CN Response to the Canadian Environmental Assessment ... · Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) Additional Information Request 2 ... IR21 – CC VALUES ... documents (2015). Technical

CN Response to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) Additional Information Request 2 Received – July 14 and July 28, 2016

Canadian National Railway Company (CN) Milton Logistics Hub (“Project”) CEAR File No. 80100 Filed on December 7, 2015

Prepared for: Canadian National Railway Company 935 de La Gauchetière Street W Montreal, Quebec, H3B 2M9

Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Ltd. 70 Southgate Drive, Suite 1 Guelph, Ontario, N1G 4P5

September 30, 2016

Prepared on September 30, 2016

File No. 160960844 i

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1 IDENTIFICATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES .............................................................................. 1 IDENTIFICATION OF VALUED COMPONENTS.............................................................................. 1

ALTERNATIVE MEANS ................................................................................................................ 2 IR6 – ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF CARRYING OUT THE PROJECT ................................................. 2

PHYSICAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE ....................................................................................... 5 IR9 – CULTURAL VALUE.................................................................................................................. 5

ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................. 9 IR10 – GREENHOUSE GASES ......................................................................................................... 9 IR13 – CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ...................................................................................................... 11 IR14 – BASELINE AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS ................................................................................... 12

GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER ................................................................................. 14 IR16 – QUALITY OF DISCHARGED WATER ................................................................................. 14

CHANGES TO THE TERRESTRIAL LANDSCAPE ......................................................................... 15 IR18 – CHANGES TO THE TERRESTRIAL LANDSCAPE................................................................. 15

SPECIES AT RISK AND MIGRATORY BIRDS AND THEIR HABITAT ............................................. 18 IR19 – NOISE ................................................................................................................................. 18 IR21 – CC VALUES ....................................................................................................................... 22

FISH AND FISH HABITAT .......................................................................................................... 24 IR22 – ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ........................................................................ 24

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................... 27 IR25 – METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 27 LIST OF ATTACHEMENTS

ATTACHMENT IR6-2 – UPDATED SITE SELECTION ALTERNATIVES ADDENDUM ATTACHMENT IR9-2 – EXCERPT OF SECTION 2.2 FROM THE 2011 STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR CONSULTANT ARCHAEOLOGISTS ATTACHMENT IR13-2 – CUMULATIVE AIR QUALITY EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ATTACHMENT IR16-2 – SURFACE WATER CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN – MODEL RESULTS ATTACHMENT IR19-2 – WILDLIFE NOISE ASSESSMENT LOCATIONS ATTACHMENT IR21-2 – COEFFICIENT OF CONSERVATISM VALUES ATTACHMENT IR22-2 – REVISED SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON FISH AND FISH HABITAT


File No. 160960844 1

INTRODUCTION

The following two statements or clarifications were identified in the July 14, 2016 correspondence received from CEAA as “for information” for which no response was requested from CN at this time.

Identification of Mitigation Measures

CEAA Comment:

In reference to Additional Information Requirement #23 - Mitigation Measures, CN noted in its response that it was committed to implementing the mitigation measures stated in the EIS, including Appendix G and the supporting Technical Data Reports (Appendix E), as applicable. The CEA Agency notes that, although CN has provided its assurance that all of those mitigation measures will be implemented, many measures remain as conditional items (e.g. as applicable, as necessary, whenever possible). The EIS Guidelines (Part 2, Section 6.4) require mitigation measures to be written as specific commitments that clearly describe how the proponent intends to implement those measures and the environmental outcome the mitigation is designed to address. The CEA Agency advises CN that as the EA proceeds, further clarity on mitigation

CN Response:

CN is committed to implementing the mitigation measures stated in the EIS. CN recognizes that as part of the CEAA review, panel review and EA process that mitigation measures and commitments will continue to be refined. As part of this process, CN will work to provide further clarity and certainty regarding the specific mitigation measures proposed for implementation. Where conditional items have been identified, CN will work to clarify the conditions under which these measures will be implemented through the detailed design phase and contractor procurement phase of the Project, including the preparation of the Environmental Protection Plan.

Identification of Valued Components

CEAA Comment:

The EIS Guidelines (Part 1, Section 3.3.2) require that the EIS identify the valued components linked to section 5 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, including the ones identified in Part 2 (Section 6.2) that may be affected by changes to the environment. This includes valued components linked to section 5(2) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012 that are identified in Part 2 (Section 6.2) such as changes to the atmospheric environment, changes to groundwater and surface water, and changes to the terrestrial landscape. Accordingly, the EIS Guidelines have directed CN to include changes to these components of the environment as valued components for the purposes of the environmental assessment. This additional context should be considered throughout the environmental


File No. 160960844 2

assessment and in particular, in CN’s preparation of responses to Additional Information Requirements #13, 16, 18 and 25.

