Questions to Kinder Morgan

To:
Ms. Sheri Young
National Energy Board
Secretary of the Board
517-Tenth Ave. SW
Calgary, AB
T2R 0A8
ph 403 292 4800
Dear Ms. Sheri Young, Mr. D. Scott Stoness and Mr. Shawn H.T. Denstedt:

Re: Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC (Trans Mountain)—Application for the Trans Mountain
Expansion Project (TEMP): Information Request (IR) to Trans Mountain from Salmon River
Enhancement Society (SRES)

On 16 December 2013, Trans Mountain Pipeline applied to the National Energy Board (Board) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and Related Approvals for its proposed Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMEP). This project intends to lay a pipeline from Edmonton, AB, to Burnaby, BC, for the purpose of transporting petroleum products.
In examining the TMEP application, and the related filings, received to date, the SRES finds that additional information is required, as set out in the attached IR. In that light, SRES has compiled a list of questions for which it is requesting answers. These questions largely relate to the geographic areas of interest by the SRES including RK1137 (Sheet 284) to RK 1169 (Sheet 295), 1 although not exclusively so; SRES is of the opinion that other stewardship groups and concerned parties may find that some of our positions and concerns relate to their portions of the project. We attach, below, a list of questions that incorporate our IR.

For any questions, please contact the Annabel Young.
Yours truly,
Annabel Young
c.c. All Interveners

Attachment 2
Trans Mountain Pipeline—
Trans Mountain Expansion Project TMEP
Intervener Information Request
Salmon River Enhancement Society
April 7, 2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In this document the Salmon River Enhancement Society (SRES) poses a series of Information Request (IR) questions to Trans Mountain Pipeline (TMP) (submission due-date April 7, 2015) in regards to its Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMEP) application. The SRES is an officiallysanctioned intervener in the TMEP. These IR’s generally pertain to sections of the TMEP from RK1137 (Sheet 284) to RK1169 (Sheet 295) (Figure 1) although some of them, undoubtedly, apply to much-more of the project from Edmonton to Burnaby. When reviewing this SRES document, the public should ask the question as to whether-or-not the points raised also apply to their areas of the TMEP route. While the focus of SRES is on the Salmon River drainage, because of the proximity and importance of the nearby aquatic ecosystems, the SRES has deemed it important to cover-off the relevant impact-issues in its general-geographic area of its interest, namely the Langley-North Surrey area. This includes asking for information and commenting on the construction and operations effects through the Township of Langley and
North Surrey (to the Fraser River). Note that the Information Requests and concerns expressed in this SRES document include both habitat values in Crown and private lands. SRES does not differentiate between ecosystem impacts by Trans Mountain Pipeline on either government held or privately-owned properties. SRES is of the opinion that damage to natural ecosystems on private properties also need to be mitigated. Because of the close linkage between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, and the difficulty in differentiating the influences of the terrestrial uplands on the aquatic values, SRES also includes aspects of impacts to the terrestrial environment in its questioning. In this document, the focus of the questions by SRES include both the construction (short-to-long term) and the operational (long term) impacts to the ecosystems affected by the TMEP, specifically in RK1137 to RK1169 of the project, but also considering similar impacts across the whole of the pipeline from Edmonton to Burnaby.  In summary, the most pertinent points in the questioning and requests for information by SRES include the following:

1. There was a minimal amount of inventory and assessment undertaken by Trans
Mountain Pipeline relating to the streams, wetlands, terrestrial environments that will
be affected by the TMEP for fish, wildlife and plants, including their habitats in the area
of SRES interest. Without this information, and considering these being serious errors
and omissions, it is difficult to properly-and-adequately assess the actual quantum of
the impact as a result of the TMEP. Is Trans Mountain Pipeline going to provide more
information, and in a reasonable time frame, so that the public and agencies can
properly evaluate the impacts of the TMEP?
2. There is a minimal amount of information provided by Trans Mountain Pipeline relating
to the area of land clearing, and therefore, impacts to vegetation and animal
communities (both common and rare). This applies to land-disturbance for both the
construction (short-to-long term) and operational (long-term) footprint aspects of the
TMEP. These subjects constitute important components of the National Energy Boards
(NEB) Requirements and do not, as yet, appear to be addressed. This document asks for
this information;
3. There is a minimal amount of information provided by Trans Mountain Pipeline and its
consultants relating to the actual impacts to fish and fish habitats, for both the
construction and operational aspects of the TMEP in the area of interest by the SRES.
This information constitutes an important component of the National Energy Board’s
(NEB) Requirements and do not, as yet, appear to be addressed by Trans Mountain
Pipeline. This document by SRES asks for this information;
4. It is not clear why Trans Mountain Pipeline has ignored the Riparian Areas Regulation
(RAR), or its Township of Langley by-law equivalent, for its proposed works for streams
in the TMEP areas of SRES interest. Trans Mountain Pipeline is asked by SRES for an
explanation in these regards. RARs are a legislated series of regulations that are
required to be followed for many southern and south-western British Columbia Local
Governments jurisdictions and are expected to “meet or beat” Canada Fisheries Act
habitat legislation. Trans Mountain Pipelines have, fundamentally ignored this legal
requirement when working in-and-about streams in the Langley and North Surrey area.
We ask “why”?
5. Following from this, SRES asks Trans Mountain Pipeline why trenchless stream crossings
for the Salmon River, and Nathan and West creeks (both listed under the British
Columbia Fish Protection Act as sensitive streams) are not being considered for these
streams given that it would protect the riparian areas at the crossings. Currently, the
crossings, as proposed, constitute Serious Harm under the Canada Fisheries Act and
require an authorization. Trenchless crossings of streams could help to protect the
riparian vegetation where the pipeline is being laid in watercourses. It is the position of
SRES that having trenchless crossings for these sensitive streams is not negotiable.
6. SRES is particularly concerned that the original plan for the pipeline through the Salmon
River had the pipe passing through a substantial stretch of the Fort Langley floodplain
(heading north once it passes Glover Road and Rawlison Crescent). Although alternative
routes have been proposed for this specific area, SRES would like to emphasize that it
would be foolhardy to put forwards the floodplain as the preferred route for the Trans
Mountain Pipeline TMEP. The ecological values in the Salmon River floodplain are much
higher than other contemplated routes. This floodplain is critical habitat for 20 species
of fish including the endangered Salish sucker, the Harrison River Chinook salmon and
several other species of salmonids. The Salmon River is the most important coho
salmon stream in the lower Fraser River and the floodplain provides, or has the
potential to provide, quality habitat. In addition the floodplain is critical habitat for
many birds including migratory species listed under Convention. Should a spill occur in
the floodplain, damage would be extensive and likely impossible to remediate. In
addition, a spill in the wet season would create major issues with access for
cleanup. The floodplain is not accessible to large equipment for much of the year. SRES
would like to emphasize that any route through the Salmon River floodplain should no
longer be considered as an option.
7. In its review of the material, SRES points out that Trans Mountain Pipeline has taken the
position that its stream crossings will not cause permanent and Serious Harm to fish
habitat. SRES disagrees strongly with this opinion and points out that the riparian areas
at the historic 1953 pipeline crossings are still extensively damaged at the larger streams
in the area of SRES interest. SRES asks Trans Mountain Pipeline to explain their position
in these regards.
8. The Yorkson Creek crossing constitutes Serious Harm under the Canada Fisheries Act and requires an authorization. Trans Mountain Pipeline failed to recognize this. This is a
serious error and omission by Trans Mountain Pipeline. 9. In its submitted technical material, Trans Mountain Pipelines often refers to the use of qualified professionals as a requirement for undertaking the assessments and mitigation. For the fisheries reports for the areas of SRES interest, there are no professional stamps included in the documents. SRES asks for the information relating to the authorship and professional standing of the individuals responsible for writing these fisheries reports.
10. SRES points out that the operational impacts of the pipeline, once it is put into use, are
virtually ignored in the documents provided by Trans Mountain Pipeline. This is a very
serious error and omission and needs to be addressed at the highest decision-making
levels.
11. In this IR, SRES asks Trans Mountain Pipeline if it is prepared to provide compensation
offsets for the extensive and permanent damage that will occur as a result of the
construction and operations of the TMEP. SRES suggests that Trans Mountain Pipeline
needs to read and consider the British Columbia Environmental Mitigation Policy for
large projects such as the TMEP. There are three primary sources of impact that SRES
views as permanent including: 1. loss of riparian habitats at stream crossings; 2.
vegetation for wildlife and other species (including those important for the production
of fish) in the construction ROW; and 3. loss of vegetation for wildlife and other species
(including those important for the production of fish) resulting from the subsequent
long-term operations in the ROW. This applies for the TMEP as well as outstanding
impacts resulting from the historic 1953 original pipeline. There is no indication, in the
material presented by Trans Mountain Pipeline that it has: properly inventoried and
assessed its damage via this project or, will adequately mitigate these impacts. It is the
position of SRES that there is an outstanding requirement of compensation for the
ecological impacts, both terrestrial and aquatic, associated with the current Trans
Mountain proposed pipeline project as well as the historic 1953 pipeline. SRES is of the
opinion that, once these habitat losses are property determined, Trans Mountain
Pipeline could provide equivalent-ecosystem landscapes in the form of purchased
properties which need to be set aside as permanent protected-area offsets for the
damage this project has entailed. These should be reasonable offsets that provide Trans
Mountain Pipeline the social license to operate in British Columbia. There are recent
precedents for this concept including the recent Teck-purchased ecologically-protected
property at the Elk and Fording valleys which is currently being managed by The Nature
Trust. See http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/publications/resdocsdocrech/2014/2014_109-eng.pdf
for an explanation of fish habitat offsets.
12. As a final point, in this IR SRES asks Trans Mountain Pipeline if they are prepared to
mitigate and compensate for outstanding damage to the terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems remaining from the original 1953 pipeline construction and operations.
Major industries, in British Columbia and throughout North America, are now being
required to address historical impacts as a license to continue or expand on their
activities (e.g., BC Hydro Water Use Planning; BC Hydro Fish and Wildlife Compensation
Programs). Given the seemingly-enormous amount of profit Trans Mountain Pipeline
has generated from the original project in the interim, and the outstanding historical
environmental concerns, it is the opinion of SRES opinion that for Trans Mountain
Pipeline to undertake its current TMEP it must first address its historical impacts of over
the last 60 years. This position by SRES is not negotiable.
Note, that this IR submission is not intended to imply that the Salmon River Enhancement
Society or its members necessarily support the TMEP, as a whole, but is put forward as
commentary and requirements to work in the area of SRES interest should the political decision be made that this project proceeds.

