSR assessment and determination of MWC. 5. TransCanada should revisit the analysis of Major Water Crossings and shut-off valve siting following a review to develop more inclusive HSR criteria as inputs to the valve siting optimization process. 6. TransCanada should carry out a more detailed spatial analysis to identify areas or water crossings with concentrations of values. KBM was asked to engage with the public to develop a local definition of ‘significant water crossing’. Taking the feedback from community meetings into a broader landscape context, we supplemented meetings with a review of TransCanada’s consolidated application, expert and stakeholder interviews and a literature review. We also used available data and basic analytical tools to draw attention to some of the deficiencies in TransCanada’s review. The information was used to develop a list of place-specific water crossings and other values identified by the local community that will require further investigation by TransCanada (Table 14). Table 14. List of significant water crossings and sensitive areas. Value/Crossing Rationale All drinking water intakes A source of clean drinking water is critical to community well-being and represents a highly significant value. Lake Superior and drainage basin Lake Superior and its tributaries are globally significant and home to many overlapping values:  Drinking water for populated areas (e.g., Thunder Bay and Nipigon water intakes)  Unique coaster brook trout population and other migratory fish that travel and spawn in tributaries  Species at risk (lake sturgeon, shortjaw cisco)  Commercial fisheries  A concentration of shoreline recreational values along the coast  The Lake Superior National Marine Conservation Area Provincial protected areas with These protected areas were designated as they contain concentrations of values, downstream of concentrations of values as follows: the pipeline, including:  Part of the the Lake Nipigon Basin Signature Site 1. Black Sturgeon River Provincial  Species at risk (lake sturgeon) Park  Species of management concern (northern brook lamprey)  Provincially rare plant species

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

2. Nipigon Palisades Conservation  World class trout fisheries Reserve  Native fisheries rehabilitation efforts55 3. Nipigon River Conservation  Downstream drinking water intakes Reserve  World class recreational values Nipigon River This river was identified as a Major Water Crossing by TransCanada. It has very high regional significance for its many ecological, economic and social values. Lake Nipigon and any tributaries Lake Nipigon contains: downstream of the pipeline  Specially Designated Waters56  Pelicans and nesting colonies  Possible location of blackfin cisco population  Commercial fishery  World class recreational trout fishery Blackwater River  Drinking water source for Beardmore  Tributary to downstream Lake Nipigon Critical habitat for aquatic species at risk  The Great Lakes - Upper St. Lawrence River population of lake sturgeon is provincially and federally threatened.  Critical habitat elements include: spawning areas, nursery areas, overwintering areas, staging areas and the migration corridors Dog/Kaministiqua River57  Provincially significant representation of a low gradient, strongly meandering river with numerous well developed fluvial features such as meander loops, oxbow lakes, meander scars and point bars.  Extensive and complex wetland communities provide  provincially significant moose habitat.  Significant walleye spawning habitat along the majority of the (Dog) river length  Historically significant from fur trade  Lake sturgeon spawning area (Kaministiqua River) Savanne River and Lac Des Mille Lacs  Savanne River is main inflow to Lac Des Mille Lacs - a high watershed that eventually feeds Kenora district via Seine River outflow  Complex shoreline habitats  Commercial walleye fishery  Specially Designated Waters  Regionally important socioeconomic value Winnipeg River This river was identified as a Major Water Crossing by TransCanada. It has very high regional significance for its many ecological, economic and social values.

55 Black Bay & Black Sturgeon River Native Fisheries Rehabilitation. 2012. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. URL: https://dr6j45jk9xcmk.cloudfront.net/documents/2614/stdprod-101432.pdf 56 Large, socially and economically important waters. URL: https://dr6j45jk9xcmk.cloudfront.net/documents/2613/271145.pdf 57 http://files.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/parks-and-protected-areas/mnr00_bcr0127.pdf

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

This list is not exhaustive, but rather a starting point for further work by TransCanada to properly identify and rationalize the risks of pipeline conversion to Northwestern Ontario’s water and natural heritage resources.

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

APPENDIX A: COMMON VOICE NORTHWEST APPLICATION TO PARTICIPATE

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

APPENDIX B: CVNW AD FOR CONSULTANTS

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT EFFORTS AND OUTCOMES

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

Community Meetings

Advance Notifications

EVENT NOTICES IN ALL AVAILABLE COMMUNITY CALENDARS AND FREE MEDIA (POSTED DECEMBER 2016) • Thunder Bay – The Walleye (http://www.thewalleye.ca/event/community-meeting-energy-east- pipeline-water-crossings/) • Greenstone – Community Calendar (http://www.investingreenstone.ca/Calendar/calendar.php?command=view&ID=308&year=2017&m onth=1&day=24&pop=Y) • Geraldton – Community Calendar (https://www.everythinggeraldton.com.au/geraldton- calendar/2017/1/24/community-meeting-energy-east-pipeline-water-crossings) • Nipigon Community Calendar • Shuniah Community Calendar (https://www.shuniah.org/events-calendar.html) • Dryden Community Calendar (http://www.experiencedryden.ca/eventscalendarc24.html) • Kenora Community Events Calendar (https://www.kenoraonline.com/events)

EMAIL TO STAKEHOLDER LIST, INDIGENOUS AND MÉTIS COMMUNITIES AND ORGANIZATIONS • Initial meeting notice • Reminder notice 1 week in advance of meeting Email included: Link to online survey, poster to display in community

SOCIAL MEDIA - NOTICE OF ENERGY EAST COMMUNITY MEETINGS • Posted 3 times to KBM Resources Facebook page • Posted to Common Voice Northwest Facebook page • Asked CVNW members three times to distribute through their networks • Distributed through Lake of the Woods District Property Owners Association eNews bulletin and Facebook page

DISTRIBUTION OF ONLINE SURVEY • Emailed twice through stakeholder list • Advertised at 13 community meetings • Two requests for distribution through Common Voice Northwest email lists and networks • Posted twice to KBM Resources Group Facebook page • Distributed through KBM Resources Group client newsletter (January 2017)

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

Community Meeting Attendance by Location

In total, 168 people attended 13 community meetings and participated in discussions about the pipeline review.

