Technical_Update_No1 Page1564

Thumbnails

Outlines

Cover Letter
TECHNICAL UPDATE #1/CONSULTATION UPDATE #2 OVERVIEW
PART 1: ROUTING UPDATE

1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 PIPELINE CORRIDOR

2.1 Overview of Corridor Selection and Optimization Process
2.2 Environmental, Socio-Economic and Associated Factors Considered inPipeline Corridor Selection and Optimization

2.2.1 Edmonton to Hinton Segment
2.2.2 Hargreaves to Darfield Segment
2.2.3 Black Pines to Hope Segment
2.2.4 Hope to Burnaby Segment
2.2.5 Burnaby to Westridge Segment

2.3 Other Revisions to the Proposed Pipeline Corridor
2.4 Proposed Revised Pipeline Corridor
2.5 Continued Corridor Optimization and Definition of the Construction Footprint
FIGURE 2.2-1A PIPELINE CORRIDOR REVISIONS -EDMONTON EAST TUC
FIGURE 2.2-1B PIPELINE CORRIDOR REVISIONS -EDMONTON EAST TUC
FIGURE 2.2-1C PIPELINE CORRIDOR REVISIONS -EDMONTON EAST TUC
FIGURE 2.2-2 PIPELINE CORRIDOR REVISIONS -WHITEMUD EXTENSION
FIGURE 2.2-3 PIPELINE CORRIDOR REVISIONS -WABAMUM LAKE PROVINCIAL PARK
FIGURE 2.2-4 PIPELINE CORRIDOR REVISIONS -FROTH TO FINN CREEK
FIGURE 2.2-5 PIPELINE CORRIDOR REVISIONS – NORTH THOMPSON RIVER PROVINCIAL PARK
FIGURE 2.2-6 PIPELINE CORRIDOR REVISIONS -HOPE / OTHELLO ROAD
FIGURE 2.2-7 PIPELINE CORRIDOR REVISIONS -OHAMIL IR
FIGURE 2.2-8 PIPELINE CORRIDOR REVISIONS -PETERS INDIAN RESERVATION NO. 1A
FIGURE 2.2-9 PIPELINE CORRIDOR REVISIONS –BRIDAL VEIL / CHEAM
FIGURE 2.2-10 PIPELINE CORRIDOR REVISIONS -GRASS IR
FIGURE 2.2-11 PIPELINE CORRIDOR REVISIONS -TZEACHTEN INDIAN RESERVATION NO. 13
FIGURE 2.2-12 PIPELINE CORRIDOR REVISIONS -CHILLIWACK / BC HYDRO
FIGURE 2.2-13 PIPELINE CORRIDOR REVISIONS -SALMON RIVER /REDWOODS GOLF COURSE
FIGURE 2.2-14 PIPELINE CORRIDOR REVISIONS -GOLDEN EARS CONNECTOR/ SOUTH FRASER PERIMETER ROAD
FIGURE 2.2-15 PIPELINE CORRIDOR REVISIONS -FRASER RIVER CROSSING
FIGURE 2.2-16 PIPELINE CORRIDOR REVISIONS -BRUNETTE VALLEY / LOUGHEED HIGHWAY
TABLE 2.2-1 STUDY OF ALTERNATIVE CORRIDORS – WHITEMUD EXTENSION (RK 43.1 TO RK 45.9)
TABLE 2.2-2 ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY – WHITEMUD EXTENSION (RK 43.1 TO RK 45.9)
TABLE 2.2-3 STUDY OF ALTERNATIVE CORRIDORS –WABAMUN LAKE PROVINCIAL PARK (RK 93.3 TO RK 99.6)
TABLE 2.2-4 ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY – WABAMUN LAKE PROVINCIAL PARK (RK 93.3 TO RK 99.6)
TABLE 2.2-5 STUDY OF ALTERNATIVE CORRIDORS – FROTH CREEK TO FINN CREEK (RK 626.8 TO RK 637.2)
TABLE 2.2-6 STUDY OF ALTERNATIVE CORRIDORS – NORTH THOMPSON RIVER PROVINCIAL PARK (RK 725.1 TO RK 728.1)
TABLE 2.2-7 ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY – NORTH THOMPSON RIVER PROVINCIAL PARK (RK 725.1 TO RK 728.1)
TABLE 2.2-8 STUDY OF ALTERNATIVE CORRIDORS – HOPE/OTHELLO ROAD (RK 1039.4 TO RK 1042.2)
TABLE 2.2-9 ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY – HOPE/OTHELLO ROAD (RK 1039.4 TO RK 1042.2)
TABLE 2.2-10 ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY – OHAMIL INDIAN RESERVE NO. 1 (RK 1057.6 TO RK 1059.3)
TABLE 2.2-11 STUDY OF ALTERNATIVE CORRIDORS –PETERS INDIAN RESERVE NO. 1A (RK 1062.0 TO RK 1065.2)
TABLE 2.2-12 ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY – PETERS INDIAN RESERVE No. 1A (RK 1062.0 TO RK 1065.2)
TABLE 2.2-13 STUDY OF ALTERNATIVE CORRIDORS –BRIDAL VEIL FALLS/CHEAM WETLANDS (RK 1078.7 TO RK 1081.2)
TABLE 2.2-14 ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY – BRIDAL VEIL FALLS/CHEAM WETLAND (RK 1078.7 TO RK 1081.2)
TABLE 2.2-15 ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY – GRASS INDIAN RESERVE NO. 15 (RK 1091.1 TO RK 1091.9)
TABLE 2.2-16 ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY – TZEACHTEN INDIAN RESERVE NO. 13 (RK 1096.9 TO RK 1097.6)
TABLE 2.2-17 STUDY OF ALTERNATIVE CORRIDORS – CHILLIWACK/BC HYDRO (RK 1097.8 TO RK 1099.8)
TABLE 2.2-18 ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY – CHILLIWACK/BC HYDRO (RK 1097.8 TO RK 1099.8)
TABLE 2.2-19 STUDY OF ALTERNATIVE CORRIDORS –SALMON RIVER/REDWOODS GOLF COURSE (RK 1148.0 TO RK 1151.6)
TABLE 2.2-20 ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY–SALMON RIVER/REDWOODS GOLF COURSE (RK 1148.0 TO RK 1151.6)
TABLE 2.2-21 STUDY OF ALTERNATIVE CORRIDORS –GOLDEN EARS CONNECTOR/SOUTH FRASER PERIMETER ROAD (RK 1158.2 TO RK 1167.0)
TABLE 2.2-22 ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY – GOLDEN EARS CONNECTOR/SOUTH FRASER PERIMETER ROAD (RK 1158.2 TO RK 1167.0)
TABLE 2.2-23 STUDY OF ALTERNATIVE CORRIDORS – FRASER RIVER CROSSING (RK 1167.0 TO RK 1169.4)
TABLE 2.2-24 ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY – FRASER RIVER CROSSING (RK 1167.0 TO RK 1169.4)
TABLE 2.2-25 STUDY OF ALTERNATIVE CORRIDORS –BRUNETTE VALLEY/LOUGHEED HIGHWAY (RK 1172.9 TO RK 1178.2)
TABLE 2.2-26 ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY – BRUNETTE VALLEY/LOUGHEED HIGHWAY (RK 1172.9 TO RK 1178.2)

