Attachment 1: Condition 48 Compliance Filing (Revised June 2, 2017) T

Attachment 1: Condition 48 Compliance Filing (Revised June 2, 2017) t

NAVIGATION AND NAVIGATION SAFETY PLAN FOR THE TRANS MOUNTAIN PIPELINE ULC TRANS MOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT NEB CONDITION 48

Revised June 2017 REV 1

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1

Prepared for:

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC

Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. Suite 2700, 300 – 5th Avenue S.W. Calgary, Alberta T2P 5J2 Ph: 403-514-6400 Trans Mountain Expansion Project Guide to the Environmental Plans

Environmental Plans Volume 1 – Temporary Construction Lands and Infrastructure Environmental Protection Plan Volume 2 – Pipeline Environmental Protection Plan Volume 3 – Facilities Environmental Protection Plan Volume 4 – Westridge Marine Terminal Environmental Protection Plan Volume 5 – Reactivation Environmental Protection Plan Volume 6 – Environmental Management Plans Volume 7 – Resource-Specific Mitigation Tables Volume 8 – Environmental Alignment Sheets Volume 9 – Burnaby Mountain Tunneling Environmental Protection Plan Volume 10 – Power Lines Environmental Protection Plans

This plan forms part of Volume 6 and is located:

Volume 6 – Environmental Management Plans

Section 1 – Organizational Structure Section 2 – Socio–Economic Management Section 3 – Contaminated Sites and Waste Management Section 4 – Geological and Groundwater Management Section 5 – Vegetation Management Section 6 – Wildlife Management Plans Section 7 – Wetland Management Section 8 – Aquatic Resource Management Section 9 – Reclamation Plans Section 10 – Facilities Management Plans Section 11 – Burnaby Mountain Tunneling Management Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

TABLE OF CONCORDANCE NEB Condition 48 is applicable to the following legal instruments: OC-064 (CPCN), AO-003-OC-2 (OC2), XO-T260-007-2016 (Temp), XO-T260-008-2016 (Pump 1) and XO-T260-009-2016 (Pump 2). Table 1 describes how this Plan addresses the Condition requirements applicable to Project activities.

TABLE 1

LEGAL INSTRUMENT CONCORDANCE WITH NEB CONDITION 48: NAVIGATION AND NAVIGATION SAFETY PLAN

OC-064 AO-003-OC-2 XO-T260-007-2016 XO-T260-008-2016 XO-T260-009-2016 NEB Condition 48 (CPCN) (OC2) (Temp) (Pump1) (Pump2) Trans Mountain must file with the NEB, for approval, at least 4 months prior to commencing construction, a Appendix A of this Appendix A of this Appendix A of this Appendix A of this Appendix A of this Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan that includes: Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan a) an updated list of navigable waterways to be crossed by or affected by the Project (including power lines, marine terminal, temporary or permanent bridge crossings, or other ancillary works that are physically or operationally connected to the Project); b) an updated listing of effects of the Project on navigation and navigation safety for each of the identified waterways Section 3.2 and Section 3.2 and Section 3.2 and Section 3.2 and Section 3.2 and identified in a); Appendix A of this Appendix A of this Appendix A of this Appendix A of this Appendix A of this Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan c) proposed mitigation measures to address Project effects on navigation and navigation safety for each of the Section 4.0 and Section 4.0 and Section 4.0 and Section 4.0 and Section 4.0 and identified waterways, including adherence to codes and standards (such as the Canadian Standards Association); Appendix A of this Appendix A of this Appendix A of this Appendix A of this Appendix A of this and Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan aei Page d) a summary of its consultations with Appropriate Government Authorities, potentially affected Aboriginal groups ------and waterway users, regarding their navigational use of each of the identified waterways. In its summary, Trans Mountain must: i) describe the Appropriate Government Authorities, potentially affected Aboriginal groups, and Section 2.0; Section 2.0; Section 2.0; Section 2.0; Section 2.0; commercial and recreational waterway users consulted; Appendix B, C and Appendix B, C and Appendix B, C and Appendix B, C and Appendix B, C and D of this Plan D of this Plan D of this Plan D of this Plan D of this Plan ii) describe how Trans Mountain identified those consulted; and Section 2.0; Section 2.0; Section 2.0; Section 2.0; Section 2.0; Appendix B, C and Appendix B, C and Appendix B, C and Appendix B, C and Appendix B, C and D of this Plan D of this Plan D of this Plan D of this Plan D of this Plan iii) provide a description and justification for how Trans Mountain has incorporated the results of its Section 2.0, Section 2.0, Section 2.0, Section 2.0, Section 2.0, consultation, including any recommendations from those consulted, into the plan. Appendix B of this Appendix B of this Appendix B of this Appendix B of this Appendix B of this Plan Plan Plan Plan Plan

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page i Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan (the Plan) was prepared to meet National Energy Board (NEB) Condition 48 for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMEP or the Project).

The NEB defines navigable waters as “any body of water capable, in its natural state, of being navigated by floating vessels of any description for the purpose of transportation, recreation or commerce, and may also be a human-made feature such as a canal or reservoir”.

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC (Trans Mountain) understands NEB Condition 48 to refer to those aspects of the Project that are within the NEB’s jurisdiction as outlined in the Condition. This includes the pipeline, power lines, marine terminal, temporary or permanent bridge crossings, or other ancillary works that are physically or operationally connected with the Project. From a marine perspective, this includes the construction and site operation of the Westridge Marine Terminal in Burrard Inlet. It does not cover the movement of Project-related marine vessels (i.e., oil tankers, tugs) using the shipping lanes in Burrard Inlet, Georgia Strait, Haro Strait, and Juan de Fuca Strait in approach to, or upon departure from, the Westridge Marine Terminal. Jurisdiction over shipping safety in marine waterways remains with Transport Canada.

The Plan provides an updated list of navigable and potentially navigable waterways (including watercourses and wetlands) that may be affected by the Project and a review of assessment outcomes and mitigation measures to address Project effects on navigation and navigation safety for each identified navigable waterway (Appendix A). The Plan also summarizes concerns related to navigation and navigation safety raised through Trans Mountain’s stakeholder and Aboriginal engagement to-date Appendix B) and how the Project has addressed them and considered them in the Plan.

Construction of the Project could potentially affect 50 watercourse crossings that are considered navigable, 145 watercourse crossings that are considered potentially navigable and 9 navigable wetlands. Aquatics and wetlands field work has determined that construction and operations of the pump stations, temporary facilities, tanks, and non-marine terminal work will not be located in, on, over, under, through or across a navigable waterway.

The potential residual effects of Project construction on navigation and navigation safety were identified in the TMEP NEB Facilities Application (Application) (Section 7.2.6 of Volume 5B for pipeline, power lines, temporary or permanent bridge crossings and other ancillary works) and include:

• impediments to watercourse users on navigable watercourses during construction or site- specific maintenance activities; and

• the safety of watercourse users on navigable watercourses may be affected in the event the user enters the construction zone.

The potential residual effects associated with the Westridge Marine Terminal (as discussed in Section 7.6.6 of Volume 5B of the Application) include:

• disruption to a navigable water (Burrard Inlet) during construction and operations; and

• concern for the safety of marine users due to changing movement patterns.

Since the filing of the Application in 2013, no new or additional interactions have been identified between the Project and navigation and navigation safety, except for the consideration of marine fish habitat offsets.

Burrard Inlet is the only navigable waterway subject to fish habitat offset work. At the time of this submission, no fish habitat offset works within freshwater watercourses are proposed. Trans Mountain will construct a rock reef complex within the Westridge Marine Terminal water lot to offset the loss and alteration of marine fish habitat resulting from construction of the Westridge Marine Terminal. The rock reef complex will be located adjacent to, and offshore of, the foreshore extension. and will extend approximately 70 m offshore from the foreshore extension; it will not be proximate to the navigation and shipping channels of the Burrard Inlet and will be contained close to shore. The construction of the offset works will occur entirely within the Westridge Marine Terminal Construction Safety Boom which will prevent marine users from entering the

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page ii Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017 construction area. The overall effects of the Project on navigation and navigation safety in Burrard Inlet, in consideration of the fisheries offset rock reefs, are unchanged from the Application assessment.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page iii Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CONCORDANCE ...... i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 1 1.1 Project Description ...... 1 1.2 Links to Other Trans Mountain Plans...... 2 1.3 Commitments Management...... 3 1.4 Navigability – Context and Approach...... 3 2.0 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT...... 6 3.0 NAVIGABLE WATERWAYS ...... 7 3.1 Project Interactions ...... 7 3.2 Potential Residual Effects ...... 8 4.0 MITIGATION MEASURES...... 10 5.0 FISH HABITAT OFFSETS ...... 14 6.0 SUMMARY...... 16 7.0 REFERENCES...... 17

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Navigable And Potentially Navigable Waterways Crossed By The Project...... A-1 Appendix B Consultation And Engagement ...... B-1 Appendix C Record Of Stakeholder Notifications Of Draft Plan...... C-1 Appendix D Aboriginal Groups Engaged On The Navigation And Navigation Safety Plan ...... D-1 Appendix E Westridge Marine Construction Safety Boom...... E-1 Appendix F Marine Public Outreach Plan (Draft)...... F-1 Appendix G Analysis Of Class 3 Non-Navigable Watercourses...... G-1 Appendix H Warning Sign Placement (Freshwater)...... H-1

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Marine Fish Habitat Offsets at Westridge Marine Terminal...... 15

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Legal Instrument Concordance with NEB Condition 48: Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan...... i Table 2 Trans Mountain Plans linked to Navigation and Navigation Safety...... 3 Table 3 Potential Residual Effects of Project on Navigation and Navigation Safety ...... 8 Table 4 Mitigation Measures related to Navigation and Navigation Safety ...... 10 Table A-1 Navigable and Potentially Navigable Watercourses Crossed by the Pipeline Construction Right-Of-Way...... A-2 Table A-2 Navigable and Potentially Navigable Watercourses Crossed by Power Lines...... A-13 Table A-3 Navigable and Potentially Navigable Watercourses Crossed by the Marine Terminal and Marine Fish Habitat Offsets ...... A-13 Table A-4 Navigable Wetlands Crossed by the Pipeline Construction Right-Of-Way...... A-14 Table A-5 Navigable and Potentially Navigable Watercourses Crossed by Reactivation Activity...... A-15 Table A-6 Navigable and Potentially Navigable Watercourses Crossed by Contingency Routes...... A-16

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page iv Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

Table A-7 Navigable and Potentially Navigable Watercourses Crossed cy New Temporary or Permanent Bridge Crossings ...... A-16 Table B-1 New Interests, Issues, Concerns From Public Consultation related to Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan (July 2015 To January 2017) ...... B-2 Table B-2 Summary of Issues and Concerns related to Navigation and Navigation Safety (May 2012 To June 2015)...... B-3 Table B-3 Summary of Appropriate Government Authority and Waterway User Consultation Feedback Relevant To Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan (July 2015 To February 2017)...... B-4 Table B-4 Summary of Aboriginal Concerns regarding Navigation and Navigation Safety ...... B-5 Table C-1 Record of Notification...... C-4 Table H-1 Warning Sign Distances from Freshwater Navigable Waterway Crossings...... H-1

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page v Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

1.0 INTRODUCTION The Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan (the Plan) was prepared to meet National Energy Board (NEB) Condition 48 for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMEP or the Project). The draft Plan was submitted to Appropriate Government Authorities, potentially affected Aboriginal groups, and commercial and recreational waterway users on September 16, 2016 for a review and feedback period, which concluded on December 16, 2016. No feedback specific to this Plan was received during this period.

Since the September 2016 release of the draft Plan, engineering design has continued to progress and there have been changes that are described in detail in TMEP Fall 2016 Project Updates (www.transmountain.com/environmental-plans). All of the changes have been reviewed, and the relevant Project design updates have been incorporated into this Plan. It is anticipated route refinement will continue to occur as engineering design progresses. Subsequent changes will be reviewed in consideration of impacts to this Plan.

The Plan provides an updated list of navigable and potentially navigable waterways (watercourses and wetlands) that may be affected by the Project (Appendix A). As stated in NEB Condition 48, this includes consideration of the pipeline construction right-of-way, power lines, marine terminal, temporary or permanent bridge crossings, or other ancillary works that are physically or operationally connected with the Project. The Plan also provides review of assessment outcomes and mitigation measures to address Project effects on navigation and navigation safety for each identified navigable waterway (Section 4.0). In addition, the Plan summarizes issues or concerns related to navigation and navigation safety raised through Trans Mountain’s stakeholder and Aboriginal engagement to-date (Section 2.0 and Appendix B) and how the Project has addressed them and considered them in the Plan.

1.1 Project Description Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC (Trans Mountain) filed its Facilities Application (the Application) with the NEB in December 2013. In developing its Application, Trans Mountain commenced a program of extensive discussions with landowners, engagement with Aboriginal groups and consultation with affected stakeholders. This program was intended to gather input from these groups into the Application and supporting Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment (ESA), and to continue to assist Trans Mountain in the design and execution of the Project. Trans Mountain is also working with Appropriate Government Authorities to carry out the necessary reviews, studies and assessments required for the Project.

For ease of description, the following terms are used:

Kilometre Post (KP): describes distances measured along the centreline of the pipeline1.

Project Footprint: includes the area directly disturbed by surveying, construction, clean-up and operation of the pipeline, as well as associated physical works and activities (including the temporary construction lands and infrastructure, the pipeline, reactivation, facilities, the Westridge Marine Terminal and access roads). For clarity, specific components of the Project Footprint are further described by Trans Mountain below.

• Temporary construction lands and infrastructure refers to preparatory works to be undertaken prior to Project construction and includes temporary camps, stockpile sites, equipment staging areas and borrow pits located on land that has been previously disturbed, as well as access roads within the first 10 km of each designated construction spread. For ease of assessing Project interactions, these access roads within the first 10 km of each construction spread will not be considered under temporary construction lands and infrastructure, but instead are considered as part of the overall access road

1 Kilometre Posts (KPs) are calibrated to a number of fixed values derived from the original Trans Mountain Pipeline (TMPL) Mile Posts (MPs) in 1978 and do not necessarily represent actual chainage (measurement) along the pipeline. This is the result of integrating more accurate In-Line Inspection (ILI) data without forcing adjustments to KP values along TMPL. As the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMEP) is required to tie into the existing pipeline these fixed TMPL KP values also force a calibration of TMEP KPs. Therefore the actual lengths of pipeline cannot be calculated accurately by simply differencing two KP values.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page 1 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

network. Temporary construction and infrastructure initiated prior to pipeline construction does not include the clearing of forested vegetation.

• Pipeline construction footprint refers to the total area used to construct the pipeline and includes the right-of-way and temporary workspace.

• Reactivation of currently deactivated pipeline segments include: engineering assessment under Section 45 of the National Energy Board Onshore Pipeline Regulations (NEB OPR); and associated construction activities. Currently known disturbance activities and associated access (as of July 2016), were assessed to determine the Project interactions. For ease of assessing Project interactions, these access roads were considered as part of the overall access road network.

• Facilities refer to pump stations, terminals (Edmonton, Sumas and Burnaby), and associated infrastructure (i.e., traps), most of which are located on land that has been previously disturbed. Westridge Marine Terminal has infrastructure located on land and in the marine environment, and is included in the Facilities component of the Project.

• Access roads include new temporary and permanent roads and existing roads that may require upgrades or improvements. For ease of assessing Project interactions, this includes the access roads to be developed as part of temporary construction lands and infrastructure, as well as those accesses associated with reactivation.

• Power lines include the two new power lines required to supply power to Project pump stations from the provincial electrical grid: a) approximately 23.5 km line required at Kingsvale pump station, and b) approximately 1.4 km line required at the proposed new Black Pines pump station.

Contingency Alternate Routes: refer to three alternate pipeline route segments that have been identified and assessed for use if construction on the preferred route is not feasible. These are not included in the Project Footprint defined above since they are considered contingency alternates.

• Raft River, in BC (KP 713.1 to 714.4), is an alternate open cut contingency alignment. The preferred primary crossing method, a horizontal directional drill (HDD), does not support an open cut contingency crossing method at the same location.

• Pembina River, in Alberta (KP 133.0 to 134.7), is an alternate open cut contingency alignment. Similar to Raft River, the preferred primary crossing method (HDD) does not support an open cut contingency crossing method at the same location.

• Westridge Delivery Lines (WDL KP 0.0 to 3.4) is an alternate contingency alignment for a trenched installation around the Burnaby Conservation Area in BC. The preferred pipeline corridor requires tunnel construction and does not support a trenched contingency option; therefore, an alternate trenched contingency alignment has been identified.

Variances: as part of the Project Footprint update that occurred in December 2016, a number of route revisions located outside of the Project corridor were identified. Trans Mountain is in the process of seeking approval from the NEB in 2017 for these route realignments.

1.2 Links to Other Trans Mountain Plans Information from other plans prepared for the Project that are related to navigable waterways has been considered in this Plan. This includes other NEB Conditions as well as Environmental Protection Plans (EPPs). The links between this Plan and other Trans Mountain plans are provided in Table 2.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page 2 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

TABLE 2

TRANS MOUNTAIN PLANS LINKED TO NAVIGATION AND NAVIGATION SAFETY

Environmental Plan Description of the Environmental Plan Linkages to this Plan Pipeline EPP (Volume 2 The Pipeline EPP contains Trans Mountain’s environmental procedures and mitigation The Pipeline EPP includes general of the Environmental measures to be implemented during construction of the pipeline to avoid, reduce or construction measures applicable to Plans) mitigate potential adverse environmental effects. The EPP serves as reference navigable waterways crossed by the information for construction and inspection personnel to support decision-making and Project. Additional pre-construction and to provide direction to more detailed information (i.e., resource-specific mitigation, construction measures applicable to management and contingency plans). watercourse crossings are included. Westridge Marine The Westridge Marine Terminal EPP contains Trans Mountain’s environmental The Westridge Marine Terminal EPP Terminal EPP (Volume 4 procedures and mitigation measures to be implemented during construction of the includes general construction measures of the Environmental marine terminal to avoid, reduce or mitigate potential adverse environmental effects. applicable to navigation in Burrard Inlet. Plans) Watercourse Crossing The Watercourse Crossing Inventory provides an updated inventory of all watercourses Determination of navigability for each Inventory (NEB to be crossed by the Project, including details for each crossing on (but not limited to) watercourse was made during the field Condition 43) the location of the crossing; the primary and contingency crossing methods; planned studies related to NEB Condition 43, construction timing; the provincial instream work window. and data from NEB Condition 43 is the basis for navigable watercourses named in this Plan for NEB Condition 48. Wetland Survey and The Wetland Survey and Mitigation Plan provides an overview of wetlands Determination of navigability for each Mitigation Plan (Volume 6 encountered by the Project, recommended mitigation measures and crossing methods wetland was made during the field of the Environmental to be implemented during construction, and reclamation measures to be implemented studies related to NEB Condition 41, Plans) during construction and operations. and data from NEB Condition 41 is the (NEB Condition 41) basis for navigable wetlands named in this Plan for NEB Condition 48. Light Emissions The Light Emissions Management Plan for the Westridge Marine Terminal will present For marine users, such mitigation may Management Plan for the a summary of the results of an area lighting study, including how potential impacts on also support the reduction of navigation Westridge Marine surrounding communities and safety and operational requirements were considered. It and navigation safety effects in Burrard Terminal (NEB will describe any additional mitigation and best practice measures considered for the Inlet related to the presence of the Condition 82) terminal lighting design and how the proposed design and operation will minimize the expanded marine terminal. impacts from light on land-based residents and marine users. Traffic Access and The Traffic Access and Control Management Plan (TACMP) outlines, amongst other TACMP identifies planned routes for Control Management things, the Project’s traffic management strategy, anticipated traffic volumes and access to construction and construction Plan (NEB Condition 73) associated risks, and includes construction access management maps. use areas, which is information used in determining if any temporary or permanent bridge structures are required.

1.3 Commitments Management Trans Mountain made a number of commitments regarding the Project during the OH-001-2014 proceedings and engagement activities up to May 2016. Commitments were made to improve and optimize planning and mitigation measures. As Trans Mountain has consolidated its commitments into a Commitments Tracking Table in order to make it easier for interested parties to access and reference this information, the table of commitments in each plan has been removed.

The Commitments Tracking Table was filed with the NEB and will be available on Trans Mountain’s web site at www.transmountain.com. Trans Mountain continues to monitor and track compliance with its commitments and will update, post to its website and file with the NEB updated versions of the Commitments Tracking Table according to the timeframes outlined in NEB Condition 6. Commitments with specific relevance to this Plan have been considered and addressed.