CN Response:

In preparing the EIS, CN and Stantec scoped and structured the EIS in accordance with the EIS Guidelines (July 2015). Section 6.3 (Part 2) of the EIS Guidelines identify those Valued Components (VCs) to be considered in the EIS, and while general direction provided in Part 1 of the EIS Guidelines were considered, the organization and structure of the EIS followed specifically Part 2 of the EIS Guidelines. The specific method and rationale for selecting VCs is described in EIS Section 6.2.2 (pages 113 to 120) and further supplemented through our response to IR7 (May 18, 2016).

Section 6.2 (Part 2) of the EIS Guidelines identify the “changes to the environment” to be considered that may affect individual VCs listed in Section 6.3 (Part 2) of the EIS Guidelines. However, the changes to the environment are not specifically identified nor interpreted as VCs themselves. Instead, changes to surface water, groundwater, air quality and the terrestrial landscape were treated as pathways of effects, whereby changes to these environmental components resulting from Project activities were identified and assessed in terms of their effects on individual VCs. These changes to the environment were determined through the completion of relevant technical data reports, the results of which are summarized in EIS Section 6.4 (pages 159 to 165), and through supplemental information provided in our response to IR16, 17 and 18 (May 18, 2016).

EIS Section 6.4 addresses Section 6.2 of the EIS Guidelines, which was further expanded in our response to the first round of IRs (May 18, 2016), while EIS Section 6.5 addresses Section 6.3 of the EIS Guidelines, and provides the assessment required to determine whether the Project will have residual effects and whether they are considered adverse and significant.

In recognition of the comments provided by CEAA and understanding of the authorizations required from the Canadian Transportation Agency, additional context in regards to air quality, groundwater, surface water and the terrestrial landscape is incorporated through the responses to the additional information requested.

ALTERNATIVE MEANS

IR6 – Alternative Means of Carrying out the Project

CEAA Comment:

Rationale: Additional Information Requirement #6 required CN to provide a description of the potential environmental effects of the Project on valued components for each of the candidate sites considered in the assessment of alternative means of carrying out the Project. The information requirement specified that simply stating the number of physical or biophysical features present at each of the alternative candidate sites does not equate to a description of the potential environmental effects the Project could have on each valued component. An


File No. 160960844 3

assessment of the potential effects requires the analysis of residual effects of the Project on valued components after mitigation measures are applied.

In its response, CN associated the physical or biophysical features at each alternative candidate site with specific valued components, identified potential mitigation measures for possible effects on the valued components, and clarified that all valued components were given equal weighting in the analysis of alternative candidate sites. However, the response did not contain an assessment of the potential environmental effects the Project would have on the valued components at each candidate site.

As an example, in the assessment of species at risk, the number of species at risk present on a particular candidate site does not constitute an assessment of the potential effects of the Project alternative on the various species at risk. This approach does not address the sensitivity of species to potential effects, its local and regional status, or the importance of the candidate site for various life stages of that species. In order to appropriately assess the potential environmental effects of the Project on species at risk, these matters should be included within the site selection study.

Information Required: Describe the potential environmental effects of the Project on valued components listed in the EIS Guidelines for each of the candidate sites, including a description of any residual effects that remain after the implementation of mitigation measures.

CN Response:

The EIS included a Site Selection Study (EIS Appendix F) that identified potential sites for the location of a satellite intermodal terminal within the GTHA, and screened those sites based on the availability of land adjacent to the CN mainline and further based on the engineering / technical, traffic, biophysical and socio-economic characteristics of each site. Supplemental information regarding site selection was provided in our response to IR6 (May 18, 2016) to provide additional information with respect to the technical feasibility of the assessment of the four potential site locations, and to provide further comparative analysis regarding the relative potential for environmental effects occurring at either of the two technically feasible locations, specifically South Milton and Brampton North.

In response to this IR, we have further described the potential environmental effects of the Project on VCs listed in the EIS Guidelines (July 2015) for each of the candidate sites, including a description of any residual effects that remain after the implementation of mitigation measures. This is not intended as a full assessment of environmental effects, but rather to determine the potential effects on VCs for technically feasible alternatives in accordance with CEAA guidance documents (2015).

Technical Feasibility

As noted in the Site Selection Study (EIS Appendix F, Section 4.1.1, page 11) the maximum longitudinal grade of the mainline track parallel to the terminal over the 10,000 ft shall be less than 0.3% (absolute) at all points to comply with railway operational requirements. This


File No. 160960844 4

requirement is critical to the safe and efficient operation of a Terminal and sites with mainline grades less than 0.3% are considered not technically feasible.