3.0 PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY FACILITY SITE SELECTION

PART 2: RISK UPDATE

PART 2: Cover Page and Section Introduction
TMEP Line 2 and Delivery Lines Risk Report

1. Introduction

1.1. Report Structure
1.2. Project Overview

2. Risk Assessment Approach

2.1. Supporting Information
2.2. Dynamic Segmentation of Results

3. Reporting

3.1. Length-averaging
3.2. Failure Frequency
3.3. Consequence Estimates
3.4. Risk Estimates and Risk Reporting
3.5. Reporting of HCA Intersects
3.6. Risk Ranking by Wall Thickness
3.7. Municipal Boundaries

4. Overview of Preliminary Results
5. Risk Evaluation and Mitigation

5.1. Risk Evaluation Criteria

Figure 1 – Dynamic Segments (Segments)
Figure 2 – Length Averaging Example
Figure 3 Risk-Based Design Process Flowchart
Table 1 HCA Definitions and Abbreviations
Table 2 Length-Averaged Risk Vs Wall Thickness
Table 3 Municipal Boundary Intersects
Table 4 Ten Highest-Ranked Individual Discrete Geohazards
Table 5 Reduction in Risk for the Ten Highest-Ranked Individual Geohazards

TMEP Line 2 and Delivery Lines Risk Report Attachment A: Failure Frequency Assessment

1. Introduction

1.1. Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations

2. Failure Frequency Approach
3. Failure Frequency Estimates

3.1. External Corrosion

3.1.1 Selection of Analogue ILI Data
3.1.2 Reliability Approach
3.1.3 Results – Unmitigated Analysis
3.1.4 Results – Consideration of Operations and Maintenance

3.2. Internal Corrosion
3.3. 3rd Party Damage

3.3.1 Determination of Impact Frequency Due to 3rd Party Activity
3.3.2 Determination of Failure Probability, Given Excavator Impact
3.3.3 Leaks Vs. Ruptures

3.4. Human Error During Operations

3.4.1 Baseline Failure Frequency for Human Error DuringOperations
3.4.2 Operational Management Systems Adjustment Factor
3.4.3 Leaks Vs. Ruptures