1.4 Navigability – Context and Approach Since July 2013, the NEB has been the “one window” federal regulator for NEB-regulated pipeline and power line projects that cross navigable waters. Previously, this had been the responsibility of Transport Canada. Transport Canada and the NEB have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to provide guidance as to when a project is regulated by the NEB or Transport Canada. Navigation Protection Act review is not required as it is covered under the NEB approval.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page 3 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

The NEB Filing Manual indicates navigation and navigation safety is a consideration when a project includes activities to be conducted or components to be located in, on, over, under, through or across a navigable waterway when the water is flowing (i.e., not seasonally dry or frozen) (NEB 2015a).

Navigable waters in the context of the NEB follow Transport Canada’s longstanding definition of navigable waters, and include “any body of water capable, in its natural state, of being navigated by floating vessels of any description for the purpose of transportation, recreation or commerce, and may also be a human- made feature such as a canal or reservoir” (NEB 2015b).

The criteria for the definition of navigability were established for the purposes of the Project by the Aquatics Specialists (lead by GeoMarine Environmental Consultants Ltd.). The navigability criteria outlined in the Minor Works and Waters Ministerial Order (Navigable Waters Protection Act [NWPA]) (Government of Canada 2009) and the Minor Waters User Guide (Transport Canada 2010) were used as the basis for determining whether each watercourse crossed by the Project could be classed as a minor navigable water and, therefore, unlikely to be navigable. In addition to the Minor Works criteria, a supplemental benchmark based on industry experience was also used to further expand classification of presumably non-navigable watercourses.

Wetlands, in some circumstances, fall within this definition as they have characteristics that allow floating vessels to traverse across them (i.e., deeper, more permanent water channels through the wetland). Specific types of wetlands that would fall under this designation include deep emergent marshes, open water ponds and non-woody fens, which have open water channels throughout, or any wetlands associated with a classified watercourse.

Results from field and other investigations (conducted by Aquatics and Wetlands Resource Specialists since 2012) were used to screen watercourses and wetlands against the following criteria to determine if each waterway could be defined as a minor navigable water (i.e., non-navigable). Class 1 or Class 2 non-navigable waters meet the conditions in either Section 11(2) or 11(3), respectively, of the Minor Navigable Waters of the Minor Works and Waters (NWPA) Ministerial Order (Government of Canada 2009). In addition to Class 1 and Class 2 non-navigable waters, a third class (Class 3) was added to include minor watercourses up to 5 m wide. Experience has also shown that watercourses from 3 to 5 m wide, and with one or more of the criteria used to categorize Class 2 non-navigable waters, are also likely to be deemed “non-navigable”. Only the Burrard Inlet where Westridge Marine Terminal is located and the Fraser River are currently navigated by a full range of vessels, including large ocean-going vessels.

The classes of non-navigable minor waters for the Project are defined as follows:

Class 1: Watercourses that have one of the following:

• an average width measured at the high water level that is less than 1.2 m; or

• an average depth measured at the high water level that is less than 0.3 m.

Class 2: Watercourses that have an average width measured at the high water level that is greater than 1.2 m and less than 3 m and at least one of the following:

• an average depth at the high water level that is greater than 0.3 m but not more than 0.6 m;

• a slope measured at high water level that is greater than 4%;

• a sinuosity ratio that is greater than 2; or

• more than two natural obstacles with at least one upstream and another downstream from the crossing.

Class 3: Watercourses that have an average width measured at the high water level that is greater than 3 m but less than 5 m and at least one of the criteria of a Class 2 minor navigable water (above). For further analysis of Class 3 non-navigable watercourses, refer to Appendix G.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page 4 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

Watercourses which did not meet the criteria of any of these three classifications were assumed to be navigable for recreational, commercial or traditional purposes.

In some instances, watercourses did not meet the criteria for non-navigable and yet were not clearly navigable (e.g., typically subject to seasonal flows). Such watercourses have been identified as ‘potentially navigable’.

Additional criteria were developed to help with identifying any potentially navigable wetlands. Criteria used included:

• classification of wetland (i.e., deep marsh, open water pond, non-woody fen or any wetland associated with classified watercourses);

• permanency of water (i.e., semi-permanent or permanent); and

• presence of semi-permanent or permanent open water channels within the wetland (e.g., within non-woody fens).

The Plan also considers the 2014 Order Amending the Minor Works and Waters (NWPA) Order (Government of Canada 2014).

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page 5 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

2.0 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT Consultation and engagement activities related to navigation and navigation safety were completed between May 2012 and January 2017 with Appropriate Government Authorities, potentially affected Aboriginal groups and waterway users. Opportunities to discuss navigation and navigation safety, and identify issues or concerns were provided to public stakeholders through the Trans Mountain website, workshops, meetings and ongoing engagement activities during the reporting period. Appendix B includes a comprehensive record of these engagement activities, stakeholder feedback and Trans Mountain responses.

The draft Plan was released on September 16, 2016 for review and feedback. Feedback was requested by December 16, 2016. No feedback specific to the draft Plan was received during the feedback period.

Engineering design changes were issued in the TMEP Fall 2016 Project Update document (www.transmountain.com/environmental-plans) along with a request for feedback. All of the design updates have been reviewed, and the Project design updates that are relevant have been incorporated into this Plan.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page 6 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

3.0 NAVIGABLE WATERWAYS Construction of the Project could potentially affect 50 watercourse crossings that are considered navigable, 145 watercourse crossings that are considered potentially navigable, and 9 navigable wetlands, as outlined in Appendix A.

Trans Mountain understands NEB Condition 48 to refer to those aspects of the Project that are within the NEB’s jurisdiction. From a marine perspective, this includes the construction and site operation of the Westridge Marine Terminal in Burrard Inlet. It does not cover the movement of Project-related marine vessels (i.e., oil tankers, tugs) using the shipping lanes in Burrard Inlet, Georgia Strait, Haro Strait, and Juan de Fuca Strait in approach to, or upon departure from, the Westridge Marine Terminal. Jurisdiction over shipping safety in marine waterways remains with Transport Canada.

3.1 Project Interactions Information on the specific components of the Project Footprint as defined in Section 1.1 (temporary construction lands and infrastructure, pipeline construction footprint, reactivation, facilities, access roads, power lines, contingency alternate routes) is provided below.

Temporary Construction Lands and Infrastructure Temporary construction lands and infrastructure (which includes temporary camps, stockpile sites, equipment staging areas and borrow pits, and works on access roads within the first 10 km of each designated construction spread) will not be located in, on, over, under, through or across a navigable waterway. As such, temporary construction lands and infrastructure activity will not interact with navigation and navigation safety.

Pipeline Construction Footprint In places, the pipeline construction footprint (i.e., specifically the pipeline right-of-way) will be located in, on, over, under, through and/or across navigable waterways. As such, the pipeline construction footprint will interact with navigation and navigation safety. Refer to Appendix A, Table A-1 (watercourses) and Table A- 4 (wetlands).

Access Roads Some proposed new temporary or permanent bridge structures associated with the road access network are anticipated to be located in, on, over and/or across navigable watercourses. Approximately 18 potentially navigable or navigable watercourses have been identified as needing new temporary structures (i.e., clear span bridge), some of which may result in an interaction with navigation and navigation safety depending on conditions at the time of construction. Refer to Appendix A, Table A-7.

There are no navigable wetlands crossed by proposed temporary access roads.

Reactivation Some known reactivation activities are anticipated to occur in, on, over, under, through and/or across some watercourses that are considered navigable or potentially navigable, and thus, may interact with navigation and navigation safety. Refer to Appendix A, Table A-5.

Reactivation activities will not be located in, on, over, under, through or across a navigable wetland.

Facilities Aquatics and wetlands field work has determined that construction and operations of the pump stations, temporary facilities, terminals (Edmonton, Sumas and Burnaby, and associated infrastructure) will not be located in, on, over, under, through or across a navigable waterway. As such, these aspects of the Project will not interact with navigation and navigation safety.

The construction and operations of the Westridge Marine Terminal will be located, in part, on a navigable waterway (Burrard Inlet). As such, the Westridge Marine Terminal will interact with navigation and navigation safety. Refer to Appendix A, Table A-3.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page 7 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

Power Lines Power lines will cross over a navigable watercourse (North Thompson River), and thus, may interact with navigation and navigation safety. Refer to Appendix A, Table A-2.

No navigable wetlands will be crossed by power lines.2

Contingency Alternate Routes The alternate contingency alignments for the crossing of the Raft River and Pembina River will interact with navigation and navigation safety, as these rivers are navigable. Refer to Appendix A, Table A-6.

The alternate contingency alignment for the Westridge Delivery Lines is not located in, on, over, under, through or across a navigable watercourse, and thus, it will not interact with navigation and navigation safety.

There are no navigable wetlands along any of the contingency alternate routes.

3.2 Potential Residual Effects The potential residual effects of Project construction on navigation and navigation safety were identified in the Application (Sections 7.2.6 and 7.6.6 of Volume 5B), and are summarized in Table 3. Since the filing of the Application in 2013, no new or additional potential residual effects on navigation and navigation safety have been identified.

TABLE 3

POTENTIAL RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF PROJECT ON NAVIGATION AND NAVIGATION SAFETY

Potential Residual Effect Effect Characterization Pipeline, Power Line, Reactivation, Contingency Routes, Bridge Crossings 1. Impediments to watercourse users on navigable watercourses during Short-term in duration, periodic in frequency, reversible in the short-term, construction or site-specific maintenance activities. low in magnitude. 2. The safety of watercourse users on navigable watercourses may be Immediate in duration, accidental in frequency, reversible in the short-term, affected in the event the user enters the construction zone. low to high in magnitude. Westridge Marine Terminal 3. Disruption to a navigable water (Burrard Inlet) during construction and Construction: Short-term in duration, isolated in frequency, reversible in the operations. short-term, low-to-medium in magnitude. Operations: Long-term in duration, isolated to periodic in frequency, reversible in the long-term, low in magnitude. 4. Concern for safety of marine users due to changing movement Immediate in duration, accidental in frequency, reversible in the short-term, patterns. low-to-high in magnitude.

The degree of potential effect depends on the method of construction, the season of construction and the state of the watercourse (frozen or unfrozen). Watercourse crossings that occur during winter will have a reduced effect on navigation and navigation safety, as some types of uses may be reduced during winter and in some areas, no navigation use will occur during the winter due to frozen conditions. Impediments to watercourse users on navigable watercourses may occur during construction and site-specific maintenance. Watercourse users vary depending on the watercourses and location of each crossing. In

2 Trans Mountain confirms that no navigable wetlands are crossed by power lines, including the power line associated with the Kingsvale Pump Station. In 2013, wetlands along the power line associated with the Kingsvale Pump Station were identified through desktop review. Based on criteria outlined in Section 3.8 of the Technical Report 5C 8 of the Facilities Application (the Application), 9 of 23 wetlands crossed by the power line were determined to be potentially navigable as stated in the Application. Navigability criteria was refined in Section 3.5 of the Supplemental Wetland Evaluation Technical Report submitted to the Board in January 2015 [Filing ID A4H6D6]. Ground-based wetland surveys were completed on September 29, 2015 along the Kingsvale Pump Station power line. These surveys confirmed the presence of 6 wetlands crossed by the power line; 3 marshes and 3 swamps. None of these wetlands meet the criteria to be classified as navigable.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page 8 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017 general, activities on watercourses crossed by the Project include commercial and non-commercial rafting, kayaking, fishing, boating, tubing, as well as traditional cultural activities. The navigability of some watercourses along the Project may be affected if open water conditions occur during a trenched crossing or installation of a temporary vehicle crossing as part of construction or site-specific maintenance activities (e.g., integrity dig).

Construction through watercourses will utilize a number of appropriate pipeline watercourse crossing methods selected in consideration of the size, environmental sensitivities of each watercourse and the season/timeframe of the construction period of each particular crossing. Pipe installations at watercourse crossings can be classified as either wet (trenched) or dry (trenched with water flow control or trenchless) crossings. With a wet crossing (e.g., open cut), the trench can be excavated through flowing water, if present. With a dry crossing, excavation of the trench normally occurs through the streambed once the water flow has been isolated, either by a dam and pump-around mechanism, or by using a flume over the excavated trench. Trenchless crossings (e.g., bore or HDD) techniques could also be used for watercourse crossings, where feasible.

The navigability of watercourses will generally not be affected during the operations phase since the pipeline will be buried under watercourses and the usage of new permanent vehicle crossings is not anticipated. However, impediments to navigation may occur during the operations phase if site-specific maintenance activities occur during open water conditions.

For the purposes of this Plan, each navigable and potentially navigable waterway is identified, and potential effects are described as outlined below.

• Tables A-1 outlines which potential residual effects from Table 3 are applicable to each navigable watercourse crossed by the mainline construction right-of-way.

• Table A-2 outlines which potential residual effects are applicable to navigable watercourses crossed by power lines.

• Table A-3 outlines which potential residual effects are applicable to the navigable watercourse affected by Westridge Marine Terminal.

• Table A-4 outlines which potential residual effects are applicable to each navigable wetland crossed by the mainline construction right-of-way.

• Table A-5 outlines which potential residual effects are applicable to each navigable watercourse crossed by reactivation activity.

• Table A-6 notes which potential residual effects are pertinent to navigable watercourses affected by contingency alternate routes.

• Table A-7 notes which potential residual effects may be pertinent to navigable watercourses affected by temporary or permanent bridge crossings, if potentially navigable watercourses are deemed navigable at the time of construction.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page 9 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

4.0 MITIGATION MEASURES Trans Mountain has developed numerous mitigation measures to address potential Project effects on navigation and navigation safety. Measures were identified in the ESA (Volume 5B of the Application) and through commitments to various parties throughout the NEB process. Table 4 identifies the measures Trans Mountain has committed in order to mitigate potential effects of the Project on navigation and navigation safety. Some mitigation language has been revised since the Application to reflect input from various parties; mitigation outlined in Table 4 reflects that in the most recent EPPs and Socio-Economic Management Plan (SEMP) (Volumes 2, 4 and 6 of the Environmental Plans). Table 4 does not include general communication measures that Trans Mountain will undertake to communicate Project details to regulatory authorities, municipal tourism offices, waterway user groups, and other relevant organizations so they may share details of construction activity with waterway users. Such communication measures will be outlined in the construction phase Communication and Notification Program. Mitigation also considers the 2014 Order Amending the Minor Works and Waters (NWPA) Order (Government of Canada 2014). Additional mitigation may emerge through the issuance of approvals, licenses and permits necessary for construction.

TABLE 4

MITIGATION MEASURES RELATED TO NAVIGATION AND NAVIGATION SAFETY

Activity/Concern Mitigation Measures Terrestrial (Pipeline, Power Line, Access Roads, Reactivation) Vehicle Crossing Selection a) Install temporary vehicle crossings in a manner that protects the bed and banks of watercourses from erosion, maintains flow, does not disrupt fish passage and does not interfere with or impede navigation on navigable watercourses [Section 14.0 of Pipeline EPP]. b) If it is necessary to consider changes or modifications of vehicle crossing methods on a site-specific basis, the decision-making process will include the Contractor, the Construction Manager, Project Engineer, an Environmental Inspector, an Aquatic Resource Specialist and the management of change process [Section 14.0 of Pipeline EPP]. Criteria to be considered when making a vehicle/equipment crossing structure decision will include protection of the riparian vegetation and fisheries values associated with the crossing, navigability, the time of year and duration the crossing is required for, as well as applicable legislation and guides [Section 14.0 Pipeline EPP]. Water Crossings - General c) Limit instream construction to the shortest duration practical given the characteristics of the watercourse and the construction season [Section 14.0 Pipeline EPP]. Open Cut Crossings d) Ensure streamflow, if present at the time of construction, is maintained at all times when trenching through a watercourse [Section 14.0 Pipeline EPP]. e) Return the bed and banks of each crossing as close as practical to their pre-construction contours. Watercourses are not to be realigned or straightened, nor have their hydraulic characteristics changed [Section 14.0 Pipeline EPP]. f) If the contours of the bed of a navigable waterway are disturbed by placement, construction or removal of works, ensure that contours are restored to their natural state on completion of construction or placement of the works. Erosion Control g) Stabilize disturbed shoreline to prevent erosion [Section 2.10 SEMP]. h) Monitor equipment/vehicle crossings to ensure that erosion control measures are adequate and streamflow is not disrupted [Section 14.0 Pipeline EPP]. Facilitate Ongoing Navigation i) Keep channel clear upon completion of construction [Section 2.10 SEMP]. j) Ensure that vessels can navigate safely through or around the work site, or if navigation is interrupted by any activity related to construction of placement, that suitable means, such as portage, exist to allow vessels to resume navigation on the side of the work site. Notification of Interested k) Notify recreational boaters of the hazards associated with instream construction in accordance with NEB guidelines Parties - Waterway Users or approval conditions for navigable waters. Place warning signs (e.g., “Construction Ahead” and “Travaux de construction”) up and downstream of all the navigable crossings. Details of proposed warning sign placement is outlined in Appendix H of this Plan. Maintain signage and other warning systems in place until navigational hazards are removed [Section 5.0 Pipeline EPP]. l) Install construction notification signs at road crossings, navigable watercourse crossings and rail crossings, as needed [Section 2.6 SEMP]. m) Work sites on navigable waterways are to be marked, from dusk to dawn and during periods of restricted visibility, with yellow flashing lights that are: (i) located on the end of the works that is farthest from the nearest bank or shore if the works are not more than 3 m in length; (ii) located on each end of the works, if the works are more than 3 m in length, but not more than 20 m in length; (iii) located on each end of the works and at any other location on the works so that the lights are spaced not more than 20 m apart if the works are more than 20 m in length, but not more than 30 m in length; or (iv) located on each end of the works and at any other location on the works so that the lights are spaced not more than 30 m apart, if the works are more than 30 m in length.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page 10 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