Figure 1. Map of the TMEP construction in the area of SRES interest, from Nathan Creek to the Fraser
River (RK1137 (Sheet 284) to RK 1169 (Sheet 295) between the two yellow slashes).

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. AREA OF LANDSCAPE DISRUPTED IN THE TMEP AREA OF SRES INTEREST…………………………………..13
2. INVENTORY OF PLANTS AND ANIMALS, INCLUDING SPECIES-AT-RISK, AND THE PRODUCTIVE
CAPACITY OF THEIR HABITATS IN THE DISTURBED TERRESTRIAL PORTIONS OF THE TMEP AREA OF SRES
INTEREST …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………17
3. STREAM AND WETLAND SURVEYS, AND RESTORATION OF WETLANDS, IN THE TMEP AREA OF THE
SRES INTEREST …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..21
4. SURREY BEND PARK AND NEARBY WETLANDS………………………………………………………………………..26
5. YORKSON CREEK AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE TMEP TO PROVIDE INSUFFICIENT INVENTORY AND
ASSESSMENT, INADEQUATE MITIGATION, COMPENSATION AND/OR OFFSETS AND AN AUTHORIZATION
FROM FISHERIES AND OCEANS CANADA FOR SERIOUS HARM OF A FISH HABITAT……………………………..30
6. INCORRECT POSITION BY THE TMEP AND TRANS MOUNTAIN IN RESPECT TO THE IMPORTANCE OF
RIPARIAN AREAS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..34
7. TMEP ALIGNMENT IN AND ABOUT THE REDWOODS GOLF COURSE ………………………………………….36
8. OPERATIONAL TMEP IMPACTS TO COMMON AND RARE PLANTS AND ANIMALS AND RESTORATION
OF THEIR PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY (including both Crown and non-Crown lands) DUE TO ROW CLEARING
AND MAINTENANCE …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..39
10. TRENCHLESS vs TRENCHED CROSSINGS FOR NATHAN AND WEST CREEKS AND SALMON RIVER..49
11. HARDENING OF BANKS AT STREAM CROSSINGS ………………………………………………………………….58
12. ENVIRONMENTAL OFFSETS……………………………………………………………………………………………….60
13. ADHERENCE TO LOCAL LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS …………………………………………………….62
14. FISHERIES ACT AUTHORIZATIONS ………………………………………………………………………………………65
15. WATERCOURSE CROSSINGS………………………………………………………………………………………………67
16. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION……………………………………………………………………………………………..69
17. POST-CONSTRUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING ………………………………………………………73
9
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Map of the TMEP construction in the area of SRES interest, from Nathan Creek to the Fraser River (RK1137 (Sheet 284) to RK 1169 (Sheet 295) between the two yellow slashes). ………………………….8
Figure 2. Pipeline alignment and ROW at the Nathan Creek, Township of Langley, TMEP crossing. This figure was excerpted from: B16-50_-_V6E_289of306_ENV_ALIGNMENT_SHEETS_-_A3S4E1. Note the
extensive vegetation and habitat values that will be destroyed as a result of the TMEP at this location.  There is no indication that Trans Mountain Pipeline is prepared to provide compensation offsets for this habitat damage………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….14
Figure 3. Pipeline alignment and ROW at the West Creek, Township of Langley, TMEP crossing. This
figure was excerpted from: B17-2_-_V6E_291of306_ENV_ALIGNMENT_SHEETS_-_A3S3W5. Note the
extensive vegetation and habitat values that will be destroyed as a result of the TMEP at this location.
There is no indication that Trans Mountain Pipeline is prepared to provide compensation offsets for this
habitat damage………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….15
Figure 4. Trans Mountain Pipeline ROW just east of 258th, Township of Langley, showing loss of large
vegetation and natural ground cover for the 1953 project. Photo from Township of Langley, GeoSource.
http://geosource.tol.ca/external/ Accessed April 4, 2015. ………………………………………………………………17
Figure 5. Pipeline alignment and ROW at the Surrey Bend, Surrey, TMEP crossing. This figure was
excerpted from: B17-2_-_V6E_291of306_ENV_ALIGNMENT_SHEETS_-_A3S3W5 Note the extensive
vegetation and habitat values that will be destroyed as a result of the TMEP……………………………………27
Figure 6. Trans Mountain Pipeline map of the Yorkson Creek areas from the TMEP web site…………….31
Figure 7. Township of Langley GeoSource mapping of watercourses at Yorkson Creek. Top figure
represents line drawing, lower figure is air photo of the same location. Approximate TMEP boundaries
drawn on maps. See Figure 6 for Trans Mountain Pipeline map location.
http://geosource.tol.ca/external/ Accessed April 4, 2015. ………………………………………………………………32
Figure 8. Western portion of the Salmon River lowlands showing the general area of the pipeline realignment
and the stream and wetland values. Stream mapping was undertaken by Township of
Langley. http://geosource.tol.ca/external/ Accessed April 4, 2015………………………………………………….37
Figure 9. General area of the TMEP alignment through the western portion of the Salmon River
lowlands and adjacent areas. http://www.transmountain.com/proposed-pipeline-corridor Accessed
April 4, 2015………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………37
Figure 10. Typical example of pipeline ROW clearing. This location is at a current water-main pipeline
installation, by the Township of Langley, for its Salmon River crossing. SRES photos. ………………………..40
Figure 11. Groomed Trans Mountain Pipeline ROW immediately east of Nathan Creek crossing. Note
that natural-vegetation function has been removed to facilitate pipeline operations. Photo from
Township of Langley GeoSource. http://geosource.tol.ca/external/ Accessed April 4, 2015……………….41
Figure 12. Permanent loss of second growth forested vegetation at West Creek in the SRES area of
interest, including damage to stream-side riparian areas. . http://geosource.tol.ca/external/ Accessed
April 4, 2015………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………42
Figure 13. Groomed ROW of the Trans Mountain Pipeline just west of the Vedder Canal looking west. 42
Figure 14. Significant permanent serious harm caused by the 1953 Trans Mountain Pipeline crossing at
Nathan Creek. http://geosource.tol.ca/external/ Accessed April 4, 2015. ………………………………………..46
Figure 15. Significant permanent serious harm caused by the 1953 Trans Mountain Pipeline crossing at
West Creek. http://geosource.tol.ca/external/ Accessed April 4, 2015…………………………………………….47
10
Figure 16. Significant permanent serious harm caused by the 1953 Trans Mountain Pipeline crossing at
Salmon River. http://geosource.tol.ca/external/ Accessed April 4, 2015. …………………………………………47
Figure 17. Example of trenchless pipe laying under streams. http://www.tibban.com/horizontal-anddirectional-drilling.php
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….50
Figure 18. Best management practices for stream crossings, Canada Fisheries and Oceans Canada and
BC Ministry of Environment…………………………………………………………………………………………………………55
Figure 19. Current stream crossing by Trans Mountain Pipeline on the Vedder River. Note the rip rap on
the far bank armoring this portion of the river. ……………………………………………………………………………..58
Figure 20. Nathan Creek as an example of the assessment of “Serious Harm” to fish habitat by Trans
Mountain Pipeline. B323-9_-
_Self_Assessment_Potential_for_Serious_Harm_to_Fish_and_Fish_Habitat_Part_7_of_7_-_A4I6C7
pages D-306 – D-359…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..70
11
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Widths of construction and operational ROW’s occurring in Trans Mountain Pipeline’s TMEP.
http://www.transmountain.com/planning-the-route Accessed April 4, 2014……………………………………13
Table 2. Direction by NEB to Trans Mountain Pipeline to assess rare (species-at-risk) plants, animals and
their habitats……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..19
Table 3. NEB requirements for wetland assessment by Trans Mountain Pipeline for the TMEP. ………….22
Table 4. Wetland and streams locations catalogued by Trans Mountain Pipeline, potentially impacted by
the TMEP, within the Township of Langley. Highlighted streams represent geographic area covered in
Table 5………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………23
Table 5. Number of wetlands and streams mapped by Township of Langley, GeoSource, from Nathan
Creek to Salmon River RK1138.02 to RK1147.37, inclusive. http://geosource.tol.ca/external/ Accessed
April 4, 2015………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………24
Table 6. Trans Mountain Pipeline response to City of Surrey IR No. 1 outlining its position on
remediating impacts to Surrey Bend Park. …………………………………………………………………………………….28
Table 7. Yorkson Creek fish-habitat assessment by the TMEP. ………………………………………………………..33
Table 8. Trans Mountain Pipeline’s interpretation of riparian area and its importance to aquatic
ecosystems………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..34
Table 9. Trans Mountain Pipeline response to Halston Hills Housing Co-op in respect to the loss of trees
on their property due to the TMEP……………………………………………………………………………………………….41
Table 10. Assessment of harm to fish habitat at the TMEP pipeline stream crossings at Nathan and West
creeks and the Salmon River. B323-9_-
_Self_Assessment_Potential_for_Serious_Harm_to_Fish_and_Fish_Habitat_Part_7_of_7_-_A4I6C7 ….45
Table 11. City of Surrey comment on the destruction of riparian areas in-and-about streams at Trans
Mountain Pipeline’s existing 1953 ROW via operational maintenance. …………………………………………….48
Table 12. Letter to Township of Langley, from Trans Mountain Pipeline, in regards to an Information
Request on the issue of directional drilling for Nathan Creek and the Salmon River. ………………………….51
Table 13. Township of Langley’s Intervener’s explanation for claiming IR response by Trans Mountain
Pipeline to be inadequate for the questions surrounding horizontal directional drilling for Nathan Creek
and Salmon River. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………53
Table 14. Recommended crossing methods by Trans Mountain Pipeline for Nathan and West creeks and
Salmon River. B323-9_-
_Self_Assessment_Potential_for_Serious_Harm_to_Fish_and_Fish_Habitat_Part_7_of_7_-_A4I6C7 ….54
Table 15. Trans Mountain Pipeline’s recognition of the endangered Salish Sucker in the Salmon River
and the application of Riparian Areas Regulation to development in-and-around streams………………….63
Table 16. Direction by NEB to Trans Mountain Pipeline with regards to notification for any Canada
Fisheries Act Section 35(2) authorizations in the TMEP. ………………………………………………………………….66
Table 17. Requirement by Trans Mountain Pipeline to file with NEB in respect to watercourse crossings.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..68
12
1. AREA OF LANDSCAPE DISRUPTED IN THE TMEP AREA OF SRES INTEREST