3.5. Materials Defects

3.5.1 Failure Frequency for Materials Defects
3.5.2 Leaks Vs. Ruptures

3.6. Construction Defects

3.6.1 Failure Frequency for Construction Defects
3.6.2 Leaks Vs. Ruptures

3.7. Geotechnical / Geological / Hydrological Failures

Figure 1 Illustration of How Flaw Depth Distribution Changes With Time
Figure 2 Determination of Fraction of Leaks and Ruptures from Corrosion FeatureLength CDF and Critical Through-wall Flaw Size
Figure 3 Impact Frequency Fault Tree
Figure 4 Probability Values for Fault Tree Modeling
Figure 5 Cumulative Probability Transformation to Excavator MassDistribution for Class 1 and 2 Locations
Figure 6 Cumulative Probability Transformation to Excavator MassDistribution for Class 3 and 4 Locations
Figure 7 Weibull Probability Density Function for Gouge Length
Figure 8 Gouge Length Orientation Factor as a Function of Random Value
Figure 9 Off-Angle Force Reduction Factor

TMEP Line 2 and Delivery Lines Risk Report Attachment B: Quantitative Geohazard Frequency Assessment

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 GEOHAZARD FREQUENCY ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

2.1. Risk Assessment Framework
2.2. Definitions and Key Concepts
2.3. Hazard Frequency Assessment
2.4. Geohazard Frequency Assessment Factors
2.5. Mitigation

3.0 GEOHAZARD ASSESSMENT PROCESS

3.1. Geographic Extent of Assessment
3.2. Data Sources Used in the Geohazard Assessment
3.3. Geohazards Assessed
3.4. Other Geohazards

4.0 RESULTS
5.0 CLOSURE
Figure 1. The process of risk management (from CSA Z662).
Table 1. Summary of assessed geohazards.
Table 2. Summary of the geohazard results.
APPENDIX A GEOHAZARD RANKING SHEETS
APPENDIX B LIST OF GEOHAZARDS BY RK
APPENDIX C LIST OF GEOHAZARDS BY GEOHAZARD TYPE
APPENDIX D DETAILS OF GEOHAZARDS WITH FLoC VALUES > 1 x 10-5

TMEP Line 2 and Delivery Lines Risk Report Attachment C: Consequence Report

1. Introduction
2. Consequence Methodology

2.1. Scoring System for Watercourse Intersects (CSWatercourse)

2.1.1 Outflow Volume Score for Watercourse Intersects(SV,Watercourse)
2.1.2 Watercourse Sensitivity Rating Score (SSR)
2.1.3 Drinking Water Source Score (SDW)

2.2. Scoring System for Non-Watercourse Intersects (CSNonwatercourse)

2.2.1 Outflow Volume Score for Non-Watercourse Intersects(SV,Nonwatercourse)
2.2.2 Landuse Severity Score (SLS)

Figure 1: Example of Primary and Secondary Contact
Table 1 Outflow Volume Score for Watercourse Intersects
Table 2 Watercourse Sensitivity Rating Score
Table 3 Drinking Water Source Score
Table 4 Outflow Volume Score for Non-Watercourse Intersects
Table 5 Landuse Severity Score

TMEP Line 2 and Delivery Lines Risk Report Attachment D: Tabulated Risk Results
Update to Vol 7 Appendix B: Updated Oil Spill Outflow Model Results for Line 2 for May 2014 Route

Outflow Volumes

1 - Edmonton to Gainford
2 - Gainford to Wolf
3 - Wolf to Edson
4 - Edson to Hinton
5 - Hinton to Rearguard
6 - Rearguard to Blue River
7 - Blue River to Blackpool
8 - Blackpool to Black Pines
9 - Black Pines to Kamloops
10 - Kamloops to Kingsvale
11 - Kingsvale to Burnaby
12 - Burnaby to Westridge

Update to Vol 7 Appendix C: Updated Overland and Stream Flow Modelling Maps for Line 2 on May 2014 Route
Update to Vol 7 Appendix D: Updated Report on Simulations of Hypothetical Oil Spills on Line 2 on May 2014 Route

Introduction
Description of the OILMAP Land Model
Application of the Model
Model Results
References
Figure 1. Map of the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline centerlines used in the modeling.
Figure 2. Conceptual diagram of the land transport model showing the possible fate of oil as it moves over theland surface.
Figure 3. Conceptual diagram of the water transport model showing the possible fate of oil entering the surfacewater network.
Figure 4. Frequency distribution of spill volumes.
Figure 5. Map showing spill plumes along a section of the Edmonton to Gainford pipeline segment in Alberta.
Table 1. River shore types and associated oil retention values used in the model.
Table 2. Number of spill points for each pipeline segment.
Table 3. Product properties used in the spill modeling.
Table 4. Model settings used in the spill modeling.
Table 5. Oil volumes (bbl) predicted to end up on land, evaporate, enter rivers and lakes and reach open (tidal) water. The maximum volume in each category is highlighted in yellow.
Table 6. Range of downstream distances predicted.
Appendix A – National Hydro Network Dataset