TABLE 4 Cont'd

Activity/Concern Mitigation Measures Notification of Interested n) Work sites in or through a navigable waterway are to be marked with cautionary buoys that are lighted from dusk to Parties - Waterway Users dawn and during periods of reduced visibility and are: (i) located at the end of the works that is farthest from the (cont’d) nearest bank or shore, if the works are not more than 3 m in length; (ii) located at each end of the works, if the works are more than 3 m in length, but not more than 20 m in length; (iii) located at each end of the works and at any other location alongside the works so that the buoys are spaced not more than 20 m apart, if the works are more than 20 m in length, but not more than 30 m in length; or (iv) located at each end of the works and at any other location alongside the works so that the buoys are spaced not more than 30 m apart, if the works are more than 30 m in length. Marine (Westridge Marine Terminal) Notification of Interested o) Notify the City of Burnaby of the anticipated construction schedule as per the agreed upon schedule [Section 5.0 Parties – Municipal Westridge Marine Terminal EPP]. Authorities Notification of Interested p) Notify marine commercial and recreational operators of the hazards associated with construction in accordance with Parties - Marine Operators NEB guidelines or approval conditions. Place warning signs (e.g., Warning - Construction in the Vicinity) in terrestrial and marine environments, near construction activities. Follow conditions of permit approvals granted by the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA) [Section 5.0 Westridge Marine Terminal EPP]. During construction of Westridge Marine Terminal, construction warning signs will be placed approximately every 24.4 metres along the Construction Safety Boom (see point cc below), with lights positioned by the warning signs. In addition, appropriate navigation lights will be positioned at regular intervals along the entire boom as agreed with the CCG. On the shoreline, construction 1.2 x 1.2 metre warning signs will be placed approximately 150 m on either side of the Westridge Marine Terminal property boundary, where possible. q) Notify appropriate regulatory authorities and licensees, and/or distribute a notification to the shipping industry in order to advise commercial and recreational marine operators of the Project schedule and construction activities at the Westridge Marine Terminal [Section 5.0 Westridge Marine Terminal EPP]. Notification of Interested r) Provide notification to residents of construction within urban areas through methods determined in collaboration with Parties – Project Notice municipal and regional authorities [Section 5.0 Westridge Marine Terminal EPP]. s) Provide Project contact information to residents, land users and Aboriginal groups including for management of construction-related concerns [Section 5.0 Westridge Marine Terminal EPP]. t) Install signs at secondary road access points and within the vicinity of construction activities near secondary roads and highways to notify land users of construction activities [Section 5.0 Westridge Marine Terminal EPP]. Notification of Interested u) Provide Aboriginal groups with the anticipated construction schedule and facility location maps, and install signage Parties – Aboriginal groups notifying of construction activities in the area, a minimum of 4 weeks prior to the commencement of construction in the vicinity of their respective communities [Section 5.0 Westridge Marine Terminal EPP]. Marine Fish and Fish Habitat* v) Ensure barges are anchored or spudded in appropriate areas with minimal effects to intertidal and subtidal marine habitats. Grounding is prohibited, unless authorized by VFPA. Avoid sensitive marine habitats, where feasible [Section 8.0 Westridge Marine Terminal EPP]. Other Construction Measures w) Apply other measures in the Westridge Marine Terminal EPP pertaining to marine construction. Ensure compliance with all established legislation, including the Navigation Safety Regulations under the Canada Shipping Act, Fisheries Act and other applicable legislation [Application Volume 5B, Section 7.6.6.4]. Marine Restricted Areas x) Comply with VFPA’s Marine Restricted Area legislation, including Clear Narrows Regulations [Application Volume 5B, Section 7.6.6.4]. Construction Vessel Traffic y) Ensure Project construction vessels are equipped with appropriate navigation aids and marks. Project construction vessels will follow applicable navigation rules and carry a high frequency radio with appropriate channels to monitor vessel traffic in the Project area [Section 8.0 Westridge Marine Terminal EPP]. z) Ensure that construction vessel traffic is confined to the general work site, where feasible, and that vessel anchoring or other disturbance only occurs in Trans Mountain approved locations, unless required in an emergency situation [Section 8.0 Westridge Marine Terminal EPP]. aa) Operate Project-related construction vessels at slow speeds (<10 knots) and avoid rapid acceleration to limit the intensity of acoustic emissions (both above and below the water surface) and to decrease wake and the likelihood of striking marine mammals, infrastructure, or other vessels [Section 8.0 Westridge Marine Terminal EPP]. Public Marine Access bb) Discourage unauthorized marine vessel access at the Westridge Marine Terminal through use of signs, markers and/or buoys [Section 8.0 Westridge Marine Terminal EPP]. Marine Construction Safety cc) Install a floating marine safety boom around the entire Westridge Marine Terminal working zone during construction. Boom The marine safety boom will consist of floats and suitable vertical panels. It will be moored using suitable anchors to withstand typical and worst case environmental conditions found in this area. It will be fitted with several gates to accommodate the passage of construction vessels and vessels coming to and from the existing Westridge Marine Terminal dock. It will be equipped with reflective placards on both the inside and outside so the marine safety barrier remains visible between the buoys. At night, as advised by the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG), the marine safety boom will be marked by navigation lights (flashing yellow one nautical mile range) on all offshore corners. Additional lights will be mounted on the ship gate buoys. Radar reflectors will be installed strategically to assist approaching traffic identify the safety boom on radar during night time and periods of reduced visibility (see Appendix E of this Plan for further details of the conceptual design and layout of the boom). Additional Navigational Aids dd) Trans Mountain has received advice of the CCG on the additional navigation aids to provide at the facility post- construction, and this is being incorporated to the detailed engineering and design of the expanded Westridge Marine Terminal.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page 11 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

TABLE 4 Cont'd

Navigation Simulation ee) Trans Mountain will carry out exercises entailing real time navigation simulation after completion of detailed design, such simulation maneuvers will be for the areas surrounding the Westridge Marine Terminal and will be carried out in consultation with VFPA, the Pacific Pilotage Authority, and BC Coast Pilots. Marine Fish Habitat Offsets ff) Marine fisheries offset work in the Burrard Inlet will occur within the Westridge Marine Terminal Construction Safety Boom gg) The locations of the marine fisheries habitat offset area will be advised to Canadian Hydrographic Service (CHS) and VFPA once complete, for inclusion to the applicable navigation charts as determined by the CHS. hh) Day and night navigation marks will be put in place on the fisheries habitat offset area as required by the CCG close to completion of construction ii) The Pacific Pilotage Authority and the BC Coast Pilots have been made aware of the planned fisheries habitat offset work Notes: *This mitigation is also pertinent to navigation and navigation safety.

Tables A-1, A-2 and A-3 in Appendix A note which of the mitigation measures outlined in Table 4 are pertinent to each navigable and potentially navigable watercourse crossed by the mainline construction right-of-way, power lines and marine terminal (respectively).

Table A-4 in Appendix A notes which mitigation measures are pertinent to each navigable and potentially navigable wetland crossed by the mainline construction right-of-way.

Table A-5 in Appendix A notes which of these mitigation measures are pertinent to each navigable or potentially navigable watercourse related to reactivation activities.

Table A-6 in Appendix A notes which mitigation measures are pertinent to navigable watercourses affected by contingency crossing routes.

Table A-7 in Appendix A notes which mitigation measures are pertinent to navigable watercourses affected by temporary or permanent bridge crossings.

For “potentially navigable” watercourses, mitigation measures specific to navigation (measures [j] through [n] in Table 4) will only be initiated in the event that instream vessels are encountered during Project activities, which would result in confirmation of a navigable determination at the time of activity.

In addition to these measures and commitments, the Project will be designed, constructed, operated, maintained, deactivated and abandoned in accordance with the NEB OPR, which incorporates, by reference, the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) Z662-11, Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems (CSA Z662). Where inconsistencies occur between the NEB OPR and CSA Z662, or any other codes, standards, specifications and recommended practices used in the design, construction, operations and maintenance of TMEP and the expanded TMPL system, the NEB OPR will prevail to the extent of the inconsistency. Trans Mountain confirms that it will not use guide wires/coils during trenchless crossings of navigable waterways.

It is anticipated that there will be localized areas along the pipeline route where physical conditions or construction circumstances are encountered that are not specifically or adequately addressed in sufficient detail within CSA Z662, the NEB OPR or any other codes, standards, specifications and recommended practices. These conditions and circumstances could include watercourse scour and erosion, among others. Where these conditions or circumstances are encountered, the appropriate qualified engineering specialists will evaluate and prepare detailed engineered designs so that the design, construction and operations of the pipeline will implicitly meet the safety and integrity requirements of CSA Z662 and the NEB OPR. All such designs will be reviewed by qualified professional engineers who are certified accordingly.

To ensure a consistent approach to pipeline watercourse crossings throughout Canada and to aid in developing a common understanding between industry, regulators and other stakeholders, Pipeline Associated Watercourse Crossings Guidelines, 4th Edition (Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers et al. 2012) will be used to assess, plan, construct, operate and maintain the pipeline associated watercourse crossings. All watercourse crossings will have either a site-specific engineered crossing design that will address navigability issues or will refer to a generic typical watercourse crossing design.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page 12 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

For the power line crossing a navigable waterway, Trans Mountain confirms power lines will be designed and construction to CSA standards for overhead systems (CSA C22.3) to ensure specified vertical clearances.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page 13 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

5.0 FISH HABITAT OFFSETS Burrard Inlet is the only navigable waterway subject to fish habitat offset work.

At the time of this submission, no fish habitat offset works within freshwater watercourses are proposed. Should Authorization under the Fisheries Act (and an associated offsetting program) be required for instream works within freshwater watercourses, any potential effects on navigability will be identified at that time.

Trans Mountain will construct a rock reef complex within the Westridge Marine Terminal water lot to offset the loss and alteration of marine fish habitat resulting from construction of the Westridge Marine Terminal. The rock reef complex will have a total area of 9,011 m2 and will be located adjacent to, and offshore of, the foreshore extension (Figure 1).

The complex will comprise of 10 individual underwater reefs constructed of rock material ranging in size from 0.2 to 1.0 m diameter. The reefs will be distributed from +2 m chart datum (CD) to -13 m CD, and will extend approximately 70 m offshore from the foreshore extension. The reefs will be constructed within the Westridge Marine Terminal Construction Safety Boom, and are expected to be installed between August 2017 and March 2019. Trans Mountain has submitted an Application for Fisheries Act Authorization to Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) with detailed information on the rock reef complex. A copy of this Application has also been submitted to the VFPA as part of the Project Permit application for the Westridge Marine Terminal.

The proposed fish habitat offset works related to the Westridge Marine Terminal will not be proximate to the navigation and shipping channels of the Burrard Inlet and will be contained close to shore. The construction of the offset works will occur entirely within the Westridge Marine Terminal Construction Safety Boom which will prevent marine users from entering the construction area. While it is understood that marine commercial, recreational and tourism use is high in Burrard Inlet, the Construction Safety Boom will prevent the rock reef construction from having any interactions with navigation safety during marine terminal construction. Post-construction, given its location close to shore, general navigability in Burrard Inlet will not be impeded by the fisheries offset area. The underwater rock reefs are in an area that is not anticipated to be frequented by marine users during operations, except vessels such as tugs or spill response vessels berthed at the future utilities dock that will be fully practiced in navigating in this location. The underwater rock reefs will have day and night navigation marks and will be marked on applicable navigation charts to ensure their location in known to marine users. The overall effects of the Project on navigation and navigation safety in Burrard Inlet, in consideration of the fisheries offset rock reefs, are unchanged from the assessment in Volume 5B, Section 7.6.6.of the Application; these potential effects are reflected in points c) and d) in Table 3.

Key mitigations that will be employed to reduce or eliminate the effects of fisheries offset work around Westridge Marine Terminal on navigation and navigation safety are as follows: • The construction of the fisheries offset work will occur within the Westridge Marine Terminal Construction Safety Boom. • The locations of the fisheries habitat offset area together with other changes to the Westridge location resulting from the construction project will be communicated to Canadian Hydrographic Service (CHS) and the VFPA once complete, for inclusion to the applicable navigation charts as determined by the CHS. Until such time as these changes have been made to navigation charts, the CCG / DFO will issue applicable Notices to Mariners. • Discussions have been undertaken with the CCG on implementation of the reefs and determining appropriate day and night navigation marks to mark the edges of the offset area. Day and night navigation marks of the edges of the offset area will implemented as required by the CCG closer to completion of construction. • The Pacific Pilotage Authority and the BC Coast Pilots have been made aware of the planned fisheries habitat offset work.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page 14 503000 503200 503400 503600 503800

-26 m

-25 m -23 m -24 m 5460200 -22 m ¯ 5460200 -21 m

-20 m

-19 m

-18 m 5460000 5460000

Existing Loading Berth 5459800 5459800

Proposed Utility Dock

-15 m

-10 m

-5 m Existing

-2 m Utility Dock 5459600 5459600 -1 m

0 m

Westridge Marine Terminal 5459400 5459400

503000 503200 503400 503600 503800

SCALE: 1:5,000 FIGURE: 1 This document is provided by Kinder Morgan Canada Inc. (KMC) for use by the intended recipient only. This information is confidential and proprietary to KMC and is not to be provided to any other recipient without the written consent of KMC. It is not to be used for legal, engineering or surveying purposes, nor for doing any work on or around KMC's pipelines and facilities, MARINE FISH HABITAT all of which require KMC's prior written approval. OFFSETS AT WESTRIDGE MARINE TERMINAL TRANS MOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT Although there is no reason to believe that there are any errors associated with the data used to generate this product or in the product itself, users of these data are advised that errors in the data may be present. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

6.0 SUMMARY Trans Mountain has undertaken detailed study to determine the navigability status of waterways interacting with the various components of the Project. Trans Mountain has developed numerous mitigation measures to address potential Project effects on navigation and navigation safety on affected navigable waterways.

This Plan provides an updated list of navigable and potentially navigable waterways (including watercourses and wetlands) that may be affected by the Project and a review of assessment outcomes and mitigation measures to address potential Project effects on navigation and navigation safety for each identified navigable waterway. The Plan also summarizes issues or concerns related to navigation and navigation safety raised through Trans Mountain’s stakeholder and Aboriginal engagement to-date and how the Project has addressed them and considered them in the Plan.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page 16 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

7.0 REFERENCES Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association and Canadian Gas Association. 2012. Pipeline Associated Watercourse Crossings Guidelines, 4th Edition. Prepared by TERA Environmental Consultants. Calgary, Alberta.

Government of Canada. 2009. Minor Works and Waters (Navigable Waters Protection Act) Order. Canada Gazette. Vol. 143, No 19.

Government of Canada. 2014. Order Amending the Minor Works and Waters (Navigable Waters Protection Act) Order. Canada Gazette. Vol. 148, No 16.

National Energy Board. 2015a. Filing Manual, Inclusive of Release 2015-01. Calgary, Alberta.

National Energy Board. 2015b. Frequently Asked Questions - Amendments to the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act on Navigation and Navigation Safety, Environment. Website: https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/bts/ctrg/gnnb/nvgblwtrs/nvgtnfq-eng.html. Accessed February 2016.

Transport Canada. 2010. Minor Water User Guide 2010. TP 14838. 22 pp.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page 17 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

APPENDIX A

NAVIGABLE AND POTENTIALLY NAVIGABLE WATERWAYS CROSSED BY THE PROJECT

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page A-1 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

TABLE A-1

NAVIGABLE AND POTENTIALLY NAVIGABLE WATERCOURSES CROSSED BY THE PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION RIGHT-OF-WAY

Max/Mean Potential Residual Channel Effects on Width (m) Project Navigation and Mitigation Measures Proposed Recommended Navigation Safety (See Letter Class (BC) / Pipeline Vehicle Crossing (see Potential Referenced KP Watercourse Flow Classification Crossing Method Navigability Residual Effects in Mitigation in (005) Watercourse Name Crossing ID PXID Regime (Alberta) Method Flowing Status Table 3) Table 4) Watercourses - Alberta 0.5 Unnamed Tributary to AB-0a W1.1 Perennial Class C N/A Isolated Trenched Existing Crossing, Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) North Saskatchewan (unmapped) Clear-Span Bridge Navigable through i) River or Type 3 Culvert 24.2 Blackmud Creek AB-12 W27.4 Perennial Class C 11/8.5 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) Navigable through i) 28.0 Whitemud Creek AB-13 W28.4 Perennial Class B 13.0/10.1 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) Navigable through i) 33.6 North Saskatchewan AB-14 W29.5 Perennial Class C 211.0/188.2 Trenchless Existing Crossing Navigable No Effects, due to N/A River Trenchless Crossing

59.4 Dog Creek AB-18 W38.4 Perennial Class C Not recorded Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge, Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a)

aeA-2 Page (unmapped) Type 3 Culvert or Navigable through i) Type 5 Logfill/Swamp Mat 90.2 Unnamed Tributary to AB-33 W60.5 Perennial Class C TBD Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) Kilini Creek (unmapped) Navigable through i) 91.3 Unnamed Tributary to AB-34 W61.3 Perennial Class C 30.0/9.0 Isolated Trenched Existing Crossing, Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) Kilini Creek (unmapped) Clear-Span Bridge, Navigable through i) Type 3 Culvert or Type 5 Logfill/Swamp Mat 125.8 Unnamed Tributary to AB-60 W103.5 Perennial Class C 10.0/8.2 Isolated Trenched Existing Crossing or Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) Isle Lake Clear-Span Bridge Navigable through i) 134.0 Pembina River AB-66 W110.5 Perennial Class C 95.0/67.4 Trenchless Existing Crossing Navigable No Effects, due to N/A Trenchless Crossing 151.0 Unnamed Tributary to AB-91 W138.3 Perennial Class C TBD Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) Chip Lake Navigable through i)

172.7 Little Brule Creek AB-111 W160.5 Perennial Class C 12.5/9.1 Isolated Trenched Existing Crossing or Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) Clear- Span Bridge Navigable through i) 177.9 Unnamed Tributary to AB-114 W163.5 Perennial Class C 4.0/2.0 Isolated Trenched Existing Crossing Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) Brule Creek (unmapped) Navigable through i) 180.0 Brule Creek AB-116 W165.4 Perennial Class C 8.0/6.0 Isolated Trenched Existing Crossing or Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) Clear- Span Bridge Navigable through i) 184.2 Lobstick River AB-117 W166.5 Perennial Class C 11.0/8.4 Isolated Trenched Existing Crossing or Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) Clear- Span Bridge Navigable through i) Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

TABLE A-1 Cont’d.

Potential Residual Effects on Project Navigation and Mitigation Measures Proposed Recommended Navigation Safety (See Letter Class (BC) / Max/Mean Pipeline Vehicle Crossing (see Potential Referenced KP Watercourse Flow Classification Channel Crossing Method Navigability Residual Effects in Mitigation in (005) Watercourse Name Crossing ID PXID Regime (Alberta) Width (m) Method Flowing Status Table 3) Table 4) 187.9 Unnamed Tributary to AB-118 W169.3 Perennial Class C Isolated Trenched Existing Crossing or Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 8.6/6.5 Lobstick River (unmapped) Clear- Span Bridge Navigable through i) 192.0 Carrot Creek AB-119 W170.5 Perennial Class C Isolated Trenched Existing Crossing or Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 25.0/13.6 Clear- Span Bridge Navigable through i) 201.5 Unnamed tributary to AB-125 W176.4 Perennial Class C Isolated Trenched Existing Crossing Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 2.0/1.3 January Creek (unmapped) Navigable through i) 201.6 Unnamed Tributary to AB-126 W177.4 Perennial Class C Isolated Trenched Existing Crossing Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 2.0/1.3 January Creek (unmapped) Navigable through i) 219.3 Wolf Creek AB-129 W180.4 Perennial Class C Trenchless Clear-Span Bridge Navigable No Effects, due to N/A 32.0/27.4 Trenchless Crossing 222.7 McLeod River AB-131 W183.3 Perennial Class C Trenchless Existing Crossing Navigable No Effects, due to N/A 121.0/104.2 Trenchless Crossing 226.4 Bench Creek AB-132 W184.5 Perennial Class C Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 9.3/6.3 Navigable through i) aeA-3 Page 235.4 Bench Creek AB-136 W189.3 Perennial Class C Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 15.0/6.0 Navigable through i) 244.0 Little Sundance Creek AB-137 W190.5 Perennial Class C Isolated Trenched Existing Crossing or Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 9.3/8.4 Clear- Span Bridge Navigable through i) 246.7 Sundance Creek AB-138 W191.4 Perennial Class C Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 13.0/9.7 Navigable through i) 258.8 Unnamed tributary to AB-141 W195.4 Perennial Class C Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 10.0/4.3 McLeod River (unmapped) Navigable through i) 268.2 Unnamed tributary to AB-143 W197.2 Perennial Class C Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 10.0/6.0 McLeod River Navigable through i) 293.9 Ponoka Creek AB-155 W211.3 Perennial Class C Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 6.8/4.3 Navigable through i) 326.2 Maskuta Creek AB-188 W255.3 Perennial Class C Isolated Trenched Existing Crossing or Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 14.0/11.5 Clear- Span Bridge Navigable through i) Watercourses - BC Baer Creek BC-3 W1002.4 Perennial S2 6.60 / 5.50 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 490.1 Navigable through i)

MarathonCreek BC-5 W1004.4 Perennial S2 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 491.1 14.00 / 7.50 Navigable through i) Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

TABLE A-1 Cont’d.

aeA-4 Page Robina Creek BC-66 W1067.4 Perennial S5/S2 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 10.00 / 5.13 or Other Regulatory Navigable through i) 548.6 Approved Crossing Method Clemina Creek BC-76 W1078.5 Perennial S2 Isolated Trenched Existing or Clear- Navigable 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 554.9 23.00 / 17.17 Span Bridge through n) Dora Creek BC-78 W1080.3 Perennial S2 Isolated Trenched Existing or Clear- Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 555.4 11.00 / 7.37 Span Bridge Navigable through i) Albreda River BC-82a W1084.5 Perennial S2 Isolated Trenched Existing or Clear- Navigable 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 557.5 24.00 / 19.70 Span Bridge through n) Albreda River BC-85 W1087.5 Perennial S2 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Navigable 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 559.7 24.00 / 19.00 through n) Dominion Creek BC-93 W1096.1 Perennial S2 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 563.7 20.00 / 14.17 Navigable through i) Moonbeam Creek BC-94 W1097.2 Perennial S2 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Navigable 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 568.0 18.00 / 14.25 through n) Unnamed Channel BC-104 W1111.3 Perennial S5/S2 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 572.3 9.74 / 6.83 Navigable through i) Serpentine Creek BC-110 W1118.2 Perennial S2 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 576.4 17.30 / 12.05 Navigable through i) North Thompson River BC-111 W1119.3 Perennial S1A 110.00 / Trenchless Access Both Banks Navigable No Effects, due to N/A 577.1 94.17 Trenchless Crossing Chappell Creek BC-112 W1120.4 Perennial S2 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 578.0 14.00 / 9.42 Navigable through i) Miledge Creek BC-151 W1158.4 Perennial S1B Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 589.0 30.00 / 22.60 Navigable through i) Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

TABLE A-1 Cont’d.

aeA-5 Page North Thompson River BC-182 W1189.4 Perennial S1A 150.00 / Trenchless Access Both Banks Navigable No Effects, due to N/A 616.0 107.50 Trenchless Crossing Froth Creek BC-189 W1196.3 Perennial S2 Isolated Trenched Existing or Clear- Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 622.7 13.00 / 11.20 Span Bridge Navigable through i) Foam Creek BC-193b W1206.5 Perennial S2 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 629.3 12.50 / 10.45 Navigable through i) Finn Creek BC-201 W1215.4 Perennial S2 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 633.9 18.00 / 16.00 Navigable through i) Sundt Creek BC-224 W1240.4 Perennial S2 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 643.3 22.20 / 8.83 Navigable through i) Tumtum Creek BC-227 W1243.5 Perennial S2 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 644.2 16.40 / 10.46 Navigable through i) North Thompson River BC-236 W1252.3 Perennial S1A 175.00 / Trenchless Access both banks Navigable No Effects, due to N/A 646.8 163.33 Trenchless Crossing Unnamed Channel BC-248 W1265.4 Seasonal S2 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 658.6 14.50 / 9.73 Navigable through i) Sager Creek BC-249 W1266.4 Seasonal S2 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 659.8 18.00 / 11.74 Navigable through i) Ivy Creek BC-258 W1275.5 Seasonal S5 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) or Other Regulatory Navigable through i) 667.5 10.15 / 6.52 Approved Crossing Method Mad River BC-275 W1292.5 Perennial S2 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 678.8 26.00 / 19.00 Navigable through i) Cove Creek BC-277 W1294.4 Seasonal S2 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 681.9 8.32 / 5.93 Navigable through i) Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

TABLE A-1 Cont’d.

