~Halton ~~=~~~--R EGION

Legislative & Planning Services Department Planning Services July 30, 2018 11 51 Bronte Road Oakville ON L6M 3L1

Lesley Griffiths, Panel Chair Milton Logistics Hub Project Review Panel c/o Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 160 Elgin St. Ottawa ON K1A OH3

By email: [email protected] CEAR registry 80100

Dear Ms. Griffiths:

RE: Halton Municipalities' Comments on CN Responses to Information Request Packages 2 and 3

On behalf of the Halton Municipalities, I am writing to provide the panel with comments regarding CN's responses to the review panel's Information Request Packages 4.1 , 4.2 and 5 (IR-4.1, IR-4.2, and IR-5).

The team of technical experts retained by the Halton Municipalities has reviewed the CN responses to the panel's information requests in these three IRs. Based on the expert team's review and advice, the Halton Municipalities make the information requests set out in Attachment #1.

We may also advise that we look forward to receiving the information from CN in response to the panel's Information Request Packages 6 and 7. We consider the missing information essential to assessing the sufficiency of information for several CEAA factors of assessment.

Sincerely,

Curt Benson, Director, Planning Services & Chief Planning Official

On behalf of the Halton Municipalities

Attachment

Regional Municipality of Halton HEAD OFFICE: 1151 Bronte Rd, Oakville, ON L6M 3Ll 905-825-6000 I Toll free: 1-866-442-5866

halton.ca (: 311 "# 11 1m You(ID HALTON MUNICIPALITIES BRIEF | 1

R e v i e w o f C N R e s p o n s e s t o J u l y 2 0 1 8 I n f o r m a t i o n R e q u e s t s 4 - 5 Halton Municipalities’ Sufficiency Review

Regional Municipality of Halton Corporation of the City of Burlington Corporation of the Town of Halton Hills Corporation of the Town of Milton Corporation of the Town of Oakville

CEAA Panel Review of the CN Milton Logistics Hub Project CEAA Registry No. 80100

CN Milton Logistics Hub Project Panel Review HALTON MUNICIPALITIES BRIEF

Regional Municipality of Halton Chair: Gary Carr CAO: Jane MacCaskill

Corporation of the City of Burlington Mayor: Rick Goldring City Manager: James Ridge

Corporation of the Town of Halton Hills Mayor: Rick Bonnette CAO: Brent Marshall

Corporation of the Town of Milton Mayor: Gordon Krantz CAO: Bill Mann

Corporation of the Town of Oakville Mayor: Rob Burton CAO: Ray Green

Contact: Regional Municipality of Halton 1151 Bronte Road Oakville, ON L6M 3L1 311 or 905-825-6000 Toll Free 1-866-442-5866 (1-866-4HALTON) TTY 905-827-9833 Fax 905-825-9010 Art Zuidema Commissioner, Legislative & Planning Services

Curt Benson Chief Planning Official

Milton Logistics Hub Panel Review Questions or comments?

Contact: Regional Municipality of Halton 1151 Bronte Road Oakville, ON L6M 3L1 311 or 905-825-6000 Toll Free 1-866-442-5866 (1-866-4HALTON) TTY 905-827-9833 Fax 905-825-9010 Email [email protected]

Art Zuidema Commissioner, Legislative & Planning Services

Curt Benson Chief Planning Official HALTON REGION – COMMENTS REGARDING SUFFICIENCY OF RESPONSES TO PANEL IR-4.1

IR 4.1 EFFECTS OF PIPELINE RELOCATION AND MITIGATION Panel Request a) Further describe how CN intends to relocate the pipelines on its property. Clarify whether the augers/drill rigs referred to in Appendix E.10 and Appendix C of Appendix E.1 are representative of the drill rigs that would be used for the directional drilling required for pipeline relocation. b) Confirm that no open cuts would be required for pipeline relocation work. c) Clarify whether, when considering Project interactions with valued components, “utilities” referred to the pipeline relocation activities. d) Provide details of the potential environmental effects associated with the pipeline relocations and how CN would mitigate these effects.

Valued A.1 Topography and Soil; E.1 Migratory Bird Species Components Rationale A complete answer to (d) was not provided: . Nesting birds, including SAR birds, may be disturbed if intrusive archaeological excavations are conducted in the nesting period from end of March to end of August. . As the majority of the pipeline realignment will be in open cut installation within farmland areas, trenches which are typically 3 m deep will be necessary. This will entail significant volumes of temporary earthworks which may become sources for soil erosion. . The bedding and cover materials for the pipes may become conduits for perched and groundwater preferential collection and movement. Further Please clarify: Information 1) Whether pipeline relocations will be occurring within the nesting period for birds, from March- Request August. 2) The anticipated length and depth of the open cut installations, as well as how the temporary stockpiling of the cuttings have been accounted for as potential source for soil erosion. 3) Whether the realigned pipeline trenches would be treated with seepage collars, as is standard for utility trenches.

IR 4.2 PREDICTIVE LIGHT EFFECTS MODELLING Panel Request a) Provide a rationale for using the Extech EA33 light meter to measure baseline conditions. b) Explain how winter snow cover could have influenced the results of the baseline survey. c) Provide a quantitative assessment of the predicted future glare and sky glow resulting from Project lighting. Compare the results against baseline conditions and relevant guidelines where appropriate. d) Describe the additive effects of light from various sources on receptors (i.e., light trespass, glare, and sky glow). Valued C.3 Ambient night-time levels Components Rationale Important information was not provided, which is necessary to determine baseline conditions and the magnitude of the anticipated impact due to the project: . The Extech EA33 light meter used by CN is problematic for measuring baseline conditions. Though current (baseline) trespass measured through illuminance may be below 0.01 lx, it is premature to declare this as insignificant. The neglected CIE recommendations for luminaire brightness (related to glare) limitations should form part of the rationale for using this meter, including a description of how and whether this meter may measure such impacts.

1 . It is necessary to include increased albedo in the Project and surrounding region, as well as direct upward lighting fraction for all lighting including that in the region. It can be expected that snow reflectance will increase project impacts to a greater extent than impacts from (distant) urban lighting since the urban areas will have (1) less extensive long-term snow coverage, (2) greater structural blocking, and (3) more direct uplight (which is not amplified by snow cover). . As well, the response provided regarding sky glow changes appears incorrect – an increase of 0.10 – 0.18 magnitude corresponds to a 10% – 18%, not ~1%. No information is provided concerning uncertainties in baseline assessment based on measurements obtained on only two nights in both 2014 and 2018 (either range or average fires), preventing assessment of the robustness of the baseline measurement and the 2014-2018 trend. Insufficient information is provided concerning the methodology used for future sky brightness assessment. There is no response concerning quantitative luminaire brightness (glare) changes, nor comparison to baseline conditions or relevant guidelines. Further 1) Address the inability of the Extech EA33 light meter to measure current (baseline) conditions, Information and the implications of this deficiency for comparing the Project impacts to the baseline Request condition. The response must also address pertinent CIE recommended limits to luminaire brightness (glare), and how this meter may be used to determine if the Project lighting would exceed these limits. 2) Provide a corrected and adequately documented future sky glow analysis. Provide an adequately documented comparison to baseline illuminance (trespass) and CIE luminaire brightness (glare) recommendations, including assessment of uncertainties in baseline sky brightness measurements performed in this work, and the effect of this uncertainty on predicted fractional increases. 3) Describe the additive effects of light trespass (illuminance), including that arising from the multiple fixtures (emitters) included in the Project as well as other sources such as roadway lighting and other developments. Describe additive effects of glare (luminaire brightness), including that arising from the multiple fixtures (emitters) included in the Project.

IR 4.4 LIGHT FROM VEHICULAR TRAFFIC Panel Request a) Provide an assessment of potential off-site effects from on-site vehicular headlights within the terminal and at higher vehicle traffic areas such as trucks turning into and out of the entrance/exit along Britannia Road. The assessment should include such factors as location, topography, glare, and the potential for vehicle travel over raised terminal roadway.

Valued C.3 Ambient night-time levels Components Rationale CN has only provided qualitative statements, which do not provide the data necessary to justify their conclusions with regard to the impact of nighttime activities, in particular, the conclusory statement: “the potential effects of a change in lighting from the Project on nearby receptors are expected to be noticeable, but not substantive to a point where the change is likely to be disruptive.” Further, the fractional increase at night would likely be larger than is described. It is important to have a good understanding of the quantity of resulting impacts on lighting so that their magnitude can be determined. Further 1) Please provide a quantitative assessment of the impact of vehicular headlights on off-site Information receptors. This is needed to validate the assertions contained in the CN response. Request

2 IR 4.5 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR LIGHT Panel Request a) Provide additional information about the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures including different technologies available for light trespass, glare and sky glow, including a graphic representation of the proposed light shielding mitigation for light spill and glare (e.g. showing glare and spill both before and after mitigation). b) Describe the types and the anticipated effectiveness of light mitigation that may be provided by the proposed berms or other landscaping elements.

Valued C.3 Ambient night-time levels Components Rationale CN has not provided adequate information on the role that berms and other landscaping will play in blocking light impacts. Blocking of light by vegetation, berms or structures is required to obtain a better assessment of the future impacts of the project on the night environment. Further 1) Provide detailed information on the impact of vegetation and berms on reducing sky glow and Information glare. Request 2) Provide detailed information on the criteria proposed to guide where berms will be located to reduce lighting impacts.

IR 4.6 SUMMARY OF STRATEGIC PROJECTIONS REPORT (2013) Panel Request a) Provide a detailed summary of information from the report Strategic Projections Inc. 2013: The Need for an Intermodal Facility on CN’s Lands in Milton prepared for CN, September 2013. Include sources, and a description of the current and future estimates of container volume traffic in the Greater Toronto Hamilton Area. Qualify the current and expected future demand for intermodal services. Valued G.4 Urban Settings; Purpose and Alternative Means under the CEAA Components Rationale The rationale for this Information Request is provided in the Letter to Panel dated July 12, 2018. Further 1) Provide specific intermodal container market demand and economic forecast projections for Information the GTA and the proposed Project, projected out 20 years in 5 year increments (See Letter to Request Panel dated July 12, 2018).

IR 4.7 SUMMARY OF CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD REPORT (2014) Panel Request a) Clarify which Cushman and Wakefield report is summarized in Appendix E.11. b) Provide a summary of the report Economic and Financial Impact of an Intermodal Terminal in Milton, information on the data, modelling or academic literature that was used in the report or otherwise supports the statements referenced in the EIS.

Valued G.4. Urban Settings Components Rationale The information included in the 2014 Summary of the Cushman and Wakefield Report is insufficient to support the statements in the EIS that were attributed to the report as well as to accomplish the detailed planning and design requirements for the Milton Intermodal Terminal components and overall intermodal terminal infrastructure: . In order to assess the financial impact of the proposed terminal, a review of both revenues and expenditures (capital and operating) is needed. However, CN has only reported on anticipated revenues. A report on the expenditures should also be provided. . Further detail is needed to understand what Cushman & Wakefield defined as “Intermodal- Oriented Development” (IOD) Businesses.

3 . Clarification is needed on whether the “induced” development is in addition to, or displaces planned development. Milton forecasts over 17 million square feet of industrial development to 2031. If the “induced” development is part of that figure, then the fiscal impact should not count that growth as part of its anticipated benefits. . In summarizing the taxation impacts, the report makes reference to data from Calgary and Regina. However, these cities have different approaches to taxation. Further information is needed in order to assess the report’s conclusions regarding taxation impacts for Milton. Further 1) Please provide, separately for the Project and for surrounding “Induced Development”, the Information following for both the Region and the Town of Milton: Request a) the direct taxation and direct operating costs arising from the development. b) the direct capital costs and capital expenditures arising from the development. 2) Please clarify whether the “induced” development noted in the report is in addition to or displaces planned development. 3) Please explain what Cushman & Wakefield included as intermodal-oriented development (IOD) businesses. 4) The differences in taxation between Calgary and Regina should be explained along with an explanation of how the provided data should be interpreted in this context.

IR 4.9 SUMMARY OF TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN (2011) Panel Request a) Provide a summary of the information from the Transportation Master Plan that was used by CN, and describe how this was used to inform its project design and mitigation measures. Valued G.4. Urban Settings Components Rationale It cannot be determined how the Halton Region Transportation Master Plan (TMP) was used to inform Project design and mitigation. As well, it appears that CN did not properly consider the capital and phasing plan for the improvements. It is also noted that the TMP did not acknowledge or account for the Project, as information was not available at the time of the TMP on traffic projections for the area, or other necessary details on the Project. Further 1) Please explain what information from or how the TMP was used to “to inform the assessment Information of alternative site locations and alternative transportation corridors and routes for Project- Request associated truck traffic.” 2) Provide an explanation of how the TMP identified that there was planned capacity for the truck traffic proposed by CN.

IR 4.10 CLARIFICATION OF TOWN OF MILTON OFFICIAL PLAN AND STATUS OF AMENDMENTS Panel Request a) Describe the differences between the Town of Milton Official Plan and the Official Plan Amendment 31 and clarify which policy currently applies b) Identify any differences between the two versions that have implications to statements that CN has made in Appendices E.11, E.12 and E.17. Valued G.4. Urban Settings Components Rationale Modifications to OPA 31 were endorsed by Council on June 18, 2018, per recommendations in Town of Milton Report PD-029-18. As a result of the modifications (which were developed in conjunction with the Region of Halton), OPA 31 has been revised considerably to reflect Provincial modifications to ROPA 38 as well as the subsequent OMB decisions. OPA 31 was also modified to be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2014.

4 In addition, the response provided by CN only appears to address the land use designations and does not consider the Official Plan policies in their entirety. For example, CN’s response does not reflect the new Natural Heritage System policies which replace the more features-based approach to natural heritage with a systems-based approach. Further, there is no acknowledgement of the necessity of preparing secondary plans prior to development proceeding. Any proposed development is subject to the policy framework of OPA 31 as modified, and the version originally adopted in 2010 has been superseded. Further 1) CN’s response to this IR needs to be updated in its entirety as the version of OPA 31 relied Information upon is not the in-force version. Request

IR 4.12 GREENFIELD DENSITY TARGETS Panel Request a) Describe whether and how the Project may affect Halton Region’s ability to meet the Greater Golden Horseshoe Growth Plan target of not less than 50 residents and jobs combined per hectare, measured over the entire designated greenfield area.

Valued G.4. Urban Settings Components Rationale CN has not provided the employment density of the Project area, or its overall land holdings, which are crucial to understand the jobs per hectare on the development site. The impact of the Project on the achievement of Region-wide density targets cannot be assessed based on the information provided. There also appears to be an error. In its response, CN has presented a figure of 1300 ha, which is it not possible. There were not 1300 hectares of new employment land added in ROPA 38.

Further 1) The generalized statement from CN that the Project is not anticipated to impact employment Information density – unaccompanied by the numbers of the density of employment of the Project – needs Request to be explained in detail. 2) The employment density of the Project area and CN’s overall land holdings needs to be provided. 3) An explanation of the land area measures is also necessary to describe how CN arrived at 1300 ha of employment land.

IR 4.13 ECONOMIC COSTS FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE Panel Request a) Provide information about the additional costs that the Project could impose on provincial and municipal authorities in order to provide: • additional maintenance of roads affected by terminal generated truck traffic; • additional fire-fighting services necessary for the Project; and • any additional snow removal on local or regional roads to accommodate terminal- generated truck traffic.