Vol_4A_Appendix_A_Updated_Map 5.1.3
Vol_4A_Appendix_A_Updated Map 5.1.4
Vol_4A_Appendix_A_Updated Map 5.1.5
Vol_4A_Appendix_D_Updated Table 5.1.11 for Reactivation Segments Valve List for TMEP Line 1
Vol_4A_Appendix_D_Updated Table 5.1.12 for Line 2 May 2014 Proposed Route
Report on Simulations of Hypothetical Oil Spills of TMEP Line 1 Reactivated Segments_NEB_IR_No._1.96 Response

Introduction
Description of the OILMAP Land Model
Application of the Model
Model Results
References
Figure 1. Map of the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline centerlines used in the modeling.
Figure 2. Conceptual diagram of the land transport model showing the possible fate of oil as it moves over theland surface.
Figure 3. Conceptual diagram of the water transport model showing the possible fate of oil entering the surfacewater network.
Figure 4. Frequency distribution of spill volumes.
Figure 5. Map showing spill plumes along a section of the Hinton to Jasper pipeline segment in Alberta.
Table 1. River shore types and associated oil retention values used in the model.
Table 2. Number of spill points for each pipeline segment.
Table 3. Product properties used in the spill modeling.
Table 4. Model settings used in the spill modeling.
Table 5. Oil volumes (bbl) predicted to end up on land, evaporate, enter rivers and lakes and reach open (tidal) water.The maximum volume in each category is highlighted in yellow.
Table 6. Range of downstream distances predicted.
Appendix A – National Hydro Network Dataset

Outflow Model Results NPS 24 Reactivation Segments

Outflow Model Reactivation

Hinton_Jasper
Jasper_Hargreaves
Outflow Volumes Reactivation Segment Darfield to Black Pines

TMEP Line 1 Reactivated Segments Darfield_BlackPines Overland and Stream Flow Maps (July 25, 2014)
TMEP Line 1 Reactivated Segments Hinton_Hargreaves Overland and Stream Flow Maps (July 25, 2014)

PART 3: WETLAND SENSITIVE AREAS

1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 EXISTING WETLAND INFORMATION

2.1 Information Request
2.2 Wetlands Encountered by the Project
2.3 Wetlands of Special Concern
TABLE 2.2-1 SUMMARY OF WETLANDS ENCOUNTERED ALONG THE PROPOSED REVISED PIPELINE CORRIDOR WITHIN THE LOWER MAINLAND/FRASER VALLEY REGION

3.0 SUMMARY
4.0 REFERENCES

4.1 Literature Cited

PART 4: UPDATE ON HUMAN OCCUPANCY AND RESOURCE USE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

TABLE 1 HORU INTERACTION WITH PROPOSED REVISED PIPELINE CORRIDOR (BURNABY TO WESTRIDGE DELIVERY LINE SEGMENT)

2.0 PARKS AND PROTECTED AREAS
3.0 RESIDENTIAL USE
4.0 OTHER LAND AND RESOURCE USE (INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL USE AREAS)

PART 5: UPDATE ON STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

1.0 PUBLIC CONSULTATION

1.1 Introduction
1.2 Phase 5 Engagement Overview – January 1 to April 30, 2014
1.3 Phase 5 Engagement - Ongoing
1.4 Communication Activities – January 1 to April 30, 2014

1.4.1 Website Content
1.4.2 eblasts
1.4.3 Project Newsletters
1.4.4 Phone Line and Email
1.4.5 Social Media
1.4.6 Media Relations
1.4.7 Application to Participate
1.4.8 Publicly Accessible Application
1.4.9 Letters of Response to Stakeholders
1.4.10 Claims-Reality Campaign
1.4.11 Trans Mountain in the Community
1.4.12 BC 2035
1.4.13 Engagement Opportunities Advertising/Notification

1.5 Stakeholder Engagement Activities – January 1 to April 30, 2014

1.5.1 Emergency Management Stakeholder Workshops
1.5.2 Engagement on Reactivation Sections
1.5.3 BC Parks Engagement
1.5.4 Proposed Pipeline Corridor Optimization
1.5.5 Workshops
1.5.6 Open Houses
1.5.7 Online Engagement
1.5.8 Meetings with Local Governments and Community Groups
1.5.9 Government Relations