Location Signed In Head Count Hearst 5 5 Longlac 3 3 Geraldton 8 9 Nipigon 14 16 Red Rock 11 14 Thunder Bay 48 60 Shuniah 6 6 Lappe 7 10 Upsala 4 4 Ignace 3 3 Dryden 3 5 Sioux Lookout 10 14 Kenora 20 29

Total: 142 168

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

APPENDIX D: MEDIA COVERAGE

MEDIA COVERAGE OF COMMON VOICE NORTHWEST SIGNIFICANT WATER CROSSING REVIEW December 30, 2016 – Northern Ontario Business Have Your Say on Energy East Pipeline https://www.northernontariobusiness.com/regional-news/northwestern-ontario/have-your-say-on-energy- east-pipeline-499737 January 13, 2016 - Letter to the Editor, Chronicle Journal Common Voice Northwest Out of Turn on Pipeline http://m.chroniclejournal.com/opinion/common-voice-northwest-out-of-turn-on-pipeline/article_28e86246- d9a7-11e6-bf6f-734730c037cb.html?mode=jqm January 13, 2017 – Repost of Chronicle Journal Letter to the Editor https://cdnpoli.net/organizations/common-voice-northwest January 17, 2017 – Net News Ledger Energy East Pipeline Meetings Seek Input http://www.netnewsledger.com/2017/01/17/energy-east-pipeline-meetings-seek-input/ January 17, 2017 – The Chronicle Journal Pipeline task force seeks wide public input http://www.chroniclejournal.com/opinion/pipeline-task-force-seeks-wide-public-input/article_ff7dc27c- dcc4-11e6-a2e0-bb51ceeb6508.html January 17, 2017 – Repost of Chronicle Journal Pipeline task force seeks wide public input http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:k0fZG2_GVk4J:www.topix.com/forum/business/n atural-gas/TV2AQ8CTE1PLLTGAD+&cd=33&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca January 18, 2017 – The Chronicle Journal Pipeline forums focus on water http://www.chroniclejournal.com/news/local/pipeline-forums-focus-on-water/article_459064e4-dd48-11e6- b8f6-27f94fa2b646.html January 19, 2017 – TB News Watch Protestors Disrupt Energy East Pipeline Meeting https://www.tbnewswatch.com/local-news/protesters-disrupt-energy-east-pipeline-meeting-515411 January 19, 2017 – Magic 99.9 (Thunder Bay) Environmental Groups Interrupt Pipeline Meeting

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest http://www.magic999.ca/news/678883682/environmental-groups-interrupt-pipeline-meeting January 19, 2017 – NationTalk repost Protesters disrupt Energy East Pipeline meeting – TBT News http://nationtalk.ca/story/protesters-disrupt-energy-east-pipeline-meeting-tbt-news January 20, 2017 – The Chronicle Journal Pipeline meeting had set parameters http://www.chroniclejournal.com/news/pipeline-meeting-had-set-parameters/article_3bcbfbf2-df29-11e6- 85bd-330b894384af.html January 20, 2017 – Ontario Nature Website Reposted – Pipeline meeting had set parameters https://www.ontarionature.org/media/media_template.php?n_code=973 January 20, 2017 – Council of Canadians Blog Thunder Bay Chapter Challenges Energy East Consultation https://canadians.org/blog/thunder-bay-chapter-challenges-energy-east-consultation January 22, 2017 – Ecocide Alert Council of Canadians: Thunder Bay Chapter Challenges Energy East ‘Consultation’ https://ecocidealert.com/?tag=energy-east-pipeline January 24, 2017 – CKDR (Dryden) Common Voice Northwest Gathering Feedback On Energy East Water Crossings http://www.ckdr.net/news/2122586926/common-voice-northwest-gathering-feedback-energy-east-water- crossings January 24, 2017 – Kenora Daily Miner Open house raises questions about Energy East, KBM Resources Group gathers input on water crossing that could be impacted by pipeline http://www.kenoradailyminerandnews.com/2017/01/24/open-house-raises-questions-about-energy-east- kbm-resources-group-gathers-input-on-water-crossing-that-could-be-impacted-by-pipeline January 25, 2017 – E.J. Lavoie’s Blog A Rupture Looking for a Water Crossing to Happen https://ejlavoie.wordpress.com/2017/01/25/a-rupture-looking-for-a-water-crossing-to-happen/ February 1, 2017 – Dryden Observer Thin turnout for pipeline session http://thedrydenobserver.ca/2017/02/thin-turnout-for-pipeline-session/ February 8, 2017 – The National Observer

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

Members of Canada's pipeline regulator should resign en masse, says former energy exec http://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/02/07/news/ex-provincial-energy-exec-neb-board-resign February 18, 2017 – 89.5 The Lake (Kenora) Common Voice Northwest to Take on Energy East http://895thelake.ca/news/1900020772/common-voice-northwest-take-energy-east

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

APPENDIX E: LIST OF DATA SOURCES USED IN ANALYSIS

Land Information Ontario Datasets • Calving Fawning Site • Caribou Range Boundary • Conservation Reserve • Cottage Residential Site • Den Site • Natural Heritage Area • Nursery Area Fish • Provincial Park • Recreation Camp • Soil Survey Complex • Source Protected Area Generalized • Spawning Area • Staging Area Wildlife • Tourism Establishment Area • Wetland -PSW • Wetland- not PSW • Wild Rice Stand • Wintering Area • Wooded Area Other Data • List of commercial fisheries provided by Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry • Canada Land Inventory (Class 1 and 2 agricultural soils) • Natural Heritage Information Centre • Reptiles and Amphibians of Ontario (Ontario Nature) • Important Bird Areas (IBA) Canada Database Staff at the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry that were contacted declined to participate in the review or did not respond to inquiries.