Potential Residual Effects on Project Navigation and Mitigation Measures Proposed Recommended Navigation Safety (See Letter Class (BC) / Max/Mean Pipeline Vehicle Crossing (see Potential Referenced KP Watercourse Flow Classification Channel Crossing Method Navigability Residual Effects in Mitigation in (005) Watercourse Name Crossing ID PXID Regime (Alberta) Width (m) Method Flowing Status Table 3) Table 4) Peavine Creek BC-296 W1313.5 Seasonal S2 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 697.6 8.60 / 6.63 Navigable through i) Raft River BC-309 W1326.3 Perennial S1B Trenchless Access Both Banks Navigable No Effects, due to N/A 713.4 45.00 / 37.82 Trenchless Crossing Clearwater River BC-312 W1329.4 Perennial S1A 116.20 / Trenchless Access Both Banks Navigable No Effects, due to N/A 721.4 105.15 Trenchless Crossing Mann Creek BC-315 W1334.4 Perennial S2 Trenchless Clear-Span Bridge Navigable No Effects, due to N/A 730.5 24.00 / 19.50 Trenchless Crossing Lemieux Creek BC-330 W1348.5 Perennial S1B Isolated Trenched Existing or Clear- Navigable 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 744.8 50.00 / 20.23 Span Bridge through n) Nehalliston Creek BC-331 W1349.6 Perennial S2 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 746.4 14.10 / 8.10 Navigable through i) Eakin Creek BC-332 W1350.2 Perennial S2 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 747.8 13.00 / 10.50 Navigable through i) aeA-6 Page Thuya Creek BC-338 W1356.43 Perennial S2 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 756.7 8.40 / 7.43 Navigable through i) Darlington Creek BC-343 W1361.4 Perennial S2 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 763.8 21.80 / 12.30 Navigable through i) Lindquist Creek BC-344 W1362.3 Seasonal S2 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 764.1 14.80/ 10.13 Navigable through i) Jamieson Creek BC-371 W1389.4 Perennial S2 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 816.3 25.00 / 15.85 Navigable through i) Lanes Creek BC-376 W1394.4 Perennial S2 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 821.5 12.20 / 6.30 Navigable through i) Thompson River BC-413 W1431.3 Perennial S1A 604.00 / Trenchless Access Both Banks Navigable No Effects, due to N/A 842.9 555.00 Trenchless Crossing Moore Creek BC-459 W1478.4 Perennial S2 Isolated Trenched Existing or Clear- Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 889.4 6.50 / 5.23 Span Bridge Navigable through i) Clapperton Creek BC-482 W1501.4 Perennial S2 Isolated Trenched Existing or Clear- Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 912.6 26.00/ 11.83 Span Bridge Navigable through i) Nicola River BC-504 W1524.5 Perennial S2 Trenchless Clear-Span Bridge Navigable No Effects, due to N/A 924.7 22.00 / 17.33 Trenchless Crossing Coldwater River BC-548 W1570.4 Perennial S1B Trenchless Clear-Span Bridge Navigable No Effects, due to N/A 954.5 30.00 / 24.20 or Access Both Trenchless Crossing Banks Gillis Creek BC-549 W1571.4 Intermittent S3 Trenchless Clear-Span Bridge Potentially No Effects, due to N/A 954.7 5.20 / 3.73 Navigable Trenchless Crossing Coldwater River BC-559 W1582.3 Perennial S1B Trenchless Clear-Span Bridge Navigable No Effects, due to N/A 967.0 52.00 / 35.05 or Access Both Trenchless Crossing Banks Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

TABLE A-1 Cont’d.

Potential Residual Effects on Project Navigation and Mitigation Measures Proposed Recommended Navigation Safety (See Letter Class (BC) / Max/Mean Pipeline Vehicle Crossing (see Potential Referenced KP Watercourse Flow Classification Channel Crossing Method Navigability Residual Effects in Mitigation in (005) Watercourse Name Crossing ID PXID Regime (Alberta) Width (m) Method Flowing Status Table 3) Table 4) Coldwater River BC-570 W1593.3 Perennial S1B Trenchless Clear-Span Bridge Navigable No Effects, due to N/A 976.7 56.00 / 33.67 or Access Both Trenchless Crossing Banks Juliet Creek BC-571 W1594.5 Perennial S1B Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Navigable 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 977.7 34.50 / 22.53 through n) Mine Creek BC-579 W1603.3 Perennial S2 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 984.0 10.70 / 5.32 Navigable through i) Coldwater River BC-582 W1607.4 Perennial S2 Trenchless Clear-Span Bridge Navigable No Effects, due to N/A 986.9 28.50 / 16.05 Trenchless Crossing Boston Bar Creek BC-591 W1622.4 Perennial S5 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) or Other Regulatory Navigable through i) 1000.0 8.00 / 5.80 Approved Crossing Method Unnamed Channel BC-592 W1623.5 Perennial S5 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) or Other Regulatory Navigable through i) aeA-7 Page 1001.6 7.10 / 6.70 Approved Crossing Method Unnamed Channel BC-595 W1626.5 Perennial S5 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) or Other Regulatory Navigable through i) 1006.3 15.00 / 10.38 Approved Crossing Method Boston Bar Creek BC-596 W1627.3 Perennial S5 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) or other regulatory Navigable through i) 1008.1 15.00 / 12.83 approved crossing method Unnamed Channel BC-617 W1648.3 Seasonal S5 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) or Other Regulatory Navigable through i) 1012.4 12.00 / 6.00 Approved Crossing Method Unnamed Channel BC-624 W1656.4 Perennial S5/S2 Isolated Trenched Existing or Clear- Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) Span Bridge or Navigable through i) 1016.0 9.00 / 5.86 Other Regulatory Approved Crossing Method Unnamed Channel BC-628 W1660.3 Perennial S5 Isolated Trenched Existing or Clear- Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) Span Bridge or Navigable through i) 1016.8 7.00 / 6.65 Other Regulatory Approved Crossing Method Ladner Creek BC-629 W1661.4 Perennial S2 Isolated Trenched Existing or Clear- Navigable 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 1017.4 19.00 / 16.00 Span Bridge through n) Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

TABLE A-1 Cont’d.

Potential Residual Effects on Project Navigation and Mitigation Measures Proposed Recommended Navigation Safety (See Letter Class (BC) / Max/Mean Pipeline Vehicle Crossing (see Potential Referenced KP Watercourse Flow Classification Channel Crossing Method Navigability Residual Effects in Mitigation in (005) Watercourse Name Crossing ID PXID Regime (Alberta) Width (m) Method Flowing Status Table 3) Table 4) Coquihalla River BC-631 W1663.3 Perennial S1B Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Navigable 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 1018.9 43.00 / 34.42 or Access Both through n) Banks Dewdney Creek BC-632 W1664.3 Perennial S1B Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 1020.0 32.00 / 21.73 Navigable through i) Karen Creek BC-634 W1666.3 Perennial S2 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 1021.6 9.00 / 6.27 Navigable through i) Coquihalla River BC-636 W1668.4 Perennial S1B Isolated Trenched Access Both Banks Navigable 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 1023.7 59.00 / 43.67 through n) Coquihalla River BC-639 W1671.4 Perennial S1B Isolated Trenched Access Both Banks Navigable 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 1025.9 63.00 / 43.83 through n) Coquihalla River BC-645 W1677.4 Perennial S1B Isolated Trenched Access Both Banks Navigable 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 1029.8 61.00 / 47.50 through n) Railway Creek BC-646 W1678.3 Perennial S2 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 1030.5 11.00 / 6.20 aeA-8 Page Navigable through i) Coquihalla River BC-654 W1686.4 Perennial S1B Isolated Trenched Access both banks Navigable 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 1040.4 78.00 / 63.60 through n) Unnamed Channel BC-654-a W2147.0 Seasonal S5 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) or Other Regulatory Navigable through i) 1041.8 9.83/8.39 Approved Crossing Method Silverhope Creek BC-657 W1689.4 Perennial S1B Isolated Trenched Access Both Banks Navigable 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 1044.4 45.00 / 39.67 through i) Chawuthen Creek BC-658 W1690.4 Seasonal S2 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 1048.6 25.00 / 20.00 Navigable through i) Hunter Creek BC-662 W1694.5 Perennial S1B Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Navigable 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 1052.6 35.00 / 22.00 through n) Lorenzetta Creek BC-666 W1698.5 Perennial S2 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Navigable 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 1058.1 14.00 / 10.33 through n) Wahleach Creek BC-668 W1700.4 Perennial S1B Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Navigable 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 1058.7 61.00 / 31.00 through n) Unnamed Channel BC-676 W1711.4 Seasonal S5 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) or Other Regulatory Navigable through i) 1062.6 5.80 / 5.40 Approved Crossing Method Unnamed Channel BC-685 W1719.4 Perennial S1B Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 1068.3 23.00 / 20.00 Navigable through i) Unnamed Channel BC-687 W1721.5 Seasonal S5/NCD-W Isolated Trenched Ramp and Culvert Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 1069.2 (FB) 7.00 / 6.33 or Clear-Span Navigable through i) Bridge Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

TABLE A-1 Cont’d.

Potential Residual Effects on Project Navigation and Mitigation Measures Proposed Recommended Navigation Safety (See Letter Class (BC) / Max/Mean Pipeline Vehicle Crossing (see Potential Referenced KP Watercourse Flow Classification Channel Crossing Method Navigability Residual Effects in Mitigation in (005) Watercourse Name Crossing ID PXID Regime (Alberta) Width (m) Method Flowing Status Table 3) Table 4) Unnamed Channel BC-688 W1722.5 Perennial S5/S2 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) or Other Regulatory Navigable through i) 1069.3 9.00 / 7.50 Approved Crossing Method Unnamed Channel BC-689 W1723.4 Perennial S5/S2 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) or Other Regulatory Navigable through i) 1069.5 13.00 / 9.13 Approved Crossing Method Unnamed Channel BC-690 W1724.5 Perennial S1B Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 1069.8 33.00 / 22.16 Navigable through i) Unnamed Channel BC-697 W1731.4 Perennial S2 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 1071.8 8.14 / 5.76 Navigable through i) Anderson Creek BC-705 W1740.5 Seasonal S2 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 1075.2 10.00 / 7.42 Navigable through i) Unnamed Channel BC-710a W1946.3 Seasonal S3 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) aeA-9 Page 1082.0 4.20 / 4.20 (Rogers Ditch) Navigable through i) Elk Creek BC-713 (SAR) W1752.3 Perennial S3 Trenchless Clear-Span Bridge Potentially No Effects, due to N/A 1084.9 4.70 / 3.35 Navigable Trenchless Crossing Big Ditch Creek BC-713a W10091.2 Perennial S2 Trenchless Clear-Span Bridge Potentially No Effects, due to N/A 1085.6 9.28 / 6.54 Navigable Trenchless Crossing Unnamed Channel BC-713b W10053.2 Seasonal S3 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 1085.8 4.32 / 3.02 (Roadside Canal) Navigable through i) Semmihault Creek BC-714 (SAR) W1753.3 Perennial S3 Trenchless Clear-Span Bridge Potentially No Effects, due to N/A 1090.2 5.40 / 5.00 Navigable Trenchless Crossing Chilliwack Creek BC-715 (SAR) W1754.3 Perennial S2 Trenchless Clear-Span Bridge Navigable No Effects, due to N/A 1091.5 14.00 / 11.33 Trenchless Crossing Peach Creek BC-716 W1755.2 Perennial S1B Trenchless Clear-Span Bridge; Potentially No Effects, due to N/A 1100.2 55.00 / 22.67 Swamp Mats may Navigable Trenchless Crossing be Required Chilliwack / Vedder BC-717 W1756.2 Perennial S1B 102.00 / Trenchless Access both banks Navigable No Effects, due to N/A 1100.4 River 81.50 Trenchless Crossing Hopedale Slough BC-718 (SAR) W1757.2 Perennial S2 Trenchless Clear-Span Bridge Potentially No Effects, due to N/A 1100.5 26.00 / 15.03 Navigable Trenchless Crossing Browne Creek BC-719 W10042.1 Seasonal S2 Trenchless Clear-Span Bridge; Potentially No Effects, due to N/A 1100.7 28.00 / 16.33 Swamp Mats may Navigable Trenchless Crossing be Required Unnamed Channel BC-720d W10050.2 Perennial S3 Isolated Trenched Existing or Clear- Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 1102.4 3.58 / 3.28 (Irrigation Canal) Span Bridge Navigable through i) Stewart Slough BC-720e W10029.2 Perennial S3 Trenchless Clear-Span Bridge Potentially Mitigation Measures a) 1102.7 4.23 / 3.68 Navigable through i) Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

TABLE A-1 Cont’d.

aeA-10 Page 1108.2 (Roadside Canal) 5.40 / 4.47 or Clear-Span Navigable Trenchless Crossing Bridge Unnamed Channel BC-724 W1763.3 Seasonal S3 Trenchless Ramp and Culvert Potentially No Effects, due to N/A 1108.3 (Roadside Canal) 4.10 / 3.70 or Clear-Span Navigable Trenchless Crossing Bridge Sumas Lake Canal BC-725 W1764.4 Perennial S1B Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Navigable 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 1108.8 24.00 / 23.67 or access both through n) banks Unnamed Channel BC-725.1 W10257.2 Seasonal S3 Trenchless Existing or Ramp Potentially No Effects, due to N/A 1109.4 (Irrigation Canal) 3.02 / 2.71 and Culvert or Navigable Trenchless Crossing Clear-Span Bridge Unnamed Channel BC-725b W1874.3 Seasonal S3 Trenchless Ramp and Culvert Potentially No Effects, due to N/A 1110.5 (Roadside Canal) 5.20 / 4.21 or Clear-Span Navigable Trenchless Crossing Bridge Unnamed Channel BC-725c W1875.3 Seasonal S3 Isolated Trenched Ramp and Culvert Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 1111.0 (Irrigation Canal) 3.98 / 3.32 or Clear-Span Navigable through i) Bridge Unnamed Channel BC-725d W1876.3 Seasonal S3 Isolated Trenched Existing or Ramp Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 1111.4 (Irrigation Canal) 4.25 / 3.63 and Culvert or Navigable through i) Clear-Span Bridge Sumas River BC-726 W1765.4 Perennial S1B Trenchless Access Both Banks Navigable No Effects, due to N/A 1112.8 43.00 / 38.83 Trenchless Crossing Unnamed Channel BC-729 W1768.3 Seasonal S5 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) or Other Regulatory Navigable through i) 1117.3 12.00 / 5.70 Approved Crossing Method Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

TABLE A-1 Cont’d.

Potential Residual Effects on Project Navigation and Mitigation Measures Proposed Recommended Navigation Safety (See Letter Class (BC) / Max/Mean Pipeline Vehicle Crossing (see Potential Referenced KP Watercourse Flow Classification Channel Crossing Method Navigability Residual Effects in Mitigation in (005) Watercourse Name Crossing ID PXID Regime (Alberta) Width (m) Method Flowing Status Table 3) Table 4) Clayburn Creek BC-731 W1770.3 Perennial S2 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 1120.9 6.15 / 5.31 Navigable through i) Unnamed Channel BC-731b W10458.2 Seasonal S3 Trenchless Clear-Span Bridge Potentially No Effects, due to N/A 1121.2 4.00 / 3.16 (Roadside Canal) Navigable Trenchless Crossing Clayburn Creek BC-732 W10460.2 Perennial S2 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 1121.9 10.00 / 8.33 Navigable through i) Unnamed Channel BC-732a W1899.3 Seasonal S3 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 1122.1 4.87 / 3.21 (Irrigation Canal) Navigable through i) Unnamed Channel BC-732a1 W10468.2 Seasonal S3 Trenchless Ramp and Culvert Potentially No Effects, due to N/A 1122.4 2.62 / 2.15 (Roadside Canal) Navigable Trenchless Crossing Unnamed Channel BC-732b W1900.3 Seasonal S3 Isolated Trenched Ramp and Culvert Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 1122.9 (Irrigation Canal) 4.00 / 3.33 or Clear-Span Navigable through i) Bridge Unnamed Channel BC-733 W1772.3 Seasonal S3 Isolated Trenched Ramp and Culvert Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) aeA-11 Page 1123.8 (Tributary to Gifford 3.60 / 3.25 or Clear-Span Navigable through i) Slough) Bridge McLennan Creek BC-734 W1773.3 Perennial S2 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 1126.3 10.00 / 6.83 Navigable through i) Coligny Creek BC-736 W1775.3 Perennial S2 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 1128.4 8.50 / 5.72 Navigable through i) Nathan Creek BC-747 W1787.3 Perennial S2 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 1136.6 13.63 / 10.14 Navigable through i) West Creek BC-749 W1789.3 Perennial S2 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 1141.7 11.75 / 7.86 Navigable through i) Salmon River BC-753 (SAR) W1793.3 Perennial S2 Trenchless Clear-Span Bridge Navigable No Effects, due to N/A 1146.1 12.00 / 10.50 Trenchless Crossing West Munday Creek BC-767 W1798.2 Perennial S2 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Bridge Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 1153.5 9.00 / 5.30 Navigable through i) Unnamed Channel BC-768b W1927.2 Perennial S2 Isolated Trenched Existing or Clear- Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation Measures a) 1155.7 7.50 / 5.84 Span Bridge Navigable through i) Fraser River BC-780 W1810.2 Perennial S1A Trenchless Access Both Banks Navigable No Effects, due to N/A 1167.1 556.0 / 451.0 Trenchless Crossing Port Mann Slough BC-780.1 W10901.1 Seasonal S2 Trenchless Clear-Span Bridge Potentially No Effects, due to N/A or other regulatory Navigable Trenchless Crossing 1167.7 10.00 / 8.58 approved crossing method Unnamed Channel BC-780a1 W1811.2 Perennial S2 Trenchless Clear-Span Bridge Potentially No Effects, due to N/A 1167.8 8.50 / 5.75 Navigable Trenchless Crossing Unnamed Channel BC-780a2 W1812.2 Perennial S2 Trenchless Clear-Span Bridge Potentially No Effects, due to N/A 1168.1 8.50 / 5.95 Navigable Trenchless Crossing Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

TABLE A-1 Cont’d.