1.6 Summary of Outcomes – January 1 to April 30, 2014

1.6.1 Key Topics of Interest or Concern - Alberta
1.6.2 Key Topics of Interest or Concern – Interior BC
1.6.3 Key Topics of Interest or Concern – Lower Mainland/Fraser Valley, BC
1.6.4 Key Topics of Interest or Concern – Mainland Coastal, BC
1.6.5 Key Topics of Interest or Concern – Island Coastal, BC

Figure 1.4.1-1 Screenshot of the Updated Spill History Page on the TMEP Website
Figure 1.4.1-2 Screenshot of Updated Construction Page on the TMEP Website
Figure 1.4.1-3 Trans Mountain Website Visits
Figure 1.4.1-4 Trans Mountain Website Page Views
Figure 1.4.2-1 Screen Shot of a Trans Mountain eblast
Figure 1.4.3-1 Cover Page of Trans Mountain Newsletter, March 2014
Figure 1.4.5-1 Geographic Distributions of Trans Mountain Twitter Followers
Figure 1.4.5-2 Trans Mountain YouTube Channel Views
Figure 1.4.5-3 Screen Shot of Getting to the Route Video
Figure 1.4.5-4 Screen Shot of the NEB Review Process Video
Figure 1.4.7-1 Application to Participate Advertisement
Figure 1.4.8-1 Poster to Libraries Promoting the Availability of the Application
Figure 1.4.8-2 Screen Shots of Three Trans Mountain Tweets
Figure 1.4.9-1a Letter to NDP Member of Parliament, Kennedy Stewart Posted in the Trans Mountain Website in February 2014 (page 1 of 2)
Figure 1.4.9-1b Letter to NDP Member of Parliament, Kennedy Stewart Posted in the Trans MountainWebsite in February 2014 (page 2 of 2)
Figure 1.4.10-1 Trans Mountain Sample Claims-Reality Advertisement
Figure 1.4.12-1 Trans Mountain BC 2035 Oil and Gas Innovation Advertisement
Figure 1.4.13-1 Trans Mountain Sherwood Park and Chilliwack Open House Advertisements
Figure 1.4.13-2 Trans Mountain Langley and Burnaby Open House Advertisements
Figure 1.4.13-3 Translated Advertisement for March and April 2014 Open Houses
Figure 1.4.13-4a Direct Mail Letter for Open House Notification (page 1 of 2)
Figure 1.4.13-4b Direct Mail Letter for Open House Notification (page 2 of 2)
Figure 1.4.13-5 Jasper Open House Notification Advertisement
Figure 1.4.13-6 Online Feedback Notification Advertisement
Figure 1.4.13-7 eblast Inviting Stakeholders to Provide Feedback on the Proposed Pipeline Corridor and Learn More about the NEB Hearing Order
Figure 1.6.1-1 Key Topics of Interest or Concern in Alberta
Figure 1.6.2-1 Key Topics of Interest or Concern in the BC Interior Region
Figure 1.6.3-1 Key Topics of Interest or Concern in the Lower Mainland/Fraser Valley, BC
Figure 1.6.4-1 Key Topics of Interest or Concern for the Mainland Coastal, BC Region
Figure 1.6.5-1 Key Topics of Interest or Concern for the Island Coastal, BC Region
TABLE 1.4.1-1 WEB PAGE VIEWS
TABLE 1.4.1-2 TRANS MOUNTAIN EXPANSION PROJECT UPDATES
TABLE 1.4.2-1 TRANS MOUNTAIN EBLASTS
TABLE 1.4.5-1 TRANS MOUNTAIN YOUTUBE VIDEOS
TABLE 1.4.6-1 TRANS MOUNTAIN MEDIA INQUIRIES
TABLE 1.4.6-2 TRANS MOUNTAIN LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
TABLE 1.4.6-3 TRANS MOUNTAIN OPINION EDITORIALS
TABLE 1.4.7-1 APPLICATION TO PARTICIPATE NEWSPAPER CAMPAIGN
TABLE 1.4.8-1 USB MAILOUT TO MUNICIPALITIES AND LIBRARY
TABLE 1.4.10-1 TRANS MOUNTAIN CLAIMS-REALITY NEWSPAPER CAMPAIGN
TABLE 1.4.11-1 TRANS MOUNTAIN ATTENDANCE AT EVENTS
TABLE 1.4.11-2 TRANS MOUNTAIN SPEAKING OPPORTUNITIES
TABLE 1.4.11-3 TRANS MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY SPONSORSHIP OPPORTUNITIES
TABLE 1.4.13-1 NEWSPAPERS OPEN HOUSE NOTIFICATION
TABLE 1.4.13-2 ETHNIC NEWSPAPERS OPEN HOUSE NOTIFICATION
TABLE 1.4.13-3 JASPER OPEN HOUSE NOTIFICATION NEWSPAPER CAMPAIGN
TABLE 1.4.13-4 ONLINE ENGAGEMENT ADVERTISING
TABLE 1.5.1-1 EMSW – THOMPSON NICOLA REGIONAL DISTRICT, BC
TABLE 1.5.1-2 EMSW PARTICIPANTS – THOMPSON NICOLA REGIONAL DISTRICT, BC
TABLE 1.5.1-3 EMSW – FRASER VALLEY REGIONAL DISTRICT, BC
TABLE 1.5.1-4 EMSW PARTICIPANTS – FRASER VALLEY REGIONAL DISTRICT, BC
TABLE 1.5.1-5 EMSW – VALEMOUNT, BC
TABLE 1.5.1-6 EMSW PARTICIPANTS – VALEMOUNT, BC
TABLE 1.5.1-7 EMSW – JASPER, AB