References:
1. http://www.transmountain.com/planning-the-route
2. B16-50_-_V6E_289of306_ENV_ALIGNMENT_SHEETS_-_A3S4E1.pdf
Preamble:
In the web site: http://www.transmountain.com/planning-the-route , Trans Mountain Pipeline
indicates that there could be a number of different widths incorporated into the Right-of-Way
(ROW) that might be partially or completed cleared (Table 1).
Table 1. Widths of construction and operational ROW’s occurring in Trans Mountain Pipeline’s
TMEP. http://www.transmountain.com/planning-the-route Accessed April 4, 2014.
These construction and long-term operational activities will impact on the natural landscape
and its ecosystem values as a result of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMEP). The
clearing of the land will destroy and/or remove natural plant and animal habitats, via land
disturbance and clearing, and this will occur on both private and public lands. Such clearing will
entrain more water and fine sediments into streams as well as increasingly fragment habitats
and encourage more invasive species to colonize the ROW’s.
In this context, the surface area of ROW landscape that might be altered (i.e., vegetation and
animal removal through grubbing and clearing) in the zone of SRES interest could range from
13
55.8 ha (31 km X 18 m) to 465 ha (31 km X 150 m) with a substantial amount of it having natural
ecosystem values. (Note: there is also an historic 1953 surface area that was damaged and
needs to be accounted for.)
The TMEP activity in the construction and operational ROWs would, seemingly, result in the
complete loss of most or all living organisms in the ROW area with: 1. recovery in the
construction areas potentially taking a considerable time after the works are completed
(depending on the species and age structure of the plants), and 2. likely no-recovery-ever of the
natural vegetation in the operational zone due to replanting of very different species (low
ground cover) to facilitate pipeline maintenance (this is discussed later in this IR).
Two examples showing significant loss of mature vegetation having immitigable habitat values,
within the SRES area of interest include the ROW’s at the Nathan and West creeks crossings
(Figures 2, 3).