Based on the review of the North Milton and Halton Hills sites, it was determined that the mainline grades at these sites exceed the maximum grade criteria. Due to the need for yard tracks and pad areas to be level within the terminal, the access and egress to the mainline (i.e. lead tracks) would require grades beyond what would be considered safe and operationally feasible (EIS, Appendix F, Section 4.3.1.2, page 17). To meet the access and egress grade requirements, a larger footprint would be required to ensure sufficient slope stabilities for the lead tracks. Extensive lengths of track and associated grading activities beyond the existing CN right of way would likely be required to maintain an appropriate grade while connecting these service tracks to the existing mainline. Longer track extensions and associated grading has the potential to further affect existing communities and existing infrastructure along the right of way. Upgrades to existing crossings (i.e. bridge overpasses) would be anticipated to accommodate differences between the elevation of the existing mainline and proposed lead tracks.

For the terminal sites, greater cut and fill requirements to achieve level terminal pads and tracks at North Milton and Halton Hills would have a greater potential for interactions with surface water and groundwater features. Cut areas may intercept groundwater and the flow of existing watercourses at these locations, while fill areas would create larger disturbance areas and corresponding effects on natural features (i.e., woodlands, wetlands, valleys). As such, these sites were considered not feasible for the construction and operation of a terminal and would therefore be screened out from further comparative analysis.

The South Milton and Brampton North locations are not constrained in the same technical manner, and it is reasonable to carry forward these candidate sites for further comparative analysis of potential environmental effects.

Comparative Analysis of Environmental Effects

The approach taken in the Site Selection Study and supplemental information provided May 18, 2016 looked at the presence/absence of features at the South Milton and Brampton North sites and compared the relative number of features present. This provided a useful and reasonable indication of the potential for environmental effects to occur based on the likelihood and degree of potential interactions between the Project and each VC.

Attachment IR6-2 – Updated Site Selection Study Alternatives Addendum provides an update to Table 2 from the IR6 response (May 18, 2016) and includes further discussion and comparative analysis of the environmental effects for each of the two remaining candidate sites under consideration, including residual effects that remain after the implementation of mitigation measures. Similar potential interactions with the environment are anticipated at each of the two sites, since the project components and activities would remain the same at each site. Likewise, similar mitigation measures would be employed through project design, construction and operation to minimize and address potential effects on the environment, with the characterization of potential residual effects after implementation of mitigation measures. However, as discussed in Attachment IR6-2, South Milton is the preferred location for the


File No. 160960844 5

Terminal. Further discussion of the characteristics and importance of environmental features at each site is provided, as well as further description of potential residual effects that remain after the implementation of mitigation measures.

This information, as well as the previous Site Selection Study (Appendix F) and response to IR6 (May 18, 2016), supports South Milton as the preferred location for the Terminal.

PHYSICAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE

IR9 – Cultural Value

CEAA Comment:

Rationale: Additional Information Requirement #9 required CN to provide a description or discussion of the cultural value or importance associated with the 14 archeological resources that were identified in the cultural heritage assessment and archeological study.

In its response, CN indicated that the cultural heritage values for the 14 archaeological resources it had identified were presented in Sections 4 and 5 of the EIS, Appendix E.14. However, the descriptions provided in Appendix E.14 do not describe how the archeological resources are associated with the respective Aboriginal groups’ practices, traditions and customs as outlined in the Agency’s Technical Guidance on for Assessing Physical and Cultural Heritage or any Structure, Site or Thing that is of Historical, Archeological, Paleontological or Architectural Significance under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (May 2015). A description of the cultural significance of the identified archeological resources is required to determine the effects of the Project on the cultural heritage of the Aboriginal groups.

Information Required: Describe the cultural value of the 14 archeological resources identified in the cultural heritage assessment and archaeological study. Furthermore, describe the effects of any changes that may be caused to the environment by the Project on the cultural heritage of the potentially affected Aboriginal groups.

CN Response:

The Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s (MTCS) 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists provide criteria for the determination of cultural heritage value of an archaeological resource at the end of a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment (AA). Broadly, the MTCS (Section 2.2 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists) requires that archaeological resources “must have cultural heritage value or interest to meet the definitions of ‘artifact’ and archaeological site’ under the Ontario Heritage Act” (MTCS, 2011, page 39). Each of the 14 archaeological sites recommended for further assessment (i.e., Stage 3 AA) met one or more of the criteria listed in Section 2.2, Standard 1. Attachment IR9-2 is an excerpt of Section 2.2 from the 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists.