TABLE A-2

NAVIGABLE AND POTENTIALLY NAVIGABLE WATERCOURSES CROSSED BY POWER LINES

Potential Residual Effects on Navigation Mitigation Measures Class (BC) / Max/mean Recommended and Navigation Safety (See Letter Watercourse Classification channel width Project Proposed Vehicle Crossing Navigability (see Potential Residual Referenced KP Watercourse Name Crossing ID Flow Regime (Alberta) (m) Crossing Method Method Flowing Status Effects in Table 3) Mitigation in Table 4) N/A North Thompson BCT-2 Perennial S1A 475.00 / Install Transmission Existing or Access Navigable No Effects, due to No N/A River 417.50 Poles Outside of Both Banks Instream Work and CSA Riparian Management C22.3 Standards for Area. Vertical Wire Clearances The line would be suspended over the watercourse at the specified vertical clearances outlined in CSA C22.3

aeA-13 Page TABLE A-3

NAVIGABLE AND POTENTIALLY NAVIGABLE WATERCOURSES CROSSED BY THE MARINE TERMINAL AND MARINE FISH HABITAT OFFSETS

Potential Residual Effects on Class (BC) / Project Proposed Recommended Navigation and Navigation Watercourse Watercourse Flow Classification Pipeline Vehicle Crossing Navigability Safety (see Potential Residual Mitigation Measures (See Letter KP Name Crossing ID Regime (Alberta) Crossing Method Method Flowing Status Effects in Table 3) Referenced Mitigation in Table 4) N/A Burrard Inlet N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Navigable 3 and 4 Mitigation measures o) through ee) and ff) through ii) Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

TABLE A-4

NAVIGABLE WETLANDS CROSSED BY THE PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION RIGHT-OF-WAY

Potential Residual Effects on Mitigation Flow Approximate Navigation and Measures (See Regime / Length of Navigation Safety Letter Class (BC) / Wetland (see Potential Referenced KP Wetland Unique Classification Crossed by Project Proposed Pipeline Crossing Recommended Vehicle Crossing Residual Effects Mitigation in (005) Identifier (Alberta) Footprint (km) Method Method Flowing Navigability Status in Table 3) Table 4) Wetlands – Alberta 59.4 to Edmo- Open Water 0.08 The majority of wetlands along the pipeline Depending on the characteristics of a Navigable 1 and 2 Mitigation 59.5 Edso_WC42apoint6 Pond route will be crossed using conventional particular wetland, and the measures a) trenched methods during pipeline construction season, a decision will be through n) 65.5 to Edmo- Open Water 0.12 construction. The approach taken to made as to the type of vehicle and Navigable 1 and 2 Mitigation 65.6 Edso_WC48apoint6 Pond determine the specific crossing and equipment access required. In frozen measures a) mitigation methods implemented for wetland winter conditions, many wetlands may through n) crossings will be determined on a case-by- be able to be frozen solid enough to 85.1 to Edmo- Open Water 0.09 Navigable 1 and 2 Mitigation case basis, in consideration of season, support construction equipment travel. 85.2 Edso_WC68point17 Pond measures a) wetland class, water depth, length and Deeper wetlands or those with flowing through n) location of the crossing, vegetation types, water may not be frozen soils enough 90.2 to Edmo- Open Water 0.08 substrate type, season of construction, and to provide winter access for heavy Navigable 1 and 2 Mitigation 90.3 Edso_WC73bpoint4 Pond buoyancy requirements for the pipeline.1 equipment.2 measures a) through n) aeA-14 Page 125.0to Edmo- Emergent 0.88 Navigable 1 and 2 Mitigation 125.9 Edso_WC108point11 Marsh measures a) through n) 170.4 to Edmo- Open Water 0.14 Navigable 1 and 2 Mitigation 170.5 Edso_WC153point33 Pond measures a) through n) 177.8 to Edmo- Open Water 0.07 Navigable 1 and 2 Mitigation 177.9 Edso_WC160cpoint82 Component measures a) through n) 235.0 to Edso-Hint_WC217b Emergent 0.52 Navigable 1 and 2 Mitigation 235.5 Marsh measures a) through n) Wetlands – BC 730.4 to Blue- Open Water 0.07 The majority of wetlands along the pipeline Depending on the characteristics of a Navigable 1 and 2 Mitigation 730.5 Darf_WC707dpoint7 Pond / W1 route will be crossed using conventional particular wetland, and the measures a) trenched methods during pipeline construction season, a decision will be through n) construction. The approach taken to made as to the type of vehicle and determine the specific crossing and equipment access required. In frozen mitigation methods implemented for wetland winter conditions, many wetlands may crossings will be determined on a case-by- be able to be frozen solid enough to case basis, in consideration of season, support construction equipment travel. wetland class, water depth, length and Deeper wetlands or those with flowing location of the crossing, vegetation types, water may not be frozen soils enough substrate type, season of construction, and to provide winter access for heavy buoyancy requirements for the pipeline.1 equipment.2 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

Notes: 1 Measures will be taken to mitigate effects of instream works conducted in open water areas (i.e., emergent marshes and open water ponds) using barriers and sediment controls. Salvaged surface material and trench spoil material will be used to construct a barrier/dam in moderate to deep water areas. Sediment barriers or curtains will also be utilized to provide sediment control. Alternate dam materials such as an Aquadam© or meter bags may also be used where warranted. 2 Ramp materials (e.g., wooden mats or log corduroy) may be used in both frozen and non-frozen conditions to facilitate access. In open water situations it may be necessary to combine culverts and/or temporary bridges in access ramps. It may also be necessary or preferred to construct a shoo-fly around the wetland for use by the majority of equipment and vehicles to travel on and restricting equipment access through the wetland to just the equipment needed to install the pipeline crossing.

TABLE A-5

NAVIGABLE AND POTENTIALLY NAVIGABLE WATERCOURSES CROSSED BY REACTIVATION ACTIVITY

Potential Residual Effects on Max/Mean Navigation and Mitigation Channel Navigation Safety Measures (See Class (BC) / Width (m) Project Proposed Vehicle (see Potential Letter Referenced KP Watercourse Flow Classification Pipeline Crossing Crossing Residual Effects in Mitigation in (TMPL) Watercourse Name Crossing ID Regime (Alberta) Method Method Flowing Navigability Status Table 3) Table 4) Watercourses - Alberta 360.2 Snaring River TMR-46 Perennial Class C 111.0/72.3 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Navigable 1 and 2 Mitigation measures Bridge a) through n) 389.8 Minaga Creek TMR-72 Perennial Class C 11.2 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation measures aeA-15 Page Bridge Navigable a) through i) 403.9 Miette River TMR-81 Perennial Class C 31.0/26.3 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Navigable 1 and 2 Mitigation measures Bridge a) through n) Watercourses - BC 411.6 Rockingham Creek TMR-89 Perennial S1 20.6/14.7 Isolated Trenched Access from Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation measures Either Bank, Navigable a) through i) Adjacent Highway Bridge 416.3 Yellowhead Creek TMR-94 Perennial S1 45.0/25.0 Isolated Trenched Access from Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation measures Either Bank Navigable a) through i) 420.3 Ghita Creek TMR-98 Perennial S2 11.6/9.3 Isolated Trenched Clear-Span Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation measures Bridge Navigable a) through i) 423.8 Fraser River TMR-110 Perennial S1 57.0/36.0 Isolated Trenched Access from Navigable 1 and 2 Mitigation measures Either Bank a) through n) 461.2 Fraser River TMR-228 Perennial S1 73.0/64.0 Open-Cut Access from Navigable 1 and 2 Mitigation measures Either Bank, or a) through n) Clear-Span Bridge Notes: Based on known disturbance activity areas as of February 2017 specific to TMEP; not related to operations and maintenance of TMPL. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

TABLE A-6

NAVIGABLE AND POTENTIALLY NAVIGABLE WATERCOURSES CROSSED BY CONTINGENCY ROUTES

Potential Residual Effects on Navigation Mitigation Recommended and Navigation Measures (See Vehicle Safety (see Letter Class (BC) / Max / Mean Project Proposed Crossing Potential Referenced Watercourse Watercourse Flow Classification Channel Contingency Pipeline Method Navigability Residual Effects Mitigation in KP Name Crossing ID PXID Regime (Alberta) Width (m) Crossing Method Flowing Status in Table 3) Table 4) Watercourses - Alberta 134.4 Pembina River AB-66P2 PRC- Perennial Class C 65.0/58.1 Isolated Trenched or Open-Cut Existing Navigable 1 and 2 Mitigation (Alternate) W001 Inside the Least Risk Biological Crossing measures a) Window through n) Watercourses - BC TBD Raft River BC-309a RRC- Perennial S1B 53.00 / 40.00 Trenchless Access Both Navigable No Effects, due to N/A (Alternate) W001 Banks Trenchless crossing

aeA-16 Page TABLE A-7

NAVIGABLE AND POTENTIALLY NAVIGABLE WATERCOURSES CROSSED BY NEW TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT BRIDGE CROSSINGS

None N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A BC

4-B-72-A- Clear-Span Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation measures Peavine Creek BCVA-91 Seasonal S2 8.60 / 6.63 - - 2-W01 Bridge Navigable a) through i) 4-B-120- Clear-Span Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation measures Nehalliston Creek BCVA-104a Perennial S2 14.10/8.10 - - C-2-W01 Bridge Navigable a) through i) 4-B-128- Existing or Clear- Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation measures Lemieux Creek BCVA-105 Perennial S1B 35.00 / 24.50 Bridge Functional B-3-W01 Span Bridge Navigable a) through i) 5-B-51- 1 and 2 Mitigation measures Existing or Clear- Potentially Moore Creek BCVA-194 885.7-1- Perennial S2 6.50 / 5.23 Bridge - a) through i) Span Bridge Navigable W01 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

TABLE A-7 Cont’d

Potential Residual Effects Mitigation Existing Recommended on Navigation Class (BC) / Max / Mean Existing Measures (See Watercourse Flow Crossing Vehicle Navigability and Navigation Watercourse Name AXID Classificatio Channel Structure Letter Referenced Crossing ID Regime Structure Crossing Status Safety (see n (Alberta) Width (m) Type Mitigation in Condition Method Potential Table 4) Residual Effects in Table 3) 5-B-52-C- 14.30 / 7.45 Existing or Clear- Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation measures Moore Creek BCVA-200 Perennial S2 Bridge Moderate 4-W01 Span Bridge Navigable a) through i) Existing or Clear- 1 and 2 Mitigation measures 5-C-77-B- Span Bridge or a) through n) Coldwater River BCVA-246 Perennial S1B 52.00 / 35.05 Bridge Functional Navigable 3-W01 Access Both Banks 5-D-97-G- Clear-Span Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation measures Boston Bar Creek BCVA-263 Perennial S5 8.10 / 6.30 - - 3-W01 Bridge Navigable a) through i) 1 and 2 Mitigation measures 5-D-97-H- Clear-Span Potentially Unnamed Channel BCVA-264 Perennial S5 7.20 / 7.00 - - a) through i) 2-W01 Bridge Navigable aeA-17 Page Clear-Span 1 and 2 Mitigation measures Bridge or Other a) through i) 5-D-106- Potentially Unnamed Channel BCVA-281 Seasonal S5 12.00/6.00 - - Regulatory C-2-W01 Navigable Approved Crossing Method Clear-Span 1 and 2 Mitigation measures Bridge or Other a) through i) 5-D-107- Potentially Unnamed Channel BCVA-282 Seasonal S5 12.00/6.00 - - Regulatory A-4-W01 Navigable Approved Crossing Method 1 and 2 Mitigation measures 6-A-6-B- Existing or Clear- Potentially KarenCreek BCVA-289 Perennial S2 8.42 / 5.31 Bridge Moderate a) through i) 5-W01 Span Bridge Navigable Clear-Span 1 and 2 Mitigation measures Bridge or Other a) through i) 6-A-63-C- Potentially Unnamed Channel BCVA-306 Perennial S5/S2 13.00/9.13 - - Regulatory 2-W01 Navigable Approved Crossing Method 6-A-64-B- Existing or Clear- Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation measures Unnamed Channel BCVA-307 Perennial S1B 33.00 / 22.16 Culvert Moderate 1-W01 Span Bridge Navigable a) through i) Clear-Span Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation measures Browne Creek BCVA-312 W11474.0 Seasonal S2 10.20 / 8.62 - - Bridge Navigable a) through i) Unnamed Channel Existing or Ramp Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation measures BCVA-313 W11473.0 Seasonal S3 3.70 / 3.47 Culvert Moderate (Irrigation Ditch) and Culvert Navigable a) through i) Existing or Clear- Potentially 1 and 2 Mitigation measures Unnamed Channel BCVA-314 W11475.0 Perennial S3 4.25 / 2.66 Culvert Moderate Span Bridge Navigable a) through i) Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

TABLE A-7 Cont’d

APPENDIX B

CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT

Consultation and engagement activities related to the Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan were completed with Appropriate Government Authorities, potentially affected Aboriginal groups as well as commercial and recreational waterway users. Opportunities to discuss navigation and navigation safety and to identify issues or concerns were also provided to public stakeholders during meetings, workshops and ongoing engagement activities. Consultation and engagement opportunities began in May 2012 with the Project announcement and are ongoing.

1.0 Consultation and Engagement Overview: Draft Plan Development Reports on public consultation activities completed between May 2012 and June 30, 2015 were filed with the National Energy Board (NEB) and are available in the Application (Volume 3A: Stakeholder and Volume 3B: Aboriginal; Filing ID A55987) as well as in Consultation Update No. 1 and Errata, Technical Update No. 1 (Filing ID A59343) / Consultation Update 2 (Filing IDs A62087 and A62088), Consultation Update 3 (Filing IDs A4H1W2 through A4H1W8) and Consultation Update 4 (Filing ID A72224). These reports include results of consultation conducted to date, identification of issues and concerns as well as Trans Mountain’s response and are included below. Where appropriate, Trans Mountain’s response has been updated to reflect information developed since the original response was provided during the NEB proceeding for the Project.

Consultation and engagement activities completed between July 1, 2015 and December 16, 2016 have not been filed on the public record with the NEB. Any new issues and concerns identified during this period, as well as Trans Mountain’s response, are described below.

2.0 Consultation and Engagement Overview: Draft Plan The draft Plan was released for review and feedback on September 16, 2016. The comment period closed on December 16, 2016. Email or mail notification regarding the Plan was sent to 141 public stakeholders, 17 government authorities, 114 Aboriginal groups and key affected commercial and recreational waterway user organizations. The notification included a summary description of the Plan, a request for review, the timing of the comment period and contact information. Aboriginal groups were offered the opportunity for an in-person meeting to review the Plan. See Appendix C for a complete list of notified stakeholders.

In addition to direct notification, the online posting of each Plan was promoted through Trans Mountain's weekly e-newsletter, Trans Mountain Today, which provides Project updates, regulatory information, stories and interviews to more than 6,000 subscribers. Each week Trans Mountain Today included a focus on a specific plan, or group of plans, as well as a reminder of all plans available for review.

2016 • September 22 - Wildlife Mitigation and Habitat Restoration Plans • September 29 - Pipeline Environmental Protection Plans • October 6 - Air Quality Management Plans • October 13 - Watercourse and Water Ecosystems Plans • October 20 - Vegetation Management Plans • October 27 - Air Quality Plans • November 3 - Socio-Economic Effects Monitoring Plan • November 10 - Access Management Plan • December 22 - General promotion all plans • December 29 - General promotion all plans

2017 • January 5 - General promotion all plans • January 12 - General promotion all plans

Trans Mountain is committed to ongoing engagement throughout the life of the Project. The start and end date for the review and comment period for each environmental management plan is defined. These

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page B-1 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June2017 timelines are required to allow time for preparation of the final Plan in order to meet regulatory requirements and NEB submission dates. Although a formal review period may be closed, each plan remains available for review on transmountain.com.

3.0 Consultation and Engagement: Activities and Feedback

Consultation and engagement activities completed with identified stakeholder groups are described below, including: public stakeholders (Section 3.1); Appropriate Government Authorities and waterway users (Section 3.2); and Aboriginal groups (Section 3.3).

Feedback on the draft Plan, Trans Mountain’s response, and where each issue or concern is addressed in the Plan has been outlined in each section.

3.1 Public Consultation 3.1.1 Public Consultation Summary – May 2012 to June 2015 No public feedback regarding navigation and navigation safety issues pertinent to this Plan was received between May 2012 and June 30, 2015.

3.1.2 New Interests, Issues, Concerns and Response – July 2015 to January 2017 Table B-1 includes new interests, issues and concerns, as well as Trans Mountain’s response with respect to navigation and navigation safety aspects pertinent to this Plan identified through public consultation and engagement activities between July 2015 and January 2017.

TABLE B-1

NEW INTERESTS, ISSUES, CONCERNS FROM PUBLIC CONSULTATION RELATED TO NAVIGATION AND NAVIGATION SAFETY PLAN (JULY 2015 TO JANUARY 2017)

Date of Stakeholde Method of Consultation Where Addressed in this r Name Contact Activity Issue or Concern Trans Mountain Response Plan N/A Westridge 11/24/2016 Consider Automatic TMEP followed up with the CCG. N/A Marine Identification Systems (AIS) In the opinion of the CCG, AIS Terminal/Burnab as best practice for marking for the dock in the y Terminal navigation (discussion sheltered confines of the Burrard Workshops required with VFPA) Inlet was unnecessary.

3.2 Appropriate Government Authority and Waterway User Consultation Through the course of Trans Mountain’s extensive engagement program, a range of issues and concerns were raised by various government authorities and waterway users about the navigational use of certain navigable waterways.

3.2.1 Appropriate Government Authority and Waterway User Consultation Summary – May 2012 to June 2015 Consultation feedback applicable to navigation and navigation safety pertinent to this Plan received during consultation and engagement activity with government authorities and waterway users between May 2012 and June 30, 2015 is summarized in Table B-2, which focuses on waterways of stakeholder interest, associated issues raised and how Trans Mountain has responded to them.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page B-2 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June2017

TABLE B-2

SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND CONCERNS RELATED TO NAVIGATION AND NAVIGATION SAFETY (MAY 2012 TO JUNE 2015)

Watercourse Issue/Concern Stakeholder Group Trans Mountain Response Appropriate Government Authorities Thompson River Construction impacts to Kamloops Airport Authority • TMEP will ensure that all NAV CANADA notifications are Kamloops Water Aerodrome carried in accordance with the applicable Navigation activity. Will require Protection Program requirements. NAV CANADA notification. Fraser River Concern about existing City of Coquitlam • In use and decommissioned TMPL are buried at crossing pipeline crossing of Fraser location. TMEP will also be buried at crossing location. River – pipe is suspended and • Follow-up within Trans Mountain showed that the TMPL is boats could get caught on pipe not suspended. The suspended pipe noted by stakeholder at low water. Not sure if pipe is is not the TMPL. TMPL. Pembina River Impacts to commercial Parkland County • Planned crossing of Pembina River is trenchless. No recreation businesses. anticipated impacts to navigation or fishing activities. Burrard Inlet Interest in enhancements to Village of Belcarra • Navigational aids are not in the Application now but will be Westridge Marine Terminal placed depending on dock layout. See discussion of marine navigation aids for recreational construction safety boom in Table 4 (point dd) and vessels. Appendix E of this Plan. Ensure lighting at Westridge Vancouver Fraser Port • Recommendations and best practices have been applied in Marine Terminal meets Authority (VFPA) the current design and assessment to minimize lighting and requirements and does not light impact while meeting regulatory requirements for both interfere with navigation. navigation and industrial lighting for operational purposes. Trans Mountain has engaged with regulators including the Canadian Coast Guard, the Pacific Pilotage Authority, the VFPA and Transport Canada and reviewed with BC Coast Pilots regarding the plans for Westridge Marine Terminal’s navigational light marks. • The Project will continue to engage with stakeholders such as local residents and neighbouring municipalities regarding the overall lighting plan. • As per NEB Condition 82, Trans Mountain is developing a Light Emissions Management Plan for the Westridge Marine Terminal Waterway Users Upper Fraser Concern regarding interruption Commercial recreation tenure • TMEP proposed revised pipeline corridor no longer crosses River to recreation business due to holders (Stellar Descents the Upper Fraser River (see Part 2, Technical Update #4, open cut of Fraser River at Backcountry Adventures, filed December 2014). Rearguard Station. Mount Robson White Water Winter construction preferred; Rafting and Maligne Rafting do not want to be shut-down Adventures) during short summer season. Fraser River Concern about construction Pacific Coast Shrimper's • Planned crossing of Fraser River is trenchless. No impact on shrimp trawlers on Association anticipated impacts to navigation or fishing activities. Fraser River. Burrard Inlet Increased risk of marine vessel North Shore No Pipeline • The shortest distance that will occur between a tanker collisions near Westridge Expansion docked at Westridge Marine Terminal and: Marine Terminal due to - the navigation beacon at Roche Point will be expanded dock. approximately 850 m; - the high tide line at the boat launch at Cates Park will be approximately 1,020 m; and - the southeast corner of the dock at Cates Park will be approximately 1,000 m. • The siting of the dock and the clearances noted above will not impede recreational boaters or commercial traffic. • Trans Mountain continues to work with the VFPA (previously referred to as the Port Metro Vancouver) on permitting and design requirements of the Westridge Marine Terminal.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page B-3 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June2017

Watercourse Issue/Concern Stakeholder Group Trans Mountain Response Coordinating movement of Marine Studies Workshop • Effects related to the movement of tankers and tugs to and vessels from all the different participant from the Westridge Marine Terminal are outside the scope docks. of this Plan; however, there are a series of checks and balances involving VFPA, vessels communicating with each other and the CCG. 3.2.2 Feedback Regarding the Draft Plan A summary of consultation feedback from Appropriate Government Authorities and waterway users related to the draft Plan is provided in Table B-3.