Valued G.4. Urban Settings Components Rationale CN’s conclusion that there will be no additional costs that the Project could impose on provincial and municipal authorities in relation to maintenance of roads, fire-fighting services and snow removal has not considered all relevant and/or accurate information and thus the socio-economic assessment is insufficient: . CN has not provided justifiable and supported container capacity or modelling, which in turn impacts the analyses. Rather, CN appears to have relied on 450,000 annual container capacity and/or 1,600 daily truck trips for its modelling. 5 . CN’s response also references master planning documents which forecast future growth and then the servicing needs for that growth. However, planned expenditures are dependent upon planned revenues. CN needs to clarify the direct impact of the CN lands on revenues (capital and operating) and expenditures (capital and operating). With proper ultimate/maximum capacity modelling, the number of trucks using the roadways could be significantly higher, resulting in more pronounced economic costs for community services and infrastructure. . The introduction of an intermodal facility in Milton will transfer truck traffic from BIT to MIT and thus increase truck volumes on Region of Halton and Town of Milton roads, as discussed in the responses to IR4.59 and IR4.60. This in turn will have the effect of accelerating wear and pavement degradation on local roads and especially the roads near the proposed facility, particularly Britannia Road. CN’s response does not address this directly, including the expectation of the size of effect, by estimating the effect on pavement wear. . CN’s comments on the role of the Milton Fire Department relies primarily on the fact that CN will have its own emergency response plan in place. However, local fire department emergency training and local and regional emergency management still must consider additional risks of situations arising at the intermodal terminal. Hence, expenses for preparation, training and equipment, and toxic response will be incurred by the Milton Fire Department, Regional emergency services and the local police force. . The emergency plans submitted do not contain sufficient detail related to emergency responses to accidents or malfunctions that have a wider community impact. CN also asserts that accidents and malfunctions are addressed through emergency preparedness and response plans, but the existing CN plans and plan outlines provided do not include how to address the sudden onset of an accident or malfunction and these lack of details may negatively impact community safety and socio-economics. These impacts could include evacuation, shelter and recovery involving all members of Halton Region’s emergency response teams including Halton Regional Police Services, Paramedic Services, the Milton, Oakville, Halton-Hills and Burlington fire services and their emergency management teams. Expenses for preparation, training and equipment, and toxic response and disaster recovery will be incurred by all of Halton’s emergency management and response teams. . With respect to snow clearing, CN states that there are no perceived impacts. However, it is noted that roads are maintained on a priority sequence. Given the number and size of the vehicles from this site along with it being a major arterial road, there will be an impact on the priority rating for this area, which translates into expenditures. Further 1) Define exact magnitude of increased pavement degradation due to increased truck traffic on Information Region and Town roads, particularly on Britannia Road. Request 2) Provide a life-cycle costing of the roadways that CN is selecting for its main routing to and from the site, in addition to indicating the cost and who will be responsible for the cost of any other transportation system needs. In doing so, please take into account accurate ultimate/maximum capacity modeling. 3) A detailed review of both the capital and operating expenditure impacts on community services and infrastructure is required, taking into account accurate ultimate/maximum capacity modeling. This review should also consider the realistic roadway and fire-fighting expenses that will be incurred as a result of the development.

6 IR 4.14 DIRECT EMPLOYMENT Panel Request a) Provide a list of anticipated positions required for the operation phase of the Project. b) For construction phase and operation phase employment, indicate approximately how many staff CN anticipates to employ per occupation type. Valued G.4. Urban Settings; G.6 Urban Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Land Use Components Rationale A better understanding of the jobs per hectare is required to assess conformity with the Provincial Growth Plan and the Regional Official Plan’s greenfields density targets (50 people and jobs per hectare). CN does not address whether the anticipated 130 jobs the project will create will be new jobs, or whether they will be filled by Brampton residents transferring from the Brampton Intermodal Terminal. Further 1) The breakdown of the number of construction jobs versus the number of permanent jobs is Information required. In addition, the number of jobs and their relationship to the intermodal versus the Request office component of the project is required. 2) Clarify whether CN expects that the anticipated 130 jobs the project will create will be new jobs or whether they will be filled by transfers from the Brampton Intermodal Facility.

IR 4.15 INDIRECT EMPLOYMENT Panel Request a) Provide details of the expected indirect employment, including: • a description of indirect and induced employment opportunities; • how indirect and induced employment was calculated and what factors were considered in this calculation; • how many indirect jobs per type were predicted by CN to be generated by the Project; and • the number of indirect opportunities for employment and the type of employment that the Project would generate: i. on CN lands outside of the Project site; ii. within the Town of Milton; iii. within Halton Region; and iv. outside of Halton region Valued G.4. Urban Settings; G.6 Urban Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Land Use Components Rationale Information on where and at what density these jobs would occur is required to assess conformity with the Provincial Growth Plan and Regional Official Plan. Further 1) Identify where the anticipated jobs are to occur. Information Request

IR 4.16 EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT ON PROPERTY VALUE Panel Request a) Describe what effect the Project is expected to have on property values for properties within the socio-economic local and regional assessment areas. Provide information to support any conclusions, including information based on experiences at other similar operations if available, and a description of what steps, if any, CN commits to in order to minimize negative effects.

Valued G.4. Urban Settings Components

7 Rationale In providing its conclusions regarding projected effects on property value, broad statements are made without any empirical support. For instance, CN cites the Vancouver Intermodal Terminal as an example of an intermodal terminal around which residential neighbourhoods continue to grow and thrive, yet CN does not supply any data or analysis to support this statement. CN also states that in its experience, the introduction of an intermodal terminal within a region has a positive impact on the surrounding employment areas. However, no empirical evidence is provided to validate this statement. The Project area was planned for prestige industrial and business purposes given the Milton Education Village to the Northwest of the site. This intermodal facility is proposing to displace planned prestige industrial lands. However, no discussion on the impacts on the property value or impact on the viability of these lands has been provided. As well, there has been no review in respect of the impacts of factors such as traffic and noise on the residential areas to the north of the site.

Further 1) Provide data and an analysis to support the statement that an intermodal facility has a net Information positive impact of the surrounding property values and employment areas. Request 2) Provide a discussion of the impact of the proposed Project on the planned prestige industrial lands. 3) Assess the visual, noise and traffic impacts of the proposed Project from the perspective of the residential areas to the north of the site.

IR 4.17 EFFECTS ON PASSENGER, COMMUTER AND FREIGHT RAIL SERVICES Panel Request a) Identify all other rail activity (existing and planned) including third party passenger and commuter services along the Brampton-Georgetown corridor. Provide a map to show this information together with the rail lines that would be used by the Project. b) Explain the potential effects of the Project on passenger, commuter and freight service including the scheduling of those trains as well as effects on neighbouring communities. c) Describe the measures CN would put in place to reduce the social and economic effects on other rail services and neighbouring communities. Valued G.4. Urban Settings Components Rationale CN has not included all relevant information into its assessment on the effects on passenger, commuter and freight rail services: . CN’s response has not considered an important variable - the increased demand for commuter and passenger traffic as the Region and Town continue to grow. This increased demand will impact the capacity of the rail activity in the area and ought to be factored into an analysis of how the proposed Project might impact passenger and commuter train service and scheduling. . The information provided states that the two incremental trains on the segment between BIT and Georgetown falls within “the expected variability for this segment of the Halton Subdivision and no new effects are anticipated on the neighbouring communities”, however, CN does not state what that variability is in order for a third party to evaluate that conclusion. Further 1) Provide an assessment of rail capacity that takes into account increasing passenger and Information commuter train activity. Request 2) Clarify and define the “expected variability” that CN is expecting by adding two incremental trains on the segment between BIT and Georgetown in order to understand that “no new effects” are anticipated on the neighbouring communities.

8 IR 4.18 BRAMPTON-MILTON FREIGHT CORRIDOR Panel Request a) Describe the anticipated function of the Metrolinx Brampton-Milton Rail Corridor including the planned timing of its construction, its location and its purpose. b) Provide an update on the status of the Agreement-in-Principle. c) Describe how the Metrolinx proposal would relate to train traffic from the proposed Project and whether it would alleviate Project effects on other rail services and neighbouring communities, as discussed in Information Request 4.17 (Effects on passenger, commuter and freight rail services). Valued G.4. Urban Settings Components Rationale CN’s response has not appropriately accounted for the fact that Milton is a rapidly growing community which will require two-way all day GO Train service. Any development that would impede that objective is incompatible with Milton’s future development plans. If a greater number of freight trains are utilizing tracks in Milton, the capacity for passenger rail could be impacted. As well, important information on the connectivity of the Freight Bypass corridor has still not been provided. For instance, it is not known whether there will be a direct or indirect link between the Brampton Intermodal Terminal and the Milton Logistics Hub. In any event, the development of the Freight Bypass corridor would require an environmental assessment process prior to going forward, which has not yet been addressed or accounted for.

Further 1) Provide an analysis on the impacts of the proposed Freight Bypass project on the projected GO Information train services to and from Milton. Request 2) Clarify whether the Freight Bypass corridor will create a direct or indirect link between the Brampton Intermodal Terminal and the Milton Logistics Hub, and advise when its related environmental assessment process will commence.

IR 4.19 IDENTIFICATION OF DESIGNATED AGRICULTURAL LANDS Panel Request a) Clarify whether the Agricultural Areas depicted in Figures 5 and 6 in Appendix E.12 are designated as Prime Agricultural Areas within the Halton Region and Milton Official Plans. b) Clarify which lands in the project development area that are currently used for agricultural purposes are classified as Agricultural Area, classified as part of the Natural Heritage System, or specifically classified as Prime Agricultural Areas within the Halton Region and Milton Official Plans. Identify all lands currently used for agricultural purposes that are not classified in one of these three ways, and provide their current land use designation. c) Quantify the total hectares of Agricultural Areas and Prime Agricultural Areas in the Project Development Area, Local Assessment Area, and Regional Assessment Area as identified within both the Halton Region Official Plan, and the Town of Milton’s Official Plan. Valued G.4. Rural Settings Components Rationale In respect of Halton’s Regional Official Plan, an agricultural impact assessment, which discusses the aspects identified by the Panel above (Prime Agricultural Area designations, Agricultural Area classifications) was not completed by CN. As well, the materials provided by CN in reference to the Halton Regional Official Plan are not clear. The terminology used in CN’s response varies from the terminology used in the legend of Map 1 – Regional Structure from the Halton Region Official Plan. Further, the map at Attachment IR4.19-2: Current Agricultural Practices within the PDA is overly crowded with annotations and is difficult to interpret. Further 1) The agriculture impact assessment should be completed in accordance with the Region’s Information Agricultural Impact Assessment Guidelines. Request 2) Revise the terminology for specific land use classifications in CN’s response and in Attachment IR4.19-2: Current Agricultural Practices within the PDA, ensuring consistency with the 9 terminology in the Halton Region Official Plan. 3) Split Attachment IR4.19-2: Current Agricultural Practices within the PDA into two maps. The first showing the land use designations from the Halton Region Official Plan and the second showing the currently used agricultural lands within the PDA. This would assist with interpretation of the maps.

IR 4.20 PROJECT-INDUCED CHANGES ON DESIGNATED AGRICULTURAL LANDS Panel Request a) Provide additional details to indicate how CN calculated that the Project would result in a loss of 30 hectares of designated agricultural areas. Include a map of the Project that clearly depicts the lands used for the calculation. b) Describe how the 30 hectares of converted planned agricultural areas compares with available agricultural lands within the project development area and local assessment area. If applicable, in developing the response to this information request, consider responses to other information requests in this package, namely information request 4.19 (Identification of designated agricultural lands).

Valued G.4. Rural Settings Components Rationale CN has provided calculations for multiple categories of land designations. However, for this IR, only lands designated agriculture on Map 1 of the Region of Halton’s Official Plan (which conveys land use designation and permitted uses) should be calculated so that the projected impacts on agricultural lands can be discerned. CN’s response also does not appropriately account for the plans for transition of specified lands from Agricultural Lands to Employment Lands. As noted within the Halton Municipalities’ Planning Opinion on EIS Sufficiency, March 2017, previously provided to the Panel: 19. The project is within an Employment Area that is not scheduled to be developed until between 2021–2031 in accordance with Map 5 of the ROP. The ROP requires the local municipality to undertake Area Specific Plans for new growth areas such as these lands, in accordance with ROP Policy 77(5). The Area Specific Plan must consider a full range of policy matters that need to be studied before development proceeds. This project is proceeding without the benefit of an Area Specific Plan as required by Policy 77(5) and therefore is not in conformity with the Regional Official Plan. The implications for agricultural lands would therefore be accelerated if the CN proposal were implemented beyond the timelines planned for by the Region. Additional information on the amount of land converted within the local assessment area as a percentage of the total land currently farmed within the local assessment area would provide a more fulsome understanding of the projected impacts. Lastly, there has also been what appears to be a mathematical error in calculating the percentage reduction of “Prime Agricultural Areas” in the local assessment area. The percentage reduction should be 3%, not 0.3%.

Further 1) The calculation of the loss of designated agricultural areas should be re-done, using only the Information lands designated as Agriculture on Map 1 of the Region of Halton’s Official Plan. Request 2) Correct the mathematical error in calculating the percentage reduction of total “Prime Agricultural Areas” in the local assessment area. The percentage reduction should be 3%, not 0.3%. 3) Express the amount of land converted within the local assessment area as a percentage of the total land currently farmed within the local assessment area.

10 IR 4.21 PROJECT-INDUCED CHANGES ON AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES Panel Request a) For all CN-owned lands, and the local assessment area, describe the location and type of current farm operations, including farm buildings, and lands that are currently rented or leased by CN for agricultural purposes. Provide maps that depict these features and compare these to the Prime Agricultural Areas from the Halton Region Official Plan and the Town of Milton Official Plan. b) Describe changes the Project would have on lands currently used for agricultural purposes, regardless of whether or not these lands are classified as Agricultural Areas or Prime Agricultural Areas. Describe changes that may result from Project lighting, noise, air quality or changes to surface and groundwater quality and quantity. Indicate which Agricultural Areas on CN’s property would remain available for farming throughout the construction and operation of the Project. c) Further to part b) of this information request, describe the possible adverse effects of the Project- related changes to agricultural productivity, efficiency, farm operations and agricultural land use. Identify whether abutting agricultural operations would experience effects that would limit agricultural productivity or efficiency as a result of the Project. d) Discuss the social and economic implications of the changes and effects described above for farmers or communities in the area. Valued G.3 Rural Settings Components Rationale The development of the Project will impact agriculture within the entire local assessment area. CN has not provided sufficient information to respond to the Panel’s request in part (a), particularly with respect to the local assessment area. In the absence of such information from CN, it is difficult to evaluate the impacts of the proposed Project. CN should address the Panel’s request in part (a) by providing the requested information for the local assessment area. In particular, it would be helpful for CN to provide a detailed understanding of the local agricultural system ranging from farm drainage systems (and the potential for these systems to be disrupted) to sensitive land uses (such as livestock operations that may be impacted by the development). Further, there are local assessment area lands with the Protected Countryside, which are intended for long-term agricultural use. The long-term impacts of this proposed development on these lands need to be considered.

Further 1) For the local assessment area, describe the location and type of current farm operations, Information including farm buildings, and lands that are currently owned by CN and rented or leased for Request agricultural purposes. Provide maps that depict these features and compare these to the Prime Agricultural Areas from the Halton Region Official Plan and the Town of Milton. 2) Re-evaluate the responses provided in parts (b) to (d) in light of the additional information provided in response to question (1) above, with respect to the local assessment area.

IR 4.22 MITIGATION OPTIONS FOR EFFECTS ON AGRICULTURE Panel Request a) Describe any plans CN has to create on- or off-site compensation for agricultural areas to mitigate the conversion of 30 hectares of designated agricultural areas b) Based on the response to information request 4.21 (Project-induced changes on agricultural activities), above, describe what mitigation measures, if any, beyond general project design CN would implement to eliminate or reduce the effects of the Project on agricultural activities. c) Provide details on the level of confidence CN has that the proposed measures would be effective to mitigate the socio-economic effects of the Project to agricultural users. Describe any additional measures that CN could undertake if the mitigation described above is not effective. Valued G.3 Rural Settings Components

11 Rationale IR4.21 anticipated that CN would complete a fulsome analysis of Project induced changes within the local assessment area. This did not occur as requested. In the absence of this information it is not possible to effectively respond to IR 4.22. For example, one cannot comment on mitigation measures if Project induced changes on agricultural activities or socio-economic effects of the Project to agricultural users have not been adequately documented. It is important to consider the implications on agriculture within the local assessment area as the municipal intention for at least some of these lands is that they remain in agriculture for the long-term.

Further 1) Re-evaluate the responses to IR4.22 in light of the further information requested in IR4.21. Information Request

IR 4.23 BASELINE EXPOSURE RATIOS FOR VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS Panel Request a) Describe whether there are any methodologies which would allow CN to provide an estimate of background concentrations for key volatile organic compounds including formaldehyde, acetaldehyde and acrolein. b) If necessary, based on the response to part a), provide an update to Table 11 based on the toxicity reference values in Table 9. Recalculate values in any relevant subsequent tables based on any changes made to the values.

Valued C.1 Ambient Air Quality Components Rationale CN indicates that data from Windsor could be “reasonably representative” of conditions around the Project, but it is unclear if this is the case and if this includes a hotspot analysis for those compounds. Further 1) Include a hotspot analysis to ensure that the surrogate baseline data for these contaminants Information represents all locations in the surrounding community. Request 2) Provide further explanation as to why Windsor data would be representative of the Milton area.

IR 4.24 OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS TO BACKGROUND EXPOSURE RATIOS Panel Request a) Clarify whether the exposure ratios presented include background exposure from sources other than baseline air quality. If warranted, provide additional information to describe the baseline exposure ratios for all exposure pathways including relevant media such as air, food, soils, water, and consumer products. b) If appropriate, update the human health risk assessment and relevant exposure values based on the response to a), and describe the residual health effects of the Project. If applicable, in developing the response to this information request, consider responses to other information requests in package 3 and 4, namely information requests 3.1 (Project site ambient air quality monitoring results), and 4.29 (Exposure ratios for special and participating receptors). Valued C.1 Ambient Air Quality; G.1 Human Health Conditions Components Rationale CN’s exposure ratios are missing consideration of background exposure from sources other than air. This fails to consider potential uptake by vegetation, deposition to the soil surface, and possibly further exposures from consumer products. As well, diesel PM should be separately acknowledged and incorporated into the risk assessment, as it is more toxic than PM2.5. The Air and Human Health analysis should use, for inhalation, a non- cancer chronic exposure guideline of 5 ug/m3 (Health Canada, 2016), not the 8.8 µg/m3 for (less toxic) generic PM2.5 currently used in the Air and Human Health analysis.