These MTCS criteria represent a minimum threshold of identifying cultural heritage value and do not require identification of associations with specific groups or communities, nor does a Stage 2


File No. 160960844 6

AA typically result in sufficient information to make an association of a site with specific groups or communities. The Stage 3 AA, and any necessary Stage 4 AA studies may aid in the refinement of our understanding and interpretation of these sites and protect / preserve identified artifacts through documentation and removal. The Stage 3 AA field investigations of the sites with cultural heritage value is underway and is scheduled to be completed in 2016. Stage 4 AA of any sites that may require further assessment based on the results of the Stage 3 AA would commence in the spring of 2017.

Cultural Heritage Resources and Values

The pre-contact Aboriginal sites, and Aboriginal components of multicomponent sites, identified through the Stage 2 AA work may represent the remains of small camps or resource specific extraction areas, or may be small and ephemeral sites occupied for very brief moments in time. While there are no diagnostic artifacts to confirm associations with specific groups or communities, it can be confirmed that these artifacts represent historic use by the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nations, Six Nations of the Grand River or Huron Wendat Nation groups in the area.

The following is a description of each of the archaeological sites and their cultural affiliation (Archaeological TDR - EIS Appendix E.14), as well as an indication of the practices, traditions and customs potentially associated with each site:

Summary of Practices, Traditions and Customs Associated with Archaeological Sites

Location Borden # Parcel Initial

Identification

Approx. Size of

Location Cultural

Affiliation

Relation to Practices,

Traditions and Customs

Stage 3 Recommended

2 AiGw-

982 W17

Test pit survey

50m x 35m

Euro-Canadian

Likely associated with domestic practices and

patterns of refuse disposal

Yes

3 AiGw-

983 W14

Test pit survey & Pedestrian survey

80m x 60m

Euro-Canadian



Yes

4 AiGx-390

W11 Pedestrian survey

25m x 20m

Pre-contact Aboriginal (Early Archaic)

Likely related to resource

extraction activities and/or lithic tool working

Yes


File No. 160960844 7


Identification

Approx. Size of

Location Cultural

Affiliation



Stage 3 Recommended

7 AiGx-392


Isolated find

Pre-contact Aboriginal (Late Paleo-Indian)

Isolated find; as yet not

determinable Yes

12 AiGx-396


100m x 45m

Euro-Canadian



Yes

13 AiGx-397


95m x 75m

Pre-contact Aboriginal

Possible habitation site;

may also include activities

associated with resource

extraction and/or preparation

Yes

18 AiGx-398


110m x 65m

Multi-component

Likely related to lithic tool working

(Pre-contact component) and domestic refuse disposal (Euro-

Canadian)

Yes

28 AiGx-401


25m x 25m



extraction activities and/or lithic tool working

Yes

29 AiGx-402


18m x 12m



extraction activities

Yes

38 AiGx-405


20m x 20m


Likely related to lithic tool working and/or resource


Yes


File No. 160960844 8


Identification

Approx. Size of

Location Cultural

Affiliation



Stage 3 Recommended

45 AiGx-408


25m x 300m

Multi-component

Likely related to lithic tool working

(Pre-contact component) and domestic refuse disposal (Euro-

Canadian)

Yes

51 AiGx-411


Isolated find

Pre-contact Aboriginal (Early Archaic)

Isolated find; as yet not

determinable Yes

57 AiGw-

984 W11

Pedestrian survey

50m X 32m


Likely related to lithic tool working and/or resource


Yes

58 AiGw-

985 W14

Pedestrian survey

15m X 15m

Pre-contact Aboriginal (Woodland)



Yes

Information from the Stage 1 AA and Stage 2 AA work was provided to each of the identified Aboriginal communities. Invitations to participate in the Stage 3 AA fieldwork were extended to various communities who represent descendants of historically known groups within the Local Assessment Area and Regional Assessment Area, namely the Six Nations of the Grand River, the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation, and the Huron Wendat First Nation. Each of these communities is participating in the Stage 3 AA work as archaeological monitors representing their communities. CN has committed to share the results of the Stage 3 AA and any Stage 4 AA studies with the various Aboriginal communities to contribute to their traditional knowledge base.

Project Effects on Cultural Heritage

Archaeological sites located within the footprint of the Project (i.e., PDA) would be directly affected by construction activities resulting from the operation of construction equipment, compaction of soils, grading and filling activities, or excavation that may disturb, damage or destroy undocumented archaeological resources. By further studying these sites through Stage 3 AA and Stage 4 AA (where required), the cultural heritage value and significance of these sites is further established, refined and preserved through documentation of findings and cataloguing of artifacts. In this regard, Stage 3 AA and Stage 4 AA is a form of mitigation to protect and preserve the cultural heritage value of these sites that would otherwise be directly affected (disturbed, damaged, or destroyed) through Project construction activities.