Figure 2. Pipeline alignment and ROW at the Nathan Creek, Township of Langley, TMEP
crossing. This figure was excerpted from: B16-50_-_V6E_289of306_ENV_ALIGNMENT_SHEETS_-
_A3S4E1. Note the extensive vegetation and habitat values that will be destroyed as a result of
the TMEP at this location. There is no indication that Trans Mountain Pipeline is prepared to
provide compensation offsets for this habitat damage.
14
Figure 3. Pipeline alignment and ROW at the West Creek, Township of Langley, TMEP crossing.
This figure was excerpted from: B17-2_-_V6E_291of306_ENV_ALIGNMENT_SHEETS_-_A3S3W5.
Note the extensive vegetation and habitat values that will be destroyed as a result of the TMEP
at this location. There is no indication that Trans Mountain Pipeline is prepared to provide
compensation offsets for this habitat damage.
Information Request:
a. Has TMEP undertaken a detailed accounting of the surface areas that will be
disturbed in the ROW’s of interest to SRES (RK1137 to RK1169) including, and
separately the impacted areas in both the construction and operational ROW’s.
b. And to what detail? In other words, what are the widths, and total area, of both the
construction and operational ROW’s from RK1137 to RK1169?
c. If it has done so, please provide.
d. If you have not, why not?
e. Will TMP provide a detailed inventory and assessment of these metrics occur prior
to construction for SRES to review in a timely manner?
f. What are the total areas of the construction and long-term operational ROW’s over
the length of the pipeline, from Edmonton to Burnaby for both the 1953 pipeline
and the TMEP?
15
g. Is Trans Mountain Pipeline prepared to provide environmental offsets for these
disturbed areas both in the area of SRES and over the geographic length of the TMEP
and the 1953 historical impact?
16
2. INVENTORY OF PLANTS AND ANIMALS, INCLUDING SPECIES-AT-RISK, AND THE
PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY OF THEIR HABITATS IN THE DISTURBED TERRESTRIAL PORTIONS
OF THE TMEP AREA OF SRES INTEREST
References:
1. http://geosource.tol.ca/external/
2. http://transmountain.s3.amazonaws.com/application/V5A_S01_to_S05_ESA_BIOPHYSI
CAL.pdf
3. File OF-Fac-Oil-T260-2013 02
Preamble:
The Metro Vancouver communities of the Township of Langley and Surrey have habitats of
considerable value for natural terrestrial ecosystems within the TMEP ROW’s of this area of
SRES interest. Although much of the landscape has been disturbed since European
settlement in the 19th and 20th centuries, there remains many natural values for mammals,
amphibians, birds, reptiles and various species of plants.
As per the figure above for West and Nathan creeks (Figures 2 & 3), the TMEP in the
construction and operational ROW’s will destroy many of these habitat attributes, both
temporarily and/or permanently (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Current Trans Mountain Pipeline ROW just east of 258th, Township of Langley,
showing loss of large vegetation and natural ground cover resulting from the 1953 project.
Photo from Township of Langley, GeoSource. http://geosource.tol.ca/external/ Accessed April
4, 2015.
17
In addition, because of the zoogeographic history of the lower mainland, the section of TMEP of
interest to SRES is home to a considerable number of species-at-risk (rare plants and animals)
(http://transmountain.s3.amazonaws.com/application/V5A_S01_to_S05_ESA_BIOPHYSICAL.pdf
). Trans Mountain Pipeline and its consultants are required to consider such values under
direction by NEB and legislation and regulation by various levels of government (Table 2).
Below outlines the National Energy Board expectation that Trans Mountain Pipeline will assess
rare plants and animals and their habitats, and wetlands, and include mitigation of damage
done to them and their habitats (Table 2). To date, there is no indication in the reporting that
Trans Mountain Pipeline has undertaken any meaningful assessment of terrestrial species or
their habitats as per the direction provided by NEB in Table 2. This omission is of particular
interest to SRES, in respect to the scheduling time-frame of the TMEP, in order to provide SREP
time to respond appropriately to the decision makers regarding its concerns on this issue.
18
Table 2. Direction by NEB to Trans Mountain Pipeline to assess rare (species-at-risk) plants,
animals and their habitats.
19
Information Request:
a. Has Trans Mountain Pipeline undertaken an accounting of the current vegetation and
animal communities, including rare and at-risk species, and their habitats, in the SRES
area of interest for each ecosystem type encountered, including wetlands, upland
forests, natural fields, and naturalized anthropogenic plants and animals that have
natural environmental values, including the direction by NEB as per Table 2?
b. If not why not?
c. If it has, when will Trans Mountain Pipeline provide, to SRES and others, the reporting
for such assessments if they been undertaken for the SRES area of interest?
d. If Trans Mountain Pipeline has not undertaken such an inventory and assessment, is it
planning to do so?
e. If so, when will it be completed and can SRES obtain the report?
f. If not, why not?
g. Has Trans Mountain Pipeline developed mitigation and monitoring plans for natural
communities of animals and plants, including their habitats, and also including species
of concern (Table 2; b, c, f)?
h. If not, why not?
i. Will the TMEP project replace in the non-operational area, these organisms and habitats
(both rare and common) that are altered/destroyed with like-for-like species of native
vegetation and other organisms it destroys or displaces?
j. How long will it take for the productive capacity of these ecosystem values to be
restored in the area of SRES interest?
k. How do you know it will take that long?
l. What will Trans Mountain Pipeline do to offset the losses in productivity for common
and rare (species-at-risk) in the construction area while it is recovering in the disturbed
areas?
m. How will Trans Mountain Pipeline mitigate the loss of trees that are over 20 years old
within their TMEP?
20
3. STREAM AND WETLAND SURVEYS, AND RESTORATION OF WETLANDS, IN THE TMEP
AREA OF THE SRES INTEREST
References:
1. File OF-Fac-Oil-T260-2013 02
2. B323-9_-
_Self_Assessment_Potential_for_Serious_Harm_to_Fish_and_Fish_Habitat_Part_7_of_7
_-_A4I6C7
3. B9-6_-_V5C_TR_5C8_06of6_WETLAND_-_A3S2I5
4. http://geosource.tol.ca/external/
5. http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/publications/resdocs-docrech/2014/2014_109-
eng.pdf
Preamble:
Wetlands comprise a particularly important aspect of the ecosystem values of the TMEP.
Wetlands within the TMEP can comprise both fish and non-fish habitats including highlyvaluable
ecosystem attributes. This includes the TMEP in the lower mainland in the geographic
area of SRES interest.
The NEB has specific requirements for Trans Mountain Pipeline relating to wetlands (Table 3).
As part of the TMEP Trans Mountain Pipeline must properly survey the wetlands that will, or
potentially will, be affected, provide mitigation for the impacts and monitor the effectiveness of
the remedial action.
21
Table 3. NEB requirements for wetland assessment by Trans Mountain Pipeline for the TMEP.
22
Only 10 streams and two wetlands appear to have been catalogued by Tran Mountain Pipeline
(Table 4). For comparison, based on the Township of Langley mapping, between Nathan Creek
(RK1138.02) and the Salmon River (RK1147.37) alone, the TOL showed 24 watercourses where
the ROW’s were intersected by streams in the Township’s mapping (Table 5), of which seven
had fish (salmon or endangered species). This is versus six streams and one wetland over the
same geographic distance assessed by the Trans Mountain Pipeline. Additionally, the mapping
by the Township of Langley showed another nine streams that came within 15 meters of the
current ROW and of these two were known to have fish.
It appears that Trans Mountain Pipeline has only done a rudimentary and/or sloppy job of
inventory and assessment of wetlands and streams in the area of SRES interest. That is, it has
failed to provide the relevant information on this key habitat feature (Table 4 vs 5) and/or
provided plans to mitigate/compensate/offset impacts to these ecosystem values.
Table 4. Wetland and streams locations catalogued by Trans Mountain Pipeline, potentially
impacted by the TMEP, within the Township of Langley. Highlighted streams represent
geographic area covered in Table 5.
Streams
B323-9_-
_Self_Assessment_Potential_for_Serious_Harm_to_Fish_and_Fish_Habitat_Part_7_of_7_-
_A4I6C7
Nathan Ck. RK1138.02 Turkey Brook Ck. RK1139.76 West Ck. RK1142.99
Unnamed Ck. RK1143.67 Davidson Ck. RK1145.66 Salmon R. RK1147.37
East Munday Ck. RK1152.44 West Munday Cr. RK1153.95 Yorkson Ck.
RK1154.26
Unnamed Cr. RK1154.68 Unnamed Cr. RK1156.08
Wetlands B9-6_-_V5C_TR_5C8_06of6_WETLAND_-_A3S2I5
RKstart1140.07 to RKend1140.14 nursery RKSTART1148.7 to RKEND1148.8 golf course
23
Table 5. Number of wetlands and streams mapped by Township of Langley, GeoSource, from
Nathan Creek to Salmon River RK1138.02 to RK1147.37, inclusive.
http://geosource.tol.ca/external/ Accessed April 4, 2015.
intersected by current ROW within 15 meters of the current
ROW
(in either direction)
Red 7 2
Orange 0 1
Magenta 0 0
Yellow 8 1
Green 7 1
Blue (wetlands in this area) 2 4
Fish Bearing – Class ‘A’
Class ‘A’ – Red: inhabited year round or has the potential for year round fish presence
upon reasonable means of access enhancements
Class ‘A (OD’ – Orange: watercourses with intermittent water supply. May dry up in
summer months, inhabited by (or potentially inhabited by) fish during over-wintering
period when base flows are re-established (OD – Overwintering habitat, dries up)
Class ‘A (OW)’ – Magenta: watercourse with fish presence year round. Utilized primarily
by salmonids during the overwintering period. In general, summer usage restricted by
high temperatures and/or low dissolved oxygen levels. Non-salmonid species are
generally present year round (OW = Overwintering habitat, Wet all year).
Non-Fish Bearing – Classes ‘B & C’
Class ‘B’ – Yellow: significant source of food, nutrient or cool water supplies to
downstream fish populations. These watercourses have no documented fish presence
or reasonable potential for fish presence.
Class ‘C’ – Green: insignificant food/nutrient value. No documented fish presence and
no reasonable potential for fish presence. These watercourses dry up soon after
rainfall.
Unclassified
Unclassified – Blue: Watercourses for which no detailed information exists. These
watercourses should be classified by an appropriately qualified professional.
Information Request:
a. Has Trans Mountain Pipeline undertaken a more-detailed inventory and assessment of
the current wetlands, for each area along this TMEP SRES route for impacted areas in
24
both the construction and operational ROW’s, than has been presented to the public to
date?
b. If not, why not? If so, please provide an accounting of these wetland habitats and the
animal and plant communities within the water bodies for the area of interest by SRES.
c. Has the Trans Mountain Pipeline compared their inventory of wetlands in the TMEP
with the Township of Langley’s extensive mapping of the same? And, if so, how did
Trans Mountain Pipeline find that was comparable? If not, why not?
d. Has the TMEP developed a mitigation-strategy or plans to avoid/minimize/offset the
impacts relating to the construction and operational maintenance of its pipelines in
streams and wetlands?
e. And, if so, what is it/where are they?
f. If not, why not?
g. Has the TEMP met the requirements, by NEB as per Table 4 from a.-l.? If so, provide a
summary of the findings, management plans, mitigation plans, etc.
h. If not, why not?
i. Will Trans Mountain Pipeline provide opportunity for public review and comment on
their wetland and stream Serious Harm compensation and offset plans and agreements?
j. What ratio or offsets will Trans Mountain Pipeline use for wetland impacts and Serious
Harm to streams? Fisheries and Oceans Canada typically use multipliers in order to
ensure that there are no net losses to habitat under impact scenarios: http://www.dfompo.gc.ca/csas-sccs/publications/resdocs-docrech/2014/2014_109-eng.pdf
.
k. Will Trans Mountain Pipeline be prepared to provide compensation offsets for the
extensive damage that will occur as a result of the construction and operations of the
TMEP following from the British Columbia Environmental Mitigation Policy? Is Trans
Mountain Pipeline aware of the British Columbia Environmental Mitigation Policy? Has
Trans Mountain Pipeline read the British Columbia Environmental Mitigation Policy? If
not, why not?
25
4. SURREY BEND PARK AND NEARBY WETLANDS
References:
1. B17-2_-_V6E_291of306_ENV_ALIGNMENT_SHEETS_-_A3S3W5
2. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Trans Mountain Expansion Project NEB Hearing Order OH-
001-2014 Follow-Up Response to Information Request from City of Surrey
3. http://www.pmh1project.com/Community%20Consultation/COMM%20-%20con%20-
%20Surrey%20Bend%20Backgrounder%20-%2020130218.pdf
Preamble:
While the construction and operational ROW’s cross a number of wetlands in the area of SRES
interest, by far the most important is the Surrey Bend Park in Surrey (Figure 6). Surrey Bend
Park, and its associated landscapes leading to it, comprise some of the most important extant
lower Fraser River lowland ecosystems of this type. This habitat took a large “hit” when the
new Highway 17 was built within its perimeter. Nevertheless, despite its importance, to date
there is no indication that Trans Mountain Pipeline is prepared to provide any meaningful
compensation for this damage to Surrey Bend Park outside of the following response to the city
of Surrey (Table 6).
26
Figure 5. Pipeline alignment and ROW at the Surrey Bend, Surrey, TMEP crossing. This figure
was excerpted from: B17-2_-_V6E_291of306_ENV_ALIGNMENT_SHEETS_-_A3S3W5. Note the
extensive vegetation and habitat values that will be destroyed as a result of the TMEP.
27
Table 6. Trans Mountain Pipeline response to City of Surrey IR No. 1 outlining its position on
remediating impacts to Surrey Bend Park.