12 Further 1) Provide a complete and cumulative exposure assessment, including consideration of diesel Information PM, using the non-cancer chronic exposure guideline discussed above. Request

IR 4.25 INTERNATIONAL EXPOSURE RATIOS AND TOXICITY REFERENCE VALUES Panel Request a) List the chemicals of potential concern that may be emitted from the Project and for which Canadian toxicity reference values are not available. List the international agencies that have toxicity reference values for these chemicals, and discuss whether and how these toxicity reference values could be considered for the Milton Logistics Hub Project. b) Update the toxicity reference values used in the human health risk assessment in consideration of applicable international toxicity reference values and update the assessment of human health effects in consideration of this information. Discuss the health effects that could result from the Project emissions compared with applicable international toxicity reference values. Valued G.1 Human Health Components Rationale The information provided by CN is incomplete and uses values that are inconsistent with comparable assessments. For example, the Toronto Pearson Airport Assessment (2015) had other and additional values, including an 8-hour acute CO inhalation exposure limit of 6,000 μg/m3 set by Health Canada (2006). However, without any justification, a 15,000 μg/m3 exposure limit was used by CN.

Further 1) Update the list of chemicals of potential concern and their reference values. Information Request

IR 4.27 EXPOSURE PATHWAYS TO HUMAN HEALTH EFFECTS Panel Request a) Provide a rationale for omitting deposition of particulate matter and diesel particulate matter on agricultural and garden produce as a pathway in the human health risk assessment. b) Assess the risk to human health from the Project based on other applicable exposure pathways and chemicals of potential concern, including the deposition of particulate matter and diesel particulate matter, or subsequent oral or dermal contact, or provide additional justification for why these pathways were not evaluated c) Clarify whether absorption through the inhalation pathway was assumed to be 100%. If not, discuss the assumptions used and justify the value selected. Valued C.1 Ambient Air Quality; G.1 Human Health Conditions Components Rationale The rationale provided by CN for omitting exposure pathways was not justifiable. CN states that Project-related air emissions will consist of volatile compounds, with the exception of PM10 and PM2.5. Accordingly, there are no other applicable exposure pathways requiring assessment. However, this ignores potential uptake by vegetation or deposition to the soil surface, and possibly further exposures from consumer products. There is a need to be comprehensive and consider all exposure pathways. Just because Health Canada only considers inhalation does not preclude evaluation of other pathways (ie. via deposition). Further 1) Provide a complete and cumulative exposure assessment, providing an evaluation of other Information pathways. Request

13 IR 4.28 CALCULATION OF EXPOSURE Panel Request a) Describe how frequency and duration were considered in the exposure assessment and how inclusion of these factors would affect the outcomes of the exposure assessment. To support this discussion, provide examples of worked exposure calculations, and examples of how these would change if frequency and duration had been considered. b) Discuss any assumptions made in the exposure assessment. Valued G.1 Human Health Conditions Components Rationale Simply citing entire appendices is not responsive. Further 1) Identify and list specific assumptions and provide a brief justification for each assumption. Information Request

IR 4.29 PREDICTED EXPOSURE RATIOS FOR SPECIAL AND PARTICIPATING RECEPTORS Panel Request a) Based on the information provided in the response to Information Request 3.16, provide the results of calculated short-term and long-term exposure ratios for all receptors during the construction and operation phases of the Project. b) Provide a map for each contaminant of potential concern to highlight all areas where exposure ratios would exceed the target benchmark of 1.0.

Valued G.1 Human Health Conditions Components Rationale The results of calculated short and long-term exposure ratios have not been supplied for all receptors during each phase of operation. This information is needed to assess the magnitude of the projected impacts of the Project. Further 1) Provide the results of calculated short and long-term exposure ratios for all receptors during Information each phase of operation. Request

IR 4.32 STAGE 3 AND 4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS Panel Request a) Provide the final stage 3 and 4 archaeological assessments for the Project. Considering this latest information, provide an updated assessment of the effects to archaeological resources and cultural heritage. a) Provide the final stage 3 and 4 archaeological assessments for the Project. Considering this latest information, provide an updated assessment of the effects to archaeological resources and cultural heritage.

Valued I.2. Archaeological Heritage Components Rationale The answer provided by CN with respect to the stage 3 and stage 4 assessments is incomplete and insufficient: . In order to determine the significance of adverse environmental effects – and in particular to evaluate CN’s rationale that avoidance and protection is not viable – it is necessary that both the Stage 3 and Stage 4 Archeological Assessment reports and comments from the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Sport on these reports be provided. . In the EIS, s. 6.5.6.7, CN states that 14 archaeological sites in the PDA met MTCS criteria such that Stage 3 AA was recommended. However, in this IR, CN states that Stage 3 AAs were completed at 17 archaeological sites in the PDA. It is also noted that there are three sites CN has listed in Table IR 4.32-1 - specifically Aboriginal sites referred to as Location 61 14 (AiGx-425), Location 62 (AiGx-426) and Location 64 (AiGx-427) -- that do not appear in the original Stage 1-2 archaeological assessment contained in the EIS (Appendix E.14). The discrepancy between these numbers and the additional Stage 3 AAs is not explained. . In this IR, and in IR 5.10, CN states that 13 archaeological sites were subject to Stage 4 AAs, i.e. excavation. However, in this IR, CN also notes that 14 Stage 4 AAs were undertaken (p. 32). It is not clear which number accurately reflects what occurred in practice. Further 1) The Stage 3 Archeological Assessment reports and comments from the Ministry of Culture, Information Tourism and Sport on these reports should be provided, as should the Stage 4 Reports as soon Request as completed. 2) Provide an explanation as to why CN completed 17 Stage 3 AAs when only 14 were recommended, in addition to an explanation as to how and why the additional sites were added to the Stage 3 AAs. 3) Provide clarification regarding the number of Stage 4 AAs completed.

IR 4.33 VALUE OF CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES Panel Request a) Clarify the qualitative categories used to describe the value of cultural heritage resources (for example limited, moderate, high) and the definitions of those quantitative categories (i.e. what attributes a cultural heritage resource must possess to be classified with a given value). b) Identify the value of each cultural heritage resource that is located within 50 m of proposed Project activity and provide a rationale for its classification using the categories and definitions in part a) of this information request.

Valued I.1 Cultural Heritage Components Rationale CN identified that the criteria to determine cultural heritage value or interest are defined by Ontario Regulation 9/06. However, CN did not provide sufficient information to determine if the properties should also be assessed under Ontario Regulation 10/06, Criteria for Determining Cultural Heritage Value or Interest of Provincial Significance. This is important as some of the properties may warrant designation as a property of cultural heritage value or significance. Further 1) Provide additional information on the cultural heritage resources that addresses the criteria Information set out in Ontario Regulation 10/06. Request

IR 4.34 CHARACTERIZATION OF THE EFFECTS TO CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE #4 Panel Request a) Provide additional information as to how CN determined there was limited value or interest for the shed located at 5269 Tremaine Road (CHR-4). b) Clarify the process that would be followed for a relocation plan request. Identify who is responsible to make such a request or would be involved in the response, including the role of CN. c) Describe the technical and economic feasibility of relocating the stormwater management pond to avoid the shed, or the possibility of relocating the shed elsewhere on CN’s property.

Valued I.1 Cultural Heritage Components Rationale CN’s response with respect to the characterization of the shed is incomplete in the following ways: . CN is correct in saying in IRR 4.33 that there is no qualitative category to describe the value of heritage resources. They are either present/not present. As a result, CN’s use of the term “limited” in relation to the shed’s cultural value is inconsistent with the present/not present approach prescribed by the Ontario Heritage Act. Given the abovementioned, the explanation relating to the use of the term limited is misleading and incomplete.

15 . Further explanation is required of the avoidance options with respect to the shed, in the context of applying best conservation practices such as those outlined in international charters on heritage conservation, the Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places, or the MTCS’s Ontario Heritage Toolkit. CN’s explanation seems to assume the inevitability of the removal of the shed and does not fully assess other options in an objective manner. . The response is void of any required municipal processes/provincial processes as prescribed in the Ontario Heritage Act and the Town’s Official Plan, which includes but is not limited to Heritage Milton Committee review and Municipal Council consideration. Further 1) CN should clarify its response by answering whether the shed has cultural value in Information consideration of the approach in the Ontario Heritage Act. Request 2) Identify clearly delineated options for other locations for the SWM Pond. Provide a detailed table comparing the economic and technical implications of each option. In compiling this response, CN should apply best conservation practices such as those outlined in international charters on heritage conservation, the Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, or the MTCS’s Ontario Heritage Toolkit. 3) More information is required from CN as to how provincial and municipal policies would be addressed.

IR 4.36 GENERAL MAINTENANCE OF CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES Panel Request a) Describe any plans or responsibilities CN has to maintain cultural heritage resources located on its property.

Valued I.1 Cultural Heritage Components Rationale The answer provided by CN reflects only general mitigation actions. CN fails to address the question, which is to describe how it will maintain the cultural heritage resources. A more detailed response is required from CN in order to properly determine if CN’s planned cultural heritage maintenance is adequate. Further 1) More information is required from CN, within the context of the criteria under Regulation Information 9/06, in relation to the general maintenance and mitigation of the cultural heritage resources. Request

IR 4.45 TRIBUTARY A UPSTREAM OF BASELINE ROAD Panel Request a) Summarize the findings in the AMEC 2013b report related to the types and number of fish that were found in Tributary A. If the findings indicate that the reach of Tributary A between Britannia Road and First Line should have been classified as fish habitat, describe the effects of the Project on this area, and propose mitigation measures as appropriate.

Valued D.1 Fish Populations; D.3 Fish Habitat; D.5 Fish Movement Components Rationale Fish are periodically present in Tributary A upstream from the CN tracks. As the response indicates, the source of these fish is not known. They could be migrating upstream from an area downstream of the CN tracks. Information regarding the potential effect of the Tributary A culvert on fish migration is required, given that fish do currently occur upstream from CN.

Further 1) Information regarding the potential effect of the Tributary A culvert on fish migration is Information required. Request

16 IR 4.48 FISHERIES WORK TIMING WINDOWS Panel Request a) Provide additional details on the estimated total length of time each channel would be affected, including: • introduction of flows into the new channel; • filling of the old channel; and • lag times for the riparian regime and aquatic ecosystems to re-establish. b) Provide details of anticipated loss of habitat during each stage of the Project and the specific fisheries timing windows considered during the Project construction. If applicable, in developing the response to this information request, consider responses to other information requests in package 2, namely information request 2.28 (Detailed Project Construction Schedule) and 2.39 (Channel Realignment Flows).

Valued D.3 Fish Habitat Components Rationale CN has not provided the requested details on habitat losses, which is necessary to understand the magnitude of projected impact on this valued component. Notably, Table IR 4.48-2 does not provide details of the anticipated loss of habitat during each stage of the project. Only net values are provided. Based on the response to IR 4.49, the calculations of net change in “channel” areas appear to be calculations of channel losses and newly-created channel gains plus newly-created seasonally connected wetland gains. It is therefore inaccurate to refer to these as net loss (Indian Creek) or net gain (Tributary A) or channel. Further 1) Provide details regarding the area of habitat that is lost and created (gained), by habitat type, Information during each phase. Request

IR 4.49 EFFECTS FROM MITIGATION AND COMPENSATION ACTIVITIES Panel Request a) Provide details of the conceptual fish and fish habitat offsetting plan, including details of proposed location, details of construction activities timing of construction, and when compensation habitat is anticipated to be effective. b) Assess the potential environmental effects from the creation of the proposed habitat offset/compensation.

Valued D.3 Fish Habitat Components Rationale The calculations of changes to the area of in-channel fish habitat appears to be incorrect. The response to IR 4.49 provides calculations of changes in fish habitat which significantly differ than those previously provided in the EIS. It indicates that there will be 11,503 m2 of permanently flowing existing channel removed and 10,624 m2 of permanently flowing, newly created natural channel and seasonally connected wetlands created (Table IR 4.49-1). The areas of newly-created natural channel and of newly-created seasonally connected wetlands are not provided separately. It is stated that the net change in area of in-channel fish habitat is -879 m2 (Table IR 4.49-1). This number is equal to the area of permanently flowing existing channel removed minus the sum of the area of permanently flowing newly created channel and the areas of seasonally connected wetlands created (11,503 – 10,624 = 879; our calculations). It is, therefore, not the change in area of in-channel fish habitat. CN has also made statements that the new habitat will be higher quality than the original habitat, but has not quantified original habitat conditions as a baseline. Contradictory statements appear to be made. If “higher quality” habitat is intended to imply greater productivity, this conflicts with other indications from CN that there are anticipated to be no changes to habitat productivity (CPUE, density, biomass). Clarification of these statements should be provided.

17 Further 1) Provide a more detailed and specific description of existing conditions and future conditions in Information order to assess the claim that the future habitat will be of higher quality than the existing Request habitat. The metrics to be used to assess fish habitat value and the relative habitat value of the existing channel, the proposed new channel, and the proposed seasonally connected wetlands are required in order to predict the effectiveness of offsetting measures. 2) Clarify the calculations of areas of the changes in habitat area, by habitat type.

IR 4.52 SENSITIVE BIRD SPECIES Panel Request a) Provide additional detail on how an area sensitive species is defined.

Valued E.1 Migratory Bird Species Components Rationale The Panel’s interpretation of this request assumed it related only to area-sensitivity, but Table 6.20 has a broader context. The term “sensitive” in this table appears to extend beyond just area- sensitivity. Further clarification is required so that the data presented can be understood. Further 1) Explain the classification of bird species sensitivity that was used in Table 6.20. Information Request

IR 4.53 NATURAL HERITAGE FEATURES Panel Request a) Based on the results of the effects assessment in other sections of the EIS, and CN’s responses to the Review Panel, provide additional details on these features and describe the effects of the Project on them.

Valued F.2 Critical Habitat (In Project Vicinity) Components Rationale CN’s answer does not indicate use and consideration the Region’s Natural Heritage System (NHS), and provincial SAR and some other provincial, local and regional significant features as components in the Region’s NHS. These should be considered as they are an integral part of protecting biodiversity at the federal level. Further 1) Provide additional effects analysis from the lens of the Region’s Natural Heritage System. Information Request

IR 4.54 CONSTRUCTION EFFECTS ON MOVEMENT OF SPECIES AT RISK Panel Request a) Provide additional details on the development and predicted effectiveness of the proposed timing windows and describe how species at risk movement might be affected by the Project during construction and operations.

Valued F.1 Species at Risk; F.2 Critical Habitat Components Rationale Only federally-regulated SAR were addressed in this response, but this omits consideration of provincial SAR, which must also be addressed to comply with the Minister’s direction to take in to account “land use”. As well, the Panel requested information on how species at risk movement might be affected generally by the Project during construction and operations. CN only provided information on timing of its phases.

18 Further 1) Answer the Panel’s IR for provincially listed SAR, as well as providing a more thorough Information explanation of how SAR movement will generally be affected by the Project’s construction and Request operation phases.

IR 4.55 EFFECTS TO MIGRATORY BIRDS Panel Request a) Provide additional details on the number of migratory bird fatalities predicted due to the Project. b) Provide additional details on locations to which CN anticipates the breeding migratory birds would be displaced, and provide a discussion of how the habitat loss from the Project would affect local populations of the affected species.

Valued E.1 Migratory Bird Species; E.2 Migratory Bird Use of Area Components Rationale CN has not considered possible migratory bird fatality in the event of a ccontaminant spill. If such an event took place during the breeding season and impacted a SWM pond, it would be likely to negatively impact locally nesting migratory birds, possibly resulting in mortality due to exposure to contaminant effects, or compromising of nesting success. In addition, CN’s comments regarding the lack of impact of noise on migratory birds is based on flawed assumptions: . CN relied on baseline acoustic monitoring that found background noise in the range of 68 to 74 dB in the grassland and woodland habitats in the local assessment area (LAA). However, Novus Environmental’s (March 2017) review of the CN noise studies determined that the noise assessment methodologies were seriously flawed, affecting CN’s calculations of existing and future noise levels. . Existing noise data was almost exclusively based on human noise receptors located close to major roads, rather than the habitats which are located 200 – 500+ m away from roads. The intermodal facility will also generate continuous in addition to sporadic noise. It therefore appears that bird habituation to noise is less than estimated by CN, and that species displacement (including SAR birds) is likely. . CN appears to assume that impacts of noise only extend to the LAA boundary (i.e. 120 m beyond the PDA boundary). However, this assumption needs to be substantiated before the estimated number of displaced birds can be verified. Further 1) Consider the risk of migratory bird fatalities and reduced nesting success in the event of a Information contaminant spill. Request 2) Consider the impact of noise on migratory birds displacement based on accurate assessments of background noise. 3) Reassess possible impact of noise on migratory birds using corrected baseline noise data and taking into account the habitat locations as compared to the human noise receptor locations.