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

APPENDIX F: CONCENTRATIONS OF VALUES BY QUATERNARY WATERSHED

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

Quaternary Drink Prot2 Rec3 Nat Wildlife Fisheries6 Tourism7 Wild S1-S3 Agri Rare PSW Comm # of Watershed ID Water1 Area Her Habitat5 Rice Species8 Soils9 Ecosites10 Values Overlapping Area4 Values 05QD-01 1 2 9 3 0 1 1 8 1 0 0 1 27 05PD-01 1 2 4 0 2 1 1 0 13 1 1 0 0 25 05QD-02 0 2 11 0 3 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 1 23 05PE-01 1 0 0 0 7 2 1 1 7 0 0 0 1 20 05PE-04 0 0 4 0 6 1 1 0 7 0 1 0 0 20 02AD-01 1 1 1 1 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 3 16 05QA-05 2 0 5 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 3 15 02AD-22 0 1 1 1 3 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 14 02AD-21 0 1 3 0 3 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 12 05PG-01 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 8 0 1 0 0 11 02AC-09 0 1 2 0 5 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 10 04JD-12 0 0 0 0 7 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 10 05PD-09 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 9 02AC-08 1 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 8 02AC-10 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 02AD-19 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 04JD-15 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 8 05PD-07 0 0 4 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 8 04JA-01 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 7 05QA-06 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 7 04JD-13 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 05PB-01 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 6 05PB-05 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 6 02BB-01 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 04JC-01 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 5 04JC-02 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 04JC-06 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 04JD-17 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 04JD-18 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 5 05PB-24 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 5 05PB-25 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 05QA-08 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

Quaternary Drink Prot2 Rec3 Nat Wildlife Fisheries6 Tourism7 Wild S1-S3 Agri Rare PSW Comm # of Watershed ID Water1 Area Her Habitat5 Rice Species8 Soils9 Ecosites10 Values Overlapping Area4 Values 02AB-06 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 04JC-05 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 04LK-08 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 02AE-02 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 04JC-03 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 04JD-06 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 05QA-07 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 02AC-14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 02AD-20 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 04JD-01 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 02AB-07 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 04JB-01 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 04JD-07 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 04LK-06 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 05QA-04 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 04JC-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04LJ-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05QD-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Municipal drinking water intake or water supply (spring water source), source protected area generalized 2Fishing access point, recreation point, cottage residential site, recreation camp 3Provincial Parks and Conservation Reserves 4ANSIs and natural heritage areas 5Nesting sites, den sites, aquatic feeding areas, calving fawning site, wintering area, wildlife staging area 6Nursery area fish, spawning area 7Tourism establishment area 8 NHIC S1-S3 and Restricted species 9Class 1-2 agricultural soils (Canada Land Inventory) 9Rare ecosites

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

APPENDIX G: AREAS OF CONCERN IDENTIFIED AT COMMUNITY MEETINGS

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

Geraldton Creelman Creek Geraldton Wild Goose Lake, between Jellicoe and Geraldton (groundwater, wildlife, recreational and property values, fishery) Longlac All major fishery Lakes, moose and bear habitat - important tourism and outdoor industries Longlac Creelman Creek - rupture would contaminate my homes ground water, important fisheries, recreational values, property values Longlac All major fishery Lakes, moose and bear habitat - important tourism and outdoor industries Longlac Residents drawing water, Pamela Lake to Margo Lake Longlac Cottages and outfitter - Klotz Lake Longlac Burrows Lake - moose aquatic Longlac Kenogomi River - significant crossing Longlac Major waterfowl - Manitounamaig Lake, Arm Lake Longlac Major waterfowl - Poila Lake Longlac Major waterfowl - Alfred lake Longlac Hurchinson Lake Longlac All major fishery lakes Longlac Longlac First Nation Hearst Main water intake Hearst Water treatment plant Hearst Constance Lake First Nation Nipigon Beardmore water source: Blackwater River Nipigon Animbiigoo Zaagi'igan Anishinaabek FN water source: Partridge Lake Nipigon Black Sturgeon Lake (flows into Lake Nipigon) Nipigon Fleming Lake Nipigon Onaman Lake Nipigon Melchett Lake Nipigon Ogoki Lake Nipigon Polly Lake Nipigon Nipigon River Nipigon Nipigon River Nipigon Nipigon Bay (shore and bottom) Nipigon Entire Lake Superior watershed Nipigon Lake Helen First Nation Nipigon Sandpoint First Nation Nipigon Frazer Lake (flows into Lake Nipigon) Nipigon Nipigon River (top of the Great Lakes) Nipigon Personal drinking water well Nipigon Nipigon River (best brook trout river) Nipigon Gorge Lake (flows into Lake Nipigon) Nipigon Black Sturgeon River (flows into Mayer River) Nipigon Water intake (Red Rock Indian Band Reserve) Nipigon Shadow Creek (lower lake Nipigon – water flows north and south) Nipigon Long Lake (PSW crossing) Nipigon Longlac (water crossing from Albany River system) Nipigon Residential water intakes (Polly Lake) Red Rock Pestagawi River (flows into Lake Nipigon) Red Rock Sturgeon River (flows into Lake Nipigon)

