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.
Even though the proposed reroute would be closer to the City water wells and capture their zone of influence, additional work undertaken for the aquifer showed that, in the unlikely event of a release, the groundwater migration in the area of the proposed reroute flows north to the Fraser River away from the groundwater wells. Also, the risk assessment undertaken by Trans Mountain has assessed extremely low risk for loss of contaminates from the approved routing and the rerouting. Taking into consideration the fact the reroute is 500 m shorter than the approved route means the reroute will have an even lower overall risk.
May 6, 2020
7
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
Engagement with stakeholders (including adjacent land owners) and the public for the Chilliwack Route Realignment began in January 2017. The proposed reroute, which parallels the existing Trans Mountain Pipeline, will cross 75 properties. During the Section 21 NEB review, the NEB received public input regarding safety measures, two form letters requesting a route realignment, and other requests beyond the scope of the rerouting review. None of the residents along the Chilliwack Route Realignment raised objections during the Section 21 NEB review.
Trans Mountain stated in the Section 21 NEB proceedings that it has reached agreements with 66 property owners, with four landowners having outstanding compensation concerns and one landowner electing to wait until the Chilliwack Route Realignment is approved before entering into an agreement.
Trans Mountain noted in the Section 21 hearing that four of the remaining parcels of land are owned by the City Chilliwack and the Board of Education School district No. 33, with the City of Chilliwack raising concerns during the hearing. Trans Mountain committed to additional safety measures and enhancements for the pipeline segment crossing the Sardis Aquifer in response to concerns raised by the City of Chilliwack, which were incorporated as part of the NEB requirements for the proposed route realignment.
If Trans Mountain is not able to reach agreement with landowners, it may apply to the NEB for a right of entry for access to lands required for an authorized project. If the NEB grants the right of entry order, a company must make payment to the landowner and then it must register, record or file that order at the local land titles or registry office.
On October 31, 2019, Trans Mountain submitted an update to EAO Condition 14 Report to the EAO which stated that no new issues regarding the Chilliwack Reroute were raised during the July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019, period. In Trans Mountain’s December 2019 Public Engagement Summary for the Chilliwack Route Variance Report, it reconfirmed that no new issues have been raised since the completion of the NEB Section 21 review.
May 6, 2020
8
INDIGENOUS NATION CONSULTATION
During the NEB Section 21 application review, Trans Mountain notified the Peters Band, Seabird Island Band, Shxw’ōwhámel First 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 Chilliwack BC Hydro 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 Chilliwack BC Hydro Route Realignment overlapped their asserted traditional territory asking for any concerns they may have with the change. The following Indigenous nations were contacted:
• Peters Band • Seabird Island Band • 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
The EAO did not receive feedback from any of the Indigenous nations contacted.
The EAO is satisfied that potentially impacted Indigenous nations were appropriately consulted on the proposed route realignment.
3.3 SUMAS TANK FARM ROUTE REALIGNMENT
DESCRIPTION
The proposed reroute is located within the City of Abbotsford (See Appendix A - Figure 3 Map). The length of the proposed pipeline to be installed outside of the EAC Schedule A approved pipeline corridor is 505 m.
May 6, 2020
9
The approved pipeline corridor parallels the existing Trans Mountain pipeline and bypassed the Sumas Terminal. The reroute moves away from paralleling the existing pipeline and goes into the Sumas Terminal. On leaving the Sumas Terminal, the reroute then goes through Trans Mountain owned land parcels back to the approved pipeline corridor. In total, about 63 percent of the reroute is contained in Trans Mountain’s already tenured pipeline easement land and 50 percent of the reroute parallels the existing Trans Mountain pipeline.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND EFFECTS
Trans Mountains proposed reroute will allow for pipeline valve and relief line components to be moved to within the existing Sumas Terminal boundaries. Relocating the components to within the existing terminal will mitigate valve noise to neighbouring residents, eliminate the need to run approximately five power and ten control cables from the Sumas Terminal to the approved remote valve site, eliminate the need for an access road to be constructed from an existing road to the remote valve site, eliminate the need for off-site security measures, as well as off-site pigging capacity. The reroute will not have an effect on any new landowners.
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
Trans Mountain deemed that no specific public engagement was needed for this reroute. However, it was presented at a public information session held in Abbotsford in March, 2017. The NEB also held a public comment period during their Section 21 review.