Note that the British Columbia Transportation Investment Corporation provided compensation
for the highway construction through this park. A subsequent $2.5 million was spent on
restoration and enhancement for that project in lieu of where the highway destroyed a similar
amount of habitat that is being proposed by the TMEP.
(http://www.pmh1project.com/Community%20Consultation/COMM%20-%20con%20-
%20Surrey%20Bend%20Backgrounder%20-%2020130218.pdf )
Information Request:
a. Please explain how Trans Mountain Pipeline expects to achieve a no-net-loss in
ecosystem attributes in the footprint of the TMEP (construction and operational
28
impacts) in the Surrey Bend Park location of the project, in addition to similar-other
adjacent locations.
b. Trans Mountain Pipeline has committed to providing a Wetland Compensation Plan
for Surrey Bend (Table 6). Will this result in monetary compensation for lost
ecosystem values? If so, who will get the money?
c. What will the compensation entail? Will compensation dollars, or land-purchase
offsets, follow from Trans Mountain Pipeline for this impact?
d. If Trans Mountain Pipeline will not agree to compensation or offsets, what does it
plan to do here to mitigate this impact?
e. Please provide a copy of the Attachment 1 to the response to NEB IR No. 2.052a (as
per Table 6) and any further details relating to the agreement to potentially provide
compensation.
f. How much is this agreement expected to cost Trans Mountain Pipeline, including
any cash compensation or land offsets, if it compensates for the damage to Surrey
Bend?
g. Will Trans Mountain Pipeline provide a Wetland Compensation Plan for the rest of
the wetlands and streams, in the area of SRES interest, throughout the rest of Surrey
and Township of Langley? If not, why not?
h. Will Trans Mountain Pipeline be prepared to provide compensation offsets for the
extensive damage that will occur as a result of the construction and operations of
the TMEP following from the British Columbia Environmental Mitigation Policy?
i. If not, why not?
29
5. YORKSON CREEK AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE TMEP PROVIDING INSUFFICIENT INVENTORY
AND ASSESSMENT, INADEQUATE MITIGATION, COMPENSATION AND/OR OFFSETS AND
AN AUTHORIZATION FROM FISHERIES AND OCEANS CANADA FOR SERIOUS HARM OF A
FISH HABITAT
References:
1. http://www.transmountain.com/proposed-pipeline-corridor
2. http://geosource.tol.ca/external/
Preamble:
Yorkson Creek comprises stream-salmonid habitat flowing from the north-western portion of
the Township of Langley into the Fraser River. The Yorkson Creek watershed has been highly
perturbed due to land development but still contains significant aquatic values. The TMEP has
proposed to put its pipeline across the stream and in-and-about the riparian area (Figure 6).
The orientation of the stream relative to the ROW suggests that the riparian habitat will largely
be altered, at least on one bank and maybe both (Figures 6, 7). Yorkson Creek will be impacted,
directly, as well by the TMEP (Figures 6, 7).
Despite this large-scale impact by the TMEP of Yorkson Creek, Trans Mountain Pipeline has
stated that it will be able to avoid Serious Harm to fish and fish habitat. SRES submits that,
under the scenario described, it is absolutely impossible to avoid the requirement for a Serious
Harm authorization of habitat under this scenario. We are of the opinion that Trans Mountain
Pipeline is deliberately misrepresenting the requirements under the Canada Fisheries Act for
the Yorkson Creek TMEP crossing.
30
Figure 6. Trans Mountain Pipeline map of the Yorkson Creek areas from the TMEP web site.
Compare Figure 6 to Figure 7 to see how much damage will be done to this stream and its
riparian area. http://www.transmountain.com/proposed-pipeline-corridor Accessed April 4,
2015.
31
Figure 7. Township of Langley GeoSource mapping of watercourses at Yorkson Creek. Top
figure represents line drawing, lower figure is air photo of the same location. Approximate
TMEP boundaries drawn on maps. See Figure 6 for Trans Mountain Pipeline map location.
http://geosource.tol.ca/external/ Accessed April 4, 2015.
32
Table 7. Yorkson Creek fish-habitat assessment by the TMEP.
Information Request:
a. Will the pipeline TMEP construction and operation activities at Yorkson Creek, between
208 St and 216 St and other similar locations impact on fish habitat? Please provide a
detailed explanation.
b. If it does, will it be mitigated?
c. Will this construction cause Serious Harm?
d. If not, how do you know it will not cause serious harm?
e. Why will this part of the TMEP not cause the requirement for a Fisheries Act
authorization?
33
6. INCORRECT POSITION BY THE TMEP AND TRANS MOUNTAIN IN RESPECT TO THE
IMPORTANCE OF RIPARIAN AREAS
References:
1. http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/handle/10072/6041/23131_1.pdf?sequ
ence=1
2. B323-9_-
_Self_Assessment_Potential_for_Serious_Harm_to_Fish_and_Fish_Habitat_Part_7_of_7
_-_A4I6C7
Preamble:
The scientific literature is clear that riparian areas comprise critical habitat features in salmon
and trout ecosystems.

http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/handle/10072/6041/23131_1.pdf?sequence=1