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

Red Rock Blackwater River flows into Lake Nipigon Red Rock World record speckled trout caught in Lake Nipigon River Red Rock Drinking water Shuniah Whitefish Lake (wild rice, waterfowl hunting area, fishing) Shuniah Black Sturgeon Lake (fishing) Shuniah Wolf Lake (local camping and fishing) Shuniah Stewart Lake (camps, recreation) Shuniah Dog Lake (camps, recreation) Shuniah Kam River (connection to Dog Lake) Shuniah Lac des Milles Lacs area (walleye spawning areas in river close to Highway) Lappe Ouimet Canyon Thunder Bay Sandpoint First Nation Thunder Bay Constance Lake First Nation Thunder Bay Black Sturgeon River Thunder Bay Water crossing. Nipigon River - 3 water intakes Thunder Bay Nipigon Bay shores plus bottom - will affect tourism, hunting, fishing, boating Thunder Bay Water crossing 183 near Poly Lake. Recovery time in event of spill. Thunder Bay Nipigon River - Can the pipeline go upstream of the Alexander Dam? Thunder Bay Lake Helen First Nation Thunder Bay Fleming Lake Thunder Bay Melchett Lake Thunder Bay Ogoki Lake Thunder Bay Nipigon River - any crossing must be doubled walled Thunder Bay Burrows Lake - important fishing and hunting grounds. Long Lake 58 Reserve land Thunder Bay Long Lac First Nation Thunder Bay Little Savanne River - Fishing, Lac FN Thunder Bay Dog River - fish spawning grounds Thunder Bay Pakashkan Lake: Important fishing area Thunder Bay Eaglehead River / Lake - popular recreation lake Thunder Bay Trapping area - livliehood by trapping area licensed by MNRF Thunder Bay Dora Lake: Important fishing area Thunder Bay Path of the Paddle segment of TransCanada Trail follows pipeline route Upsala Lac des Milles Lacs Upsala Dog River (fish spawning grounds) Upsala Little Savanne River (fishing) Upsala Eaglehead Lake (popular recreational lake) Upsala Upsala area (trapping area licensed by OMNRF) Upsala Aarmon Lake (important fishing area) Upsala Pakashkan Lake (important fishing area) Upsala Metionga Lake (important fishing area) Ignace Gulliver River Ignace English River Ignace Cottage division on Camp Lake Dryden Water supply for Dryden area Sioux Lookout No location input received. Kenora Lac des Milles Lacs Kenora Lake of the Woods Kenora Winnipeg River

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

Kenora Drinking water intakes

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

APPENDIX H: INVITATION LIST FOR COMMUNITY MEETINGS

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

NW ONTARIO INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES Animbiigoo Zaagi’igan Anishinaabek (Lake Nipigon First Nation) Anishnaabeg of Naongashiing (Big Island) Aroland First Nation Big Grassy River First Nation Biinjitiwaabik Zaaging Anishinabek – Rocky Bay First Nation Bingwi Neyaashi Anishinaabek (Sand Point First Nation): Constance Lake First Nation Flying Post First Nation Fort William First Nation Ginoogaming First Nation Grassy Narrows First Nation Iskatewizaagegan # 39 Independent First Nation (Shoal Lake #39) Lac Des Mille Lacs First Nation Migisi Sahgaigan (Eagle Lake First Nation) Northwest Angle No. 33 First Nation Obashkaandagaang First Nation Ochiichagwe'babigo'ining First Nation Ojibways of Onigaming First Nation Pays Plat First Nation Red Rock Indian Band Shoal Lake No. 40 First Nation Wabaseemoong Independent First Nations Wabauskang First Nation Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation Wauzhushk Onigum – Rat Portage First Nation Independent First Nations Alliance Keewaytinook Okimakanak Keewaytinook Okimakanak/Northern Chiefs-1003 Windigo First Nations Council 1048 Bimose Tribal Council Anishinaabeg of Kabapikotawangag Northwest Angle 33B First Nation Sub Office Big Grassy Anishinaabe Customary Council Ochiichag First Nation Naotkamegwanning Waasegiizhig Nanaandawe'iyewigamig Northwest Angle 33B First Nation Sub Office Wabaseemoong Independant First Nations Seven Generations Education Institute Rainy River First Nation Campus

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

Shoal Lake FN Lac Seul First Nation Kenora Chiefs Advisory Anishinabe of Wauzhushk Onigum (Rat Portage) Ochiichagwe'babigo'ining First Nation Obashkaandagaang First Nation Shoal Lake 39 Anishnaabeg of Naongashiing Kiashke Zaaging Anishinaabek (Gull Bay First Nation) Animakee Wa Zhing First Nation (Northwest Angle No. 37) Lac Seul First Nation Long Lake #58 First Nation Aroland, Constance Lake, and Ginoogaming First Nations’ Collective

MÉTIS COMMUNITIES AND ORGANIZATIONS Métis Nation of Ontario MNO Greenstone Métis Council MNO Northwest Métis Council MNO Kenora Métis Council Red Sky Métis Independent Nation MNO Thunder Bay Métis Council

TOURISM AND RECREATION Nature and Outdoor Tourism (NOTO) Northwestern Ontario Sportsmen Alliance Northshore Steelhead Association OnTORA AGENCIES Northern Waterworks Incorporated Ontario Clean Water Agency, Northwestern Ontario Regional Hub Office OTHER Lakehead University Remedial Action Plan Office

THUNDER BAY AND AREA NON-PROFITS Thunder Bay Water Watch Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters Nature Conservancy Ontario Nature Council of Canadians Environment North