IR 4.56 WILDLIFE HABITAT ENHANCEMENT Panel Request a) Provide additional details on the proposed wildlife habitat enhancements, including how the habitat would be enhanced to improve nursery and breeding opportunities for wildlife, the size and location of the habitat, the ownership, proposed protection instruments, the amount that would be enhanced compared to created, and more specific information on the location of the habitat.

Valued F.2 Critical Habitat Components Rationale CN did not adequately consider habitat interactions; the location, configuration, juxtaposition of different types of habitat (e.g. wetland and upland) and size of compensation habitat is crucial to its effectiveness. In addition, their consideration of SWM ponds as additional habitat for wildlife

19 may be misplaced, as such ponds are often a potential source of contamination and increased predation, thus constituting an impact. As well, CN stated that the new habitat enhancement areas will be vegetated with native species – details of how the vegetation will be maintained should be supplied, as non-native species are prevalent in this area and will almost certainly invade restoration areas. Further 1) Show each habitat enhancement area on a larger-scale map, with each of the components and Information their intended functions indicated, so that habitat interactions can be better understood. Request 2) Information should also be provided on management plans for non-native invasive species.

IR 4.57 EFFECTIVENESS OF MITIGATION MEASURES FOR MIGRATORY BIRDS Panel Request a) Explain how the proposed mitigation measures for migratory birds would prevent any harm, disturbance, or destruction of their nests or eggs, including how CN plans to protect migratory bird nests outside of the breeding season.

Valued E.1 Migratory Bird Species; E.2 Migratory Bird Use of Area Components Rationale CN has not addressed how nesting herons will be protected. Nesting herons are extraordinarily sensitive to disturbance. Heron colonies of 2 or more herons are considered Significant Wildlife Habitat – and buffer requirements are significant (300 m or entire Ecosite) around them. Further 1) If herons are known to nest in the area, additional mitigation should be provided that is Information specific to safeguarding herons. Request

IR 4.58 SNAPPING TURTLE MANAGEMENT PLAN Panel Request a) Provide a conceptual management plan, including any additional details on mitigation measures for Snapping Turtle developed in consultation with interested authorities.

Valued F.1 Species at Risk Components Rationale Further details on the incidence and current habitat of the Snapping Turtle in the Project area are necessary before the details of the management plan can be evaluated. Impacts on existing turtle nesting activity within the PDA or LAA or their likely movements beyond existing riparian habitats are not addressed, likely because adequate baseline surveys to document turtle nesting were not conducted. As a result, the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures cannot be reliably evaluated. Further 1) Provide further details on Snapping Turtle nesting activity in the PDA or LAA, and their Information movement patterns outside of existing riparian habitats. Request

20 HALTON REGION – COMMENTS REGARDING SUFFICIENCY OF RESPONSES TO PANEL IR-4.2

IR 4.59 ROUTING OF TRUCK TRAFFIC Panel Request a) Provide a rationale for the route selection factors CN used to determine relative route attractiveness. b) Explain how each route selection factor was weighted when determining route attractiveness. c) Provide a summary table showing the route selection factors, including weight, for each of the 19 routes. d) Provide a figure depicting the relative attractiveness of each truck capable route anticipated for the year 2020. Indicate relative attractiveness with a colour coded scale showing at minimum low (red), medium (yellow), and high (green) attractiveness. Valued G.4 Urban Settings Components Rationale CN’s route selection process is incomplete for the following reasons: . The underlying assumption for routing of traffic shown in 4.59-3 as MIT being based on, and the same as, BIT, is flawed (See CN Milton Logistics Hub Terminal Road Access Study Report and Transportation Considerations Report Peer Review, July 16, 2018, prepared by CIMA+ and submitted to the Panel as part of the IR 2.33 response). . It appears that CN states that toll routes make a route less attractive (as part of the weighting process for route selection), however, CN has advised that the South Milton site was retained as a site during the site selection study given its direct route from the site east along Britannia Road to Highway 407 and has also committed that it would be directing CNTL truck traffic to the 407 where practical and feasible. . While CN has indicated that it would direct and control the travel pattern of the 20% of the trucks proposed to service the MIT facility under CN control, it is not clear that the travel patterns for the 19 routes are only for the 80% of vehicles outside of CN’s control and that the CNTL patterns were then added separately to the patterns for the 19 routes. Further information is therefore necessary to provide an understanding of the truck routing issues.

Further 1) Summarize and analyze the origin-destination information obtained from the MTO Information Commercial Vehicle Survey and develop a MIT-specific distribution of trips that can then be Request applied to the specific route model developed. 2) Describe and clarify CN’s apparent discrepancy between endorsing the South Milton site as a site located in close proximity to Highway 407 as a considered factor for the site selection process choosing the South Milton site, yet stating it is a less attractive truck route for the Project. 3) Clarify that the route allocation is only for the 80% of trucks not under its control (with 20% destined or coming from Highway 407 added in separately), or adjust the allocation of traffic to reflect CN’s intent to route the CNTL trucks via Highway 407.

IR 4.60 ANTICIPATED TRUCK ROUTES AND ROUTE SELECTION ASSUMPTIONS Panel Request a) Substantiate the selected geographic distribution of route allocations for Project-generated trucks travelling to/from the available truck routes. Include detailed origin and destination locations for containers anticipated to be processed through the Project. b) Clarify whether the route allocations identified were derived based on a worst-case approach or normal operating conditions. c) Describe the conditions under which it would be practical and feasible for CNTLs truck trips to/from various origins/destinations to use Highway 407. d) Explain whether CN would provide specific routing direction to its CNTL drivers, and if so, whether such direction would include routes that could take additional time to complete. Discuss whether CN 1 would monitor and enforce compliance with such direction, and if so, how. e) Explain why the percentage allocation of inbound trucks using route 1 is less than 20% when the percentage of CNTL trucks would be 20% and CN has stated it would direct these trucks to use route 1 when practical and feasible. f) Describe what effect, if any, the Project would have on truck origins and destinations assumed in the EIS, which could occur as a result of customers choosing to ship their goods to the Milton Logistics Hub rather than the Brampton Intermodal Terminal, based on proximity. Describe whether and how this has been taken into account in the EIS. Valued G.4. Urban Settings Components

Rationale The information provided is insufficient because the selection of route allocations for Project- generated traffic was developed based on an incorrect assumption: . Further to the comments given for IR 2.31, CN’s response suggests that the travel pattern for trucks accessing MIT would be the same as the BIT, both based on the current pattern as measured and presented in the MTO study. It is an oversimplification to assume that the trucks at the MIT would have the same origin and destination pattern as trucks at BIT, as the trucks will be split between the two yards once MIT is operating. Shippers would obviously prefer to travel to the closest yard to minimize shipping costs and speed up delivery. If a separate origin/destination pattern was established for MIT, it would likely be more westerly oriented than what would remain for BIT. This could change all of the projected safety and capacity calculations and conclusions (See CN Milton Logistics Hub Terminal Road Access Study Report and Transportation Considerations Report Peer Review, July 16, 2018, prepared by CIMA and submitted to the Panel as part of the IR 2.33 response). Further 1) A separate origin/destination pattern should be established for the trucks at MIT, and the Information route allocation revised accordingly. Request

IR 4.61 TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND CONGESTION IN HALTON REGION Panel Request a) Provide a traffic model to illustrate how traffic on local and regional roads between the Project site and 400-series highways would be affected by Project-generated truck movement. The model should: • consider Project-generated truck traffic, and future traffic scenarios for the years 2021 and 2031; • consider Project-generated truck traffic by direction of travel and by turning movement counts; and • test scenarios with and without any relevant transportation system improvements that would be constructed after the Project is in operation. b) Identify regional intersections along the 19 routes outlined in Appendix E.17 that are currently at or near capacity. Describe their saturation flows, gap availabilities, projected queue lengths, and possible blocking queues. c) Explain whether and how the Project would ease traffic within the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area generally, and specifically at these intersections. d) Provide a figure depicting the future traffic projections for 2021 and 2031 along truck capable routes. Indicate predicted traffic congestion using a colour coded scale reflecting low (green), medium (yellow), and high (red) congestion. e) Provide anticipated travel times between the Town of Milton and Halton Region and commuter destination areas such as downtown Toronto. Consider several residential areas as origins and destinations such as downtown Toronto, Pearson International Airport and Hamilton. Describe how times may vary based on morning and afternoon rush hours, as well as scenarios both with and without Project-generated truck traffic.

2 Valued G.4 Urban Settings; G.2 Human Safety Conditions Components Rationale CN’s modelling of traffic volumes and congestion is insufficient for the following reasons: . A Peak Hour Factor of 1.00 was used in the assessment of intersection capacity. However, a Peak Hour Factor of 0.92 is more realistic and typical for the industry. . The operational analysis of the Terminal Road Access Study multiplied the truck volumes by 2, which with Synchro’s internal truck factor of 2 means that trucks were an equivalent of 4 passenger cars (PCUs). The Region-wide capacity calculations should use the same truck equivalency number. It is not clear from the Proponent’s response that a truck equivalency of 4.0 Passenger Car Units was used in the Region-wide capacity calculations. Further, graphs for 2021 are provided in IR 4.61-1 and -2, but no information is provided for 2031. The graphs in 4.61-1 and the text refer to Britannia Road and Tremaine Road operating well within acceptable volume to capacity (v/c) limits. It is not clear which traffic scenario (with or without the Tremaine Road/401 interchange) this is calculated for. CN should describe the effect of a) adding the Tremaine Road interchange and b) the effect upon the background traffic for 2031. CN should also provide the precise increases in v/c for key intersections, especially if the truck traffic pushes the v/c over 0.85 or over 0.95.

Further 1) CN should revise its calculations regarding its truck models to rely on a Peak Hour Factor of Information 0.92. Request 2) CN should verify that a truck equivalency of 4.0 Passenger Car Units was used for all capacity calculations, including Region-wide capacity calculations. If a truck equivalency of 4.0 Passenger Car Units was not used in these calculations, the calculations should be revised in the modelling accordingly. 3) CN should provide the equivalent information for IR 4.61-2 for 2031, both with and without the Tremaine interchange. CN should detail numerically the exact v/c effects of adding the projected MIT truck traffic, subject to the comments about the patterns in IR 4.59 and IR 4.60, to the key intersections in the Regional road network.

IR 4.62 COLLISION RISKS OF INTERMODAL TRUCKS Panel Request a) Provide an analysis of the risks of a vehicular collision that could result from Project-generated truck traffic between the Project site and the 400-series highways for both the 2021 and 2031 scenarios. Identify what CN could propose to mitigate the risk of collision. Describe the residual effects after mitigation and estimate the likelihood of vehicular collision occurrences related to Project-generated truck traffic. This analysis should rank each route to identify relative vehicular collision risk. b) Provide an analysis of the risks of cyclist and pedestrian accident that could result from Project- generated truck traffic between the Project site and the 400-series highways for both the 2021 and 2031 scenarios. Specifically consider these risks for school zones, residential areas, intersections, existing and proposed regional cycling routes, pathways, cross-walks, and trail facilities. Identify what measures CN could propose to mitigate the risk of accidents. Describe the residual effects after mitigation and estimate the likelihood of vehicular accidents with pedestrians and cyclists occurrences related to Project-generated truck traffic. This analysis should rank each route to identify relative safety risk. c) Provide a figure depicting the 19 potential truck capable routes for the 2020 scenario showing the potential for impact to vehicular, cyclist and pedestrian safety of each using a colour coded scale between low potential impact to safety (green) and high potential impact to safety (red). d) Indicate which if any of the 19 potential routes, if any, the Halton Municipalities identified as being preferred from a safety perspective. Provide a rationale for that preference.

Valued G.4 Urban Settings; G.2 Human Safety Conditions Components

3 Rationale CN did not provide a sufficient risk assessment or mitigation measures with respect to collisions, in response to the Panel’s request. The insufficiencies are detailed further below: . CN did not provide an “analysis of the risks of a vehicular collision that could result from Project-generated truck traffic between the Project site and the 400-series highways for both the 2021 and 2031 scenarios” as requested. It solely provided an “overall collision risk (frequency only) of additional heavy vehicles on regional roads” which is initially referred to in the Attachment IR 2.33-4. This is insufficient to assess risk for the following reasons: a) First, risk is a function of both frequency and severity. If only frequency is provided and no measure of consequence is given, as in this case, an analysis of risk has not been done. To adequately portray risk, two factors have to be discussed, collision frequency and collision severity. It is known that truck collisions usually have more severe consequences. Severity is not discussed. b) Second, the routing described may not be correct, based on the earlier discussion in IR 4.60 about origin-destinations based on BIT data and overall facility capacity. In any case, the methodology used to assign collision numbers to specific routes is oversimplified and potentially erroneous. . The updated safety traffic analysis and modelling presented by CN for IR 4.62 to update CN’s response to IR 2.33 is still insufficient. The CN analysis has not used the best available data and methodologies to estimate the collision risks on the existing network or the collision risks associated with the Project-generated truck traffic. The analysis and assumptions within the reports are inconsistent with typical engineering approaches which affects results on environmental impacts: a) It does not take into account the ultimate/maximum terminal capacity and thus the corresponding truck trips from MIT (See Letter to the Panel dated July 12, 2018). b) Safety Performance Functions (SPFs) from the Region of Peel were used to calculate the overall safety impact of adding the assumed 1,600 truck trips per day to the system. SPFs for both major intersections and major roadway segments are available from the Region of Halton and should be used to calculate the overall safety impact of adding the additional truck trips per day. c) SPFs inherently assume a typical percentage of trucks (5-15% normally) and assume that if traffic increases on a road, the truck volume increases proportionally. In this case, 100% of the added volume is trucks, and the effect of this on the SPFs should be considered and stated explicitly. d) The calculation of the overall collision risk of additional heavy vehicles on regional roads was based on: the sampling of three major intersections; calculating the effect of trucks; and extrapolating one of three possible percentages (0.2%, 0.3%, or 0.9%) to all roads expected to be used by trucks. This practice of grouping individual sites to estimate overall network collision risk is not an industry-accepted practice and the results from this analysis are unreliable. The more accurate and typical approach, would be to calculate the impact on each intersection and road segment separately, based on Halton SPFs and Halton Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes (AADTs). e) The CN safety analysis uses a relative increase in collision frequency to assess the acceptability of the increase in collision risk resulting from the proposed facility. This sort of analysis ignores the relative safety of the intersection/segment and may not properly reflect the acceptability of the increase in collision risk. For example, a 0.7% net change in the percentage of collisions may not be acceptable at an intersection where the existing collision risk is higher than expected (i.e., a blackspot). The safety analysis should include the existing safety performance of the study area roadways, as determined through the Regional Comprehensive Road Safety Action Plan (i.e., the most recent network screening), and indicate where Project-generated traffic will exacerbate safety issues at intersections/segments that are already performing 4 poorly from a safety perspective. If there are any intersections/segments that have a poor safety performance, CN should propose remedial measures that will improve the safety performance before Project-generated trucks can use the route. f) The collision calculation should be revised to reflect the updated Project routing based on MIT-specific trips and the extra traffic, as proposed to be based on the ultimate/maximum capacity of the terminal. g) The Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes (AADTs) used were based on peak hour flows and a multiplicative factor. The calculation approach seems to underestimate these. In any case, Halton Region has AADTs for most major roads and these should be used in the calculations. . The collision record of a facility is only one measure of road safety. When considering a significant new development, it is commonplace for a quantitative safety analysis to be coupled with a road safety audit by a qualified road safety professional to identify latent safety issues that may become patent defects under the development-generated traffic. . The proposed facility will generate almost exclusively truck traffic that has safety issues that are unique to larger vehicles, not captured in CN’s analysis. CN should consider the following in its planning level quantitative safety analysis: a) Large commercial vehicles requiring longer braking distances and road sections or intersections with limited visibility may become more problematic as truck volumes increase. b) Compared to the car, the blind spots associated with a truck (i.e., the areas where the driver has an impaired field of view) are considerably greater. The extent of the vision impairment for truck drivers is in part due to the higher seating, and in part due to the design of the vehicle. The blind spots can be in front of, adjacent to and behind the truck. The ability of a trucker to detect other road users depends on the size of the user and her/his position in relation to the truck. Blind spots are a fundamental safety issue between trucks and unprotected road users at intersections and other points of conflict. When cyclists and pedestrians have the right-of-way, they assume that the truck driver can see them and assume that they will yield the right of way. This incorrect assumption concerning the truck driver’s ability to see what is going on around the truck can end in a serious crash. c) Trucks sharing the road with cyclists can also result in aerodynamic forces that increase sideswipe crash risk. A sideswipe crash between a truck and a cyclist is not always the result of a trucker or a cyclist selecting a speed and path combination that places the two users in conflict. In some instances, a crash can result when a fast- moving truck passes in close proximity to a cyclist, and the wind turbulence created by the truck essentially “sucks” the cyclist towards the truck, resulting in a crash. The magnitude of the aerodynamic effect is proportional to the size of the truck, the speed of the truck, and the lateral separation between the truck and the cyclist. d) Trucks are more prone to rollovers on tight curves and ramps than passenger cars. . The safety assessment of the schools (Section 3.2.1 of Attachment IR 2.33-4) are largely based on site observations. The duration and timing of the site observations are undocumented but are likely limited to a limited number of hours on a single day. A better indication of potential interactions between pedestrians and Project-generated trucks on the potential haul routes would be provided if it is known whether students reside on the opposite side of the haul route from the school, and whether the school policy is to bus the students or to permit them to walk to school. CN should consider this in its safety assessment. . The safety assessment does not take into account risks to pedestrians and cyclists by increased truck traffic in light of the planned cycling and walking facilities outlined in the Halton Region Active Transportation Master Plan (based on the Halton Region