File No. 160960844 9

The further refinement of our understanding of the Aboriginal history and use of the landscape of the Local Assessment Area and Regional Assessment Area through the continuing archaeological work on the 14 sites with cultural heritage value will result in a neutral to positive change on the cultural heritage environment of potentially affected Aboriginal groups.

ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT

IR10 – Greenhouse Gases

CEAA Comment:

Rationale: Additional Information Requirement #10 required CN to provide an estimate of the direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with all phases of the Project. These GHGs were to be presented by individual pollutant and summarized in carbon dioxide equivalent units (CO2 e) per year.

In section 3.4 of its response, CN indicated that common GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), while other GHGs include hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3). CN provided the expected direct emissions from the Project for CO2, CH4, and N2O during construction and operation phases and included a summary in carbon dioxide equivalent units (CO2 e) per year.

However, CN also indicated that the presence of other GHGs such as HFCs, PFCs, SF6 and NF3, are expected to be either non-existent or negligible and therefore those GHGs were not included in the analysis. However, no rationale was provided for why those emissions were expected to be non-existent, and no definition was provided for what threshold was used to understand how CN determined some emissions were negligible.

Information Required: Provide an explanation as to why HFCs, PFCs, SF6 and NF3 are not expected to be emission sources from the Project. Where emissions are deemed to be negligible provide a definition of the term negligible.

CN Response :

The Milton Logistics Hub Report on Greenhouse Gases (Stantec, June 17, 2016) noted that hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are used mainly as refrigerants, sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) is commonly found in electrical equipment, and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) is used in the plasma etching of silicon wafers (GHG Report, Section 3.4, page 12). Because these types of equipment or material usages are not contemplated in any quantity in the Project, they have not been included in the analysis (GHG Report, Section 3.4, page 12).

In the context of the GHG Report, where we have used the term “neglible” for emissions, it means the expectation of release is zero or very close to zero, and in any event, so small as to be immaterial to the GHG assessment.


File No. 160960844 10

To further clarify this statement, the following information is provided for each of these specific GHG constituents, supporting their exclusion as GHG sources in the analysis:

Hydrofluorocarbons

HFCs are currently allowable refrigerant gases that could potentially be present in mechanical equipment such as heating and cooling systems in limited quantities at the Milton Logistics Hub once it is constructed and operational. While HFCs may be present in limited quantities at the Terminal in the form of refrigerants in CN and non-CN refrigeration containers, as well as Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning (HVAC) equipment in buildings and equipment onsite, normal operation and maintenance of the facility will follow accepted guidance and regulatory requirements for dealing with potential chemical substances of environmental concern. Maintenance of this equipment will be done by licensed and certified professionals in the handling and maintenance of HFCs. As such, no release of these substances can reasonably be expected during construction or operation of the Project.

Perfluorocarbons

PFCs are allowable specialized refrigerant gases that could potentially be present in mechanical equipment at the Milton Logistics Hub once it is constructed and operational, or possibly be present in coatings or in electronics components used in relation to other equipment at the Terminal. While PFCs may be present in limited quantities in the form of refrigerants in HVAC system equipment, normal operation and maintenance of the facility will follow accepted guidance and regulatory requirements for dealing with potential chemical substances of environmental concern. As such, no release of these substances can reasonably be expected during construction or operation of the Project.

Sulphur Hexafluoride (SF6)

One of the key uses of SF6 gas is in high voltage electrical switch gear as an insulator that prevents electrical spark and arc generation. No high voltage electrical switch gear is proposed at the Terminal. The preliminary design includes the use of vacuum circuit breakers and conventional air filled switchgear which do not contain any SF6. As such, no release of this substance can reasonably be expected during construction or operation of the Project.

Nitrogen Trifluoride (NF3)

NF3 is used primarily in the production of electronic components in the electronics sector. There will be no production of electronic components associated with the Project. As such, no release of this substance can reasonably be expected during construction or operation of the Project.

Emissions of HFCs, PFCs, SF6 and NF3 are not expected as a result of fuel combustion in stationary and mobile sources which are the expected sources of GHG emissions for the Project. As a result, emissions of these specific gases are expected to either be non-existent or negligible and are therefore not included in the GHG analysis.


File No. 160960844 11

IR13 – Cumulative Effects

CEAA Comment:

Rationale: Additional Information Requirement #13 required CN to provide an assessment of cumulative effects to air quality from the Project in combination with future planned developments.

In its response, CN stated that it had not provided a cumulative effects assessment for air quality because it was not selected as a valued component for the Project in the EIS Guidelines (July 2015).