On October 31, 2019, Trans Mountain submitted an EAC Condition 14 Report which stated that no new issues regarding the Sumas Reroute were raised during the July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019, period. In Trans Mountain’s December 2019 Public Engagement Summary for the Sumas Terminal Route 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 9, 2017, Trans Mountain notified Seabird Island Band, Leq’a:mel First Nation, Matsqui First Nation, Sumas First Nation, Skwah First Nation, and the Stó:lō Collective
May 6, 2020
10
(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 Sumas Tank 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 Sumas Tank Route Realignment overlapped their asserted traditional territory asking for any concerns they may have with the change. The following Indigenous nations were contacted:
• Kwantlen First Nation • Leq’á:mel First Nation • Matsqui First Nation • Peters Band • 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 • Sumas First 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 Kwantlen by phone and they stated that they were satisfied with Trans Mountain’s responses and didn’t have any other questions.
Leq’á:mel responded to the EAO expressing concern that they were not adequately consulted during the Sumas Tank Farm NEB route variance process. Both the EAO and Trans Mountain contacted Leq’á:mel to discuss their concerns. On April 28, 2020, Leq’á:mel provided a follow- up letter thanking the EAO for acknowledging that the project may impact Leq’á:mel’s title,
May 6, 2020
11
rights and interests, and stating that they are now directly engaging with Trans Mountain on the Species At Risk Act listed species Pacific Water Shrew.
The EAO is satisfied that potentially impacted Indigenous nations were appropriately consulted on the proposed route realignment.
3.4 WESTSYDE ROAD ROUTE REALIGNMENT
DESCRIPTION
The proposed reroute is located in the City of Kamloops, B.C. at the south end of the community of Black Pine (See Appendix A Figure 4 Map). The length of the proposed pipeline to be installed outside of the EAC Schedule A approved pipeline corridor is 89 m, while the area of disturbance outside of the corridor is 0.256 hectares (ha).
SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND EFFECTS
The justification for extending the pipeline corridor along the west side of the road, rather than following the approved corridor across Westsyde Road to the east side in this area, is that it would reduce pipeline impacts to two landowner properties on the east side of the road. These two property owners already have the existing Trans Mountain pipeline along the eastern side of their properties. According to Trans Mountain, the property owner on the west side does not object to the pipeline route being extended along the west side since the terrain along this part of the property does not allow for development.
The proposed reroute will require an additional 0.289 ha of clearing. Due to the terrain, the proposed reroute will also require additional grading efforts and the likelihood of encountering shallow bedrock is also greater and may potentially require ditch blasting.
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
Trans Mountain stated in its application that it has been engaging with the Black Pines Community stakeholders since May 2012. A complete record of
May 6, 2020
12
Trans Mountains engagement and communications activities related to the Westsyde Road Reroute was submitted to the NEB in Trans Mountain’s Section 21 Application (Appendix C). No issues or concerns were identified at that time.
On October 31, 2019, Trans Mountain submitted an EAC Condition 14 Report which stated that no new issues regarding the Westsyde Road Reroute were raised during the July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019, period. In Trans Mountain’s December 2019 Public Engagement Summary for the Westsyde Road Route Variance Report, it reconfirmed that no new issues have been raised since the completion of the NEB Section 21 review.
INDIGENOUS NATION CONSULTATION
As part of the NEB review under Section 21, Trans Mountain engaged with the Adams Lake Indian Band, Neskonlith Indian Band, Simcw First Nation, the Skeetchestn First Nation, Stk’emlupsemc te Secwepemc and Tk’emlups te Secwepemc of the Westsyde Road 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 Westsyde Road Route Realignment overlapped their asserted traditional territory asking for any concerns they may have with the change. The following Indigenous nations were contacted:
• Little Shuswap Indian Band • Neskonlith Indian Band • Simpcw First Nation • Stk’emlupsemc te Secwepemc Nation (SSN) o Skeetchestn First Nation o Stk’emlupsemc te Secwepemc o Tk’emlups te Secwepemc
The EAO did not receive feedback from any of the Indigenous nations contacted.
The EAO is satisfied that potentially impacted Indigenous nations were appropriately consulted on the proposed route realignment.
May 6, 2020
13
3.5 KAWKAWA LAKE INDIAN RESERVE NO. 16 ROUTE REALIGNMENT
DESCRIPTION
The proposed reroute is located southeast of the Union Bar First Nation Kawkawa Lake Indian Reserve No. 16 and within the District of Hope (See Appendix A - Figure 5 Map). The length of the proposed pipeline to be installed outside of the EAC Schedule A approved pipeline corridor is 21 m. The proposed reroute remains entirely outside the Kawkawa Lake Indian Reserve 16.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND EFFECTS
The rational for the reroute is to increase the separation between the Project and two existing private water wells located south of Othello Road. The reroute also makes better use of the existing Trans Mountain Pipeline right-of-way, thus reducing the amount of new disturbance created by the expansion Project.