TABLE B-3

SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY AND WATERWAY USER CONSULTATION FEEDBACK RELEVANT TO NAVIGATION AND NAVIGATION SAFETY PLAN (JULY 2015 TO FEBRUARY 2017)

Invited Stakeholder Date of Where Group/ Method of Consultation Addressed in Agency Name Contact Activity Feedback/Stakeholder Response Trans Mountain Response the Plan BC Oil and Gas Email December 16, 2016 Noted that in Table A 4, “Navigable The Plan has been updated to Section 3.1 of Commission Wetlands Crossed By The Pipeline reflect this change; now also this Plan Construction Right-of‐-Way” is not referencing Table A-4 (wetlands) referenced in Section 3.1 of the in Section 3.1 of the document. document, unlike all other items listed Table A 4. Transport Canada Email March 17, 2017 Inquired regarding the installation Barriers were not discussed in Table 4, point cc) and operation‐ of a barrier around part of the NEB hearings, of this Plan. Also, Westridge Marine Terminal during however, Trans Mountain will Appendix E of construction. have a marine safety construction this Plan. boom around Westridge Marine Terminal during construction to safeguard marine shipping and construction activities.

Trans Mountain has also conducted ongoing engagement with appropriate government authorities and marine commercial and recreation waterway users pertinent to Burrard Inlet in the context of its general marine safety program, which will inform the future NEB Condition 131 Marine Public Outreach Plan. This engagement information has been filed with the preliminary application for the Westridge Marine Terminal expansion to the VFPA and is attached as Appendix F of this Plan. While no additional issues or concerns pertinent to this Plan have emerged, it provides an overview of the range of government authorities and marine commercial and recreation waterway users pertinent to Burrard Inlet that have been engaged and will continue to be engaged by the Project. 3.3 Aboriginal Engagement Since April 2012, Trans Mountain has engaged with Aboriginal groups who might have an interest in the Project or have Aboriginal interests potentially affected by the Project, based on the proximity of their community and their assertion of traditional and cultural use of the land along the proposed pipeline corridor to maintain a traditional lifestyle. The objectives of Aboriginal engagement are to:

• have an open, transparent and inclusive process that seeks to exchange information in a respectful manner;

• address concerns shared by those who might have an interest in the Project or have Aboriginal interests potentially affected by the Project;

• incorporate feedback into Project planning and execution; and

• provide opportunities to maximize Project benefits to Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal groups.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page B-4 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June2017

A comprehensive Aboriginal engagement process is led by experienced engagement advisors in Alberta and BC, specialized in the areas of Aboriginal relations, law, economic development, education, training, employment and procurement. Trans Mountain’s engagement process for the Project is flexible, allowing each community and group to engage in meaningful dialogue in the manner they choose and in a way to meet their objectives and values.

Each community has the opportunity to engage with Trans Mountain, depending on Project interests and potential effects. The following opportunities to engage have been provided:

• Project announcement;

• initial contact with Aboriginal community or Aboriginal group;

• meetings with Chief and Council and meetings with staff;

• host community information session(s);

• conduct Traditional Land Use studies and socio-economic interviews;

• identify interests and concerns; and

• identify mitigation options. Issues and concerns related to navigation and navigation safety pertinent to this Plan raised during Aboriginal engagement from between early 2012 to February 2017 are summarized in Table B-4.

TABLE B-4

SUMMARY OF ABORIGINAL CONCERNS REGARDING NAVIGATION AND NAVIGATION SAFETY

Issue or Concern Where Summary Aboriginal Group Summary Trans Mountain Response Addressed Requests more information Pacheedaht First Nation NEB Condition 48 and NEB Condition 131 - Marine Public Outreach Appendix D regarding NEB Program will be provided to the community and there is opportunity for a Condition 48 follow-up meeting at the request of the community.

Trans Mountain continues its liaison with Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, the Government of Canada’s Major Projects Management Office, the BC Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, and the Alberta Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs to provide updates regarding Trans Mountain’s engagement activities with Aboriginal groups.

Identifying Aboriginal Groups for Consultation Trans Mountain used the First Nations Consultative Area Database Public Map Service to identify the Aboriginal groups with traditional territories that cross navigational waterways. Appendix D lists the Aboriginal groups identified for consultation. Throughout regular engagement with TMEP, any Aboriginal groups were added to the list if they identified navigation on navigable waters as a concern.

Consultation Activities A letter was sent to the Aboriginal groups listed in Appendix D with a copy of the draft Plan on September 16, 2016. Trans Mountain followed up with each Aboriginal group by telephone, email or in person to ensure No feedback was received on this Plan.

This final Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan will be shared with the Aboriginal groups at the same time as the Plan is filed with the NEB in 2017.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page B-5 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June2017

APPENDIX C

RECORD OF STAKEHOLDER NOTIFICATIONS OF DRAFT PLAN

Table C-1 includes local, provincial and federal governments, environmental groups, other industry, and local Chambers of Commerce or Boards of Trade. Trans Mountain identified the Appropriate Government Authorities for consultation on this Plan based on one of more of the following criteria:

1. A federal authority with oversight and or responsibility for navigation and navigation safety as it pertains to the scope of this Project 2. A government authority that was a registered intervener in the regulatory hearing process, and had expressed interest or concern in navigable waterways. 3. A government authority where permit(s) for construction in and or near navigable waterways maybe required. 4. A government authority with known interests in the Project and in potential effects on resource use and safety of resource users.

For over five years Trans Mountain has undertaken broad engagement regarding the Project. During its engagement initiatives Trans Mountain identified the degree of interest in specific topics from different stakeholders. In relation to Condition 48 and waterway users, Trans Mountain sought input from individuals and organizations guided by the following criteria:

1. Stakeholders who requested engagement on the topic of navigation and navigation safety; 2. Stakeholders representing a known or anticipated interest in navigable waterways affected or potentially affected by the Project; 3. Stakeholders the Project team identified directly and or were referred to.

Despite targeted outreach to identified stakeholders in Table C-1, Trans Mountain ensured the Plan was shared more broadly in the public domain for the duration of the comment period described in Reference ii). The draft Plan was posted on Trans Mountain’s website with the same comment period between September 16, 2016 to December 16, 2016. The online availability of the Plan and its associated comment period were communicated through existing online communication channels for a broader outreach, inviting comments to the Project general information phone line and email address. A link to the Plan filed with the NEB remains on the website (as of May 29, 2017) with an indication the comment period has closed; however stakeholders can still access the Plan that was filed and they are directed to contact Trans Mountain with questions or comments. The topics covered in the Plan were also incorporated into engagement and communications materials for public information sessions and workshops such as Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) workshops held in each region in 2016/2017 prior to the Condition 48 filing.

In addition to the engagement on this Plan undertaken in advance of its filing, Trans Mountain has a well established notification protocol it implements in advance of any specific Project field work along its corridor. This notification has been incorporated into the engagement and communication planning for construction execution. This protocol includes a thorough assessment of any planned work (including instream or riparian works near navigable waterways), a determination of scope and audience for a notification in order to meet regulatory and established community expectations, and the issuance of notifications where required in advance of any work beginning at a specific location.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page C-1 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June2017

Regional Adaptation

While Trans Mountain undertakes a consistent approach to its engagement and communication initiatives, community customization is undertaken where necessary. Any variation to the approach above is noted in the regional descriptions below.

Alberta – Edmonton to the AB/BC Border

In addition to the list provided in Appendix C of Condition 48 Plan filed, ENGOs and commercial water sport operators were engaged on the content of the plans through their attendance and participation in Environmental Protection Plan workshops.

BC Interior – BC/Alberta border to Hope

Stakeholders in the BC Interior were identified through Government directories, as well as input from local government contacts and community research. No specific stakeholder notification with regards to Condition 48 was conducted in the BC Interior as there were no directly impacted commercial and recreational waterway users identified. Stakeholders with potential interests pertaining to navigational waterways, such as Appropriate Government Authorities, fishing groups/river stewardship groups and the Mount Robson Whitewater Rafting Company in Valemount, were invited to previous engagement activities pertaining to navigational waterways, such as the EPP Workshop, with no response.

Lower Mainland/Fraser Valley – Hope to Burnaby

In this region, Trans Mountain sought input from organizations as per the guidelines identified above, including local, provincial and federal government representatives; stream keeper and environmental groups; agricultural groups; other industry; and local Chambers of Commerce or Boards of Trade. These groups and more were also engaged on this topic through online communications such as a webinar, at public information sessions and through workshops such as EPP workshops. Tourism organizations have not responded well to outreach undertaken to date; their interests were therefore considered during engagement with local Chambers and local governments where Trans Mountain has established a greater depth of dialogue on Project issues.

Mainland Coastal – The shipping corridor from Westridge Marine Terminal through the Port of Vancouver

Stakeholders selected for engagement in this region are primarily the eastern portion of Burrard Inlet. These groups have indicated interest in the increase in marine shipping traffic and the ability for marine craft to operate safely on the water in proximity to Westridge Marine Terminal during construction.

In addition, the Westridge Marine Terminal Project Permit requirements of the VFPA stipulated a Construction Communications Plan and an ongoing Engagement Plan to be filed as part of the project permit. The VFPA further indicated engagement would be required with a prescribed list of stakeholders such as neighbouring terminals, rail companies, health authorities, and the BC Ministry of Forest Lands and Natural Resource Operations. Any of these stakeholders not originally identified by Trans Mountain through engagement guidelines above were added to the list, and are captured in Appendix C of the Condition 48 Plan that was filed with the NEB.

Ongoing Marine Public Outreach

Navigation safety is part of ongoing Project communication and engagement efforts. In addition to incorporating navigation safety to Trans Mountain’s existing notification protocol, Trans

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page C-2 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June2017

Mountain has also planned to engage marine stakeholders about marine safety to meet other NEB condition requirements. The Draft Marine Public Outreach Plan presented in Appendix F of the Condition 48 Plan stipulates Navigation and Navigation Safety in Table 1.0 as topics of engagement; specifically the following:

• Potential navigation safety effects of the construction footprint for WMT • Potential effects of proposed WMT marine fisheries offsets on navigable waters (i.e. proposed rock reefs)

Trans Mountain consulted with the members of the project’s TERMPOL Review (TRC) Committee in July 2016 to seek their input on the draft outreach plan, the outreach materials as well as the stakeholder list identified. The TRC Committee is chaired by Transport Canada and includes representatives from the Pacific Pilotage Authority, BC Coast Pilots, the VFPA and Canadian Coast Guard. Trans Mountain will continue to update and execute components of the Marine Public Outreach plan annually, filing the results of the outreach efforts as part of the Condition 131 filing with the NEB, anticipated in 2019.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page C-3 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June2017

TABLE C-1

RECORD OF NOTIFICATION

Government Authority/Stakeholder Group Contact Name (if applicable) Date Method of Contact Aboriginal Groups N/A September 26, 2016 Letter (please refer to Appendix D) Vancouver Fraser Port Authority Tim Blair September 20, 2016 Email Jasper National Park of Canada Mayabe Dia September 20, 2016 Email Alberta Environment and Parks Corinne Kristensen September 20, 2016 Email Ministry of Transportation and Lisa Gow September 20, 2016 Email Infrastructure BC Parks Ken Morrison September 20, 2016 Email BC Oil and Gas Commission Brian Murphy September 20, 2016 Email Ministry of Natural Gas Development Linda Beltrano September 20, 2016 Email BC Forests, Lands and Natural Andrea Mah December 22, 2016 Email Resource Operations BC Forests, Lands and Natural Susan Fitton September 20, 2016 Email Resource Operations FVAQC Roger Quan October 21,, 2016 Email Environment and Climate Change Phil Wong October 21, 2016 Email Canada (ECCC) ECCC Rachel Mayberry October 28,, 2016 Email ECCC Coral Deshield December 21,, 2016 Email ECCC Phil Wong December 21, 2016 Email Vancouver Fraser Port Authority Patrick Coates September 20, 2016 Email Department of Fisheries and Oceans Sandra Hollick-Kenyon December 3, 2016 Email Department of Fisheries and Oceans Alston Bonamis December 3, 2016 Email City of Edmonton N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter City of Spruce Grove N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Municipality of Jasper N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Parkland County N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Strathcona County N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Town of Edson N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Town of Hinton N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Town of Stony Plain N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Village of Wabamun N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Yellowhead County N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter City of Kamloops N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter City of Kamloops Royal Canadian N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Mounted Police (RCMP) Detachment Kamloops Hotel Association N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Kamloops Chamber of Commerce N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Kamloops Ministry of Jobs, Tourism, N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Skills Training City of Merritt N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter City of Merritt RCMP Detachment N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Clearwater Employment Services N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Tourism Wells Grey N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Clearwater Chamber of Commerce N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter District of Clearwater N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter District of Clearwater RCMP N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Detachment Interior Health N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Merritt Chamber of Commerce N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Northern Health N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Regional District of Fraser Fort N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter George Thompson Nicola Regional District N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Town of Blue River N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Venture Kamloops N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page C-4 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June2017

TABLE C-1 Cont’d

Regulator/Stakeholder Group Contact Name (if applicable) Date Method of Contact Village of Valemount N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Village of Valemount RCMP N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Detachment Valley District N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Valemount Learning Centre N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Work Skills BC- Valemount N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Valemount and Area Recreation N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Development Association (VARDA) Valemount Chamber of Commerce N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Grassland’s Conservation Council N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Abbotsford Chamber of Commerce N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Abbotsford Police Department N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter ASCA N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter BC Invasive Species N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter BC Ministry of Children and Family N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Development BC Ministry of Social Development N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter BC Nature N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter BC Wildlife Federation N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Burnaby Board of Trade N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Burnaby RCMP Detachment N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Chilliwack Chamber of Commerce N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Chilliwack Economic Partners N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter City of Abbotsford N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter City of Burnaby N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter City of Chilliwack N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter City of Coquitlam N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter City of New Westminster N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter City of Port Coquitlam N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter City of Port Moody N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter City of Surrey N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Coquitlam RCMP Detachment N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Corporation of Delta N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter District of Hope N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Eagle Creek N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Fraser Valley Invasive Plant Council N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Fraser Valley Regional District N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Glen Valley Watershed Society N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Hope Chamber of Commerce N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Hope Community Policing Office N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Langley Chamber of Commerce N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter LEPS N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter LFVAQCC N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Metro Vancouver N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Newton RCMP Detachment N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter RCMP Division ‘E’ N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Sapperton Fish and Game N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Stoney Creek N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Surrey Board of Trade N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Surry Environmental Partners N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Surrey RCMP Detachment N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Township of Langley N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Township of Langley RCMP N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Detachment TriCities Chamber of Commerce N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Upper Fraser Valley Regional N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Detachment Village of Anmore N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Village of Belcarra N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Yorkson N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter ACGI Shipping N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Barnett Marine Park N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter BC Ambulance N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter BC Chamber of Shipping N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter BC Coast Pilots N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page C-5 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June2017

TABLE C-1 Cont’d

Regulator/Stakeholder Group Contact Name (if applicable) Date Method of Contact BROKE (Burnaby Residents N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Opposed to Kinder Morgan Expansion) Canadian Pacific (CP) Rail N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Canexus- Ero- Newalta-Univar N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Community Advisory Panal (CAP) Canexus Chemicals N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Chevron N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Canadian National (CN) Rail N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Council of Marine Carriers N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter District of North Vancouver N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Empire Shipping N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Erco Worldwide N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter First Nation Emergency Services N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Society (FNESS) First Nation Health Authority N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Fraser Health Authority N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Inchcape Shipping N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Island Tug and Barge N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Kask Brothers N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Ledcor Resources and N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Transportation Limited Partnership Mason Agency (Shipping Service) N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter MLA- Burnaby Lougheed N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter MLA- Burnaby North N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter MLA- Coquitlam – Burke Mountain N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter MLA- North Vancouver Lonsdale N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter MLA- North Vancouver Seymour N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter MLA- Port Moody- Coquitlam N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter MP- Delta N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter MP- North Burnaby Seymour N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter MP- North Vancouver N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter MP- Vancouver Centre N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter MP- Vancouver East N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter MP- Vancouver Quadra N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter MP- West Vancouver – Sunshine N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Coast – Sea to Sky Country North Shore No Pipeline Expansion N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter (NOPE) North Vancouver Chamber of N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Commerce Pacific Coast Terminal N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Pacific Pilotage Authority N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Pacific Wildlife Foundation N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Peter Kiewit Infrastructure Co. N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Seaspan N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Shell Terminal N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Simon Fraser University N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter SMIT Marine N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Suncor Terminal N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter University of British Columbia Stellar N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Sea Lion (Marine Mammal) Research Centre Vancouver Aquarium N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Vancouver Board of Trade N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Vancouver Coastal Health Authority N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Vancouver Pile and Dredge N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter West Vancouver Chamber of N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Commerce Westward Shipping N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Wild Bird Trust N/A September 19 – 23, 2016 Letter Metro Vancouver Regional District Ali Ergudenler September 19 – 23, 2016 Email Metro Vancouver Regional District Roger Quan September 19 – 23, 2016 Email

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page C-6 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June2017

APPENDIX D

ABORIGINAL GROUPS ENGAGED ON THE NAVIGATION AND NAVIGATION SAFETY PLAN

• Adams Lake Indian Band • Aitchelitz First Nation (Stó:lō) • Alexander First Nation • Alexis Nakota First Nation • Aseniwuche Winewak Nation • Ashcroft Indian Band (Nlaka’pamux Nation) • Asini Wachi Nehiyawak • Boothroyd Band (Nlaka’pamux Nation) • Boston Bar Band (Nlaka’pamux Nation) • British Columbia Métis Federation • Canim Lake Band (Tsq’escen') • Canoe Creek (Stswecem'c Xgat'tem) Indian Band • Chawathil First Nation (Stó:lō) • Cheam First Nation (Stó:lō) • Clinton Indian Band / Whispering Pines First Nation • Coldwater Indian Band (Nlaka’pamux Nation) • Cook’s Ferry Indian Band (Nlaka’pamux Nation) • Enoch Cree Nation • Ermineskin First Nation • Foothills Ojibway Society • High Bar • Horse Lake First Nation (Treaty 8) • Kanaka Bar • Katzie First Nation • Kelly Lake Cree Nation • Kelly Lake First Nation • Kelly Lake Métis Settlement Society • Ktunaxa Nation • Kwantlen First Nation (Stó:lō) • Kwaw-kwaw-Apilt First Nation (Stó:lō) • Kwikwetlem First Nation • Leq’a:mel First Nation (Stó:lō) • Lheidli-T’enneh First Nation

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page D-1 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June2017

• Lhtako Dene Nation • Little Shuswap Indian Band • Louis Bull Tribe • Lower Nicola Indian Band (Nlaka’pamux Nation) • Lower Similkameen Indian Band • Lyackson First Nation • Lytton First Nation (Nlaka’pamux Nation) • Matsqui First Nation (Stó:lō) • Métis Nation of Alberta Gunn Métis Local 55 • Métis Nation of British Columbia • Métis Regional Council Zone IV of the Métis Nation of Alberta • Michel First Nation • Montana First Nation • Musqueam Indian Band • Nakcowinewak Nation of Canada • Neskonlith Indian Band • Nicola Tribal Association (Shackan Indian Band, Nooaitch Indian Band and Nicomen Indian Band); • Nicomen Indian Band (NTA) • Nooaitch Indian Band (Nlaka’pamux Nation) • O’Chiese First Nation • Okanagan Indian Band (added by OGC) • Oregon Jack Creek Band (Nlaka’pamux Nation)