The EIS Guidelines (Part 1, Section 3.3.2) require that the EIS identify the valued components linked to section 5 of CEAA 2012, including those VCs identified in Part 2 (Section 6.2) of the EIS Guidelines. This section specifically lists changes to the atmospheric environment as requiring consideration as a valued component. Accordingly, as indicated in the cover letter to this document, the EIS Guidelines direct CN to include changes in air quality as a valued component for the environmental assessment.

Information Required: Provide an assessment of the cumulative air quality effects of the Project in combination with air quality effects from certain and reasonably foreseeable future physical activities, including any predicted increase in truck traffic associated with the Project and future residential developments. In doing so, use the approach described in the Agency’s Operational Policy Statement entitled Addressing Cumulative Environmental Effects; the CEA Agency’s Technical Guidance for Assessing Cumulative Environmental Effects under CEAA 2012; and the EIS Guidelines (Part 2, Section 6.6.3).

CN Response:

The EIS was scoped and structured in accordance with the EIS Guidelines (July 2015). Section 6.2 (Part 2) of the EIS Guidelines identifies the “changes to the environment” to be considered that may affect individual “VCs”, which are separately listed in Section 6.3 (Part 2) of the EIS Guidelines. Air quality is specifically listed for consideration under changes to the environment (Section 3.3.1, Part 1 and Section 6.3, Part 2), however it is not listed as a VC for consideration in Section 3.3.2 (Part 1) or Section 6.3 (Part 2). Therefore, while changes to the atmospheric environment, specifically air quality, were considered as a change to the environment, it was not identified nor considered as a VC in the EIS.

It is our interpretation that the statement referenced in IR13 above, as taken from Section 3.3.2 (Part 1) of the EIS Guidelines, which reads “the EIS will identify the VCs linked to section 5 of CEAA 2012, including the ones identified in Part 2 (Section 6.2) that may be affected by changes in the environment,…” (page 5) either includes an incorrect reference to the VC section (correctly referenced as Section 6.3) or represents general background guidance that was refined through subsequent Project specific sections in Part 2 of the EIS Guidelines. In either case, the EIS Guidelines make a clear distinction between Section 6.2 (Changes to the Environment) and Section 6.3 (Valued Components), which has been followed in preparing the EIS.


File No. 160960844 12

As per the EIS Guidelines, Human Health was identified as a VC and the effects of changes to the atmospheric environment (specifically air quality) were assessed in the HHRA (EIS Appendix E.7), based on a description of the changes to air quality resulting from the Project as presented in the Air Quality TDR (EIS Appendix E.1). Changes to air quality were assessed and considered as a pathway of effects for the Human Health VC.

An assessment of cumulative air quality effects as requested is attached (Attachment IR13-2 - Cumulative Air Quality Effects Assessment).

IR14 – Baseline Ambient Noise Levels

CEAA Comment:

Rationale: Additional Information Requirement #14 required CN to provide additional information in relation to baseline ambient noise levels, including information regarding potential seasonal variations. CN’s response noted that seasonal fluctuations in noise are not anticipated, but did not provide a justification for this assumption.

Part 1, Section 4.2 of the EIS Guidelines requires that the proponent clearly identify and justify all assumptions and conclusions.

Information Required: Provide a rationale for the conclusion that seasonal fluctuations in ambient noise levels are not anticipated. This response may include relevant data, modelling or academic literature to indicate that there would be no such seasonal fluctuations in ambient noise levels.

CN Response:

Major contributors to the baseline acoustical environment were found to be anthropogenic sounds, such as existing mainline railway traffic and urban hum associated with urbanization (development located north of the proposed Project area, and roadway traffic of the area) (Acoustic TDR - EIS Appendix E.9, Section 6.0, page 15).

The daily volume of 25 to 30 trains/day along the CN mainline remains consistent throughout the year (EIS Section 1.2, page 3). As such, ambient noise contributions from this source would remain consistent throughout the year.

A statistical traffic volume study by Ontario Ministry of Transportation (Ontario MTO, 2010) classifying roads according to traffic flow variability identifies urban and suburban roads as having low traffic flow variation, unlike roads leading to recreation or tourist destinations that have high traffic flow variation. Similar conclusions were noted in a study by the British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (BC MTO, 2014) comparing seasonal variations of various road types. This study concluded that typical road traffic volume variation is not significant from Annual Average Daily Traffic volume in urban areas, while seasonal variations in traffic volumes are typically found in summer recreational areas (i.e., near beaches or cottages), where traffic use increases substantially during specific periods of the year. Roads in the LAA/RAA are urban/suburban roads and do not contain seasonal attraction areas that may


File No. 160960844 13

influence traffic variations. Therefore, no noticeable variation in traffic generated noise throughout the year is expected.

