EAO’s Assessment of an Application for Certificate Amendment Trans Mountain Expansion Project EA Certificate #E17-01 Amendment #2 Requested by: Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC May 6, 2020 Pursuant to Section 19 of the Environmental Assessment Act, S.B.C. 2002, c.43 2 1 BACKGROUND On December 1, 2016, the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (Project) received the National Energy Board (NEB)1 Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) OC-064. On January 10, 2017, Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC (Trans Mountain) was issued Environmental Assessment Certificate (EAC) #E17-01 under the Environmental Assessment Act (2002) for the construction and operation of the Project. The Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) relied on the NEB assessment as the provincial assessment, consistent with the EA Equivalency Agreement2 between the NEB and the EAO. In March 2017, Trans Mountain submitted five applications to the NEB under Section 21 of the National Energy Board Act to vary the proposed pipeline route outside of the approved corridor in British Columbia (B.C.). Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessments were prepared and submitted to the NEB in support of the Section 21 applications to vary the CPCN. On April 12, 2018, the Governor-in-Council (GIC) issued orders approving four of the five route variances and on July 3, 2018, the GIC issued an order approving the fifth route variance. On August 30, 2018, the Federal Court of Appeal quashed CPCN OC-064, rendering it legally void. After reconsideration by the GIC and the NEB, the CPCN was reissued on June 21, 2019, as CPCN OC-065. On August 26, 2019, the NEB issued new amending orders re-approving the five route variances under CPCN OC-065 (AO-001-OC-065; AO-002-OC-065; AO-003-OC-065; AO-004-OC-065; and AO007-OC-065). On November 27, 2019, Trans Mountain sent a letter to the EAO requesting that EAC #E17-01 be amended to vary five pipeline routes outside the EAC Schedule A approved pipeline corridor to be consistent with the five route variances under the NEB CPCN OC-065. 2 AMENDMENT REVIEW PROCESS 2.1 THE NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD REVIEW The NEB reviewed the variance applications through the review process under Section 21 of the National Energy Board Act. The public, landowners, and Indigenous nations consulted by Trans Mountain on the route alignment were invited to provide feedback through a NEB established comment period. 1 Now known as the Canada Energy Regulator 2 https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/environmental- assessments/working-with-other-agencies/agreement-with-the-national-energy-board/eao-neb-environmental- assessment-equivilancy-agreement.pdf May 6, 2020 3 Trans Mountain was given the opportunity to respond to any of the comments and the NEB considered these comments and responses in their review of the applications. In addition to the comment period, the NEB held a public hearing for the Chilliwack BC Hydro route realignment. Following receipt of recommendations from the NEB, the GIC approved the five variances and the NEB issued associated orders to Trans Mountain. 2.2 PROVINCIAL CERTIFICATE AMENDMENT PROCESS The EAO accepted the amendment request for review on December 4, 2019. The requested changes to the EAC Schedule A for the five pipeline route variances were considered a typical amendment because there were physical routing changes proposed to the Project. Provincial agencies were informed of the amendment request, and after discussions with provincial agencies, it was deemed not necessary by provincial agencies to undertake an extensive review process with the agencies altogether as a group. Indigenous nations were sent the relevant route variances, based on their asserted traditional territory, and were given 30 days to provide their feedback. Both Kwantlen First Nation (Kwantlen) and the Leq’á:mel First Nation (Leq’á:mel) provided feedback. Additional time was provided for Trans Mountain and the EAO to work with these nations to address their concerns. Public consultation was not carried out by the EAO for the amendment variances because the in-depth technical assessment was undertaken by the NEB through its Section 21 review, and this included an opportunity for public feedback. The issues raised during this process and the additional public consultation undertaken by Trans Mountain were considered by the EAO. On December 4, 2019, the EAO requested more details on the specific issues raised by the public and stakeholders regarding the route variances and the status of these issues. 