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

Thunder Bay Field Naturalists Ecosuperior Wildlife Conservation Society Northwestern Ontario Sportsmen’s Alliance (NOSA) EarthCare Thunder Bay Thunder Bay Community Economic Development Commission (CEDC) Thunder Bay Stewardship Council Superior Streams North Shore Steelhead Association AGENCIES Lakehead Region Conservation Authority Lappe and Local Area Services Board Municipality of Shuniah Municipal Office Shuniah Fire & Emergency Services Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry MNRF Thunder Bay District Thunder Bay Regional Office Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change MOECC Technical Support Section - Water Unit MOECC Regional Office SUSTAINABLE FOREST LICENCE HOLDERS Resolute Forest Products TOURISM North of Superior Travel Association (NOSTA) Nature and Outdoor Tourism Ontario OTHER Lakehead University

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

SIOUX LOOKOUT Municipality of Sioux Lookout, Ann Mitchell, CAO AGENCIES Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Dale McGill | Lands and Waters Technical Specialist Adam Clark | Lands and Waters Technical Specialist Trevor Ropek | Fish & Wildlife Technical Specialist Michelle Schott | Management Biologist Rotary Club Ojibway Power Toboggan Association Sioux Lookout Anglers and Hunters Nishnawbe-Gamik Friendship Centre Lions Club

KENORA NON-PROFITS Transition Initiatives Kenora AGENCIES Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Charlotte Caron | Lands & Water Technical Specialist John Myshrall | Fish & Wildlife Technical Specialist Kevin Keith | Lands & Water Technical Specialist Chris Martin | Management Biologist Jim McNulty | Fish & Wildlife Technical Specialist OTHER Lake of the Woods District Property Owners association CITY OF KENORA Biman Paudel Jeff Hawley Mukesh Pokharel David Canfield, Mayor TOURISM Tourism Kenora Kenora District Camp Owners Association Gerry Cariou Lake of the Woods District Property Owners association

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

DRYDEN CITY OF DRYDEN Public Works Nicole Gale, Economic Development Office Manager AGENCIES Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Catherine Dashnay | Lands and Waters Technical Specialist Irene Schneider | Fish & Wildlife Technical Specialist Dorothy Brunner | Management Biologist NON-PROFITS Dryden District Conservation Club Rotary Club Lions Club Ski Club OTHER Aboriginal Water and Wastewater Association of Ontario Patricia Tourist Council Dryden Local Citizens Committee Northwest Training and Adjustment Board Development Office Manager

IGNACE MUNICIPALITY The Corporation of the Township of Ignace Municipal Office (John Taddeo, Councillor Responsible for Public Works) Wayne Hanchard, Administrator/Treasurer Lee Kennard, Mayor AGENCIES Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Virginia Thompson, Management Biologist, MNRF Irene Schneider, Fish and Wildlife Technical Specialist (Dryden District) John Ringrose, Management Biologist (Dryden District)

UPSALA MUNICIPALITY Primary Executive Primary Contact, Secretary

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

HEARST AGENCIES Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Marco Plamondon, Fish and Wildlife Technical Specialist Kate Reinhart, Lands & Waters Technical Specialist France Lapointe, Management Biologist MUNICIPALITY Hearst, The Corporation Of The Town OTHER Snowmobile Club Rotary Hearst Cross Country Ski and Snowshoeing Club Hearst Air Services Fly-In Adventures Cameron Lake Fishing Lodges, Inc.

NIPIGON MUNICIPALITY Township of Nipigon AGENCIES Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Rosemary Hartley | Management Biologist Tom Savioja | Fish and Wildlife Technical Specialist Ray Tyhuis | Management Biologist Nicole Horde | Lands and Waters Technical Specialist Chantal Chauvin | Lands & Water Technical Specialist Raymond Weldon, R.P.F. Management Forester / Resource Management Sustainable Forest Licence Resolute Forest Products (Black Spruce Forest) Lake Nipigon Forest Management Inc. (Lake Nipigon Forest) OTHER Lake Superior National Marine Conservation Area LCC Chair Nipigon District Management Forester

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

RED ROCK MUNICIPALITY Red Rock Township OTHER Red Rock Fish and Game Club AGENCIES Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry MNRF Nipigon District SFL Resolute Forest Products (Black Spruce Forest) Lake Nipigon Forest Management Inc. (Lake Nipigon Forest)

GREENSTONE AGENCIES Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (Nipigon District) MNRF Geraldton field office (reports to Nipigon District office) Phil Wilson, Resource Management Biologist Rosemary Hartley, Management Biologist Tom Savioja, Fish and Wildlife Technical Specialist MUNICIPALITY Operations Manager, Ontario Clean Water Agency (Operates water and sewer treatment facilities on behalf of Greenstone public works) Drinking Water System's Municipality Contact Information for Geraldton Roy Sinclair, CAO Mark Wright, EDO and Administrative CAO OTHER Geraldton Chamber of Commerce

JELLICOE Pasha Lake Cabins Inc. (hunting outfitters)

ENERGY EAST TASK FORCE MEMBERS Iain Angus Andre Blanchard Conrad Moran Gordon McKenzie Richard Harvey Ron Giardetti Tanice Marcella Ron Lee Kam

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

APPENDIX I: KBM RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT REPORT

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

KBM RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON REPORT ENTITLED “DEFINING SIGNIFICANT WATER CROSSINGS AND SENSITIVE AREAS”