As typical of any urban areas, minor day to day or seasonal variations in traffic volume may be possible. Acoustical engineering theory states that in order to perceive a change in acoustical environment, sound pressure level experienced by a receptor would have to change by at least 3 dB (Bies and Hansen, 2009). It further states that doubling of source strength only adds 3 dB (Bies and Hansen, 2009), suggesting that in order to make a 3 dB change, the sound power radiated from sources would have to be doubled. This implies that in an area dominated by urban hum, the traffic volume should be doubled to make a notable change in acoustical environment. Therefore, minor variations that are typical of urban/suburban commuter roads such as those in the LAA/RAA are not expected to result in significant variation in acoustical environment.

In addition, the International Standard Organization publication (ISO 9613-2) identifies five (5) major noise attenuating mechanisms that attenuate sound as it propagates between its origination (i.e., source location) and a receiver, which include:

1. Geometrical divergence or distance attenuation - this does not depend on seasonal variations, rather it is purely a distance effect;

2. Reflection from surfaces (other than ground) – this does not depend on seasonal variations;

3. Screening by obstacles – this does not depend on seasonal variations;

4. Atmospheric absorption – this is a function of temperature and humidity; and,

5. Ground effect – this is a function of ground type, hard, soft or porous ground.

Among the five mechanisms, the atmospheric absorption and ground absorption are affected by seasonal variations. The equation for atmospheric absorption is a function of relative humidity and temperature. Attenuation due to atmospheric absorption for a representative summer (humidity 70 % to 90% and temperature 20-30 degree Celsius) and representative winter conditions (humidity below 50% and temperature 0 degree Celsius or below) showed a change of only 0.2 dB for receptors with similar distance from the Project sources (i.e., less than 1 km). Therefore, seasonal variation due to atmospheric absorption is not anticipated at Project receptors.

Similarly, the calculations indicated the difference between fully absorptive and fully reflective ground between source and receiver in a setting like the Project is about 3 dB (which is the maximum change possible). Generally, fully absorptive or fully reflective conditions are not typically observed in reality. Ground covered with both vegetation and fresh snow is more absorptive and ice conditions are more reflective. Therefore, changes in ground absorption due to seasonal variation is not expected to be significant for the project site, and in any event will be within 3 dB, which is considered within the measurement or prediction tolerances.


File No. 160960844 14

As a result, it can be concluded that the anthropogenic noise sources within the LAA and RAA are generally consistent throughout the year. Therefore seasonal variations in ambient noise levels within the PDA and LAA are not anticipated.

References

Ministry of Transportation, 2010, 1998-2010 Traffic Volumes: King’s Highways, Secondary Highways and Tertiary Roads, Ontario.

Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, 2014, Traffic reports user documentation, British Columbia.

Bies, David A. and Hansen, Colin H., 2009, Engineering Noise Control: Theory and Practice, 2009, Fourth Edition.

International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 1996, ISO 9613-2 Acoustics - Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors — Part 2: General method of Calculation, Genève Switzerland.

GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER

IR16 – Quality of Discharged Water

CEAA Comment:

Rationale: Additional Information Requirement #16 required CN to provide information on potential discharge concentrations for all contaminants of concern that may be released into the receiving environment as a result of the construction and operation of the Project.

In its response, CN provided potential discharge concentrations during the operations phase of the Project for some of the contaminants of concern required, namely sediment and phosphorus. However, a description of the approach used to reach those conclusions was not provided. CN referred to its response to Additional Information Requirement #17 for details regarding contaminants of concern during construction; however that response does not specify potential discharge concentrations for contaminants of concern.

Furthermore, for the operations phase, potential discharge concentrations were not provided for dissolved oxygen, ammonia, heavy metals, hydrocarbons, and salinity. For these contaminants of concern, the narratives provided in CN’s response do not fully substantiate their conclusions regarding water quality. In order to accurately assess potential environmental effects from the Project on valued components such as fish and fish habitat, changes to water quality must be described in adequate detail, and any assumptions used in the absence of data must be clearly stated and justified.

The EIS Guidelines (Part 1, Section 1) require a full description of the changes the Project will cause to the environment that may result in adverse effects to valued components. The EIS Guidelines (Part 1, Section 4.2) require that the EIS describe the methodology used to assess Project-related effects to each valued component and that all conclusions be substantiated.


File No. 160960844 15

The EIS Guidelines (Part 1, Section 4.2) further require that all assumptions be clearly identified and justified, and that data, models and studies be documented such that the analyses are transparent and reproducible.