3 PROPOSED ROUTE ALIGNMENTS The five proposed route alignments are: • ICBC Parking Lot in Coquitlam; • Chilliwack BC Hydro; • Sumas Tank Farm; • Westsyde Road in Kamloops; and • Kawkawa Lake Indian Reserve No. 16 within the District of Hope. May 6, 2020 4 3.1 ICBC PARKING LOT ROUTE REALIGNMENT DESCRIPTION The proposed ICBC Parking Lot Route Realignment is located in the City of Coquitlam, B.C. (see Appendix A - Figure 1 Map). The length of proposed pipeline to be installed outside of the EAC Schedule A approved pipeline corridor is approximately 402 metres (m). SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND EFFECTS The reroute was in response to a request from the City of Coquitlam. The reroute will reduce any potential United Boulevard disruption and is preferred by the City of Coquitlam and local business since it reduces effects to the existing infrastructure and services. Lands in the proposed reroute are disturbed by roads and commercial development and crosses similar developed urban land as the certified pipeline corridor. Forty-five percent of the proposed reroute is contained within the existing Trans Mountain Pipeline right of way through the ICBC parking lot, paralleling the existing decommissioned Trans Mountain pipeline. The NEB stated that the issues and concerns associated with the construction and operation of the Project within the proposed route alignment are consistent with those identified and addressed in the original Project Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment and related filings. The EAO agrees that there would be no change from the conclusions of the original assessment. SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND CONCERNS RAISED BY THE PUBLIC On October 31, 2019, Trans Mountain submitted a public engagement report, as required by EAC Condition 14, which stated that no new issues regarding the ICBC Parking Lot Rerouting were raised during the July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019, period. In Trans Mountain’s December 2019 Public Engagement Summary for the ICBC Parking Lot Rerouting Variance Report, it reconfirmed that no new issues had been raised since the completion of the NEB Section 21 review. INDIGENOUS NATION CONSULTATION On February 10, 2017, Trans Mountain notified Cowichan Tribes, Kwantlen First Nation, Kwikwetlem First Nation, Lake Cowichan First Nation, Lyackson First Nation, Musqueam Indian Band, Penelakut Tribe, Semiahmoo First Nation, Stz’uminus First Nation, May 6, 2020 5 Tsawwassen First Nation, Tsleil-Waututh Nation and the Stó:lō Collective (on behalf of Aitchelitz First Nation, Kwaw-Kwaw-Apilt First Nation, Shxwha:y First Nation, Skawahlook First Nation, Skowkale First Nation, Skwah First Nation, Soowahlie First Nation, Squiala First Nation, Tzeachten First Nation and Yakweakwioose First Nation) of the ICBC Parking Lot Route Realignment. Trans Mountain did not receive any responses. On January 29, 2020, the EAO wrote to Indigenous nations listed in the EAC where the ICBC Parking Lot Route Realignment overlapped their asserted traditional territory asking for any concerns they may have with the change. The following Indigenous nations were contacted: • Cowichan Tribes • Halalt First Nation • Kwantlen First Nation • Kwikwetlem First Nation • Lake Cowichan First Nation • Lyackson First Nation • Musqueam Indian Band • Penelakut Tribe • Seabird Island Band • Semiahmoo First Nation • Shxw’ōwhámel First Nation • Stó:lō Collective Nations o Aitchelitz First Nation o Kwaw-Kwaw-Apilt First Nation o Shxwha:y First Nation o Skawahlook First Nation o Skowkale First Nation o Skwah First Nation o Soowahlie First Nation o Squiala First Nation o Tzeachten First Nation o Yakweakwioose First Nation • Stz’uminus First Nation • Tsawwassen First Nation • Tsleil-Waututh Nation Kwantlen wrote to the EAO stating that their community does not support the Project and had questions of clarification regarding the amendment. Trans Mountain provided a written response to these questions which the EAO shared with Kwantlen. The EAO followed up with May 6, 2020 6 Kwantlen by phone and Kwantlen stated that they were satisfied with Trans Mountain’s responses and didn’t have any other questions. The EAO is satisfied that potentially impacted Indigenous nations were appropriately consulted on the proposed route realignment. 3.2 CHILLIWACK BC HYDRO ROUTE REALIGNMENT DESCRIPTION The proposed Chilliwack BC Hydro Realignment is located in the City of Chilliwack, B.C. (See Appendix A - Figure 2 Map). The length of proposed pipeline to be installed outside of the EAC Schedule A approved pipeline corridor is approximately 1.8 kilometres in length. The approved pipeline corridor follows the BC Hydro right-of-way, but following consultation with BC Hydro, it was determined that this route was not technically feasible. The amendment application is for a reroute of the proposed pipeline and associated workspaces from the BC Hydro right-of-way to the existing 18.3 m wide Trans Mountain Pipeline statutory easement. The proposed reroute parallels the existing Trans Mountain pipeline corridor and would overlap 75 properties and be within 8 m of 25 houses and additional structures. SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND EFFECTS After taking into consideration feedback from stakeholders (including adjacent land owners) and the City of Chilliwack with their preference of having a single pipeline corridor through Chilliwack, Trans Mountain decided to parallel its existing pipeline corridor through Chilliwack. The reroute will be above the Sardis-Vedder aquifer, which is an unconfined aquifer that underlies this area. As such, Trans Mountain proposes to use heavy wall pipe (14.7 millimetres [mm] in thickness) over the aquifer, which is the same pipe thickness that is going to be used for watercourse crossings.