5 Transportation Master Plan (2031) - See Map 3 and 4 of Appendix H.

Further 1) CN should recalculate the truck collision impact prediction based on: Information a) The proposed maximum truck volumes expected by 2031; Request b) Halton Safety Performance Functions; c) Individual intersection and section rates, not an extrapolation from three sites; d) Actual average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes from the Region (not factored rush hour volumes) and correct extrapolation of those AADTs to 2031; and e) The effect of adding 100% trucks on the Safety Performance Function calculations that are generally based on 5-15% trucks. 2) CN should identify if there are any high collision risk locations in the study area through which CN would be routing Project-generated traffic and identify proposed mitigation measures. 3) CN should consider the disproportionate effect of semi-trailer truck collisions on accident severity in terms of quantitative information on injury and fatality rates, in its risk assessment. 4) CN should conduct a road safety audit of the proposed haul routes to identify locations and features that present undue crash risk under Project-generated truck traffic, and propose suitable mitigation measures. 5) CN should provide an analysis of the safety impacts that are specific to truck traffic at intersections and along midblock sections and identify proposed mitigation measures. 6) CN should describe the catchment areas and busing policies for the area schools that have been identified as having a potential impact from the Project-generated truck traffic. 7) CN should provide an updated colour-coded figure depicting the 19 potential truck capable routes for the 2021 and 2031 scenarios showing the potential for impact to vehicular, cyclist and pedestrian safety of each route that is based on an analysis done with specific treatment of semi-trailer trucks. 8) In CN’s safety assessment of risks to pedestrians and cyclists, it should take into account the cycling and walking facilities that will be in place by 2031, as outlined in the Halton Region Active Transportation Master Plan (based on the Halton Region Transportation Master Plan (2031) - See Map 3 and 4 of Appendix H.

IR 4.63 TRUCK SAFETY AT ROUNDABOUTS Panel Request a) Describe the current magnitude, frequency and likelihood of pedestrian and cyclist accidents with trucks at roundabouts in southern Ontario or similar jurisdictions. Extrapolate those results to estimate the likely magnitude, frequency and likelihood of pedestrian and cyclist accidents associated with Project-generated truck traffic. b) Discuss what measures, if any, CN could take to minimize potential pedestrian and cyclist safety risks from Project-generated traffic use of roundabouts. Valued G.4 Urban Settings; G.2 Human Safety Conditions Components Rationale The extrapolation of data from the Waterloo Region to the study area roundabouts did not account for the Project-generated traffic from the CN facility being entirely heavy goods vehicles. These types of vehicles have larger blind spots and greater difficulty in detecting smaller road users (such as cyclists and pedestrians) that are close to their vehicles. The impact of the Project- generated truck traffic on pedestrian and cyclist safety at the study area roundabouts is not a direct extrapolation of the Waterloo Region data, and is, therefore, underestimated. CN should calculate the frequency and likelihood of pedestrian and cyclist accidents associated with Project- generated truck traffic using proper statistical methods, and have the statistics stated in terms of actual frequency, so that the impact can be understood.

6 Further, CN’s response is insufficient in that it does not address the request for a description of accident magnitude. Accidents between large commercial vehicles and pedestrians/cyclists, even at low speeds, typically result in casualties, as opposed to property damage only. While the frequency or likelihood of pedestrian and cyclist accidents with trucks may be low, the severity of such accidents is typically very high, resulting in a higher overall collision risk than that portrayed in CN’s response. CN’s assessment does not take into account risks to pedestrians and cyclists by increased truck traffic in light of the planned cycling and walking facilities outlined in the Halton Region Active Transportation Master Plan (based on the Halton Region Transportation Master Plan (2031) - See Map 3 and 4 of Appendix H. The mitigation measures proposed in CN’s response are insufficient. Directing CNTL traffic to Highway 407 will likely only impact a minor percentage of the Project-generated truck traffic. The mitigation measures recommended do not address the impact of non-CNTL Project-generated truck traffic, which is the majority of the expected Project-generated truck traffic, on pedestrian and cyclist safety at roundabouts. Further 1) Provide the basis for the assumption that “similar collision risks to those observed at the Information Region of Waterloo roundabouts” is an appropriate extrapolation to the Tremaine Road Request roundabouts with Project-generated truck traffic. 2) The relationship between the truck volumes at roundabouts in Waterloo and truck volumes projected at roundabouts on Britannia Road should be calculated and used in predicting the exact number of truck collisions including truck/cyclist and truck/pedestrian collisions, and their projected severity, expected at the Britannia Road roundabouts. 3) Describe the accident magnitude between pedestrian and cyclist accidents associated with Project-generated truck traffic, , taking into account existing walking and cycling infrastructure (Map 1 and 2 of Appendix H of the Active Transportation Master Plan) and planned walking and cycling infrastructure to implemented before 2031 (Map 3 and 4 of Appendix H of the Active Transportation Master Plan). 4) Describe what specific mitigation measures, if any, CN would take to minimize potential pedestrian/cyclist collision risk from Project-generated truck traffic at the Tremaine Road roundabouts, , also taking into account when planned walking and cycling infrastructure is in place, as outlined in the Active Transportation Master Plan .

IR 4.64 REPRESENTATIVENESS OF AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS Panel Request a) Provide additional information to describe how the baseline ambient noise data is representative, despite the weather that was experienced during measurements and the statistical uncertainties associated with the measurements. The statistical uncertainties should take into consideration, among other things, the changing meteorological conditions that occurred over the measurement period. If necessary, provide a revised estimate of baseline ambient noise levels.

Valued C.2 Ambient noise levels on residences Components Rationale Insufficient data has been provided to determine if the baseline ambient noise data (expressed as Ldn, the day-night average noise level) is representative, and if the weather and other adjustments have been made correctly. A review of the data indicates additional uncertainty in the noise measurements arising from missing information on duration of measurements, season, quality of weather data used in the exclusion analysis, and in the environmental differences between the location where the measurement was conducted and the receptor location.

7 Further 1) Provide all base data, any calculations, and spreadsheets that were used in determining the Information adjusted LDN values discussed in the response to this IR. Request

IR 4.65 APPLICABILITY OF THE AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS AT THE POINTS OF RECEPTION Panel Request a) Provide additional detail about how the monitoring stations were selected and how they are representative of the points of reception. b) Conduct road and rail traffic noise modelling to validate the estimated noise effects at all points of reception.

Valued C.2 Ambient noise levels on residences Components Rationale The requested road and rail traffic noise modelling to validate results from the selected monitoring stations was not adequately performed. This modelling is important in order to ensure that the measurements to establish baseline ambient noise levels were representative of actual baseline conditions. A number of issues were identified with several of the measurements taken at various receptors. Given the number of receptor locations and the complexity of the Project, road and rail traffic noise modelling to validate the estimated baseline ambient noise levels at all points of reception is warranted.

Further 1) Conduct road and rail traffic noise modelling to validate the estimated baseline ambient noise Information levels at all points of reception (POR). Include the effects of self-screening by the receptor Request building itself in determining baseline sound levels. All supporting calculations should be provided so that the validity of the results can be assessed.

IR 4.66 ADDITIONAL NOISE SOURCES Panel Request a) Revise the noise assessment for the construction and operation phases to include noise from off-site trucks (e.g. pass-by noise, including engine brakes where appropriate) along the various potential truck routes. Impulsive noise from tailgate slams should also be considered as a noise source in the construction scenario. If appropriate, this assessment should also include additional sensitive receptors that may be affected by these additional noise sources.

Valued C.2 Ambient noise levels on residences Components

Rationale From the Project truck volume data provided in Attachment IR 4.66-1, the two main haul routes from the project are (a) Britannia Road east towards Highway 407; and (b) Tremaine Road north to Highway 401. Only an assessment of the Britannia Road route has been completed. In addition, in the assessment of the Britannia Road route, missing information results in difficulties in assessing the validity of the results presented. For example, no calculations were provided. As well, while table IR 4.66-1 provides Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) values, the numbers provided are only for the year 2031, not for existing conditions. As the CN facility may be in operation prior to 2031, the use of future forecast traffic volumes as background traffic is inappropriate, as it will underestimate potential haul route noise impacts. The second major haul route is along Tremaine Road, which would require completion of the Tremaine Road realignment and construction of the interchange at Highway 401. The traffic volumes used on the haul route analysis along Britannia Road assume this realignment and interchange will be in place. If the CN facility is in operation prior to these road network improvements taking place, then that truck traffic would also need to travel along Britannia Road or other local roads, increasing the potential for noise impacts. An assessment of the Tremaine

8 Road leg of the haul route should be completed. A discussion of the impacts of a delay in the opening of the Tremaine Road realignment on haul route noise impacts should also be provided.

Further 1) Provide an assessment of haul route noise impacts along Tremaine Road as well as Britannia Information Road, assessing overall sound levels as well as change from existing levels. Supporting Request calculations are required. 2) In the Tremaine Road analysis, discuss the effect of timing of road network improvements such as the Tremaine Road realignment and interchange construction on predicted haul route noise levels.

IR 4.67 ADJUSTMENT VALUES FOR NOISE SOURCES Panel Request a) Explain how noise adjustment values were derived, reference standards used, and justify whether these values represent an appropriately conservative approach. b) If necessary, provide revised sound character adjustments for Table 4.5 of Appendix E.10 to include more conservative adjustment factors identified in International Organization for Standardization ISO 1996-1:2003 and Health Canada’s guidance. c) Provide a revised noise assessment using the updated values, and, if necessary, discuss any additional mitigation measures that might be required. Valued C.2 Ambient noise levels on residences Components Rationale There were some issues with how certain noise sources were classified. Train assembly noise is incorrectly identified as a “regular impulsive noise” source with a “regular impulsive penalty” of 5 dB being applied. Examples of “highly impulsive sound sources” are provided in ISO 1996-1 and include noises such as metal impacts in rail-yard shunting operations. While not a classification yard, the proposed CN Intermodal Terminal will include coupling and uncoupling of trains as part of “doubling over” and assembling trains to leave the terminal (a shunting operation). There will be “knuckle thump” noise as the trains leave. These are defined as “high-level intensive impulse noise” in the CTA Railway Noise Measurement and Reporting Methodology (Canadian Transportation Agency, 2011) guidelines. These would be most appropriately classified as “highly impulsive sound sources”. Therefore, in accordance with ISO 1996-1 and CTA guidance, +12 dB penalty for “highly impulsive sound sources” should be applied.

Further 1) Provide revised sound character adjustments for Table 4.5 of Appendix E.10 to include more Information conservative adjustment factors identified in International Organization for Standardization Request ISO 1996-1:2003 and Health Canada’s guidance. 2) Provide a revised noise assessment using the updated values, and, if necessary, discuss any additional mitigation measures that might be required.

IR 4.68 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE NOISE SOURCES Panel Request a) Provide a detailed description of all of the noise sources assumed in the model. For construction and operations, include the 1/1 octave band sound power data, source location, movements, speeds, operating time, adjustment values (e.g. tonal, highly impulsive, beating), frequency of occurrence, type (area vs. point source), and other relevant information. Provide a detailed discussion on how the sound power level data for each noise source was derived. In addition, explain why the data represents conservative values. A rationale should be provided if noise sources were deemed to be insignificant and excluded from the assessment. b) Clarify the number of idling locomotives that may be expected in a worst-case scenario. c) Clarify if the stretching and compression of trains and brake and squeal noises were considered in the assessment and how those noise sources were modelled. d) Discuss the effect of back-up alarms, their effect on potential noise effects, and ways to mitigate

9 disturbances. e) If necessary, provide details on any additional noise mitigation measures that might be required. Valued C.2 Ambient noise levels on residences Components Rationale Noise impacts are underpredicted for the following reasons: . Sound power levels for the trains of 94 dBA for a single locomotive and 97 dBA for a double locomotive set were provided, based on measurements conducted by Stantec. CTA (2011) lists the sound power level of a single idling diesel locomotive as 107 dBA. No additional background data in the measurement was provided. Given the inconsistency with historical data, the idling locomotive power levels used in CN’s analysis are likely too low and non-conservative. . Regarding the number of locomotives, freight trains typically incorporate up to 4 locomotives for a 140-car train. Therefore, the assumption of three idling locomotives is not conservative. . In the response to IR 4.79, CN indicated that prior to the departure, an outbound train may idle on the “terminal leads” for some period of time. The terminal leads are located on the portion of the track north of Louis St. Laurent Ave (see Attachment IR 4.79-1), near existing and approved residences. Train idling at three locations were not included in the noise assessment and should be, particularly when assessing against the NPC-300 / RAC/FCM stationary source facility noise guidelines. . Some containers brought into the facility will have built in heating and cooling equipment, and are listed as Heated Containers (CHE_1_S), Domestic Reefers (DRE_1_S), and International Reefers (IRE_1_S). From Table IR 4.68-2, over the modelled day there are: a) 200 Domestic Reefers b) 32 Heated Containers c) 96 International Reefers These units operate continuously on-site while they are on the train, while they are unloaded and stacked on the ground, and while they wait until they are shipped off-site. However, the noise modelling appears to only consider noise from these units during the brief period while they are being driven off-site. Accordingly, this underpredicts potential noise impacts. . Stretching and Compression of Trains: It is acknowledged that the Terminal is not designed for train assembly. However, the proposed CN Intermodal Terminal will include coupling and uncoupling of trains as part of “doubling over” and assembling trains to leave the terminal (a shunting operation). There will be “knuckle thump” noise as the trains are stretched and compressed when they leave. Impulsive noise impacts from this activity should be considered in the EIS. . Wheel Squeal: Wheel squeal is caused by lateral slippage of the train wheels over the track as the train negotiates a curve. U.S. FTA Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Report 23, Wheel /Rail Noise Control Manual (1997), states that “For a wheel base of 7.5 ft, squeal would not be expected for curve radii greater than 410 to 830 ft”. CN should confirm if the proposed curve radii meet this assumption, otherwise wheel squeal should be included as a potential noise source. Further 1) Provide updated operational noise modelling. The noise modelling should: Information a) Use conservative noise emission values for locomotives consistent with values provided Request by CTA, of 107 dBA sound power level for a single idling locomotive; b) Include trains idling at the Terminal Lead locations; c) Include an assessment of noise from heated/cooled containers (“reefers”) as they sit on- site in the facility, and not just as they are trucked out;

10 d) Includes impulsive noise from coupling and uncoupling and stretching of trains (knuckle thumps); and e) Include wheel squeal as a noise source, where CN confirms if track turning radii are greater than 410 ft. 2) CN’s updated modelling should compare predicted impacts versus the RAC/FCM and MOECP NPC-300 stationary source facility guidelines, as well as the HC/ FTA guidelines adopted in the assessment.

IR 4.71 RECEPTOR HEIGHTS Panel Request a) Provide the height of the points of reception used in the noise model. Valued C.2 Ambient noise levels on residences Components Rationale Attachment IR 4.71-1 provides the “Assumed Noise Receptor Building Heights”. There are a number of inconsistencies, which can affect prediction results and evaluations of the effectiveness of noise barriers. . G1-POR023 is actually 2 storeys high. A receptor height of 4.5 m should have been used. . G1-POR025 is currently vacant. To be consistent with the surrounding land uses, a receptor height of 4.5 m should have been used. . G1-POR026 is actually 2 storeys high. A receptor height of 4.5 m should have been used. . G2-POR001 through 004 are in existing homes in the Boyne Secondary Plan Area which include 3-storey residences as well as 2-storey homes. A 3-storey receptor height of 7.5m should have been used. . G3-POR001 through 008 are intended to represent future homes in the Boyne Secondary Plan Area. Again, 2-storey homes were modelled. However, as discussed above, 3-storey homes are characteristic of the area. A 3-storey receptor height of 7.5 m should have been used. Further 1) Provide a revised noise assessment using the correct receptor heights as per above. Information Request

IR 4.73 COMPARISON TO OTHER GUIDELINES Panel Request a) Compare and evaluate any updated noise assessment relative to the other guidelines and their criteria identified in the rationale. The noise assessment should include predictions of hourly sound levels from stationary noise sources (Leq(1hr)); the worst-case hourly Leq sound levels from stationary noise sources (continuous noise); an assessment of the tonality of noise sources; and an assessment of the impulsive sound levels using logarithmic mean impulse sound level analysis. b) Discuss whether the planned construction equipment would meet the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change’s NPC-115 guidance document.