TABLE 1.5.1-8 EMSW PARTICIPANTS – JASPER, AB
TABLE 1.5.1-9 EMSW – MERRITT, BC
TABLE 1.5.1-10 EMSW PARTICIPANTS – MERRITT, BC
TABLE 1.5.1-11 EMSW – CLEARWATER, BC
TABLE 1.5.1-12 EMSW PARTICIPANTS – CLEARWATER, BC
TABLE 1.5.1-13 EMSW SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
TABLE 1.5.2-1 THOMPSON NICOLA REGIONAL DISTRICT REACTIVATION MEETING, KAMLOOPS, BC
TABLE 1.5.2-2 JASPER REACTIVATION OPEN HOUSE, JASPER, AB
TABLE 1.5.3-1 BC PARKS WORKSHOP – HOPE (COQUIHALLA SUMMIT), BC
TABLE 1.5.3-2 ATTENDEES – HOPE (COQUIHALLA SUMMIT), BC
TABLE 1.5.3-3 BC PARKS WORKSHOP – FRASER VALLEY / CHILLIWACK (BRIDAL VEIL FALLS), BC
TABLE 1.5.3-4 ATTENDEES – FRASER VALLEY / CHILLIWACK (BRIDAL VEIL FALLS), BC
TABLE 1.5.3-5 BC PARKS WORKSHOP – CLEARWATER (FINN CREEK), BC
TABLE 1.5.3-6 ATTENDEES – CLEARWATER (FINN CREEK), BC
TABLE 1.5.3-7 BC PARKS WORKSHOP – KAMLOOPS (LAC DU BOIS), BC
TABLE 1.5.3-8 ATTENDEES – KAMLOOPS (LAC DU BOIS), BC
TABLE 1.5.5-1 PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR OPTIMIZATION WORKSHOP – WEST EDMONTON, AB
TABLE 1.5.5-2 ATTENDEES – WEST EDMONTON, AB
TABLE 1.5.5-3 SUMMARY OF NEW KEY ISSUES/CONCERNS – WEST EDMONTON, AB
TABLE 1.5.5-4 PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR OPTIMIZATION WORKSHOP – WABAMUN, AB
TABLE 1.5.5-5 ATTENDEES – WABAMUN, AB
TABLE 1.5.5-6 SUMMARY OF NEW KEY ISSUES/CONCERNS – WABAMUN, AB
TABLE 1.5.5-7 PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR OPTIMIZATION WORKSHOP – FRASER VALLEY/CHILLIWACK, BC
TABLE 1.5.5-8 ATTENDEES – FRASER VALLEY/CHILLIWACK, BC
TABLE 1.5.5-9 SUMMARY OF NEW KEY ISSUES/CONCERNS – FRASER VALLEY/CHILLIWACK, BC
TABLE 1.5.5-10 PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR OPTIMIZATION WORKSHOP – COQUITLAM, BC
TABLE 1.5.5-11 ATTENDEES – COQUITLAM, BC
TABLE 1.5.5-12 SUMMARY OF NEW KEY ISSUES/CONCERNS – COQUITLAM, BC
TABLE 1.5.5-13 PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR OPTIMIZATION WORKSHOP – SURREY, BC
TABLE 1.5.5-14 ATTENDEES – SURREY, BC
TABLE 1.5.5-15 SUMMARY OF NEW KEY ISSUES/CONCERNS – SURREY, BC
TABLE 1.5.5-16 PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR OPTIMIZATION WORKSHOP – LANGLEY TOWNSHIP, BC
TABLE 1.5.5-17 ATTENDEES – LANGLEY TOWNSHIP, BC
TABLE 1.5.5-18 SUMMARY OF NEW KEY ISSUES/CONCERNS – LANGLEY TOWNSHIP, BC
TABLE 1.5.5-19 PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR OPTIMIZATION WORKSHOP – BURNABY, BC
TABLE 1.5.5-20 ATTENDEES – BURNABY, BC
TABLE 1.5.5-21 SUMMARY OF NEW KEY ISSUES/CONCERNS – BURNABY, BC
TABLE 1.5.6-1 OPEN HOUSE – SHERWOOD PARK, AB
TABLE 1.5.6-2 SUMMARY OF NEW KEY ISSUES/CONCERNS – OPEN HOUSE, SHERWOOD PARK, AB
TABLE 1.5.6-3 OPEN HOUSE – (OTHELLO ROAD) HOPE, BC
TABLE 1.5.6-4 BC PARKS OPEN HOUSE – (OTHELLO ROAD) HOPE, BC
TABLE 1.5.6-5 OPEN HOUSE – FRASER VALLEY / CHILLIWACK, BC
TABLE 1.5.6-6 SUMMARY OF NEW KEY ISSUES/CONCERNS OPEN HOUSE – FRASER VALLEY / CHILLIWACK, BC
TABLE 1.5.6-7 OPEN HOUSE – LANGLEY TOWNSHIP, BC
TABLE 1.5.6-8 SUMMARY OF NEW KEY ISSUES/CONCERNS OPEN HOUSE – LANGLEY TOWNSHIP, BC
TABLE 1.5.6-9 OPEN HOUSE – BURNABY, BC
TABLE 1.5.6-10 OPEN HOUSE – BURNABY, BC
TABLE 1.5.7-1 ON-LINE ENGAGEMENT FEEDBACK
TABLE 1.5.7-2 STRATHCONA COUNTY / SHERWOOD PARK ONLINE ENGAGEMENT
TABLE 1.5.7-3 EDMONTON WEST ONLINE ENGAGEMENT
TABLE 1.5.7-4 HINTON ONLINE ENGAGEMENT (REACTIVATION SEGMENT)
TABLE 1.5.7-5 WABAMUN ONLINE ENGAGEMENT
TABLE 1.5.7-6 HOPE ONLINE ENGAGEMENT
TABLE 1.5.7-7 KAMLOOPS ONLINE ENGAGEMENT
TABLE 1.5.7-8 FRASER VALLEY (CHEAM WETLANDS) ONLINE ENGAGEMENT
TABLE 1.5.7-9 COQUITLAM ONLINE ENGAGEMENT
TABLE 1.5.7-10 LANGLEY ONLINE ENGAGEMENT
TABLE 1.5.7-11 SURREY ONLINE ENGAGEMENT
TABLE 1.5.7-12 BURNABY ONLINE ENGAGEMENT
TABLE 1.6.1-1 KEY INTERESTS OR CONCERNS – ALBERTA
TABLE 1.6.2-1 KEY INTERESTS OR CONCERNS – BC INTERIOR,
TABLE 1.6.3-1 KEY INTERESTS OR CONCERNS – LOWER MAINLAND/FRASER VALLEY, BC
TABLE 1.6.4-1 KEY INTERESTS OR CONCERNS – MAINLAND COASTAL, BC
TABLE 1.6.5-1 KEY INTERESTS OR CONCERNS – ISLAND COASTAL, BC