• Pacheedaht First Nation3 • Paul First Nation • Pauquachin First Nation • Penelakut First Nation • Penticton Indian Band • Peters Band (Stó:lō) • Popkum First Nation (Stó:lō) • Qayqayt First Nation (New Westminster) • Saddle Lake Cree • Samson Cree Nation • Scowlitz First Nation (Stó:lō) • Seabird Island Band (Stó:lō)

3 Pacheedaht First Nation expressed interest in this Plan subsequent to its draft distribution and will be included in final Plan distribution.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page D-2 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June2017

• Sechelt • Semiahmoo First Nation • Sencoten Alliance • Shackan Indian Band (Nlaka’pamux Nation) • Shuswap Indian Band • Shuswap Nation Tribal Council • Shxw’ōwhámel First Nation (Stó:lō) • Shxwha:y Village (Stó:lō) • Simpcw First Nation • Siska Indian Band (Nlaka’pamux Nation) • Skawahlook First Nation (Stó:lō) • Skeetchestn First Nation • Skowkale First Nation (Stó:lō) • Skuppah Indian Band (Nlaka’pamux Nation) • Skwah First Nation (Stó:lō) • Soowahlie Indian Band (Stó:lō) • Splatsin First Nation • Spuzzum First Nation (Nlaka’pamux Nation) • Squamish Nation • Squiala First Nation (Stó:lō) • St'at'imc Chiefs Council • Stó:lō Collective • Stoney Nakoda First Nation • Sts'ailes Band (Chehalis Indian Band) (Stó:lō) • St'uxwtews (Bonaparte Indian Band) • Sucker Creek First Nation • Sumas First Nation (Stó:lō) • Sunchild First Nation • Tk'emlups te Secwepemc (Kamloops) • Toosey Indian Band • Treaty 8 Nations of Alberta • Tsartlip First Nation • Tsawout First Nation • Tsawwassen First Nation • Tseycum First Nation • Tsilhoqu'tin National Government • Ts'kwaylaxw (Pavilion Indian Band)

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page D-3 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June2017

• Tsleil-Waututh Nation • Tsuu T'ina First Nation • Tzeachten First Nation (Stó:lō) • Union Bar Indian Band (Stó:lō) • Upper Nicola Band (Nlaka’pamux Nation) • Upper Similkameen Indian Band • Whitefish (Goodfish) Lake First Nation • Williams Lake (T'exelc) Band • Xatśūll First Nation (Soda Creek) • Yakweakwioose Band (Stó:lō) • Yale First Nation (Stó:lō)

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page D-4 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June2017

APPENDIX E

WESTRIDGE MARINE CONSTRUCTION SAFETY BOOM

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page E-1 TRANSMOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT WESTRIDGE MARINE CONSTRUCTION SAFETY BOOM A. Background As required by the National Energy Board a Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan (NNSP)4 has been prepared. The NNSP notes that there is potential of Project construction affecting navigation and navigation safety. This includes disruptions to users during construction or maintenance activities and safety of users entering the construction zone. Therefore, in anticipation of construction pile driving for the Westridge Terminal commencing in the fall of 2017, plans are in hand to install a floating marine construction safety boom around the entire Westridge working zone. The marine construction safety boom, a key element of the NNSP, will be designed to ensure the safety of commercial and recreational users of the local marine area, and the safety of workers working within a clearly demarcated working zone. The overall Westridge area working zone is shown in Figure 1 and is expected to encompass waters covering the future Westridge water lot lease area plus an additional temporary working space.

4 https://www.transmountain.com/navigation-safety-plan

Westridge Marine CONSTRUCTION SAFETY BOOM Page E-2 TRANSMOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT

Figure 1: Proposed marine construction safety boom showing shipgate (concept only, actual layout might be different)

Westridge Marine CONSTRUCTION SAFETY BOOM Page E-3 TRANSMOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT

1. Westridge Marine Construction Safety Boom The marine construction safety boom will consist of floats and suitable vertical panels. Once deployed it will extend from the high water mark west of the facility, out and around the entire construction footprint including the existing ship berth and tying back into the shore on the east side of the facility. The layout of the floating safety boom will be configured according to the construction operations and schedule and its layout during the first and second years of construction are shown as Phase 1 and Phase 2 respectively.

This boom will be moored using suitable anchors to withstand typical and worst case environmental conditions found in this area. It will be fitted with several access points or gates to accommodate the passage of construction vessels and vessels coming to and from the existing Westridge dock. The existing terminal will remain in operation for the majority of the construction period.

The marine construction safety boom will be staged at a nearby yard in the Burrard Inlet. From here it will be assembled and launched. 2. Navigation marks The marine construction safety boom will be highly visible during the day. The structure will be equipped with reflective placards on both the inside and outside so the marine construction safety boom remains visible between the buoys. At night, in accordance with general Canadian Coast Guard requirements, the boom will be marked by navigation lights (Flashing yellow one nautical mile range) on all offshore corners. Additional lights will be mounted on the ship gate buoys. Radar reflectors will be installed strategically to assist approaching traffic identify the boom on radar during night time and periods of reduced visibility. 3. Phased implementation Phase 1: August 15, 2017 to August 1, 2018 | Construction activities planned for this period include driving pipe piles for the Berth 1 & 2 dolphins, and driving sheet piles for the foreshore. During this period oil cargo vessels will access the existing dock through a ship gate placed at the eastern side of the marine construction safety boom. The actual layout and deployed extent of the boom may vary from the preliminary working layout shown in Figure 1; however, the minimum distance of the Phase 1 deployed boom from the centerline of the normal shipping route taken by passing vessels will be approximately 313 m (see Figure 2).

Phase 2: August 1, 2018 to December 31, 2019 | Berth 3 construction and the completion of Berths 1 & 2 will be undertaken during this period. During this phase the minimum distance of the deployed boom from the centerline of the normal route taken by passing vessels will be about 217 m (see Figure 2).

During the latter part of this period, cargo oil transfer operations will be shifted to the new Berth 1. Depending on requirements at that time, the ship gate for oil cargo vessels to access the dock will be shifted to the western side of the marine construction safety boom in order to allow access of those vessels to Berth 1. Such a Phase 3 iteration of the marine construction safety boom will be developed based on working experience with the use of the Phase 1 marine construction safety boom.

Westridge Marine CONSTRUCTION SAFETY BOOM Page E-4 TRANSMOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT

Figure 2: Eastern Burrard Inlet showing current and proposed Westridge dock area with the marine construction safety boom

Westridge Marine CONSTRUCTION SAFETY BOOM Page E-5 TRANSMOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT

4. Operations During Phase 1, the ship gate will swing inward toward an anchor buoy located by the future Berth 3. The opening will be approximately 180 m wide and if necessary it is anticipated that the opening could be further expanded by about 10 m on its southern side by installing mechanism to pull the inshore ship gate buoy toward shore.

A ship gate size of 180 m is proposed which is expected to be compatible with the results of the desk top navigation simulations previously undertaken by Lantec5,6 and submitted to the TMEP TERMPOL Review Committee and the NEB. Lantec carried out the simulations on a Kongsberg desktop simulator using Aframax vessels with typical worst case environmental conditions by applying wind from the northeast at 25 knots and tidal stream values as per spring tide conditions. Early verification of gate size compatibility and adequacy of maneuvering room has been made by Lantec by carrying out replays of two of the runs after having marked the Phase 1 and Phase 2 marine construction safety boom layout with ship gate coordinates to the simulation, see Figure 3 and Figure 4. Please note that Berth 3 will remain partially built while the existing dock is in operation with construction of the eastern dolphins deferred till after cargo operations have been transferred to new Berth 1 in 2019.

Figure 3: Arriving Aframax - Approaching existing berth through the marine construction safety boom shipgate (new berth 3 eastern dolphins will be constructed after existing berth operations have been transferred to new Berth 1)

5 Summary Report of Manoeuvring Assessment, Westridge Terminals Vancouver Expansion, 4 October 2013 6 Summary Report of Manoeuvring Assessment, Westridge Terminals Vancouver Expansion, 13 August 2014

Westridge Marine CONSTRUCTION SAFETY BOOM Page E-6 TRANSMOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT

Figure 4: Departing Aframax – Departure from existing berth through the marine construction safety boom shipgate

Westridge Marine CONSTRUCTION SAFETY BOOM Page E-2 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017 APPENDIX F

MARINE PUBLIC OUTREACH PLAN (DRAFT)

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page F-1

Technical Report TR-24

APPENDIX A: Marine Public Outreach Plan

Vancouver Fraser Port Authority Development Permit Application Construction Communications Plan Westridge Marine Terminal DRAFT

February 5, 2017

CANADA

TR-24 APPENDIX A Marine Public Outreach Plan – Marine Safety

Introduction

The Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMEP) has assessed the potential impacts of the expansion on existing marine traffic. TMEP has presented and communicated the risk assessments and suggested mitigations in a clear and transparent manner since the start of this Project in May 2012.

In order to meet National Energy Board (NEB) Conditions related to safety and marine shipping listed in Appendix 1, as well as Aboriginal and stakeholder concerns raised to date, the Project team will continue to engage and facilitate dialogue with coastal communities, Aboriginal groups and those who operate on the waterways of the commercial shipping corridor common to vessels calling at the Westridge Marine Terminal (WMT).

This plan outlines activities TMEP will continue to undertake to meet NEB Condition No. 131 “Marine Public Outreach Program.”

Goals and Objectives The goals of the marine outreach plan are two-fold: 1. To meet enhance safety while also meeting regulatory conditions requiring a marine outreach program (see Appendix 1); and, 2. To help foster trust and public confidence in the local maritime regime’s ability to respond to the Project’s proposed increase in oil vessel traffic.

This marine safety outreach plan has the following objectives: 1. Communicate facts about navigation and navigation safety aspects of maritime shipping operations for vessels calling at WMT. 2. Convey information about risk assessments, product testing and oil spill modeling and explain the risk based mitigation measures proposed to avoid vessel-related incidents. 3. Support Pacific Pilotage Authority’s (PPA) Safe Boating program to communicate to small vessel owners and operators relevant safety information about boating near large deep sea vessels.

To meet the objectives, the TMEP Marine Public Outreach Program will make reference to a variety of sub-topics for marine safety identified through years of engagement on marine issues since the Project began in 2012. Topics are listed in Table 1.0.

Table 1.0 – Topics to be addressed in Marine Safety Engagement for TMEP Marine Safety

• Navigable waters affected by the increase in Project-related vessel traffic • Concerns of marine waterway users regarding Project effects (e.g. commercial, recreational, tourism) • PPA boating safety campaign: ”Safe Boating in Deep Sea Shipping Navigation Areas” • Vessel timing and scheduling with affected stakeholders (e.g. through Second Narrows) • Tug requirements (e.g. MRA rules, tug matrix, potential effects on tug availability) • Potential navigation safety effects of construction footprint for WMT • Potential effects of proposed WMT Marine Fisheries Offsets on navigable waters (i.e. proposed rock reefs) • Marine Mammal Protection Program (i.e. related to vessel strikes)

Page 2 of 7 Last updated: February 5, 2017 TR-24 APPENDIX A Marine Public Outreach Plan – Marine Safety

Aboriginal Groups, Stakeholders and Other Audiences

Aboriginal groups and stakeholders are defined by communities along the marine shipping corridor and the potential for Project-related vessel traffic interactions or effects on marine water way users.

Much has been communicated to municipalities and to those who operate along the established shipping lanes where Project related tankers will transit, including engagement through the Technical Review Process of Marine Terminal Systems and Transshipment Sites (TERMPOL), meetings with terminal operators in Burrard Inlet (east and west of second narrows), presentations to commercial fishing representatives and through TMEP’s on-going dialogue with the Chamber of Shipping for British Columbia (COSBC) and other key associations in BC’s marine shipping sector.

Table 2.0 provides a high level summary of stakeholder categories. Going forward TMEP will build on information already provided to key stakeholders, as well as expand engagement with other audiences such as the tourism and recreational boating community.

Table 2.0 – Summary of Marine Stakeholders (*complete listing with contacts is in Appendix 2) Industry Marine (tugs, divers, etc.) Fishing Sector Oil & Gas (TM customers, refineries, associations) Shipping companies/operators Pilots (BCCP) Chamber of Shipping of BC (COSBC) Marine Trades Associations Tug and barge operators and associations Oil spill prevention and WCMRC response Equipment manufacturers and service providers (e.g. Aquaguard) Commercial and Tourism groups (WTABC, TIABC, Tourism Vancouver, Tourism Recreational Marine Victoria) Waterway users Yacht Clubs and Marinas and affiliated associations Government Elected Officials and staff for Federal/Provincial constituencies along the shipping corridor. Washington State (Elected officials, agencies) Local/Municipal (Elected officials, bureaucrats & agencies, RACs)** see Appendix 2 Federal agencies such as: TC, VFPA, PPA, CCG Coastal Communities Residents, particularly neighbours to Westridge Marine Terminal or ship anchorages Business Organizations (e.g. Chambers of Commerce) Community Groups Local Environmental Groups Aboriginal Groups Inlet Aboriginal groups Coastal Aboriginal groups in Salish Sea

Page 3 of 7 Last updated: February 5, 2017 TR-24 APPENDIX A Marine Public Outreach Plan – Marine Safety

Engagement Approach Marine engagement will occur through a variety of traditional and digital channels. • Online: Landing page – Marine safety (www.transmountain.com/marine) o Features all web articles, blog stories, fact sheets, factoids and other marine safety related content on www.transmountain.com or talk.transmountain.com o Stakeholders will be directed to this section of the website for more information • Power Point Presentation on the existing maritime regime and Marine Safety Enhancements • “Marine Safety Enhancements” fact sheet • Posters, postcards and print advertisements o Small scale posters for public areas targeting marine waterway users and directing them to where they can find more information • Engagement letters and emails to initiate outreach and present overview of the Project and key marine components • Email and telephone calls • Presentations, meetings, one-on-one meetings/interactions, workshops and open houses where content will be provided

Feedback mechanisms to address stakeholder comments: • Meeting notes’ action items included as part of engagement summaries filed with regulators • Email follow up by Stakeholder Engagement Specialist after meetings or in response to emails sent to [email protected] • Online o Engagement activities and resulting feedback highlighted via transmountain.com/marine- safety o Blog stories about marine safety, WMT works and other marine topics in Table 1.0 o Marine Safety facts broadcast by Twitter (@TransMtn) in response to common concerns gathered through feedback

Timeline (*plans for subsequent phases will be reviewed annually following an evaluation of feedback and engagement activities)

Phase 1 – September 2015 – November 2016 COMPLETE • Outreach to potentially impacted Municipalities and Industry / Industry Association stakeholders by email • One-on-one meetings and small group presentations, including: o Fish Safe BC Safety Program, September 2015 (Topic: Marine Safety Enhancements) o Wilderness Tourism Association of BC and Tourism Industry Association of BC, November 2015 (Topic: Marine Risk, Marine Safety Enhancements) o Area B Harvest Committee (Salmon) & CANFISCO, January 2016 (Topic: Marine Safety Enhancements) o Island Tug & Barge, February 2016 (Topic: tug matrix, 2nd Narrows transits) o Marine Shipping Agents, February and November 2016 (Topic: Tanker Acceptance Standard, Marine Safety Enhancements, Tug Matrix, WMT operations) o Clear Seas Centre for Responsible Shipping, March 2016 (Topic: Tug Matrix) o BC Chamber of Shipping, March 2016 (Marine Safety Enhancements, Industry Engagement) • Marine safety messaging as part of bi-weekly advertorials about the Project running in the North Shore News (June – November 2016) Page 4 of 7 Last updated: February 5, 2017 TR-24 APPENDIX A Marine Public Outreach Plan – Marine Safety

Phase 2 – November 2016 – September 2019 (activities emphasized during Boating Season) • Burrard Inlet Outreach via email and phone to remaining stakeholders: commercial fishing organizations (continued), commercial and recreational marine operators including marinas, yacht clubs, and other businesses operating on the water in middle and eastern portions of Burrard Inlet o Continue to offer one-on-one meetings and small group presentations o Distribute Safe Boating campaign materials to organizations for broader distribution in their networks (via their newsletters, e-blasts, etc.) o Campaign content included in public information session scheduled in Burnaby for January 4, 2017 • Salish Sea Outreach via email and phone to stakeholder groups along the shipping corridor: municipalities, waterfront industry, commercial shipping, fishing organizations and recreational operators in communities such as Nanaimo, Victoria and the Southern Gulf Islands • Focused Aboriginal Engagement through meetings, small group presentations and follow on commitments as part of any mutual benefit agreements with individual Aboriginal groups • Advertising: o Through posters at marinas and other public areas along the waterfront in Burnaby, Port Moody, Belcarra and North Vancouver o Through electronic distribution of posters, fact sheets and other materials to boating organizations to their membership throughout the Salish Sea • Potential presence/sponsorship at local boat shows

Measurement and Evaluation • Attendance and feedback from grassroots advertising and editorial content in local community papers will be evaluated in fall 2017 in order to refine outreach activities in 2018 and 2019 • Marine safety engagement opportunities for 2017 are proposed to include the following topic areas: o Safe Boating Campaign (safe navigation near deep draft vessels) o Westridge Marine Terminal Construction Readiness engagement (construction footprint, construction timeline, potential effects on navigation) Will include Westridge Fisheries Offset engagement (consultation on reef placement/functionality)

Page 5 of 7 Last updated: February 5, 2017 TR-24 APPENDIX A Marine Public Outreach Plan – Marine Safety

Appendix 1: Relevant NEB Conditions and Project Commitments

NEB Conditions Details Engagement Deliverable

Condition No. 48 Trans Mountain must file with the NEB, for approval, at least 4 months prior to Condition Report Elements: Navigation and Navigation Safety commencing construction, a Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan that includes: a) An updated list of navigable waterways to be crossed by or affected by the • Consultation Summary Project (including power lines, marine terminal, temporary or permanent • Inputs to Navigation and bridge crossings, or other ancillary works that are physically or operationally Navigation Safety plan connected to the Project); b) An updated listing of effects of the Project on navigation and navigation safety for each of the identified waterways identified in a); c) Proposed mitigation measures to address Project effects on navigation and navigation safety for each of the identified waterways, including adherence to codes and standards (such as the Canadian Standards Association); and d) A summary of its consultations with Appropriate Government Authorities, potentially affected Aboriginal groups and waterway users, regarding their navigational use of each of the identified waterways. In its summary, Trans Mountain must: i. Describe the Appropriate Government Authorities, potentially affected Aboriginal groups, and commercial and recreational waterway users consulted; ii. Describe how Trans Mountain identified those consulted; and iii. Provide a description and justification for how Trans Mountain has incorporated the results of its consultation, including any recommendations from those consulted, into the plan.

Condition No. 131 Trans Mountain must file with the NEB, at least 3 months prior to commencing Condition Report Elements: Marine Public Outreach Program operations, a report describing completed activities and observed outcomes of Trans Mountain’s Marine Public Outreach Program, and any further planned activities for this • Consultation Summary program. The report must also include: • Outreach Plan for Marine a) A summary of Trans Mountain’s consultation with the Pacific Pilotage Safety Authority regarding the scope of work and activities to be undertaken through the program, including: i. The resources and information that Trans Mountain has provided or will provide to the Pacific Pilotage Authority to addresses the

Page 6 of 7 Last updated: February 5, 2017 TR-24 APPENDIX A Marine Public Outreach Plan – Marine Safety

NEB Conditions Details Engagement Deliverable

impacts of increased Project-related tanker traffic in the Salish Sea; ii. The activities or actions that Trans Mountain will undertake to communicate applicable information on Project-related vessel timing and scheduling to fishing industry organizations, commercial and recreational vessel operators, Aboriginal groups, and other affected, in conjunction with the Pacific Pilotage Authority’s activities; and iii. Any issues or concerns raised by the Pacific Pilotage Authority and how Trans Mountain has or will address them; b) A description of the actions or activities that Trans Mountain has or will undertake to incorporate into its own public engagement efforts the activities of the Pacific Pilotage Authority and Transport Canada regarding enhanced safe boating practice education for small vessel operators; c) A plan and schedule for all ongoing and future activities and actions under the program, including anticipated completion dates; and d) A summary of its consultations with Transport Canada, the Canadian Coast Guard, the Chamber of Shipping for British Columbia, commercial and tourism associations and potentially affected Aboriginal groups.