Valued C.2 Ambient noise levels on residences Components Rationale CN states that the assessment technique used is consistent with CTA’s methodology. This is not the case. In the Railway Noise Measurement and Reporting Methodology (CTA, 2011), intermodal facilities are specifically identified as a type of “Stationary Source Facility” (pg. 25 of CTA document). For this type of facility, the guideline requires the use of hourly sound exposures (Leq (1-hr) values, in dBA) when assessing noise impacts from these types of facility. The approach followed by CN is not consistent with this recommendation.

11 Similarly, the Guidelines for New Development in Proximity to Railway Operations (Railway Association of Canada and Federation of Canadian Municipalities, 2013) also provide recommended hourly Leq (1-hr) sound limits which the CN EIS does not address. These limits were adopted from MOECP Publication NPC-300. CN in the IR states that these guidelines “are intended for use by municipalities and provincial governments, municipal staff, railways, developers and property owners when developing lands in proximity to railway operations”. The proposed intermodal facility is a development, by a railway, adjacent to railway operations. While the RAC/FCM guidelines note that “evaluations of new rail facilities or significant rail expansions are conducted in accordance with applicable Federal regulations”, this does not mean that the RAC/FCM and other guidelines cannot be used in addition. CN states that the MOECP NPC-300 guidelines “provide sound level limits and advice when land use planning decisions are made”. Compliance with the guideline is also required by all industrial facilities as part of their on-going operations. CN states that the Health Canada approach is “more comprehensive”. This is not the case. The NPC-300 approach, including the approach to address impulsive noise, provides a more rigorous assessment and one which better addresses the potential for noise impacts from industrial facilities such as the proposed CN terminal. CN notes repeatedly that future developments will be subject to the RAC/FCM and NPC-300 limits, through the land use planning approval process. By not adopting the same guidelines and approach in the EIS assessment, CN sets up a situation where already approved developments, for example in the Boyne Secondary Plan Area, may be placed out of compliance with the NPC-300 guidelines by the addition of the intermodal facility, affecting their ability to proceed.

Further 1) Compare and evaluate any updated noise assessment relative to MOECP Publication NPC-300, Information and the RAC/FCM Proximity Guidelines. The noise assessment should include predictions of Request hourly sound levels from stationary noise sources (Leq(1hr); the worst-case hourly Leq sound levels from stationary noise sources (continuous noise); an assessment of the tonality of noise sources; and an assessment of the impulsive sound levels using logarithmic mean impulse sound level analysis.

IR 4.74 CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCES Panel Request a) Provide additional detail on how construction noise was modelled and clarify whether noise was modelled as an area source or a point source. If most construction noise sources were modelled as an area source, conduct additional modelling based on construction noise sources originating at specific locations (worst-case scenario including locations closer to points of reception).

Valued C.2 Ambient noise levels on residences Components Rationale Noise effects from construction have been underestimated. From CN’s response, only one facility was considered to be in a stationary location - the concrete batch plant. However, other operations will be localized in one area for much of the construction phase, with significant amounts of equipment operating for extended periods of time, including: . The construction of the two grade separations; . Construction of facility buildings; and . Pipeline Relocation and Horizontal Directional Drilling. These activities will occur near clusters of existing residences. Treating these sources as part of an overall area source instead of as point sources will likely under-predict construction noise impacts.

Further 1) Conduct additional modelling based on construction noise sources originating at specific Information locations (worst-case scenario including locations closer to points of reception), including Request construction activities at the grade separations, activities at facility buildings, and activities for pipeline relocation and horizontal directional drilling.

12 IR 4.75 SELF-SCREENING FROM BUILDINGS Panel Request a) Explain whether self-screening from receptor buildings was considered in the ambient noise baseline study. If necessary, adjust the background ambient noise levels to account for self-screening from receptor buildings. Valued C.2 Ambient noise levels on residences Components Rationale The Panel’s request has not been answered. The issue is not related to whether the Monitoring Locations were screened by intervening buildings; rather it is related to the fact that the actual houses which are the points of reception provide their own “self-screening” which creates different exposures to noise sources in the environment. Baseline ambient noise levels in an unscreened area do not necessarily represent the baseline ambient sound levels received at different facades of a home. Adjustments for self-screening need to be made.

Further 1) Review the location of points of reception with respect to roadways and railways, and adjust Information the background ambient noise levels to account for self-screening from receptor buildings. Request

IR 4.76 CONTRIBUTION OF NOISE SOURCES AT POINTS OF RECEPTION Panel Request a) Provide a table that identifies the noise contribution of individual noise sources for each point of reception.

Valued C.2 Ambient noise levels on residences Components Rationale Tables showing the sound level contribution from each source at a given point of reception are useful as they provide information on what sources are providing the greatest contribution to facility noise levels and can therefore serve as an useful check to ensure that appropriate penalties are applied and noise mitigation measures specified. The Cadna/A computerized noise model used by CN in the assessment can easily provide this information, however it was not provided. This information is important to determine the magnitude of resulting noise levels at residential receptors.

Further 1) Provide a table that identifies the noise contribution of individual noise sources for each point Information of reception. Request

IR 4.77 EXISTING AND FUTURE RECEPTORS Panel Request a) Revise the noise analysis to include all existing and future sensitive receptors within 1 km of the property line that may be occupied by the time the Project would reach full operations in 2031, including houses located on CN land. Provide a rationale for the exclusion of any particular receptors in the assessment.

Valued C.2 Ambient noise levels on residences Components Rationale In the point of reception example provided by CN in its response, POR G2-POR001 is stated to be representative of impacts of an area covering approximately 1 Ha, comprised of hundreds of existing homes. The chosen receptor is located adjacent to the rail line. This would not be a worst- case receptor with respect to noise from the main intermodal facility. Thus, G2-POR001 is not necessarily representative of worst case impacts. Additional PORs are required in the Boyne Secondary Plan Area and within 1 km of the property boundary, in order to quantify potential noise impacts.

13 Further 1) Revise the noise analysis to include additional receptors within the Boyne Secondary Plan Area Information and to address existing sensitive receptors within 1 km of the property line of the facility. Request

IR 4.78 SLEEP DISTURBANCE Panel Request a) Provide an assessment of sleep disturbance for the construction and operational scenarios using Health Canada's Guidance for Evaluating Human Health Impacts in Environmental Assessment: Noise (2017).

Valued C.2 Ambient noise levels on residences Components Rationale The sleep disturbance assessment was not appropriately performed using the above Health Canada guideline. Sleep Disturbance is assessed separately from the “percent highly annoyed” calculations done in the EIS, and is based on night-time LN sound levels and an assessment of the frequency of noise levels exceeding 45 dBA indoors. Further 1) Provide an assessment of sleep disturbance for the construction and operational scenarios Information using Health Canada's Guidance for Evaluating Human Health Impacts in Environmental Request Assessment: Noise (2017).

IR 4.85 VIBRATION EFFECTS FOR PARTICIPATING RECEPTORS Panel Request a) Provide an assessment of Project vibration effects on participating receptors and points of reception within 100 meters from all vibration sources.

Valued C.2 Ambient noise levels on residences Components Rationale Construction vibration impacts at participating receptors have not been discussed. Two participating receptors, E19 and E20, are located in close proximity to the rail grade separation that will be constructed as part of the project. Construction vibration, especially from pile driving, may affect these locations.

Further 1) Provide an assessment of construction vibration impacts at participating receptors, Information particularly E19 and E20. Request

14 HALTON REGION – COMMENTS REGARDING SUFFICIENCY OF RESPONSES TO PANEL IR-5

IR 5.1 CONSOLIDATED TABLE OF MITIGATION MEASURES AND PROPONENT COMMITMENTS Panel Request a) Provide a consolidated table with all of the mitigation measures presented in the EIS, technical data reports, Appendix G, responses to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s Additional Information Requirements and responses to the Review Panel’s information requests. In order to determine the significance of effects after mitigation the Review Panel will consider mainly the mitigation measures included in this table, therefore the table must be complete. The consolidated table should: • Describe how CN intends to implement mitigation measures that are described in a flexible manner (e.g., “as required”, “if needed”, “where appropriate”), including a description of the specific criteria or environmental outcome required to initiate that mitigation measure. • Predict the effectiveness of each of the proposed mitigation measures and provide a rationale to support these conclusions. • Identify who would be responsible for the implementation of each proposed mitigation measure, whether CN, a third-party contractor for CN, or other organizations. • Where appropriate, and in a format similar to Table 7.1, clearly indicate which change to the environment or environmental effect a particular mitigation measure is intended to address. • The response to this information request should be provided in CN’s last response to the Review Panel’s first round of information request packages. For instance, if responses to Package 4 are submitted to the Review Panel after the responses to Package 5, provide this response with package 4 to ensure it is reflective of all identified mitigation measures. Valued F.1 Species at Risk (Terrestrial) Components Rationale Attachment IR 5.1-1 is incomplete in terms of its treatment of Species At Risk, for the following reasons: . The table addresses only the Species at Risk and their habitats that are federally regulated under SARA. . Furthermore, not all of the potentially occurring federally regulated Species at Risk are even addressed in Attachment IR 5.1-1, and those that are, are not adequately addressed due to inadequate baseline field surveys. . There is still inadequate documentation of bats/bat roosting habitat, Western Chorus Frog, and Jefferson Salamander. For example, there are concerns related to the information provided for the following Species at Risk: a) Western Chorus Frog: CN indicated that the additional frog surveys to be conducted in 2017 would follow the Western Chorus Frog Survey Protocol developed in consultation with ECCC staff. However, it remains unclear whether the protocol was followed with respect to all suitable locations being surveyed. The protocol stipulated that “biologists will wander the PDA and LAA targeting previously identified amphibian call count stations…, and will supplement these stations based on the presence of appropriate habitat features observed.” Several potentially suitable features do not appear to have been surveyed in 2017 rendering the assessment of effects potentially inaccurate. b) Snapping Turtle: Impacts on existing turtle nesting activity within the PDA or LAA or their likely movements beyond existing riparian habitats are not addressed in Attachment 5.1-1, likely because adequate baseline surveys to document turtle nesting were not conducted. As a result, the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures cannot be reliably evaluated.

1 c) Species at Risk bats: Despite the fact that an endangered species of bat was documented during field surveys, CN’s assessment of bats (including impacts and mitigation measures) remains inadequate because: (1) not all potentially suitable bat roosting habitat was surveyed, (2) the acoustic surveys that were conducted were inadequate because they were not conducted according to standard protocols nor did they use reliable software technology, and (3) interpretation of the data collected was unsubstantiated and contradictory. d) Jefferson Salamander: This species is not addressed at all in CN’s response to IR 5.1. Surveys were not conducted according to accepted survey protocols and therefore potential impacts on the species cannot be currently assessed, nor can any mitigation measures be proposed. . Mitigation should include consideration of restoration of habitat within a natural heritage system. A case in point is the mitigation for snapping turtle: “CN will place permanent exclusionary fencing between retained/enhanced turtle habitat and the Terminal to avoid interactions with turtles and Project vehicular traffic.” This may result in isolation of the habitat enhancement areas. Further 1. Consider provincially designated Species At Risk, and conduct further baseline studies to Information confirm presence of all federally listed Species At Risk that may occur in the PDA. Request 2. Better explain whether the 2017 protocols for surveying Western Chorus Frog followed ECCC guidance in respect of all suitable locations. 3. Conduct baseline studies for the Snapping Turtle according to accepted protocols, so that reporting on existing turtle nesting activity and movements within the PDA can be provided. 4. Conduct appropriate field surveys for bats, surveying all potentially suitable bat roosting habitat in the PDA, re-conducting acoustic surveys using accepted protocols and software tools, and providing more detailed and substantiated analysis for the resulting data. 5. Regarding the Jefferson Salamander, conduct surveys in accordance with accepted protocols so that effects can be assessed and mitigation proposed.

IR 5.2 EFFECTS OF PAST PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES Panel Request a) Provide a cumulative effects assessment that clearly describes: • how the valued components have been affected by past and ongoing activities; • how the Project’s and other future projects’ residual effects would further affect the condition of the valued components; and • the overall cumulative effects to each valued component from the selected past condition to predicted future conditions Ensure that responses to all other information requests asking for a cumulative effects assessment reflect this directive. Valued G.4. Urban Settings Components

Rationale CN has not provided a cumulative effects assessment with respect to how the Project will interact with other developments in the area to impact compatibility with the land use planning targets set to 2031, including employment density targets. The relevant urban structure has been approved as is expected to develop within the 2031 time frame, and is set out clearly in the Region’s Official Plan and the Town of Milton’s Official Plan. The Regional Official Plan and the Town Official Plan should therefore be the baseline for assessing cumulative impacts.

2 Further 1) A cumulative effects assessment that includes a full review of all development approved in the Information Regional Official Plan and Town of Milton Official Plan, including proposed and approved Request secondary plan areas, is required. In particular, how these projects may combine to impact the Town’s ability to meet employment density targets should be discussed.

IR 5.3 LIST OF PROJECTS CONSIDERED Panel Request a) Explain how the list of projects considered in the cumulative effects assessment was established and how CN used the regional and municipal land use plans to inform the list. Explain why the Milton Education Village was not considered, or revise the cumulative effects assessment to include this project. b) If additional certain or reasonably foreseeable projects and activities are identified within the official plans, update the cumulative effects assessment to indicate how the effects of those projects and activities would combine with the residual effects of the Project. Where applicable, ensure that responses to all other information requests related to the cumulative effects assessment reflect this directive.

Valued G.4. Urban Settings Components

Rationale CN has not considered all projects set out in the Regional Official Plan and the Town of Milton Official Plan, which have clearly set out the urban structure to 2031. This urban structure has been approved and is expected to develop within the 2031 time frame. The Regional Official Plan and the Town Official Plan should be the baseline for assessing cumulative impacts. Without the inclusion of this future urban structure, the cumulative effects assessment is incomplete. Further 1) A cumulative effects assessment that includes a full review of all development approved in the Information Regional Official Plan and Town of Milton Official Plan, including proposed and approved Request secondary plan areas, is required.

IR 5.4 LIGHT Panel Request a) Provide a cumulative effects assessment for light, taking into consideration planned future development in the Project vicinity including roadway lighting. The assessment should include factors such as glare, light spill and skyglow. The assessment should consider the effects of this lighting on nearby residences, stargazing as a recreational activity and wildlife such as migratory birds. Valued C.3 Ambient night-time levels Components

Rationale Predicting future values of sky glow is a challenging problem and the CN response does not provide critical details needed to assess the quality of these predictions. Lacking this information, (or any evaluation of the uncertainties in the 2021 predictions), it is impossible to ascertain the validity of the entries in Table IR 5.4.1. Further 1) Provide justification of the numbers presented in Table IR 5.4.1 (copied from IR 4.2-1). Details, Information rationales and calculations are missing, and need to be provided in sufficient detail so that the Request assumptions and calculation methodology can be readily understood.

IR 5.5 HUMAN HEALTH Panel Request a) Conduct a cumulative effects assessment for human health that considers all residual effects of the Project on human health, including any increases to the incremental lifetime cancer risk, regardless of whether target benchmarks or thresholds are exceeded. If applicable, in developing the response to this information request, consider responses to other 3 information requests in package 4.1, namely information request 4.27 (Exposure pathways to human health effects).

Valued G.1 Human Health Conditions Components

Rationale No explanation has been provided as to how or why the cumulative risk of developing cancer over a lifetime with the addition of Project-related emissions is 50.000000133%. Further 1) Please explain why the “cumulative” risk of developing cancer over a lifetime with the addition Information of Project-related emissions is 50.000000133%”. Request

IR 5.6 AGRICULTURAL AREAS Panel Request a) Explain how CN calculated that the conversion of 30 hectares represents approximately 0.1% of the total agricultural land within the regional assessment area. b) Conduct a cumulative effects assessment for agricultural lands that describes past and reasonably foreseeable future conversions of lands used for agricultural purposes in the regional assessment area, regardless of whether these lands were classified as Agricultural Areas or Prime Agricultural Areas. Describe the socio-economic effects of the past and anticipated future conversions in the regional assessment area.