2.0 REFERENCES
APPENDIX A LETTERS EDITOR AND OPINION EDITORIALS
APPENDIX B TRANS MOUNTAIN LETTERS TO STAKEHOLDERS
APPENDIX C CLAIMS REALITY CAMPAIGN
APPENDIX D EMSW MATERIALS
APPENDIX E REACTIVATION WORKSHOP MATERIALS
APPENDIX F BC PARKS WORKSHOP MATERIALS
APPENDIX G PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR OPTIMIZATION MATERIALS
APPENDIX H OTHER COMMUNICATION MATERIALS

PART 6: UPDATE ON ABORIGINAL ENGAGEMENT

1.0 ABORIGINAL ENGAGEMENT

1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 Purpose of Consultation Update

1.2 Identification of Aboriginal Communities, Groups, Associations, Councils and Tribes

1.2.1 Identification of New Communities, Associations, Councils and Tribes
1.2.2 Aboriginal Communities, Groups, Associations, Councils and Tribes

1.3 Consultation Update: January 1, 2014 to April 30, 2014

1.3.1 Engagement Activity
1.3.2 Summary of Outcomes of Engagement

1.4 Aboriginal Engagement by Community, Group, Association, Council and Tribe

1.4.1 Agreements
1.4.2 Preliminary Aboriginal Interests and Engagement Reports
1.4.3 Traditional Land Use Studies, Traditional Marine Use Studies and Traditional Ecological Knowledge
1.4.4 Engagement Summaries: New Communities, Groups, Associations, Councils and Tribes