Comment: • The report by KBM appears to be quite complete in terms of the mandate that they were given. • I find it most disturbing that Canada does not have federal pipeline regulations that specifically require a pipeline operator to identify HSRs and quantify hazards to these areas. If you look at other industries there are a lot more safeguards in place for things like major/sensitive water crossings. Surely it is time that the public demanded revision of this approach. • Even though we (Canada) appear to use the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration regulations it is clear that TransCanada can pick and choose which aspects to pay attention to. For example the U.S. regulations are quite specific in terms of what constitutes “ecological resources”. It is clear that that TransCanada Pipelines has chosen to ignore many ecological resources so as to minimize the work that they have to do to ensure that spills don’t occur or that damage is minimized should a spill occur. • KBM has attempted to demonstrate TransCanada’s approach but perhaps we could highlight this disparity a bit more by describing the potential impacts of this minimization. KBM Response: • It is not our mandate to describe specific consequences but rather to highlight the risk to identified values (the scope of review did not permit a detailed assessment of impacts). • The specific consequences and magnitude of impacts is subject to many variables (e.g., weather, location, emergency response plans, etc.) so without a detailed examination it is difficult to predict exact impacts • This is something the NEB should direct TransCanada to undertake where high risk to sensitive values is identified. • Changes to report: This is clarified in the final report. Comment: • I agree with KBM that TransCanada pipelines assessment procedure is much too narrowly focused. I you examine the records published by the industry, spills occur quite frequently. Therefore, it is not a question of if a spill will occur it is a question of when one will occur. Therefore, we need to make sure that we do our best to have TransCanada undertake proper planning and implementation of safety/mitigation measures. • I also agree with KBM that the findings presented in this report could be used to inform a more complete review and consideration of HSRs that will provide assurances to the public that values have been appropriately considered and protected. • KBM’s recommendation on page 14 would start the process of adjusting the scope of HSR’s since the public would become acutely aware of how narrow the planning is for pipelines. • I agree with KBMs recommendation on page 16 regarding commercial fisheries. However, I have to ask why recreational fisheries do not receive more consideration since their value to local economies and the provincial economy is frequently more substantial than for commercial fisheries.

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

KBM Response: • As with e.g., drinking water, concentrations of sources for many people are ranked higher risk due to number affected. • Similarly, the value of recreational fisheries is more dispersed than commercial fisheries and can be found across the landscape. • Whereas commercial fisheries are concentrated in few areas and therefore a spill would have more significant implications for that specific fisheries value. • Moreover, the report did highlight the importance of specific watersheds and areas to both commercial and recreational fisheries of global importance (e.g., Lake Nipigon, Nipigon River, Lake Superior, etc.) Changes to report: None. In this respect, we think it is reasonable to focus risk assessment on areas of concentrated or significant impact Comment: • KBM’s recommendations regarding species at risk and protected areas is right on the money. Every other industry that is planning to undertake projects in Ontario have to consider these values. Often these values are not only of significance to Ontario but also nationally. For example, parks and protected areas contribute to national considerations related to unique ecosystem preservation. • I feel that we must revisit the comments by the public that all streams in a watershed have value. This is absolutely true from an ecosystem integrity perspective. This view is shared by fisheries biologists and ecosystem researchers. Streams at crossing locations should not be dismissed as having “no value” just because they are small. The structure, form and function of aquatic ecosystems at the watershed level is a function of all the streams and tributaries within that watershed. Therefore, assessments need to be looking at the potential for irreversible damage at all crossing locations and not just “value” from a human perspective the questions is really how likely is damage to the stream ecosystem to occur (if a spill occurs) and can the natural resilience of the stream ecosystem handle the damage? • If you don’t take this approach then you are unable to assess the effects in the future and you can’t learn what worked and what didn’t. Thus you are unable to incorporate a adaptive management approach into the way you assess crossing impacts and how to mitigate a spill should one occur. (Since spills occur literally every day in pipelines across Canada a spill is very likely somewhere in Ontario.) KBM Response: • We recognize this perspective as heard in our consultations but question how would this be addressed practically in the application • Suggest that a more comprehensive review of risk and values would help address this, along with our suggestion that TransCanada needs to do more work to gain the social license required for this project • We agree that every crossing obviously has value, but again from a risk/impact perspective question the notion that every crossing has equal value and function

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

• From a risk management perspective, some are higher risk than others (e.g. drinking water for hundreds of thousands of people, species at risk) Changes to report: None. The public input about equal value as we heard it are reflected in the report. Recommendations are focused on mitigating areas of highest risk or significance as was requested. Comment: • The other consideration is that I don’t see the precautionary principle incorporated in TransCanada’s assessment procedure. This principle was accepted by governments back in the 1980’s as a guiding principle to be used in planning for resource use. Use of this principle doesn’t mean that development can’t occur rather it says that you need to be careful and recognize that we don’t know everything about ecosystems but we do know that they are important for the health and well-being of humans. Use of this principle is also liked to the adaptive management principle. • One thing that doesn’t seem to have been considered anywhere in TransCanada’s planning is “cumulative watershed impacts”. It is important to remember that pipeline crossings is not the only thing that is happening within a watershed. There are mining activities, forestry operations, road crossings, dams and reservoirs etc. All of these add to stresses on aquatic ecosystems within a watershed. So what happens to ecosystem integrity within a watershed if we have one or more spills? Could these events push things over the edge? While you may never know for sure you can anticipate that if you already have a considerable amount of development within a particular watershed that a spill could have a major impact so perhaps you need to elevate the concern about a certain stream above what might be considered in an initial screening. KBM Response: • Volume 20 of the TransCanada application is a summary of the Consolidated Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment and its conclusions. • It has six summaries including; methods used, results and significance conclusions for potential residual and cumulative effects, potential effects of the environment, potential effects from accidents and malfunctions and contribution to greenhouse gases. - See more at: https://apps.neb- one.gc.ca/REGDOCS/Item/View/2968438 • Within the scope of this project we didn’t specifically examine cumulative impacts, so we wouldn’t address that as a specific aspect of these findings • It’s possible that other intervenor groups are looking at this issue Changes to report: None. Comment: • I agree with the 6 recommendations the KBM has indicated on pages 53. With the possible additions discussed above. KBM Response: Changes will be made as noted in responses above. Received from: Neville Ward, Retired MNRF Fisheries Biologist Date: May 13, 3017 Comment:

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

The March 2017 “A study of the Navigation Protection Act” will hopefully list more waters in northwestern Ontario than what was listed under the Conservative government’s revamp of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Those “tourism establishment areas” that depend on northwestern Ontario fisheries should also be considered a ‘commercial fishery’ and thus an attribute that meets Stantec’s HSR criteria. Tourist lodges and outpost camps in northwestern Ontario cater primarily to U.S. anglers and thus usually would not be a value identified by members of the public. To give the NEB some idea of the cost of an oil spill affecting the livelihood of a tourist camp one only need consider that Ball Lake Lodge received in the 70’s one million dollars for mercury contamination of the fish its business depended on. The English Wabigoon mercury story continues today affecting indigenous communities downstream of the mercury deposit by the Dryden pulp and paper mill. To add support to the point that every water crossing is significant I mention Gilbert Creek, west of Dryden, which is crossed by a TCPL gas pipeline. It is only about 2 ft. wide just downstream of the pipeline crossing, but the creek drains into Eagle Lake and fish move upstream in the spring to spawn. Where the creek enters Eagle Lake there is a walleye spawning area rehabilitated by the OMNR and the 26 tourist outfitters on Eagle Lake in the 1980’s. I needn’t mention what an oil leak at Gilbert Creek would do to the Eagle Lake businesses that depend on American fishermen coming to their camps every year. KBM Response: KBM have recommended that TransCanada undertake a review to identify where there are ‘concentrations of values’. This can include social/recreational/economic values as well as ecological values. Individual tourism camps may not meet criteria from a risk management perspective (similar to drinking water and recreational fisheries) but concentrations of camps could, as per Eagle Lake example. Changes to report: None. Comment: I noticed in Appendix G that there were no AOCs identified at the community meetings held in Dryden, Ignace, Sioux Lookout and Kenora. Is a page missing that would have this information? KBM Response: Confirmed list of values from all meeting locations. Changes to Report: Added values from all meeting locations. Received from: TransCanada (Ontario Director, Energy East Pipeline) Date: May 18, 2017

Letter Text Thank you for providing us with an opportunity to review and comment on Common Voice Northwest’s Draft Report on Significant Water Crossings along the proposed Energy East Pipeline route. We appreciate KBM Resources Group’s perspective on our project and always support enhancing dialogue with – and receiving input from – participants across Northwestern Ontario. TransCanada is committed to working collaboratively with communities along our proposed route to develop and promote solutions that demonstrate our shared commitment to protecting watercourses and sensitive areas along the pipeline. Common Voice Northwest’s draft report highlights regional areas of interest and we welcome the opportunity to work with you on addressing any outstanding concerns.

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

From the very earliest stages of developing this project, Energy East has been designed to include comprehensive and multi-layered safety, integrity, leak detection and emergency response programs, to protect the entire length of the pipeline. As you know, the proposed Energy East line across Northwestern Ontario involves the conversion of an existing natural gas pipeline. Given the line is in the ground today, it already crosses a multitude of watercourses, including major rivers, all of which are monitored under TransCanada’s Integrity Management Plan in compliance with regulatory requirements and industry standards. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss the current protection of these water crossings, which are not discussed in the draft report. In our project application before the National Energy Board, we described the methodology used to identify major watercourse crossings and highly sensitive areas as it relates to our conversion project. The methodology for defining Major Watercourse Crossings was developed to minimize the impact of a spill in sensitive areas. Similarly, the criteria to define Highly Sensitive Receptors is based largely on regulations enforced by the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), as equivalent Canadian requirements do not exist. These criteria for sensitive receptors has been used by other Canadian liquids pipelines and has been accepted by the National Energy Board. The definition of Major Watercourse Crossings and Highly Sensitive Receptors is only one aspect of Energy East’s approach to managing risk. Generally speaking, we have taken a highly conservative approach in designing Energy East, seeking to minimize risk at every phase of project design. Every river and watercourse crossing – not only those identified as major water crossings – are considered in our risk-based assessment of the project, as is a determination of the appropriate engineering design, pipeline wall thickness, placement of shut-off valves and localized emergency response plans near sensitive areas. Energy East is currently meeting with local emergency responders and First Nations in Northwestern Ontario to develop appropriate emergency response plans. Again, we would welcome the opportunity to discuss our full, risk-based approach to water crossings and sensitive areas, which are not discussed in the draft report. TransCanada Comments on KBM Draft Report TC-01 Comment: Volume 4, Appendix 4-13 of the application includes a detailed description of the methodology used by Energy East to identify Major Watercourse Crossings (MWC). CSA Z662-15 Clause 4.4.9 requires in part that valves "be installed on both sides of major water crossings and other locations appropriate for the terrain." What constitutes a major water crossing is not thoroughly defined, only that a crossing is major if a "...product release poses a significant risk to the public or environment." Any portion of the pipeline that could potentially affect a Highly Sensitive Receptor (HSR) is identified using conservative potential physical transport pathways, including overland flow, subsurface flow, and/or downstream transport. All water crossings are unique and there is no "one size fits all" solution to determine what constitutes a MWC. Energy East employed a comprehensive baseline process that is adaptable and allowed the project to consider risks to the public and the environment regardless of the apparent width of the stream. A watercourse that is not defined as a MWC does not mean that it is ignored. Energy East's comprehensive safety, integrity, leak detection and emergency response programs are designed to protect the entire length of the pipeline, and specifically during emergency response planning, there will be additional areas not currently identified as MWCs that will be considered.