Valued G.3 Rural settings Components Rationale The directions provided to CN by the Panel are very specific requesting a cumulative effects assessment in the regional assessment area and a description of the socio-economic effects. However, the work that has been completed by CN provides data but does not give sufficient attention to the socio-economic effects within the regional assessment area. The information on socio-economic effects is important to understand the effects of development on farmer livelihoods, on rural society, on the economic viability and health of the agricultural sector and of the various businesses and activities that support it. This information is also relevant to the social and economic circumstances that impact agriculture in the RAA. This focus on farmers and communities is reiterated in the Panel’s rationale: “CN should consider this effect in the context of past and reasonably foreseeable future losses and socioeconomic effects on farmers or communities in the regional assessment area.” It is noted that the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) has recently released a Guidance Document for Agricultural Impact Assessments which can be considered.

Further 1) Describe the socio-economic effects of the past and anticipated future conversions in the Information regional assessment area. Request

IR 5.7 MIGRATORY BIRDS Panel Request a) Provide additional information on the quantity of suitable migratory bird habitat that currently exists within the regional assessment area, and which would continue to exist after consideration of all reasonably foreseeable future projects and activities. Compare the amount of migratory bird habitat that would be affected by the Project to the amount of available migratory bird habitat in the regional assessment area. b) Provide evidence to support the conclusion that migratory bird populations would not measurably decline in the regional assessment area, as a result of Project-related construction or operations. c) Based on the findings in the EIS, estimate the Project-related migratory bird displacement and

4 mortality. Compare the extent of Project-related migratory bird displacement and mortality to the existing population of migratory birds in the regional assessment area.

Valued D.1 Migratory Bird Species; E.2 Migratory Bird Use of Area Components Rationale Further details are needed on the context of the restoration area, and the configuration, size, juxtaposition with other habitat and, where relevant, other adjacent existing and proposed land uses (including any expectation of future urbanization). Each of these factors are highly significant to the success of planned habitats for migratory birds. Mapping of off-site compensation using aerial photography would also assist in understanding the planned habitats for migratory birds in the area. Further 1) The extent of the off-site compensation habitat should be illustrated by a map overlaid on Information aerial photography, with adjacent development identified. Request

IR 5.8 SPECIES AT RISK Panel Request a) Provide additional information on the quantity of suitable species at risk habitat that exists within the regional assessment area. Compare the amount of species at risk habitat that would be affected by the Project to the amount of available species at risk habitat in the regional assessment area. b) Provide evidence to support the conclusion that the stability and long-term survival of species at risk populations would not likely be affected in the regional assessment area. c) Based on the findings in the EIS, estimate the Project-related species at risk mortality. Compare the extent of Project-related species at risk mortality to the existing population of species at risk in the regional assessment area.

Valued F.1 Species at Risk; F.2 Critical Habitat Components Rationale Insufficient analysis and identification of potential critical habitat has been provided. It appears that an overly narrow approach to defining “critical habitat” was undertaken as being connected to the recovery strategy of particular SARs. Additional critical habitat should be considered for the area, looking at factors including SAR, size of habitat, proximity of roads, and distance from property edge. In respect of the Luther Marsh area in particular, information should be provided on what type of habitat is being displaced in order to provide habitat for grassland birds, and how SAR present at Luther Marsh will be affected.

Further 1) Review the RAA to determine if there are additional areas of critical habitat which should form Information a part of the habitat strategy. Request 2) In respect of Luther Marsh, please explain what type of habitat is being displaced, and identify the SAR in this area and explain how they will be impacted.

IR 5.9 FISH AND FISH HABITAT Panel Request a) Conduct a cumulative effects assessment for fish and fish habitat that is not limited to CRA fisheries and that also considers the cumulative effects to fish and fish habitat from all pathways, in addition to direct fish mortality. Valued D.1 Fish Populations; D.3 Fish Habitat Components Rationale One of the major impacts of the Project to fish habitat is the realignment and shortening of Indian Creek. The basis for the prediction of residual adverse effects being limited to the change in fish

5 mortality during construction is that habitat improvements will result in “improved” fish habitat that will offset the loss in amount of fish habitat. To date, insufficient information has been provided to support this conclusion. Insufficient baseline information has not been given so that the projected impact of changes to the habitat can be understood, and no definition has been provided as to the meaning of “improved” fish habitat. Further 1) Provide a more detailed and specific description of existing conditions and future conditions to Information assess the claim that the future habitat will be of higher quality than the existing habitat. Request Changes in habitat area, by habitat type, are required. The metrics to be used to assess fish habitat value and the relative habitat value of the existing channel, the proposed new channel, and the proposed seasonally connected wetlands are required in order to predict the effectiveness of offsetting measures.

IR 5.11 FOLLOW-UP PROGRAMS Panel Request a) Explain why CN did not propose follow-up programs for light, vegetation and soils, wildlife and wildlife habitat, human health, effects of the environment on the project, accidents and malfunctions, waste management and truck traffic. Provide information to support CN’s determination that scientific uncertainty did not exist for these areas.

Valued C.3 Ambient night-time levels; G.1 Human Health Conditions; G.4. Urban Settings [All VCs Components applicable] Rationale CN’s conclusion that no follow-up programs were necessary, was based on the “results of the analysis of each discipline, level of certainty in the evaluation of potential effects and/or the confidence in the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures”. The basis for CN’s conclusion has not been properly substantiated and is thus technically deficient: . Accidents and malfunctions (which are quite likely to occur at some point) from the Project need to be assessed for their increased risk to the public. Any risk mitigation measures need to be defined, reviewed, quantified, and implemented. The claim by CN that such events are extreme events is erroneous, hence their suggestion that they will be managed routinely (contradicting their statement that they are extreme events) does not provide the information requested on need for a follow-up program. Only a formal risk assessment will reveal the degree of scientific uncertainty in the risk evaluation. . The response incorrectly characterizes preparedness and response planning as an effective way to prevent accidents: “Emergency preparedness and response planning is an effective way to anticipate and prevent potential accidents and malfunctions”. This is incorrect. Preparedness planning is indeed geared towards anticipating potential outcomes; response planning is geared towards responding to those anticipated accidents and malfunctions. Preparedness and response planning are processes of the emergency management lifecycle with wholly different actions and tasks than preventative measures. . With respect to truck traffic, the CN response suggests that no follow-up will be required on the public roadways outside the boundaries of the multi-modal development, as the trucks from the proposed project are to be treated the same as all others on the roadway. This response does not mention that CN has the ability to manage the routing and behavior of the 20% of truck traffic directly under their control (IR 4.60 (d)). This response also assumes that the impacts of the development will be “typical” and that no CN contact or consultation with the Region or Town would be required immediately after opening, despite the prediction of 1600 truck trips daily. . The response incorrectly characterizes a severe weather event as an extreme and unlikely event. CN’s justification is that no follow-up program is needed ‘because potential effects are related to extreme and unlikely events occurring’. Speculating about the frequency of severe weather events does not respond to the original query; how CN will respond to

6 extreme and unlikely events occurring is precisely what was asked in this IR (and in IR 5.24). . Significant scientific uncertainty continues to exist regarding what vulnerable species at risk will be present in the riparian system after it is constructed. This can only be ascertained through adequate ecological monitoring. . CN has not demonstrated that there is a “low level of uncertainty” in all areas of impacts of lighting on the nighttime environment. There remains significant scientific uncertainty. . In respect of human health impacts, in order to justify its assessment that no follow-up programs were necessary, CN has stated that “negligible effects” are anticipated. However, CN has not explained what standards were used to determine the meaning of “negligible” and how the standards were applied. From examination of some effects, it appears that the effects would not be negligible. For example, the baseline plus project 24 3 hr average impact is 32 µg/m for PM2.5 (Table 5, EIS Appendix E.7), which would not result 3 in negligible health effects. Similarly, adding 1.2 µg/m to the annual average PM2.5 (Table 8) is also not negligible. No threshold has been found for PM2.5 effects, therefore applying a TRV is not appropriate because whether a preselected TRV is not exceeded is not determinative of whether there are negligible effects. . Overall, the level of detail that CN has provided for the project is too low to be able to properly understand the level of impacts. As a result, it cannot be properly determined that the mitigation proposed will be sufficient to render the impacts for light, vegetation and soils, wildlife and wildlife habitat, human health, effects of the environment on the project, accidents and malfunctions, waste management and truck traffic low enough not to require any (or very little) follow-up. As a result, an adaptive management plan for all project effects is critical. CN’s rationale for justifying no follow-up programs is also incomplete for the following reasons: . A site-specific follow up plan is requested in the absence of a submission of follow-up programs. CN argues that existing and proposed mitigation efforts are sufficient to generate certainty in their ability to handle both the ‘Effects of the Environment on the Project’ and ‘Accidents and Malfunctions’, thus requiring no follow-up programs. However, they also state in their reply to IR 5.24 that they are still developing a site- specific plan to cover incidents that may represent a potential hazard. Put another way, CN’s reasoning behind not providing a follow-up program for both areas is explicitly to provide a follow-up program in the form of a site-specific emergency response plan. . The lack of clear and coherent processes for notification and response coordination and testing in CN’s operations emergency response plan means that the CN response to both the ‘Effects of the Environment on the Project’ and the ‘Accidents and Malfunctions’ points are incomplete. Without proper notification and operational response coordination processes in place, it is even more important that CN continues to test and evaluate the impact of the Project on the surrounding area. CN assumes that their models for assessing impacts to the Project’s surroundings are accurate enough to not warrant continued testing and follow-up, even when factoring in additional monitoring throughout the construction phase to confirm their assessment models. However, these conditions will not remain static once the construction phase is complete, thus warranting a follow-up program for all matters related to impacts to the project’s surroundings, especially if these impacts may potentially affect human health, wildlife habitats, or property in any way. . The emergency plans submitted do not contain sufficient detail related to emergency responses to Accidents or Malfunctions that have a wider community impact. CN also asserts that Accidents and Malfunctions are addressed through emergency preparedness and response plans, but the existing CN plans and plan outlines provided do not include how to address the sudden onset of an accident or malfunction that has a wider community impact. 7 . CN asserts that no follow-up program specific to the effects of the environment on the Project is needed because their existing mitigation strategies are effective enough to address these disturbances. Mitigation strategies designed to buttress severe environmental events are never an appropriate substitute for proper contingency planning around operational response to those events; this level of contingency planning is not present in the information that CN has submitted. Further 1) In order to substantiate any conclusions on follow-up programs for accidents and Information malfunctions, CN must substantiate claims of their occurrences being “extreme and unlikely Request events” to a degree of scientific certainty, which would include defining and quantifying risk mitigation measures as part of a proper risk assessment. 2) CN should also provide information on proposed site accident and malfunction prevention programs. 3) With respect to truck traffic, a plan should be developed for at least one consultation with the roadway managers after the Project is opened to determine if any unusual, atypical effects on traffic flow or maintenance are occurring. 4) CN should provide site specific emergency response plan examples, which include: a) notification and notification thresholds for local and regional municipal emergency responders and emergency management teams; b) response procedures related to incidents which may create community wide impacts; c) a severe weather event; and d) common accidents. 5) An ecological monitoring program should be put in place after commencement of operations in order to determine impacts on species at risk in the area. 6) Regarding impacts of light, CN advised that they would have no follow-up programs but would plan to rely on their contractor to provide additional site observations/measurements. The plans for these follow-up actions need to be submitted along with mitigation steps to be taken if these actions fail to meet project metrics for minimizing glare, trespass and sky glow. 7) In respect of human health impacts, please outline what standards were used to determine that effects were “negligible” and explain how CN’s conclusions were reached. 8) Provide details on whether and when an adaptive management plan be put in place for all project effects, including for light, vegetation and soils, wildlife and wildlife habitat, human health, effects of the environment on the project, accidents and malfunctions, waste management and truck traffic.

IR 5.12 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING Panel Request a) Provide a complete list of construction monitoring commitments that CN plans to implement, including a description of any conditions that would require additional monitoring.

Valued G.4. Urban Settings; B.1 Groundwater Quantity and Quality Components Rationale Monitoring is important to be able to expeditiously identify deficiencies in any implemented mitigation measures, and to ensure that appropriate remedial or corrective action can be put in place in a timely manner. CN’s response did not address responsibility for an approach to or implementation of such remedial and corrective action. No monitoring measures have been identified relative to water quality for private wells. As well, insufficient information has been provided on the timing and substance of the construction projects. This information is necessary to understand the implications of the construction monitoring commitments that CN proposes to make.

8 Further 1) Provide greater detail to assess how the monitoring program will be implemented, including Information the responsible parties and accountabilities. Greater specificity is required with respect to the Request monitoring program to ensure that it is sufficient relative to the impacts or potential impacts that may result from construction. Include details on the monitoring of water quality issues relative to private wells. 2) Provide details of what construction projects will occur, and their timing.

IR 5.13 PARTICIPATION IN MONITORING PROGRAMS Panel Request a) Identify which regulatory bodies CN is required to involve in the design and implementation of follow- up programs and other monitoring activities and how they will be involved. b) Indicate which non-regulatory bodies, including expert authorities or public groups CN commits to involve in the design and implementation of its follow-up program and other monitoring activities, and how they would be involved. c) Clarify what specific follow-up programs Indigenous groups were invited to participate in as monitors, and how the Indigenous groups would be involved.

Valued All VCs are applicable. Components

Rationale Details have not been provided on the formal monitoring structure, such as the parties at the formal monitoring table, or the terms of reference for the monitoring group. This is required to properly understand how the monitoring will be undertaken and what kind of participation the groups involved will have.

Further 1) Explain the formal structure of the monitoring program, and identify those that are involved in Information actual decision-making versus just consultation. Please also provide the terms of reference for Request the monitoring group.

IR 5.15 REGULATORY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS Panel Request a) For each type of report that CN proposes to prepare, indicate: • the regulator(s) or applicable agencies that would receive a copy of each report; • the information CN anticipates will be sent to each regulator(s) or applicable agencies; and • the frequency and duration of reporting. Valued All VCs are applicable. Components

Rationale CN does not identify the Town of Milton or the Region of Halton as a regulator. However, the project will create local issues which will have to be regulated locally. Reporting by CN is therefore required by these municipalities in order to properly regulate the project impacts. Further 1) Clarify whether CN considers the Town of Milton or the Region of Halton as regulators. Information Indicate what reporting will be provided to these municipalities. Request

9 IR 5.16 OTHER REPORTING Panel Request a) Indicate with whom, other than regulators, CN commits to sharing information, what issues would be discussed in these reports and how frequently those reports will be shared. b) Specify what reports would be provided to Indigenous groups. Valued All VCs are applicable. Components

Rationale While CN provides general comments on the timing of the reports that will be shared with stakeholders and the public, important details are lacking. It is not clear that CN will produce or provide any reports other than those required by regulators. Furthermore, there is no indication as to the frequency with which reports will be made accessible to the stakeholders and public (i.e. annually, bi-annually, etc.). In addition, CN has not provided any details about who it intends to share information with other than “stakeholders”, “the public” and “the local community”. Further 1) Clarify whether CN will prepare any reports other than those mandated by the regulators, the Information frequency with which reports will be made available, and who CN considers the stakeholders Request to be with which it will share the reports.

IR 5.17 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLANS Panel Request a) Provide a preliminary environmental protection plan, emergency response plan, soil management plan, and an erosion and sedimentation control plan. Alternatively, provide examples of plans that CN has implemented at other similar facilities, with an indication of how a plan might be tailored for the context of the Milton Logistics Hub project. If applicable, in developing the response to this information request, consider responses to other information requests in this package, namely information request 5.24 (Emergency Response). Valued All VCs are applicable. Components Rationale Copies of any emergency response plans are necessary to assess the operational risk from the facility, and the extent to which any risk has been mitigated. Further, the EIS Guidelines require that such plans be provided: “The EIS will describe the safeguards that have been established to protect against such occurrences and the contingency and emergency response procedures in place if such events do occur.” This information is also essential to conduct the quantitative risk assessment. If the emergency response plans contain effective strategic and tactical responses, the risks to public safety and the environment will be lower. Further, in order to assess the current CN plans it is important to understand how they work in other locations. The Draft Milton Logistics Hub Emergency Response Plan Outline lacks avenues for integration into the Region’s and the Town of Milton’s emergency planning and response capabilities or processes into CN’s planning.

Further 1) Copies of emergency response plans that comply with local municipal requirements, both with Information strategic and tactical measures should be provided. Request 2) Site-specific emergency plans from other similar intermodal sites are requested, in order for Halton Region Emergency Management to assess and compare how CN integrates their response processes with local Emergency Management processes.