Page 7 of 7 Last updated: February 5, 2017 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

APPENDIX G

ANALYSIS OF CLASS 3 NON-NAVIGABLE WATERCOURSES

This Appendix provides further information required by the National Energy Board (NEB) on the following matters:

a) the number of watercourses that fall into the third class of watercourses;

b) a rationale for determining that all watercourses on the pipeline route that fall under the third class would indeed be non-navigable, such as wide public consultation, monitoring of such watercourses for use over a season, research, or expert advice;

c) known waterway use on each of the watercourses that fall into the third class;

d) assessment of Project effect on navigation and navigation safety for each of the third class of watercourses that includes:

d.1) potential use of the watercourse;

d.2) specific waterway characteristics that would make the watercourse non-navigable (i.e., two or more of the Class 2 criteria apply, or no access to the watercourse by waterway users, etc)

d.3) consideration of construction scheduling or method that would fully avoid impacts on navigation and navigation safety; and

d.4) reasonable mitigation for those watercourses that are considered navigable.

Responses a) A total of 5 watercourses within Alberta and 62 watercourses within BC have been classified as Class 3 non- navigable. b) Watercourses classified as Class 3 non-navigable have not been monitored for use over open water seasons. Their assigned Class 3 non-navigable classification was built on criteria outlined in Section 1.4 of NEB Condition 48: Trans Mountain Expansion Project Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan (the Plan) (Filing ID A82632-2), and originally presented in Section 3.0 of the Fisheries [British Columbia] Technical Report (Triton Environmental Consulting Ltd. December 2013), of Technical Report 5C-7 in Volume 5C (Filing ID: A3S2C1).

As stated in the Plan, the criteria developed for the Project for determining the navigability and non-navigability classification of watercourses was based on Transport Canada’s Minor Works and Waters Ministerial Order (Navigable Waters Protection Act [NWPA]) (Government of Canada 2009) and the Minor Waters User Guide (Transport Canada 2010). The overall intent of the Minor Works and Waters Ministerial Order sought to “…focus efforts on truly navigable waters, as opposed to drainage ditches or watercourses too small, shallow, obstructed or steep to reasonably be used for navigation” (Osbaldeston, 2009).

In the preamble to NEB Information Request 9, it was noted that watercourses classified as Class 3 non- navigable, and meeting two or more of the criteria outlined for Class 2 non-navigable watercourses, may potentially still be navigable. It should be noted that the 67 watercourses classified as Class 3 non-navigable are typically steep, and/or have frequent barriers or obstacles (large boulders, large woody debris (LWD), debris jams, beaver dams, sub-surface flow or culverts). Many of these watercourses also have seasonal flows (see Table 9-1, below). c) There are no known waterway uses for any of the 67 classified Class 3 non-navigable watercourses. d) 1. For reasons described in response to 1b) and c), there is no potential use of the Class 3 non-navigable watercourses.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page G-1 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017 2. The specific waterway characteristics that would make the watercourses non-navigable are described in Table G-1 below. Additional site-specific information on each watercourse, including photographs depicting the geomorphological conditions of each channel, please refer to material submitted to the NEB to satisfy NEB Condition 43: Watercourse Inventory Update, specifically Appendix A and B (Alberta and British Columbia Watercourse Crossing Summary Table(s), respectively [Filing ID A82366]); Appendix F and G (Alberta Fish- Bearing and Nonfish-Bearing Atlases [Filing ID A82395 and A82397, respectively]) and Appendix H and I (British Columbia Fish-Bearing and Nonfish-Bearing Atlases [Filing ID A82400 and A82405, respectively]).

TABLE G-1

CLASS 3 NON-NAVIGABLE WATERCOURSES AND FACTORS AFFECTING NAVIGABILITY

Average Season Max / Mean KP Gradient Average Bankfull Depth at Obstacles to Site ID Watercourse Name al Channel (005) >4%? High Water 0.3-0.6 m? Navigation Flow? Width (m) (Gradient)

No Yes Yes AB-15 37.12 WedgewoodCreek No 8.0/4.9 (0.5%) (depths greater than 0.6 m are (LWD, beaver dams) not sustained throughout reach)

Yes Yes No AB-78 141.52 Zeb-igler Creek No 5.9 / 3.5 (depths greater than 0.6 m are (<0.5%) not sustained throughout (boulders, beaver dam reach) upstream)

Yes No No (dense instream AB-101 163.11 Unnamed Channel No 7.0 / 3.7 vegetation, relic beaver (0.5%) (2.1 - 4.0 m) dams downstream, sinuosity ratio >2)

No No Yes AB-106 167.23 Unnamed Channel No 7.0 / 3.8 (1.4 - 2.3 m) (LWD, sinuosity ratio >2) (<4%)

Yes No Yes AB-167 307.69 Trail Creek No 5.0 / 3.4 (depths greater than 0.6 m are not sustained throughout (boulders, LWD) (3%) reach)

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page G-2 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

TABLE G-1 Cont’d.

Average Season Max / Mean KP Gradient Average Bankfull Depth at Obstacles to Site ID Watercourse Name al Channel (005) >4%? High Water 0.3-0.6 m? Navigation Flow? Width (m) (Gradient)

Yes Yes No BC-8 495.48 TerryFoxCreek No 4.2/3.9 (boulders, steep drops, (0.97 m) (11%) LWD)

Yes Yes No BC-27 511.01 Teepee Creek No 5.0 / 4.0 (LWD, culverts upstream (1.03 m) (6%) and downstream)

Yes Yes No BC-28 513.40 Crooked Creek No 6.4 / 3.9 (steep drops, LWD, (0.68 m) boulders, culvert (7%) downstream)

Yes Yes No (LWD, steep drops, BC-63 546.22 Unnamed Channel No 5.6 / 3.1 boulders, shallow alluvial (1.14 m) (9%) fan with poor channel definition downstream)

Yes Yes No (LWD, steep drops, BC-64 547.08 Unnamed Channel No 8.0 / 4.5 boulders, shallow alluvial (14%) (1.58 m) fan with poor channel definition downstream)

Yes Yes No BC-72a 551.87 Unnamed Channel Yes 5.0 / 4.8 (LWD, wooden (6%) (0.63 m) causeway and culverts downstream)

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page G-3 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

TABLE G-1 Cont’d.

Average Season Max / Mean KP Gradient Average Bankfull Depth at Obstacles to Site ID Watercourse Name al Channel (005) >4%? High Water 0.3-0.6 m? Navigation Flow? Width (m) (Gradient)

Yes

No Yes (sections lacking channel BC-85.1 559.72 Unnamed Channel Yes 4.2 / 3.6 definition upstream and (3%) (0.39 m) downstream [NCD], beaver dam upstream, culvert downstream)

Yes Yes Yes (LWD, culverts BC-90 561.96 Unnamed Channel No 4.0 / 3.1 downstream, poor (9%) (0.58 m) channel definition [braided] upstream)

Yes Yes Yes BC-99 569.55 Unnamed Channel Yes 7.6 / 4.7 (steep drops, LWD, (20%) (0.46 m) culverts downstream)

Yes

Yes No (falls downstream, culverts downstream, BC-100a 570.64 Unnamed Channel Yes 5.8 / 3.7 boulders, sections of (37%) (0.98 m) poor channel definition and shallow channel sections [<0.6 m])

Yes Yes Yes BC-101 570.81 Unnamed Channel Yes 6.8 / 3.2 (culvert downstream, (28%) (0.23 m) subsurface sections, steep drops)

Yes Yes No BC-107 573.67 Switch Creek No 7.0 / 3.1 (LWD, boulders, steep (20%) (0.74 m) drops)

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page G-4 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

TABLE G-1 Cont’d.

Average Season Max / Mean KP Gradient Average Bankfull Depth at Obstacles to Site ID Watercourse Name al Channel (005) >4%? High Water 0.3-0.6 m? Navigation Flow? Width (m) (Gradient)

Yes Yes Yes BC-174 602.70 Unnamed Channel No 4.6 / 4.0 (LWD, boulders, steep (31%) (0.57 m) drops)

Yes No No (culvert upstream, poorly BC-238 647.94 Unnamed Channel No 3.4 / 3.0 defined channel sections, (4%) (0.67 m) shallow channel sections [<0.6 m], LWD)

Yes No Yes BC-246 656.60 Unnamed Channel Yes 7.0 / 4.4 (no channel definition (4%) (0.40 m) downstream [NCD-W], culvert downstream)

Yes No Yes BC-246a 656.80 Unnamed Channel Yes - (no channel definition (<4%) (<0.6 m) downstream [NCD-W], culvert downstream)

Yes No Yes BC-247 656.88 Unnamed Channel Yes - (no channel definition (<4%) (<0.6 m) downstream [NCD-W], culvert downstream)

Yes Yes No BC-259 670.54 HornetCreek No 4.1/3.2 (boulders, LWD, culvert (5%) (0.74 m) downstream)

Yes No No (culverts downstream, BC-260 671.50 CornetCreek No 4.9/3.6 woody debris jams, (2%) (0.78 m) shallow channel sections [<0.6 m])

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page G-5 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

TABLE G-1 Cont’d.

Average Season Max / Mean KP Gradient Average Bankfull Depth at Obstacles to Site ID Watercourse Name al Channel (005) >4%? High Water 0.3-0.6 m? Navigation Flow? Width (m) (Gradient)

Yes Yes No BC-276 680.72 Unnamed Channel Yes 6.8 / 4.1 (boulders, steep drops, (18%) (0.74 m) culvert downstream)

Yes Yes No (boulders, steep drops, BC-302 703.58 Crossing Creek No 4.5 / 3.1 culvert downstream, (23%) (0.61 m) LWD, shallow channel sections [<0.6 m])

Yes Yes No BC-305 706.54 Noblequartz Creek Yes 4.3 / 3.5 (boulders, culvert (15%) (0.84 m) downstream, dry for most of the year)

Yes Yes No BC-336 753.40 Montigny Creek No 4.2 / 4.0 (woody debris jams, (5%) (0.83 m) boulders, culvert downstream)

Yes Yes Yes BC-473 899.82 Klup Creek Yes 4.5 / 3.3 (sections of poorly (8%) (0.50 m) defined channel, LWD)

Yes Yes No BC-531 (C) 938.04 Kwinshatin Creek No 6.6 / 3.4 (LWD, log jams, (5%) (0.63 m) boulders, steep drops)

Yes

No Yes (LWD, woody debris BC-548a 954.51 Unnamed Channel Yes 6.5 / 4.0 jams, poor channel (2%) (0.60 m) definition, shallow channel sections [<0.6 m])

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page G-6 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

TABLE G-1 Cont’d.

Average Season Max / Mean KP Gradient Average Bankfull Depth at Obstacles to Site ID Watercourse Name al Channel (005) >4%? High Water 0.3-0.6 m? Navigation Flow? Width (m) (Gradient)

Yes Yes Yes BC-554 958.55 Unnamed Channel No 4.3 / 4.2 (LWD, log jams, steep (8%) (0.58 m) drops, boulders)

Yes Yes No (culvert downstream, BC-558 966.23 Unnamed Channel No 5.2 / 3.5 poor channel definition (5%) (0.75 m) downstream [alluvial fan])

Yes Yes No BC-564 970.29 Unnamed Channel No 6.0 / 4.4 (boulders, LWD, steep (11%) (1.16 m) drops)

Yes Yes No BC-588 994.18 Fallslake Creek No 6.3 / 4.4 (boulders, steep drops, (8%) (0.92 m) large falls downstream)

Yes Yes No BC-590 995.92 Unnamed Channel Yes 6.5 / 4.4 (boulders, LWD, steep (30%) (0.88 m) drops/cascades, narrow sections [<1.2 m])

Yes Yes No BC-608 1010.95 Unnamed Channel Yes 6.5 / 3.1 (boulders, LWD, steep (40%) (0.81 m) drops/cascades)

Yes Yes No BC-611 1011.27 Unnamed Channel Yes 9.0 / 4.4 (boulders, LWD, steep (25%) (0.76 m) drops, culvert downstream)

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page G-7 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

TABLE G-1 Cont’d.

Average Season Max / Mean KP Gradient Average Bankfull Depth at Obstacles to Site ID Watercourse Name al Channel (005) >4%? High Water 0.3-0.6 m? Navigation Flow? Width (m) (Gradient)

Yes Yes No BC-614 1011.71 Unnamed Channel Yes 9.0 / 4.3 (boulders, LWD, steep (30%) (0.76 m) drops, culvert downstream)

Yes Yes No BC-615 1011.96 Unnamed Channel Yes 6.0 / 4.1 (boulders, LWD, log (30%) (1.31 m) jams, steep drops, culvert downstream)

Yes

Yes Yes (boulders, LWD, steep BC-630 1018.25 Unnamed Channel No 11.3 / 4.7 drops, large falls (14%) (0.55 m) upstream, log jams, culverts upstream and downstream)

Yes Yes No (boulders, LWD, log BC-640 1026.16 Unnamed Channel Yes 6.2 / 4.9 jams, steep drops, (13%) (0.99 m) intermittent flow, culvert downstream)

Yes Yes Yes BC-644 1028.65 Unnamed Channel Yes 5.8 / 4.1 (intermittent flow, culvert (9%) (0.60 m) downstream, steep drop downstream)

Yes

Yes Yes (70 m long culvert BC-658a 1049.30 Unnamed Channel Yes 5.4 / 4.1 downstream, steep (33%) (0.45 m) drops, poor channel definition [overland flow] at PPC)

Yes Yes No BC-659 1050.13 Unnamed Channel Yes 5.00 / 4.4 (boulders, steep drops, (43%) (1.7 m) likely dry or intermittent for most of the year)

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page G-8 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

TABLE G-1 Cont’d.

Average Season Max / Mean KP Gradient Average Bankfull Depth at Obstacles to Site ID Watercourse Name al Channel (005) >4%? High Water 0.3-0.6 m? Navigation Flow? Width (m) (Gradient)

Yes Yes No (boulders, steep drops, BC-660 1050.28 Unnamed Channel Yes 6.0 / 5.0 LWD, likely dry or (43%) (2.55 m) intermittent for most of the year)

Yes Yes No BC-681 1066.18 Unnamed Channel No 6.2 / 4.9 (boulders, LWD, steep (16%) (1.31 m) drops, culvert downstream)

Yes Yes No BC-682 1066.54 Unnamed Channel No 4.1 / 3.4 (boulders, LWD, steep (25%) (1.88 m) drops, culverts downstream)

Yes Yes Yes BC-683a 1067.85 Unnamed Channel Yes 6.1 / 3.9 (boulders, steep drops, (24%) (0.50 m) culverts downstream)

Yes Yes No BC-684 1067.96 Unnamed Channel Yes 6.1 / 4.5 (boulders, steep drops, (25%) (0.97 m) intermittent flow, culverts downstream)

Yes

Yes No (boulders, steep drops, BC-706b 1076.51 Bridal Creek No 6.3 / 3.2 concrete weir, LWD, (10%) (0.70 m) culverts downstream, shallow channel sections [<0.6 m])

Yes Yes Yes BC-706c 1076.76 Unnamed Channel No 5.2 / 3.9 (LWD, steep drops, (8%) (0.40) boulders, culverts downstream)

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page G-9 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

TABLE G-1 Cont’d.

Average Season Max / Mean KP Gradient Average Bankfull Depth at Obstacles to Site ID Watercourse Name al Channel (005) >4%? High Water 0.3-0.6 m? Navigation Flow? Width (m) (Gradient)

Yes

No No (shallow channel Unnamed Channel BC-712b 1084.73 Yes 5.6 / 4.9 sections [<0.6 m], culvert (Irrigation Ditch) (1%) (0.64 m) downstream, dense instream vegetation, irrigation ditch)

Yes No No Unnamed Channel (culverts upstream and BC-713e 1087.54 Yes 3.6 / 3.2 (Roadside Ditch) downstream, dense (1%) (1.09 m) instream vegetation, roadside ditch)

No Yes Yes BC-720 1101.27 StreetCreek No 7.5/4.9 (2%) (0.52 m) (culverts downstream)

Yes No Yes Unnamed Channel (culverts upstream and BC-725a 1109.92 Yes 4.9 / 3.4 (Irrigation Canal) downstream, irrigation (1%) (0.58 m) canal, dense instream vegetation upstream)

Yes Yes No BC-730 1118.65 Unnamed Channel No 7.3 / 4.5 (LWD, boulders, steep (6%) (1.12 m) drops)

Yes Yes No (LWD, culvert BC-739 1131.85 Unnamed Channel Yes 9.7 / 5.0 downstream, likely dry or (9%) (1.04 m) intermittent for most of the year)

Yes Yes Yes BC-744 1134.99 Unnamed Channel Yes 4.6 / 3.7 (SWD, culverts upstream (6%) (0.43 m) and downstream)

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page G-10 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

TABLE G-1 Cont’d.

Average Season Max / Mean KP Gradient Average Bankfull Depth at Obstacles to Site ID Watercourse Name al Channel (005) >4%? High Water 0.3-0.6 m? Navigation Flow? Width (m) (Gradient)

Yes

Yes No (LWD, shallow channel BC-745 1135.52 Unnamed Channel Yes 4.5 / 3.4 sections [<0.6 m], culvert (5%) (0.73 m) upstream, likely dry or intermittent for most of the year)

Yes No No (steep drops, boulders, BC-748 1138.39 TurkeyBrookCreek Yes 4.6/3.5 LWD, shallow wetted (3%) (0.72 m) depths throughout most of the year)

Yes No No (poor channel definition BC-768 1153.82 Yorkson Creek No 3.5 / 3.0 upstream, culverts (1%) (1.72 m) downstream, with narrow reaches and meanders)

Yes

No Yes (man-made step-pool BC-770d 1158.93 Leoran Brook Creek No 4.8 / 4.8 habitat upstream, (3%) (0.54 m) culverts upstream and downstream, sections with dense OHV)

Yes

No No (poor channel definition, BC-774a 1162.38 Unnamed Channel Yes 5.4 / 3.8 dense instream (1%) (0.69 m) vegetation, shallow channel sections [<0.6 m])

Yes

BC-785a1 1178.09 Silver Creek Yes 6.0 / 4.0 - - (extensive culvert network throughout study area)

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page G-11 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017

TABLE G-1 Cont’d.

Average Season Max / Mean KP Gradient Average Bankfull Depth at Obstacles to Site ID Watercourse Name al Channel (005) >4%? High Water 0.3-0.6 m? Navigation Flow? Width (m) (Gradient)

Yes

Yes No (engineered watercourse lined with concrete, BC-785a3 1179.93 Unnamed Channel Yes 4.9 / 3.8 series of check dams (25%) (1.05 m) downstream, culverts downstream, drains into settling pond)

Yes Yes BC-785a4 1798.88 Unnamed Channel Yes 7.0 / 7.0 - (concrete ditch draining (10%) into settling pond)

Notes: LWD = Large Woody Debris SWD = Small Woody Debris NCD = Non-Classified Drainage NCD-W = Non-Classified Drainage / Wetland OHV = Overhanging Vegetation

3. As described in response to b) and c), Trans Mountain does not consider these watercourses to be navigable, and is therefore not considering constructing scheduling or method that would avoid impacts on navigation and navigation safety.

4. As described in response to b) and c), Trans Mountain does not consider these watercourses to be navigable, therefore mitigation specific to navigation and navigation safety is not required.

References:

Government of Canada. 2009. Minor Works and Waters (Navigable Waters Protection Act) Order. Canada Gazette. Vol. 143, No 19.

Osbaldeston, D. 2009. Manager, Navigable Waters Protection Program, Proceedings (Evidence), Standing Senate Committee on Energy, Environment and Natural Resources, Issue No. 4, Ottawa, April 23, 2009

Transport Canada. 2010. Minor Water User Guide 2010. TP 14838. 22 pp.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page G-12 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Navigation and Navigation Safety Plan Trans Mountain Expansion Project June 2017 APPENDIX H

WARNING SIGN PLACEMENT (FRESHWATER)

Construction warning signs will be placed up and downstream of all freshwater navigable waterway crossings during construction, will be 1.2 x 1.2 metres in size, and at the approximate minimum distance set out in column 2 based on the width of the waterway noted in column 1 in Table H-1 below.

TABLE H-1

WARNING SIGN DISTANCES FROM FRESHWATER NAVIGABLE WATERWAY CROSSINGS

Width of Navigable Waterway (Column 1) Minimum Distance (Column 2) Less than 10 m 25 m

10 mormore butlessthan 20 m 50 m

20 mormore butlessthan 50 m 100 m

50 m or over 150 m

Where the pipeline crosses a navigable waterway that potentially supports commercial marine traffic, signs will be placed at the crossing site post-construction that indicate the presence of the pipeline crossing and include a “No Anchorage” and “No Dredging” warning.

01-13283-GG-0000-CHE-RPT-0010 R1 Page H-1