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
According to the amendment application, Trans Mountain has been engaging with the Hope area stakeholders since 2012.
On October 31, 2019, Trans Mountain submitted an EAC Condition 14 Report which stated that no new issues regarding the Kawkawa Lake Rerouting were raised during the July 1, 2018, to June 30, 2019, period. In Trans Mountain’s December 2019 Public Engagement Summary for the Kawkawa Lake Rerouting Variance Report, it reconfirmed that no new issues had been raised since the completion of the NEB Section 21 review.
INDIGENOUS NATION CONSULTATION
As part of the NEB review under Section 21, Trans Mountain notified the Peters Band, Popkum First nation, Seabird Island Band, Shxw’ow’hamel First Nation, Union Bar Indian Band, Skwah First Nation and the Stó:lō Collective (on behalf of Aitchelitz First Nation,
May 6, 2020
14
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 proposed rerouting. Trans Mountain did not receive any responses.
On January 29, 2020, the EAO wrote to Indigenous nations listed in the EAC where the Kawkawa Lake Indian Reserve No. 16 Route Realignment overlapped their asserted traditional territory asking for any concerns they may have with the change. The following Indigenous nations were contacted:
• Ashcroft Indian Band • Chawathil First Nation • Coldwater Indian Band • Cook’s Ferry Indian Band • Lower Nicola Indian Band • Nlaka’pamux Nation Tribal Council (NNTC) on behalf of: o Boothroyd Band o Lytton First Nation o Oregon Jack Creek Band o Skuppah First Nation o Spuzzum First Nation • Nooaitch Indian Band • Peters First Nation • Popkum First Nation • Seabird Island Band • Shackan Indian Band • Shxw’ōwhámel First Nation • Siska Indian Band • 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 • Union Bar First Nation
May 6, 2020
15
During phone conversations between the EAO and the NNTC, the NNTC expressed an interest in reviewing the proposed amendment request, but the EAO did not receive any follow-up feedback from the NNTC. The EAO also did not receive any feedback from any of the other Indigenous nations contacted.
The EAO is satisfied that potentially impacted Indigenous nations were appropriately consulted on the proposed route realignment.
4 CONCLUSIONS
Based on:
• The information in Trans Mountain’s Amendment Application for the variance of the pipeline route outside the approved pipeline corridor in Schedule A of the EAC, at the following locations: o ICBC Parking Lot; o Chilliwack BC Hydro; o Sumas Tank Farm; o Westsyde Road; and o Kawkawa Lake IR; • The information in Trans Mountain’s EAC Condition 14 Report (October, 2019) and Updated Public Engagement Summary (December, 2019) for the above route amendments; • The NEB’s assessment of Trans Mountain’s applications pursuant to Section 21 of the NEB Act for the five route variances approved under CPCN OC-065; • The EAO’s review and analysis of the requested amendments; • The record of consultation and engagement with Indigenous nations, including by the NEB and Trans Mountain, and the EAO’s consultation efforts with potentially affected Indigenous nations; and • Trans Mountain’s requirements under EAC #17-01 to mitigate and monitor effects of the Project.
May 6, 2020
16
The EAO is satisfied that:
• The Amendment Application adequately identified and assessed the potential adverse changes to the environmental, economic, social, heritage and health effects of the Project resulting from the proposed amendment; and • Consultation with Indigenous nations regarding the proposed amendment have been adequately carried out by the EAO, and the provincial Crown has fulfilled its obligations for consultation and accommodation of Indigenous nations relating to the issuance of an amendment to EAC #17-01.
The EAO recommends to the Executive Director of Environmental Assessment Office, or delegate, that upon consideration of the conclusions in this report and any other relevant factors, an amended EAC under Section 19 of the Environmental Assessment Act (2002) be issued to allow the requested amendment of the EAC #E17-01 for the Project.
May 6, 2020
17
APPENDIX A
May 6, 2020
18
Figure 1. ICBC Parking Lot Route Realignment
May 6, 2020
19
Figure 2: Chilliwack BC Hydro Route Realignment
May 6, 2020
20
Figure 3: Sumas Tank Farm Route Realignment
May 6, 2020
21
Figure 4: Westsyde Road Route Realignment
May 6, 2020
22
Figure 5: Kawkawa Lake Indian Reserve No. 16 Route Realignment
May 6, 2020