IR 5.19 ASSESSMENT OF SPECIFIC SCENARIOS Panel Request a) Describe the effects pathways for the traffic accidents scenario. b) Describe the effect pathways and residual effects for the derailment scenario. c) Provide additional information on the potential effects of accidents and malfunctions for all scenarios on air quality, as either an end point or as part of the assessment of effects on the various valued

10 components. If appropriate, describe additional mitigation or contingency measures to reduce or eliminate the effects of accidents and malfunctions on air quality. If applicable, in developing the response to this information request, consider responses to other information requests in this package, namely information requests 5.20 (Accidental fire scenario), and 5.21 (Trucks transporting dangerous goods scenario).

Valued G.4 Urban Settings; G.2 Human Safety Conditions Components Rationale CN’s response with respect to the effect pathways for the traffic accidents is insufficient. The analysis conducted by CN to estimate collision risk at the proposed entrance to the Project does not use the best available data, which seriously compromises the accuracy of the estimate. In fact, on its face, the analysis indicates that converting an intersection with three approaches to an intersection with four approaches (ie. adding the Project driveway) and increasing the volume of traffic using the intersection will decrease collision frequency. The safety analysts for CN acknowledge that this result is counterintuitive. This result is wrong. It is well known from research and studies that, all else being equal, three-leg intersections are safer than four-leg intersections, and intersections that process lower traffic volumes yield fewer crashes than similar intersections with higher volumes. The analysis is unreliable and cannot be used to make decisions concerning the relative safety of the proposed access. It should be redone using collision prediction equations that are readily available from the Region of Halton and/or replaced by an analysis of traffic conflicts using an intersection conflict index. Further analysis and assumptions provided in the safety analysis by 30 Forensics (now True North Safety Group) is inconsistent with typical engineering approaches: . The peak hour volumes provided in Table 3 (page 7) of Attachment IR 2.33-2 for the intersection of Britannia Road and Site Access do not match with the TIS conducted by the BA Group (Attachment IR 2.33-1 Figure 10, Figure 12, and Figure 15). In addition, the use of multiplicative factors applied to peak hour traffic flows to expand on short-term peak hour traffic counts for one day may not be giving a true representation of the annual average daily traffic. The Region maintains AADTs for its roadway network and thus the report should be revised by using AADTs maintained by the Region, instead of AADTs estimated based on multiplicative factors. . The peak hour truck volume shown is in Attachment IR 2.33-1 Figure 12 is 89, which appears to be included in the estimation of AADT in Table 3 (page 7) of Attachment IR 2.33-2. This 89 peak hour truck volume translates to a truck AADT of only 385 (based on multiplicative factor 4.32). However, an existing truck volume of the assumed 800 trucks is expected as per Table 8 of BA Group Report (Attachment IR 2.33-1 Figure 12), along with additional volume (320 in just the a.m. and p.m. peak) from the north leg of the intersection serving the proposed Boyne Survey, as discussed in section 6.2.3 of IR 2.33-1 . This also points out the weakness in either/both the methodology or the multiplicative factor. An alternate view is Table 3 which shows a 24-sidestreet background volume of 454 and a total of 806. This means the calculations used about 350 trucks exiting when their known number they have assumed is 800. The report should be revised by including a clarification and/or adjustment on the method used for the calculation of the traffic volumes using the terminal access intersection such that they match their expected truck and Boyne Survey traffic volumes. . Attachment IR 2.33-4 did not analyze the impact of increased traffic on the roadway segment of Britannia Road adjacent the proposed CN facility truck access - just the intersection. The impact of introducing the additional truck volumes on the adjacent roadway segment based on Halton Region mid-block SPFs should be analyzed. In addition, depending on the methodology and the basis of the SPF calculations, there may be collisions resulting from the introduction of an intersection into this road segment that are not predicted as part of the intersection calculation (such as rear-end collisions

11 beyond the immediate extents of the intersection), and the review should ensure that these collisions are captured by either the road segment or intersection calculations. CN’s response with respect to the effect pathways and residual effects for the derailment scenario is insufficient because the analysis and assumptions provided in the safety analysis by 30 Forensics (now True North Safety Group) are not supported with clearly supported assumptions and methodologies and do not provide sufficient information to assess risk: . Traffic accident effects include the release of dangerous goods and other cargo material that can have effects beyond a traffic impact or socio-economic impact, and can cause public injuries and fatalities. In Attachment 2.33-2, 30 Forensic Engineering indicates that the expected increase in collisions and public injuries from container trucks “are not anticipated to exceed that expected with an increase in traffic volumes at other four-leg intersections.” This methodology used is flawed and leads to incorrect conclusions. CN’s conclusions should be based on detailed qualitative information including the chances, consequences, and mitigations for effects of such container truck accidents in order to generate an understanding of the risks and possible mitigations thereof associated with single and multiple events causing hazards. . CN refers to Section 6.6.2.4 and 6.6.2.5 of the EIS, which gives a very optimistic qualitative subjective description of pathways and residual effects, but does not include a specification of the types of dangerous goods. A credible risk assessment of derailments within the terminal cannot be conducted without this information. CN should provide detailed qualitative information including on the chances, consequences, and mitigations for effects of such train accidents. This information is needed in order to generate an understanding of the risks and possible mitigations thereof associated with single and multiple events causing hazards occurring from the project. . CN states that given the precautionary measures in place, the emergency planning, and mitigation measures for the Project, the likelihood of a hazardous materials spill resulting in human health issues is low. This statement is not substantiated by any credible quantitative or other risk assessment and therefore CN’s response is insufficient to answer the Panel’s information request. It does not provide the requested information on the potential effects of accidents and malfunctions for all scenarios on air quality, as either an end point or as part of the assessment of effects on the various valued components.

Further 1) Calculation of projected collision rate at entry/exit onto Britannia should state the actual Information numerical value, not just “negligible”. The calculations provided in IR 2.33-2 have a Request counterintuitive result of fewer collisions after the truck entrance is added, so the true effect is not clear. An assessment of accident potential at the entry point of the terminal using collision prediction equations and traffic volume data that are readily available from the Region of Halton, and/or by an analysis of traffic conflicts using an intersection conflict index should be conducted. The calculations to support CN’s response should take the following into account: a) reconsider the effects on adjacent parts of Britannia which would be affected, not just the intersection, since truck queuing may extend some distance away from the intersection. b) recalculate based on: (1) Halton SPF (2) Halton AADT (3) the correct traffic and truck volumes, which should take into account expected volumes (including the ultimate/maximum capacity of the terminal - see Letter to the Panel dated July 12, 2018) (4) effects upstream and downstream. 2) CN should provide detailed qualitative information including what are the chances, consequences, and mitigations for effects of container truck and train accidents. 3) CN should provide additional information on the potential effects of accidents and malfunctions for all scenarios on air quality, as either an end point or as part of the 12 assessment of effects on the various valued components. It should further describe additional mitigation or contingency measures to reduce or eliminate the effects of accidents or malfunctions on air quality.

IR 5.20 ACCIDENTAL FIRE SCENARIO Panel Request a) Describe the potential effects of a fire during the construction and operation phases of the Project, including a description of the effect pathways and a characterization of the effects. In preparing this description, include the results of any hydrologic trajectory modelling of contaminants that could reach nearby waterways, and predictive atmospheric transport and dispersion modelling for potential effects to air quality levels. b) Describe the various types of fires, roles and responsibilities in case of a fire, including a plausible worst-case accident scenario that involves a container fire on the work pad/container storage area. If possible, provide information on known fires that have occurred at other existing intermodal container facilities. c) Describe any design parameters integrated into the work pad and water storage area intended to collect runoff containing contaminated fire suppression water/retardants chemicals used to manage fire that may affect water quality.

Valued G.4 Urban Settings; G.2 Human Safety Conditions Components Rationale CN did not describe the plausible worst-case accident scenario that involves a container fire on the work pad/container storage area, as requested. A description of a scenario requires both qualitative and quantitative information, giving location, hazard footprint, and an estimate of the severity of consequences and extent of their occurrence. Further 1) Describe the plausible worst-case accident scenario that involves a container fire on the work Information pad/container storage area that takes into account qualitative and quantitative information, Request giving location, hazard footprint, and an estimate of the severity of consequences and extent of their occurrence.

IR 5.21 TRUCKS TRANSPORTING DANGEROUS GOODS SCENARIO Panel Request a) Describe a potential worst-case scenario of a spill occurring from a container while it is transiting by truck between the Project entrance/exit and a 400-series highway. b) Describe the anticipated pathways of effects and environmental effects of the worst-case scenario described in part a) of this information request. c) Explain how CN would avoid, reduce or mitigate effects, including potential effects to public health, resulting from an accidental release of a dangerous good while it is being transported from the Project entrance/exit and 400-series highways. d) Describe the probability of an accident or malfunction involving trucks transporting dangerous goods between the Project entrance/exit and 400-series highway, including a comparison to the existing potential for a similar accident or malfunction without the Project. Valued G.4 Urban Settings; G.2 Human Safety Conditions Components Rationale CN’s response regarding the worst-case scenario is incomplete for the following reasons: . CN does not describe the worst case scenario of a spill occurring from a container while it is transiting by truck between the Project entrance/exit and a 400-series highway, as requested. Rather CN describes a potential accident scenario involving the release of only a small volume of goods. . CN concludes that the pathways of effects and environmental effects for a spill occurring from a container while it is transiting by truck between the Project entrance/exit and a 400-series highway would be similar to those assessed for a container spill within the 13 Terminal. CN is not considering the worst case scenario and does not account for the fact that there are substantial differences between a spill occurring on the CN site and a spill occurring on public roads. Therefore, CN has not sufficiently described the anticipated pathways of effects and environmental effects of the worst case scenario spill. . In describing the probability of an accident or malfunction involving trucks transporting dangerous goods between the Project entrance/exit and a 400-series highway, CN does not account for the disproportionate effect of using heavy semi-trailers on traffic accidents. Further 1) The worst case scenario of a spill occurring from a container while it is transiting by truck Information between the Project entrance/exit and a 400-series highway, namely, the release of a large Request volume of flammable or toxic material that is ignited or spreads, should be described. 2) The anticipated pathways of effects and environmental effects for a worst case scenario spill occurring from a container while it is transiting by truck between the Project entrance/exit and a 400-series highway both onsite and offsite should be described, accounting for the differences between a spill within the Terminal and a spill on public roads.

IR 5.22 VALUED COMPONENTS, LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE AND MULTIPLE INCIDENTS Panel Request a) For each accidents and malfunctions scenario considered, assess the effects on each valued component, identify mitigation and contingency measures, and then provide an analysis to show whether or not the residual effects would be significant. For example, in the event of a spill that reaches water, despite the probability being low, describe CN’s anticipated mitigation and contingency measures to avoid or reduce potential effects in the receiving environment. Then, describe the significance of the residual effect using methodology established for each valued component. b) Discuss the potential for multiple scenarios occurring at the same time, either as separate incidents or one being the cause of another (for instance a derailment with a hazardous spill that catches fire). Provide an assessment of potential effects and mitigation measures in the case of multiple incidents. If applicable, in developing the response to this information request, consider responses to other information requests in this package, namely information request 5.20 (Accidental fire scenario), and 5.21 (Trucks transporting dangerous goods scenario). Valued All VCs applicable Components Rationale CN does not answer the request to assess the effects on each valued component, identify mitigation and contingency measures, and then provide an analysis to show whether or not the residual effects would be significant. No such assessment is evident hence the answer is inadequate and no quantitative definition of “low” is given. Quantitative, or at least detailed qualitative information including on the chances, consequences, and mitigations for effects of malfunctions or accidents and combinations of these events must be provided. The information is needed in order to generate an understanding of the risks and possible mitigations thereof associated with single and multiple events causing hazards occurring from the project. Further, CN does not support the conclusion: “The accidents and malfunctions scenarios have a low probability or likelihood of occurring together, thus their combination is not considered plausible, nor of any measurable likelihood of occurrence.” Quantitative assessment evidence is required. In addition, the speculative statement is incorrect---accidents tend to occur in causal chains, with one accident triggering another. In fact, the example given in the panel request is quite correctly illustrative of a common accident sequence. Quantitative, or at least detailed qualitative information including on the chances, consequences, and mitigations for effects of malfunctions or accidents and combinations of these events must be provided. The information is needed in order to generate an understanding of the risks and possible mitigations thereof associated with single and multiple events causing hazards occurring from the project.

14 Further 1) Quantitative, or at least detailed qualitative information including on the chances, Information consequences, and mitigations for effects of individual malfunctions or accidents and Request combinations of these events must be provided.

IR 5.23 WORST-CASE SCENARIO Panel Request a) Provide a list of all potential worst-case scenarios (including other possible accidents and malfunctions such as spills from trucks transporting dangerous goods) including a potential combination of various scenarios occurring at the same time. b) Describe whether any or all of the four scenarios presented in subsection 6.6.2 of the EIS represent a worst-case scenario for accidents or malfunctions from the Project. c) If none of the four scenarios presented in subsection 6.6.2 of the EIS is considered a worst-case scenario, describe in detail plausible worst-case scenarios associated with the construction and operation phases of the Project. Describe the potential pathways of effects and environmental effects, any mitigation or contingency measures that CN would put in place, and a description of the residual effects. Worst-case scenarios should consider the potential for multiple accidents or malfunctions occurring simultaneously or in a cascading manner. Where possible and appropriate, provide information on known accidents or malfunctions from other existing intermodal container facilities to support the selection of the worst-case scenarios, and the likelihood of occurrence.

Valued All VCs are applicable. Components Rationale CN’s Assessment of the worst-case scenario is still inadequate for the following reasons: . The list of potential accidents and malfunctions provided by CN in EIS Section 6.6.2 provides only a very general description of four categories of accidents, not a list of all potential accidents and malfunctions. A list of all potential accidents and the extent of their possible impacts should be provided in order to assess risk and understand the consequences and extent of potential impacts of a worst-case scenario event. . A detailed description and assessment of plausible worst-case scenarios associated with the construction and operation phases of the Project was not provided. This information is required in order to assess risk and understand the consequences and extent of potential impacts of a worst-case scenario event during these phases of the Project. . CN does not support its selection of worst-case scenarios with information from known accidents or malfunctions. The information that CN provides about known accidents and malfunctions is general and limited in scope. CN does not provide any information on the likelihood of occurrence of any of these worst-case scenario events.

Further 1) A list of all potential accidents and malfunction scenarios and the potential impacts of these Information events should be provided. Request 2) Details of plausible worst-case scenarios associated with the construction and operation phases of the Project, as well as any assessments of these scenarios should be provided. 3) CN should explain how known accidents or malfunctions from existing intermodal container facilities support its selection of the worst-case scenarios and provide information on the likelihood of occurrence of these potential worst-case scenarios.

15 IR 5.24 EMERGENCY RESPONSE Panel Request a) Provide a conceptual emergency response plan, from first response to the final cleanup, that describes both strategic (preventive) and tactical (responsive) measures considered for various types of emergencies: • what organizations would be involved, • plans to coordinate communication among responsible parties, first responders and multiple contractors, • a description of the various roles and responsibilities of each organization in various emergency situations, • regulatory requirements and reporting, including how the plan would interface with other municipal and regional plans. b) Describe in more detail the aspects of the plans that would be “updated as required”, and under what conditions CN would determine that an update was required, including any regulatory requirements to update the plans.

Valued All VCs are applicable. Components Rationale Copies of any emergency response plans are necessary to assess the operational risk from the facility, and the extent to which any risk has been mitigated. Further, the EIS Guidelines require that such plans be provided: “The EIS will describe the safeguards that have been established to protect against such occurrences and the contingency and emergency response procedures in place if such events do occur.” This information is also essential to conduct the quantitative risk assessment. If the emergency response plans contain effective strategic and tactical responses, the risks to public safety and the environment will be lower. Further, a localized site emergency plan has not been submitted. The Emergency Response Plan provided does not interface at all with the Region’s plan, does not mention the Region’s plan, and does not demonstrate any knowledge of how emergency response operations work in both Ontario and Canada. While it is clear that a site-specific plan would be developed at a later date, that plan would need to fundamentally contradict some elements of the current plan, in particular around incident notification and who should be notified locally of an issue. Emergency response in Ontario is municipally-directed, with provincial and federal resources only stepping in as needed. If a derailment or major spill were to happen, while CN would lead the response to the specific derailment/spill, the local municipal emergency management departments would be leading the response to mitigate the effects of that derailment or spill on the local community (ordering evacuations, establishing evacuation or reception centres, etc). This larger response would be bolstered with provincial and federal assets. None of this, including mechanisms for including both regional and local levels of municipal emergency response, is evident in the plan as submitted. The emergency response plan stresses including government agencies/departments in operational management roles for prolonged incidents but in no way are the CN notification processes designed to facilitate these processes. Further 1) Copies of emergency response plans that comply with local municipal requirements, both with Information strategic and tactical measures should be provided. Request 2) Provide a preliminary localized site emergency plan which details how incident notification and emergency response will be coordinated with Halton Region, the Town of Milton and the Province of Ontario.

16