1.5 Economic Development

1.5.1 Procurement
1.5.2 Workforce Development - Education and Training
1.5.3 Employment

1.6 Future Aboriginal Engagement Activities
TABLE 1.2.1 ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES LOCATED IN THE EDMONTON TO ALBERTA/BRITISH COLUMBIA BORDER REGION
TABLE 1.2.2 ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES LOCATED IN THE ALBERTA/BRITISH COLUMBIA BORDER TO KAMLOOPS REGION
TABLE 1.2.3 ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES LOCATED IN THE KAMLOOPS TO HOPE REGION
TABLE 1.2.4 ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES LOCATED IN THE HOPE TO BURNABY TERMINAL/BURRARD INLET REGION
TABLE 1.2.5 ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES LOCATED IN THE MARINE CORRIDOR
TABLE 1.2.6 ABORIGINAL GROUPS – NON-BOUNDARY SPECIFIC
TABLE 1.2.7 ABORIGINAL ASSOCIATIONS, COUNCILS AND TRIBES
TABLE 1.3.2 SUMMARY OF ABORIGINAL INTERESTS AND CONCERNS IDENTIFIED
TABLE 1.4.1 AGREEMENTS EXECUTED DURING REPORTING PERIOD
TABLE 1.4.2 TLU/TMU/TEK ACTIVITY DURING REPORTING PERIOD
APPENDIX A-1 ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES LOCATED IN THE EDMONTON TO ALBERTA/BRITISH COLUMBIA BORDER REGION
APPENDIX A-2 ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES LOCATED IN THE ALBERTA/BRITISH COLUMBIA BORDER TO KAMLOOPS REGION
APPENDIX A-3 ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES LOCATED IN THE KAMLOOPS TO HOPE REGION
APPENDIX A-4 ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES LOCATED IN THE HOPE TO BURNABY TERMINAL/BURRARD INLET REGION
APPENDIX A-5 ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES LOCATED IN THE MARINE CORRIDOR
APPENDIX A-6 ABORIGINAL GROUPS – NON-BOUNDARY SPECIFIC
APPENDIX A-7 ASSOCIATIONS, COUNCILS AND TRIBES

PART 7: UPDATE ON LANDOWNDER ENGAGEMENT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of Landowner Relations Update
1.2 Landowner Relations Program Scope (January 1 to April 30, 2014)

2.0 COMPONENTS OF THE PROGRAM

2.1 Notification

2.1.1 Notification to Landowners or Occupants
2.1.2 Consultation and Survey Consent
2.1.3 Corridor Survey Limitations

3.0 SUMMARY OF OUTCOMES

3.1 Overview of Landowner Feedback January 1 to April 30, 2014
TABLE 1.3.1 LANDOWNERS WITHIN THE PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR

Previous Page

/2409

Next Page

Select

Pan

Zoom Out

Zoom In

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC

Consultation Update No. 2

Trans Mountain Expansion Project

July 2014

Page 61

TABLE 1.5.5-18

Cont'd

Topic

Summary of New Key Issues/Concerns

Human Activity

& Land Use

•

Need to balance impacts to environment and human impact; routing along the east

side of golf course will impact environment, and along the west will impact many

residents

•

Disruption to natural areas north of golf course

•

Human impacts during construction (

i.e.,

nuisance)

Burnaby, BC

The results of the Burnaby Workshop are summarized in Tables 1.5.5-19 through 1.5.5-21.

TABLE 1.5.5-19

PROPOSED PIPELINE CORRIDOR OPTIMIZATION WORKSHOP – BURNABY, BC

Region

Location

Date

Number of

Attendees

Lower Mainland/Fraser

Valley

Executive Plaza, North Road,

Coquitlam

April 3, 2014

4:00 – 6:10 pm

9

The following is a listing of only those organizations in attendance at the Proposed Pipeline Corridor

Optimization Workshop (Burnaby).

TABLE 1.5.5-20

ATTENDEES – BURNABY, BC

Organization

BC Fly Fishers Federation

Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA)

Burnaby Board of Trade

Simon Fraser University (SFU)

Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure

Stoney Creek Streamkeepers

Note:

Some organizations had more than one representative in attendance.

TABLE 1.5.5-21

SUMMARY OF NEW KEY ISSUES/CONCERNS – BURNABY, BC

Topic

Summary of New Key Issues/Concerns

Land

•

Geotechnical concerns; seismic withstand and creation of potential geotechnical

concerns with trenchless methods through Burnaby Mountain

Air

•

Odour control at Burnaby Terminal

Water

•

Protect water resources in the event of a spill

•

Trenchless option through Burnaby Mountain; positively response

Human Activity &

Land Use

•

No new issues raised

1.5.6

Open Houses

Trans Mountain also hosted Public Open Houses that provided stakeholders with an opportunity to receive

updated Project information, to review area-specific revisions to the proposed pipeline corridor since filing

the NEB Application in December 2013, and to provide feedback to Trans Mountain.