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

KBM Response: The report points out that the definition of ‘significant risk’ to the public or environment can be very subjective, therefore we suggest clearer parameters around the term ‘significant’ so the public can understand what this includes. Relating this back to HSR (e.g., as inputs to MWC), the report on HSR does not always provide a clear rationale for inclusion or exclusion. For example, the Stantec report on HSR states that “National-level threatened and endangered species are considered “SARA-listed species” (provincial level species and other special status species [sensitive or species of special concern] are not considered for HSRs).” No clear explanation for excluding provincial data is provided. Based on feedback from community meetings, KBM concluded that this is problematic from both a transparency and risk assessment standpoint. Changes to report: None. TC-02 Comment: Response to recommendation: Commercial fisheries that are included as HSRs are large scale commercial fisheries associated with the Great Lakes and Oceans including anadromous species. Commercial fisheries are considered to be operator-defined HSRs, as they are not included in 49 CFR Part 195. The intent of this HSR is to keep in alignment with the other "unusually sensitive areas", and therefore considered areas where impacts from spills could cause significant financial impacts to a regional economy. Data from the Fisheries Resources map developed by Natural Resources Canada were used, and the cut-off for inclusion as an HSR was based on landed weight threshold of 1,000,000 kg. KBM Response: The report doesn’t disagree with this approach to commercial fisheries. It points out, however, that it appears little ground truthing of data occurred as the commercial fishery identified (Nipigon Bay) is no longer operating according to local resource management agencies. This raises the larger issue of the reliability of TransCanada’s review and findings. Changes to report: None. TC-03 Comment: Including white wood aster in the summary of HSRs provided to KBM was not an oversight. The location of the occurrence is confimed to be in Manitoba, however the analysis of potential interaction with HSRs includes the consideration of a buffer area around a point-location HSR. In this instance, although the point location is in Manitoba, the buffer area overlaps into Northwest Ontario, and therefore this HSR is included in the summary for Northwest Ontario. KBM Response: We understand the reason for inclusion of white wood aster. The more salient point was that only three ecological USA HSR were identified along the pipeline route from Hearst to Kenora, two of which were either a) not accurate (inactive commercial fishery at Nipigon Bay) or b) not actually located in the province of Ontario. This leaves exactly one ecological USA HSR identified along a stretch of pipeline over 1000km long (National Marine Conservation Area). Furthermore, a list of HSR is not even available to the public as part of the TransCanada application. As per the report findings, this suggests that the criteria for HSR are too narrow and the process is not transparent in that the public cannot comment on the results of the HSR analysis. TC-04 Comment: Response to recommendation: Only species listed as endangered or threatened under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) were considered in the development of HSRs, because of the increased sensitivity and legislative prohibitions for species listed as threatened or endangered under SARA. The Environmental and Socio-

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest

Economic Assessment (ESA) for Energy East considered effects on federally and provincially listed species, and has developed mitigation measures to reduce effects on both of these categories of species at risk. Provincially listed species and their habitat will also be considered in the development of emergency response plans. KBM Response: Response to recommendation: HSRs are intended to protect those areas where the magnitude of impacts could have significant impacts on public health, regional economies, and special status species. While parks and protected areas are recognized as important ecological and societal resources, the designation alone does not warrant inclusion as an HSR based on the criteria set forth in 49 CFR 195. Because parks and protected areas are often characterized by the presence of SARA-listed species, portions of the parks and protected areas may already be designated as ecological HSRs. Even though parks and protected areas are not defined as HSRs, those areas will be protected by Energy East's safety, integrity and leak detection programs, and will be considered in the design of the emergency response program. KBM Response: Only 3 ecological USA HSR were identified along the Northwestern Ontario pipeline route (Hearst to Kenora). One of these included a SARA-listed species not found in Ontario. No other SARA-listed species is designated as ecological HSR according to information provided by TransCanada. The possibility of including parks and protected areas with concentrations of sensitive values falls under the recommendation to broaden the criteria for HSR beyond the current definitions provided. Protected areas were also identified by the public in the top three list of concerns. Changes to report: None. TC-05 Comment: The potential area affected by overland flow in the case of a leak or spill is outlined in a figure in the draft report, but not specifically measured. It is understood that the purpose of the mapping was not to derive exact predictions of where and how far oil would flow in the event of a failure, but it is important to point out that on level terrain, small and medium-sized releases tend to be contained within less compacted soils present in the pipeline trench. Releases on sloped terrain and large releases have a greater potential to spread beyond the trench, however due to the relatively low viscosity of crude oil, overland transport of releases is typically limited to a few hundred meters or less. In its evaluation of risk to HSRs, Energy East has assumed that releases would travel less than 150m on level ground and up to 400m on steep terrain with slopes greater than 5%. KBM Response: The purpose of the model was in part to respond to the public concern that all water is at risk and demonstrate that impacts would be limited to certain areas, which would narrow the scope of required impact assessment. Changes to report: None. TC-06 Comment: The criteria for definition of HSRs has been adapted from regulations enforced by the US Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). PHMSA regulates more than 320,000km of liquids pipeline, which is approximately 10 times the length of liquids pipelines in Canada. The criteria is intended to identify locations where a pipeline spill could result in significant impacts to regional economies, public health, or special status species. This does not mean that non-HSR areas are ignored or considered unimportant. Energy East's comprehensive and multi-layered safety, integrity, leak detection and emergency

Defining Significant Water Crossings and Sensitive Areas – Common Voice Northwest response programs are designed to protect the entire length of the pipeline. HSRs are areas that warrant additional consideration regarding mitigation and protection from spills. Regular evaluation of HSRs and incorporation of relevant changes and updates into the Integrity Management and Emergency Response plans will take place throughout the life of the Project, and will help protect the human and natural environment. KBM Response: See previous comments and report recommendations, which suggests a need for further review of what were deemed to be ‘significant’ water crossings from a NW Ontario perspective (but not included in TransCanada’s list of Major Water Crossings or HSR). Changes to report: None.