Accessed April 5, 2015.
Nonetheless, Trans Mountain Pipeline trivializes the role and importance of protecting the
riparian area in it TMEP (via its consultant, Triton Environmental). This is exemplified by the
excerpt in Table 8 that characterizes the function of riparian areas as something that “needs to
be detected” in order for it to be functional. This is a patently false statement insofar as it is
rare-to-non-existent that, in a development project, the resources are available to provide an
assessment that would or could show “detectable influence” of a riparian area on a stream.
Furthermore, it is false that “Serious harm” only occurs when loss of riparian habitat is
considered “limiting” to fishes.
Table 8. Trans Mountain Pipeline’s interpretation of riparian area and its importance to aquatic
ecosystems.
B323-9_-_Self_Assessment_Potential_for_Serious_Harm_to_Fish_and_Fish_Habitat_Part_7_of_7_-_A4I6C7
Information Request:
a. What is “functional riparian”?
b. What is a “functional riparian width”?
c. What does “interpreted” mean?
34
d. Is this “interpreted” by Fisheries and Oceans Canada? By the Trans Mountain Pipeline
biologist making the “interpretation”? By the environmental consulting company?
e. What is an “area/zone adjacent to a watercourse”? Why is this not defined by the
consultant?
f. How does Trans Mountain “detect” how “vegetation present” “influences the fish
habitat potential”?
g. What is “fish habitat potential”? How does Triton Consultants figure this out for the
myriad of streams and watercourses throughout the TMEP that will be affected by
construction and operation?
h. Explain what Trans Mountain Pipeline means by (i.e., provides shade/cover, bank
stability, feeding opportunities)? Are these the only things that affect “fish habitat
potential” in the TMEP? Are these the only things that need to be considered? How
does Trans Mountain Pipeline and its consultants know what needs to be considered?
i. What is “serious harm”? In the context of the TMEP, is this meant to be a Canada
Fisheries Act definition?
j. Who, when working in and about a stream, decides whether there will be “serious
harm”? The consultant? The agencies? A stewardship group who challenges a
consultant working for a proponent?
k. What does Trans Mountain Pipeline mean by the term “limiting to fishes”?
l. How doe Trans Mountain Pipeline know when their TMEP is “limiting to fishes”?
m. Who defines whether an action will be “limiting to fishes”? The consultant? The
agencies? A stewardship group who challenges a consultant working for a proponent?
n. In the stretch of pipeline of the TMEP of SRES, is there ever a situation where there will
be “serious harm”?
o. Is there a circumstance along the 1,100 km TMEP where Trans Mountain Pipeline, or its
consultants, have determined that there will be “serious harm” to fishes either via
stream crossings or disturbing vegetation within 30 m of a watercourse?
p. If so, why?
q. If not, why not?
35
7. TMEP ALIGNMENT IN AND ABOUT THE REDWOODS GOLF COURSE
References:
1. http://geosource.tol.ca/external/
2. http://www.transmountain.com/proposed-pipeline-corridor
Preamble:
The Salmon River lowlands are a particularly important part of the aquatic ecosystem of this
watershed. This key portion of the Salmon River ecosystem has been highly perturbed and
impacted by development, agriculture and golf courses. Nevertheless it still remains a key
element for fish and other species (Figure 8). In addition to fish, this wetland-habitat functions
as areas for migratory birds, some of which are protected by Convention. This includes
federally regulated species such as ducks, shorebirds, wading birds, etc. The Salmon River
lowlands flood in winter providing loafing and foraging habitat for mallard, widgeon, pintail,
wood duck, etc. Historically, before diking, this area was a contiguous part of Canada’s most
important area for wintering waterfowl—the Fraser River estuary—and still retains many of
those functions.
Within the TMEP there have been a number of alignment shifts associated with changing
perspectives on least impact. One of the locations of change has been just west of Glover Road
in the Township of Langley in the Salmon River floodplain (Figure 9). To date, the decision
surrounding this alignment appears to be in flux and is of concern to the local residents and the
SRES in respect to the impact on aquatic and other species. Should the lower-elevation wetland
be directly impacted, there is a need to mitigate both short-term impacts from construction as
well as long term impacts to the hydrological function, for both fish and waterfowl.
Nevertheless, it is the SRES position that the pipeline should not traverse the lower Salmon
River floodplain.
36
Figure 8. Western portion of the Salmon River lowlands showing the general area of the
pipeline re-alignment and the stream and wetland values. Stream mapping was undertaken by
Township of Langley. http://geosource.tol.ca/external/ Accessed April 4, 2015.
Figure 9. General area of the TMEP alignment through the western portion of the Salmon River
lowlands and adjacent areas. http://www.transmountain.com/proposed-pipeline-corridor
Accessed April 4, 2015.
37
Information Request:
a. Please advise as to the current/final alignment as per Figure 9.
b. What will the impact to fish, birds and other aquatic species be?
c. How will Trans Mountain Pipeline mitigate or offset any impacts that might occur in the
Salmon River floodplain?
d. How will TMP mitigate a spill in the flood plain during the winter season when the area
is flooded?
38
8. OPERATIONAL TMEP IMPACTS TO COMMON AND RARE PLANTS AND ANIMALS AND
RESTORATION OF THEIR PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY (including both Crown and non-Crown
lands) DUE TO ROW CLEARING AND MAINTENANCE
References:
1. Halston Hills IR No. 1.4g.i
2. http://www.els.net/WileyCDA/ElsArticle/refId-a0021904.html
3. http://www.seesouthernforests.org/case-studies/biological-consequencesfragmentation
4. http://research.eeescience.utoledo.edu/lees/teaching/eees4760_05/murcia95.pdf
5. http://geosource.tol.ca/external/
Preamble:
The removal of vegetation at pipeline ROW’s causes extensive damage to the vegetation of the
disturbed landscape (Figure 10). Once the TMEP has been completed, the pipeline will become
operational in regards to transporting petroleum products. Subsequently, it appears that,
based on the responses by Trans Mountain Pipeline on this issue (e.g., Table 9), for its TMEP it
will not replace existing plants (native or naturalized) on its operational ROW, particularly if
they interfere with operations (Table 9). That is, once the TMEP has been completed, the
restoration will not allow natural vegetation (unless it is low ground cover) to grow in the ROW
where operations require assessment of the pipeline and it’s functioning. As a result of this
land clearing and re-planting the vegetation in the operational mode will constitute a significant
loss in the natural functioning of the landscape.
There are many examples of the 1953 ROW having lost its natural second-growth vegetation
and ecosystem function, in the area of SRES, as a result of Trans Mountain Pipeline maintaining
this zone for access (Figures 11, 12, 13). Indeed, it is obvious that the ROW for the 1953
pipeline alignment is largely a “scorched-earth zone” in respect to terrestrial landscape
integrity. Under such circumstances, habitats (both terrestrial and aquatic) become
increasingly fragmented with negative effects to the in situ ecosystems (
http://www.els.net/WileyCDA/ElsArticle/refId-a0021904.html &
http://www.seesouthernforests.org/case-studies/biological-consequences-fragmentation ) . In
39
concert with fragmentation are edge-effects which often negatively compromise the ecosystem
after development or forest harvest occurs.
(http://research.eeescience.utoledo.edu/lees/teaching/eees4760_05/murcia95.pdf ) Added to
this is the propensity of ecosystems in disturbed areas to be impacted by the settlement of
invasive species.
Figure 10. Typical example of pipeline ROW clearing. This location is at a current water-main
pipeline installation, by the Township of Langley, for its Salmon River crossing. SRES photos.
40
Table 9. Trans Mountain Pipeline response to Halston Hills Housing Co-op in respect to the loss
of trees on their property due to the TMEP.
Figure 11. Groomed Trans Mountain Pipeline ROW immediately east of Nathan Creek crossing.
Note that natural-vegetation function has been removed to facilitate pipeline operations.
Photo from Township of Langley GeoSource. http://geosource.tol.ca/external/ Accessed April
4, 2015.
41
Figure 12. Permanent loss of second growth forested vegetation at West Creek in the SRES
area of interest, including damage to stream-side riparian areas. .
http://geosource.tol.ca/external/ Accessed April 4, 2015.
Figure 13. Groomed ROW of the Trans Mountain Pipeline just west of the Vedder Canal looking
west.
42
Information Request:
a. Is it correct, based on the comments in Table 9, that Trans Mountain Pipeline has no
intention of replacing natural vegetation for the areas that will be the long-term
operational ROW, either in the area of SRES interest or elsewhere in its TMEP
project?
b. Will Trans Mountain Pipeline commit to ensuring no-net losses of living naturalecosystem
(plants and animals) attributes in the areas where routine maintenance
(i.e., clearing) in operational ROW landscapes removes vegetation? And, in
particular, trees that are greater than 20 years of age.
c. If so, how will Trans Mountain Pipeline ensure the no-net losses of living natural
ecosystem (plants and animals) attributes in the areas where routine maintenance
(i.e., clearing) in operational ROW landscapes removes vegetation, including both
Crown and private lands in the area of SRES interest? In the rest of its TMEP?
d. Will Trans Mountain Pipeline consider the losses, as described above, replaced via
land-purchase offsets?
e. Will Trans Mountain Pipeline mitigate the effects of increased fragmentation via its
ROW development on the natural ecosystem in the areas of SRES interest as a result
of its TMEP? In the rest of its TMEP?
f. If so, how will it do this?
g. Will Trans Mountain Pipeline mitigate the effects of edge effects via its ROW
development on the natural ecosystem in the areas of SRES interest as a result of its
TMEP?
h. If so, how will it do this?
i. Will Trans Mountain Pipeline mitigate the effects of increased invasive species,
through disturbance of the landscape in its ROW development on the natural
ecosystem in the area of SRES interest as a result of its TMEP?
j. If so, how will it do this?
43
9. STREAM-CROSSING IMPACTS AND PERMANENT LOSS OF RIPARIAN FUNCTION
References:
1. B323-9_-
_Self_Assessment_Potential_for_Serious_Harm_to_Fish_and_Fish_Habitat_Part_7_of_7
_-_A4I6C7
2. http://geosource.tol.ca/external/ Accessed April 4, 2015.
3. CR_2014-R089 City of Surrey Information Request
Preamble:
Trans Mountain Pipeline has taken the position that its stream crossings in the area of SRES
interest will “Avoid Causing Harm to Fish or Fish Habitat” (presumably meaning “Serious Harm”
as defined by the Canada Fisheries Act). Specifically, this opinion has included Nathan and West
creeks and the Salmon River in the areas of SRES interest (Table 10).
Nevertheless, it is clear from the empirical evidence for the current (1953 project) pipeline
ROW that Trans Mountain Pipelines does not allow riparian recovery to occur at its streams
(Figures 14, 15, 16). This is confirmed by the City of Surrey IR where it states that for most
riparian areas vegetation clearing takes place (Table 11).
Riparian vegetation is critical to the proper functioning of fish streams. Thus it is clear that the
TMEP will cause serious harm in a significant fashion to the aquatic ecosystem in these three
streams, among others.
44
Table 10. Assessment of harm to fish habitat at the TMEP pipeline stream crossings at Nathan
and West creeks and the Salmon River. B323-9_-
_Self_Assessment_Potential_for_Serious_Harm_to_Fish_and_Fish_Habitat_Part_7_of_7_-
_A4I6C7
45
(Table 10 con’t)
Figure 14. Significant permanent serious harm caused by the 1953 Trans Mountain Pipeline
crossing at Nathan Creek. http://geosource.tol.ca/external/ Accessed April 4, 2015.
46
Figure 15. Significant permanent serious harm caused by the 1953 Trans Mountain Pipeline
crossing at West Creek. http://geosource.tol.ca/external/ Accessed April 4, 2015.
Figure 16. Significant permanent serious harm caused by the 1953 Trans Mountain Pipeline
crossing at Salmon River. http://geosource.tol.ca/external/ Accessed April 4, 2015.
47
Table 11. City of Surrey comment on the destruction of riparian areas in-and-about streams at
Trans Mountain Pipeline’s existing 1953 ROW via operational maintenance.
Information Request:
a. Will Trans Mountain Pipeline continue to remove vegetation in stream-riparian areas for
its TMEP’s as per its current actions on the 1953-built ROW for both its existing and new
pipelines?
b. Given that the removal of riparian vegetation along salmon streams constitutes a
Serious Harm to commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery species, and there are a
number of watercourses that this will continue to occur on by Trans Mountain Pipeline
as an operational activity in the areas of SRES interest, what is the expected
compensation that Trans Mountain Pipeline will provide to offset this significant impact
from this action?
c. Explain why Trans Mountain Pipeline does not consider the removal of riparian
vegetation beside watercourses in the RK1137 to RK 1169 to constitute Serious Harm?
48
10. TRENCHLESS vs TRENCHED CROSSINGS FOR NATHAN AND WEST CREEKS AND SALMON
RIVER
References:
1. B91-1_-_Trans_Mountain_Response_to_Langley_IR_No._1_-_A3X6U7
2. Hearing Order OH-001-2014 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC (Trans Mountain)
Application for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project Organizational chart for
comments on inadequacy of IR responses (Round 1 Township of Langley IRs to Trans
Mountain)
3. B323-9_-
_Self_Assessment_Potential_for_Serious_Harm_to_Fish_and_Fish_Habitat_Part_7_
of_7_-_A4I6C7
4. Standards and Best Practices for Intream Works—pipeline crossings V. 1

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/instreamworks/downloads/PipelineCrossings.pdf

5. http://www.tibban.com/horizontal-and-directional-drilling.php
Preamble:
Infrastructure such as pipelines requiring the under-ground crossing of streams can be put in
place using trenchless technology (Figure 17). This sort of action is often used on highecosystem-value
streams with the objective of minimizing impacts to the stream bed, fishes
and riparian areas at the crossing. The trenchless technology can include horizontal directional
drilling (HHD) such as seen for a recent water-pipeline installation in the Township of Langley
for the Salmon River and other streams in its jurisdiction. In its application documents, A3S0Y8
Application Volume 4A Project Design and Execution–Engineering, Trans Mountain Pipeline
provided HDD options for streams that it will cross in its TMEP.
In the area of SRES concern, both West and Nathan creeks are listed under the Fish Protection
Act, and the Salmon River (a highly valued salmonid stream) is home to the endangered Salish
Sucker.
In its fisheries habitat documents for Nathan and West creeks, and the Salmon River, Trans
Mountain Pipelines proposed to cross these streams using trenching technology (Table 14).
49
In its IR No. 1, the Township of Langley asked Trans Mountain Pipelines why it has refused to
use trenchless technology to put its pipelines under a number of streams in its area (Table 12).
Trans Mountain Pipeline refused to provide an adequate answer (Table 13).
Note that Best Management Practices for putting pipelines across streams requires an
authorization by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans if trenchless technology is not used
(Figure 18).
Figure 17. Example of trenchless pipe laying under streams.

http://www.tibban.com/horizontal-and-directional-drilling.php

50
Table 12. Letter to Township of Langley, from Trans Mountain Pipeline, in regards to an
Information Request on the issue of directional drilling for Nathan Creek and the Salmon River.
51
52
Table 13. Township of Langley’s Intervener’s explanation for claiming IR response by Trans
Mountain Pipeline to be inadequate for the questions surrounding horizontal directional drilling
for Nathan Creek and Salmon River.
53
Table 14. Recommended crossing methods by Trans Mountain Pipeline for Nathan and West
creeks and Salmon River. B323-9_-
_Self_Assessment_Potential_for_Serious_Harm_to_Fish_and_Fish_Habitat_Part_7_of_7_-
_A4I6C7
54
Figure 18. Best management practices for stream crossings, Canada Fisheries and Oceans
Canada and BC Ministry of Environment.
55
Information Requests:
a. Provide the explicit-comparative analyses in respect to your individual decisions for
Nathan Creek, West Creek and Salmon River as to why Trans Mountain Pipeline chose
the trenching method as opposed to HDD or other trenchless methods. Do not reply
with a response similar to “…the rationale and selection process for a specific crossing
technique is specified in Volume 4A, Section 2.11 of the Application”.
b. What is the cost difference, for each of Nathan and West creeks, and Salmon River, for
trenchless versus trenched crossings?
c. Who (the names of the individuals and their professional affiliations) made the decision
that these crossings would be trenched and not trenchless? And, individually, why did
they make these decisions?
d. Explain why Trans Mountain Pipeline does not consider stream crossings at the streams
within RK1137 to RK 1169 to constitute Serious Harm?
e. When the senior agency Best Management Practices indicate that anything other than
directional drilling or punch-and-bore require an authorization (Figure 18), why would
Trans Mountain Pipeline suggest that it doesn’t?
f. In its IR to Trans Mountain Pipeline, the Township of Langley specifically asked about the
rationale for not considering HDD as a preferred method (Tables 12, 13) as put forward
in the TMEP documents (Table 14). Trans Mountain Pipeline refused to provide a
reasonable explanation to the Township of Langley as to why they came to the decision
not to HDD (Table 14). In both the Trans Mountain response to IR and Trans Mountain
response to motion, evaded answering the questions by Township of Langley, providing
only a “canned” response that, essentially said, “look it up in the manual” (Table 13).
Nevertheless, while in the IR No. 1 “Trans Mountain response to IR” Trans Mountain
Pipeline stated unequivocally: “Nathan Creek and Salmon River will not be crossed by
horizontal directional drill HDD technique.”, in the subsequent “Trans Mountain’s
response to motion” it states: “The final crossing method and construction timing for all
56
Stage 2 watercourse crossings will be finalized during the detailed engineering and
design phase of the project…” (Table 13). What is the current position of the method to
be used by Trans Mountain Pipeline for these crossings?
g. In your response to the City of Abbotsford, you indicated that you would be prepared to
directional drill beneath roads that are high volume:
In a similar vein, your response to the NEB was:
Please explain why Trans Mountain Pipeline has decided that directional drilling under
man-made roads are more important than HDD under four key salmon and trout
streams in the SRES geographic area of interest?
57
11. HARDENING OF BANKS AT STREAM CROSSINGS
References:
1. http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/trel03-4.pdf
2. http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA4149
74
3. http://www.id.ducks.org/media/conservation/mtproject/MTData/Workshop_3/Informa
tion/Towards%20Greener%20Riprap.pdf
Preamble:
Riprap and other forms of bank protection are known to have profoundly-negative effects on
stream ecologies and the fish therein (see references above). Stream banks, and beds, are
often hardened or armored to ensure that infrastructure such as bridges and pipelines are
protected from erosion, including at pipeline crossings (Figure 19).
The effects of armoring banks to aquatic ecosystems can include: loss of invertebrate habitats,
disruption of riparian habitats, disruption of fluvial processes, loss of the recruitment of
spawning gravels; loss of the recruitment of large woody debris.
Figure 19. Current stream crossing by Trans Mountain Pipeline on the Vedder River. Note the
rip rap on the far bank armoring this portion of the river.
58
Information Request:
a. Will Trans Mountain Pipeline armor the stream bank or bed at any of its stream
crossings in the area of SRES interest?
b. If so, which streams will Trans Mountain Pipeline armor?
c. How will Trans Mountain Pipeline compensate for the Serious Harm to habitat that
takes place as a result of any bank hardening?
59
12. ENVIRONMENTAL OFFSETS
References:
1. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/emop/docs/EM_Policy_May13_2014.pdf
2. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/emop/docs/EM_Procedures_May27_2014.pdf
3. http://www.proactiveinvestors.com/companies/news/49058/teck-resources-extendsrally-after-buying-land-for-conservation-49058.html
4. http://www.bchydro.com/about/sustainability/environmental_responsibility/compensa
tion_programs/coastal_region.html
Preamble:
The TMEP, and its 1953 pre-cursor, will cause/have caused both extensive permanentoperational
and extended-construction losses of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem values. SRES
notes that companies involved in projects in British Columbia and elsewhere in North America,
which disturb large-scale landscapes, often purchase land for environmental set-asides as
offsets or compensation for social license to do business. Such offsets may, or may not, be
legislatively mandated: (e.g.,

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/emop/docs/EM_Policy_May13_2014.pdf

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/emop/docs/EM_Procedures_May27_2014.pdf ).
A number of corporations are now recognizing that it is good business to extra-legislatively “go
the extra mile” in providing conservation-land offsets in order to operate in British Columbia.
This is particularly so for industries that have had strong public antipathy to their type of
activities. As an example of a non-legislated offset, the mining company Teck purchased over
7,150 ha, in three parcels in the Elk-Fording valleys, British Columbia, as a recognition of its
impact by mines in the general geographic area:

http://www.proactiveinvestors.com/companies/news/49058/teck-resources-extends-rallyafter-buying-land-for-conservation-49058.html

.
60
Similarly, for various projects around the province, BC Hydro has compensation programs that
involve restoration of historical impacts, new-project effects and offset land purchases. (c.f.,
Coastal, Columbia and Peace Region compensation programs;

http://www.bchydro.com/about/sustainability/environmental_responsibility/compensation_pr

ograms/coastal_region.html ). This seems to SRES an appropriate mechanism for Trans
Mountain Pipeline to offset it impacts in its area of interest, not only for construction losses but
operational impacts, as well, and including historical (1953) damages.
Information Request:
a. Is Trans Mountain Pipeline prepared to develop a compensation program in order to
offset the damage caused both by its TMEP and 1953 pipelines?
b. Is Trans Mountain Pipeline prepared to purchase and donate lands to a conservation
body (e.g., such as The Nature Trust British Columbia, The Nature Conservancy Canada,
Ducks Unlimited) as conservation offsets for lost ecosystem integrity and productivity
for the TMEP for both construction and operational impacts?
c. Is Trans Mountain Pipeline prepared to purchase and donate offset lands to a
conservation body (e.g., such as The Nature Trust British Columbia, The Nature
Conservancy Canada, Ducks Unlimited) as conservation offsets for lost ecosystem
integrity and productivity for the 1953 impacts of both construction and operational
impacts?
61
13. ADHERENCE TO LOCAL LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS
References:
a. http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.page?id=FB284A0570084959BEBF55B9D4D4AEC2
b. http://www.tol.ca/Portals/0/township%20of%20langley/mayor%20and%20council/byla
ws/Bylaw%204485%20-%20Streamside%20Protection.pdf?timestamp=1428340012224
c. Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Supplemental Fisheries (BC) Technical Report—Trans
Mountain Expansion Project, 7894C/December 2014
d. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/habitat/fish_protection_act/sensitive_streams/documents/s
enstrms-designation.pdf
e. B323-9_-
_Self_Assessment_Potential_for_Serious_Harm_to_Fish_and_Fish_Habitat_Part_7_of_7
_-_A4I6C7
Preamble:
The Riparian Areas Regulation (RAR’s) are rules under the British Columbia Stream Protection
Act legislation that are in place for most local governments in the southern part of the province
(see references, above). These regulations are meant to protect aquatic ecosystems in respect
to land changes in-and-about watercourses in the face of development of landscapes. Local
governments that adhere to RAR’s and/or beat these regulations, include the Township of
Langley and Surrey.
The RAR’s require that development near watercourses provide protected buffer-areas of
generally 15/30 meters from the stream edge where landscape disturbance is to take place.
The Township of Langley’s stream-side bylaw has similar strictures. If development must take
place within these boundaries, there are rules governing how a proponent will provide offsets
or compensation.
Stream-bank legislation under the Stream Protection Act and associated regulations (either
RAR’s, Streamside Protection Regulations, or local by-laws that meet-or-beat RAR’s) are by tripartite
agreement of the three senior levels of government for areas in British Columbia that
have agreed implement these rules under the British Columbia Fish Protection Act. These three
62
levels of government, in respect to the area of interest to the Salmon River Enhancement
Society (SRES), include local (Township of Langley; Surrey), provincial (Ministry of Forests, Lands
and Natural Resource Operations; Ministry of Environment) and federal (Fisheries and Oceans
Canada-DFO) administrations.
In the Nathan Creek-to-Fraser River Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMEP) (the geographic
area of SRES interest), there are four major streams—Nathan Creek, West Creek, Salmon River,
Yorkson Creek—that will be impacted by stream crossings in addition to other smaller
watersheds. The impact will primarily be riparian in nature. These streams, and others within
the Township of Langley, are also covered under the RAR-equivalent local legislation
(http://www.tol.ca/Portals/0/township%20of%20langley/mayor%20and%20council/bylaws/Byl
aw%204485%20-%20Streamside%20Protection.pdf?timestamp=1428340012224 ). Even more
importantly, three of these four streams have been designated as warranting special
consideration. For example, the Salmon River is home to the endangered Salish Sucker. Even
Trans Mountain Pipeline’s consultant, Triton Environmental, recognized the Salmon River as
requiring special consideration with respect to the endangered Salish Sucker and the RAR’s that
govern development around streams (Table 15).
Table 15. Trans Mountain Pipeline’s recognition of the endangered Salish Sucker in the Salmon
River and the application of Riparian Areas Regulation to development in-and-around streams.
West and Nathan creeks, both flowing through the Township of Langley, have also both been
designated as Sensitive Streams under the Fish Protection Act and warrant special consideration
63
due to their high ecosystem and fisheries values.

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/habitat/fish_protection_act/sensitive_streams/documents/senstrm

s-designation.pdf
Despite the local government riparian area protection of fish streams in the area of SRES
interest, Trans Mountain Pipeline has ignored the streamside protection rules/legislation for
TMEP works in and about streams in the Township of Langley or Surrey area. Specifically, there
is no mention of local government rules in the TMEP documents relating to fish in this portion
of the pipeline development (B323-9_-
_Self_Assessment_Potential_for_Serious_Harm_to_Fish_and_Fish_Habitat_Part_7_of_7_-
_A4I6C7).
Information Request:
a. Has Trans Mountain Pipeline, in its TMEP, incorporated RAR’s or equivalent localgovernment
legislation for its pipeline route and, specifically, between RK1137 to RK
1169?
b. If it has, how has it? Please provide SRES the Assessment Reports for the various
watercourses that the TMEP will impact on. Please indicate how this project will deal
with the issues of 30 m riparian setback issues as outlined in the bylaws/RAR’s.
c. If it has not, why not?
64
14. FISHERIES ACT AUTHORIZATIONS
References:
1. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-14/FullText.html
2. File OF-Fac-Oil-T260-2013-03 02 16 April 2014 Hearing Order OH-001-2014 Trans
Mountain Pipeline ULC (Trans Mountain) Application for the Trans Mountain Expansion
Project(Project) Draft Conditions and regulatory oversight
Preamble:
Under the Canada Fisheries Act, Section 35. (1) No person shall carry on any work, undertaking
or activity that results in serious harm to fish that are part of a commercial, recreational or
Aboriginal fishery, or to fish that support such a fishery. Unless authorized or prescribed under
Section 2 of the Act. Within the TMEP in the section between between RK1137 to RK 1169,
Serious Harm will occur at a number of locations including the stream crossings and in some of
the riparian areas.
Under the conditions of the project approval, Trans Mountain Pipeline is required to file with
NEB prior to Serious Harm to fish habitat taking place.
Information Request:
a. Please advise if Trans Mountain Pipeline has currently filed with NEB for any Canada
Fisheries Act Section 35(2) authorizations for its TMEP and, specifically, between RK1137
to RK 1169.
b. Please advise if there are any instances of Serious Harm, under Section 35(2) of the
Canada Fisheries Act, being identified for its TMEP and, specifically, between RK1137 to
RK 1169.
c. Please advise if Trans Mountain Pipeline expects to file with NEB for any Canada
Fisheries Act Section 35(2) authorizations for its TMEP and, specifically, between RK1137
to RK 1169 (Table 16).
d. If the answer to any of the above is “no”, why not? If yes, will TMP provide opportunity
for public review and comment?
65
Table 16. Direction by NEB to Trans Mountain Pipeline with regards to notification for any
Canada Fisheries Act Section 35(2) authorizations in the TMEP.
66
15. WATERCOURSE CROSSINGS
References:
a. File OF-Fac-Oil-T260-2013-03 02 16 April 2014 Hearing Order OH-001-2014 Trans
Mountain Pipeline ULC (Trans Mountain) Application for the Trans Mountain Expansion
Project(Project) Draft Conditions and regulatory oversight
Preamble:
For its TMEP, Trans Mountain Pipelines is required to file with NEB details in respect to any
watercourse crossings (Table 17).
Information Request:
a. Please advise if Trans Mountain Pipeline has currently filed with NEB for any water
crossings as per Table 17 for its TMEP and, specifically, between RK1137 to RK 1169.
b. If not, why not? If yes please provide copies of the filings.
67
Table 17. Requirement by Trans Mountain Pipeline to file with NEB in respect to watercourse
crossings.
68
16. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION
References:
a. B323-9_-
_Self_Assessment_Potential_for_Serious_Harm_to_Fish_and_Fish_Habitat_Part_7_of_7
_-_A4I6C7 pages D-306 – D-359
Preamble:
Trans Mountain Pipeline has taken the position that many decisions surrounding dealing with
habitat will be dealt with by certified professionals. There are a number of different names of
individuals, that are presumably Professional Biologists, associated with the production of, and
listed in the following report: B323-9_-
_Self_Assessment_Potential_for_Serious_Harm_to_Fish_and_Fish_Habitat_Part_7_of_7_-
_A4I6C7 pages D-306 – D-359 that outlines the impacts to fish habitat in the RK1137 to RK
1169 section of the project.
This report covers the decisions that relate to whether or not an action by the TMEP will result
in a “Serious Harm” to fish habitat. In the “Potential Harm Evaluation” document by Trans
Mountain Pipeline, the indication is that a “Qualified Aquatic Environmental Specialist or
Qualified Environmental Professional” makes the decision as to whether or not habitat was
harmed.
69
Figure 20. Nathan Creek as an example of the assessment of “Serious Harm” to fish habitat by
Trans Mountain Pipeline. B323-9_-
_Self_Assessment_Potential_for_Serious_Harm_to_Fish_and_Fish_Habitat_Part_7_of_7_-
_A4I6C7 pages D-306 – D-359
70
(Table 2 con’t)
Information Request:
a. Did one or more “Qualified Aquatic Environmental Specialist or Qualified
Environmental Professional” make the decision as to whether or not fish habitat was
harmed in the document B323-9_-
_Self_Assessment_Potential_for_Serious_Harm_to_Fish_and_Fish_Habitat_Part_7_
71
of_7_-_A4I6C7 pages D-306 – D-359 for the fish habitats impacted by the TMEP in
RK1137 to RK1169?
b. There is no indication of any professional accreditation (professional stamps) by the
individuals doing the biological assessments in the document B323-9_-
_Self_Assessment_Potential_for_Serious_Harm_to_Fish_and_Fish_Habitat_Part_7_
of_7_-_A4I6C7 pages D-306 – D-359. Please explain why this is so.
c. Name the individuals responsible and provide the stamps for the individual(s)
responsible for the decisions relating to impacts by TMEP in RK1137 to RK1169 and
explain if they are qualified professionals and provide proof.
d. Who are the following, what is their professional affiliation (and membership
number) and were any of these individuals responsible for determining whether or
not Serious Harm occurred in the B323-9_-
_Self_Assessment_Potential_for_Serious_Harm_to_Fish_and_Fish_Habitat_Part_7_
of_7_-_A4I6C7 pages D-306 – D-359 TMEP: I. Emerson; S. Johnston; A. Michaud; H.
Dussault; T. Jongbloets; C. Hartling; S. McAvoy; C. Blashyn
e. Is it reasonable to expect that, from RK1137 to RK1169, no instances of Serious
Harm would occur in a major pipeline project (i.e., the TMEP) passing through four
high-value salmonid habitats therein and a myriad of other smaller fish
watercourses? How did the Qualified Aquatic Environmental Specialist or Qualified
Environmental Professional come to this conclusion? On what did they base their
research?
72
17. POST-CONSTRUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
Reference:
a. Volume 6A, Section 9.0 Post-Construction Environmental Monitoring (A56013, A3S2S1,
p.32)
Preamble:
The TMEP application states that monitoring in the post-construction environmental phase will
be provided “up to five complete growing seasons (or during years one, three and five)” once
the project initiates the start-up.
Information Request:
a. Who or what will determine the reporting schedule, what is to be reported, how it is to
be reported in the post construction monitoring?
b. What do you mean by “five complete growing seasons”?
c. Which aquatic parameters will be monitored in the streams in the area of SRES interest?
d. Will there be an operational component (i.e., the lifetime of the project) monitoring
and, if so, what will it consist of?
e. What will define whether mitigation or compensation for biological/habitat impacts
were successful in the TMEP? And what will happen if they aren’t?
f. Will a secured bond be put in place in order to ensure that mitigation/compensation or
offsets are going remediate the problems should the efforts not be successful?
73

Kinder Morgan drilling along Salmon River

sensitive habitatKinder Morgan was on the bank of the Salmon River near Rawlison and Glover on Sunday Feb. 1  drilling boreholes about 140 metres north of where the existing pipeline crosses the Salmon River. Video clips can be seen on the SRES Facebook page.

Here’s a link to an excellent map on the Western Canada Wilderness Committee’s website showing the route of the pipeline. You can zoom in very close to see where the pipeline crosses rivers and wetlands. 

More about the issue…

Pressure to dredge

A1090

There are some in our community who see water rise in the Salmon River floodplain on the outskirts of Fort Langley and think dredging the river would be a good idea because it would stop this from happening. It wouldn’t and here’s why.

Eagles are a good indicator

eagle count-annually

Where there are eagles, you will likely find salmon. However, the eagle count in the Squamish area was down considerably this year.

And a member of SRES notes that in his 17 years of watching for coho on Union Creek off 56th Ave., this is the first year when he saw just one eagle arriving very late, found only one coho carcass, and saw no salmon. “They are not there and did not come in droves.”

Timeline clearly lays out the problems

IMG_0743

Doug McFee spells out the problems with the construction of the water pipeline to Aldergrove.

There is much more to the story about the East Langley Pipeline crossing of the Salmon River at 52nd Avenue than what Langley Township officials want people to believe. This project is a graphic example of what is wrong at the Township. (Read more)

Salmon River water pipeline rife with secrecy and errors
(Letters, Langley Advance, Dec. 11, 2014)

Public lands

Screen shot 2014-11-10 at 9.00.54 AM

Should a list of publicly owned land be made public? Should our publicly owned natural heritage be sold to pay for modern infrastructure projects? These were questions posed at a recent all-candidates meeting in light of the recent controversy surrounding the sale of township land in Glen Valley and Aldergrove.

This 7-minute video clip shows the answers from Jack Froese and some of the candidates.

Growing interest, growing concern

deer

Members of SRES and neighbours living close to the water pipeline construction site on 52nd Ave. invited township council members, candidates in the upcoming municipal election, the media, and township staff to see the water pipeline construction site for themselves.

We appreciate those who were able to take us up on the offer: Councillor David Davis; candidates Petrina Arnason, Clint Lee, Kevin Mitchell, and Scott Nichols; and Tara Macrae, township staff.

Photos, documentation, correspondence between SRES and the township