Information Required: Provide predicted discharge concentrations during the construction and operations phase of the Project for all contaminants of concern (sediment/turbidity, temperature, dissolved oxygen, ammonia, heavy metals, hydrocarbons, and salinity).

Provide a description of the methodology used to calculate potential discharge concentrations or rationale for how conclusions regarding discharge concentrations for contaminants of concern were reached. If potential discharge concentrations are not required for the assessment, provide clear rationale as to why this information is not required and how potential residual environmental effects, including the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures, can be accurately predicted without this information.

CN Response:

A memo has been prepared to further discuss the predicted discharge concentrations and effluent removal efficiencies of the proposed stormwater management (SWM) facilities for the contaminants of concern anticipated during operation of the Project (see Attachment IR16-2 – Surface Water Contaminants of Concern – Model Results).

CHANGES TO THE TERRESTRIAL LANDSCAPE

IR18 – Changes to the Terrestrial Landscape

CEAA Comment:

Rationale: Additional Information Requirement #18 required CN to provide a full description of the predicted changes to the terrestrial environment as required by the EIS Guidelines (Part 2, Section 6.2), including a description of the predicted changes in terms of their geographic extent, duration, frequency, and reversibility.

In its response, CN provided its conclusions on the magnitude, geographic extent, frequency and reversibility of the environmental effects to the terrestrial environment. This description, however, did not describe the methodology used to make the conclusions regarding the magnitude of effects.

Section 6.2.5 of the EIS provides information on the criteria (magnitude, geographic extent, duration, frequency, reversibility, and context) to be used to characterize the residual environmental effects of the Project, but states that magnitude is to be defined for each valued component. Neither section 6.4.3 of the EIS nor the response to Additional Information Requirement #18 provide a definition to determine negligible, low, moderate, or high magnitude changes to the terrestrial environment.

The EIS Guidelines (Part 1, Section 3.3.2) require that the EIS identify the valued components linked to section 5 of CEAA 2012, including those VCs identified in Part 2 (Section 6.2) of the EIS


File No. 160960844 16

Guidelines. This section specifically lists changes to the terrestrial landscape as requiring consideration as a valued component. Accordingly, as indicated in the cover letter to this document, the EIS Guidelines direct CN to include changes to the terrestrial environment as a valued component for the environmental assessment.

Information Required: Provide a definition for negligible, low, moderate, and high magnitude changes specifically related to the terrestrial environment.

CN Response:

As noted in our response to IR18 (May 18, 2016), the change in terrestrial landscape resulting from construction and operation of the Project is considered to be low in magnitude. This conclusion is based on changes to the extent of natural vegetation measured according to the following definitions of negligible, low, medium and high.

Definition of Magnitude Characterization for the Change in Terrestrial Landscape

Characterization Description Quantitative Measure or Definition of Qualitative Categories

Magnitude

The amount of change in measurable parameters relative to existing conditions.

Negligible – No observed occurrences of provincially or federally rare plants within the PDA. No loss or alteration of natural vegetation communities, as defined by Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario (Lee et al., 1998). Low – No observed/occurrence of provincially or federally rare plants in the PDA; the change in the natural vegetation community (as defined by Lee et al., 1998) is limited to less than 10% of available natural vegetation in the RAA; no direct change to a Provincial or Federal Significant area or park. Moderate – Observed/occurrence of provincially or federally rare plants in the PDA, but with the opportunity to transfer community to another suitable location within the RAA; change in the natural vegetation community (as defined by Lee et al., 1998) is limited to between 10% and 40% of available natural vegetation in the RAA; no direct change to a Provincial or Federal Significant area or park. High – Loss of provincially or federally rare plants in the PDA with no opportunity to transfer to another suitable location within the RAA; natural vegetation community (as defined by Lee et al., 1998) is greater than 40% of available natural vegetation in the RAA; a direct change to a Provincial or Federal Significant area or park.

The extent of natural vegetation communities in the PDA and LAA was based on Ecological Land Classification (ELC) surveys conducted in 2015 (as presented in the Terrestrial TDR - EIS Appendix E.16, Figure 4). The extent of natural vegetation communities in the remainder of the RAA were based on the Land Information Ontario (LIO) woodland and wetland mapping (LIO, 2015), which are comparable to the natural ELC communities within the PDA. At present, there is


File No. 160960844 17

approximately 4 hectares of natural vegetation (i.e., wetland and woodland) within the PDA, which represents 3.8 % of the natural vegetation within the RAA. As part of the Project, CN is proposing to restore and naturalize approximately 11.7 hectares of land adjacent to Indian Creek and Tributary A, which will provide natural vegetation communities within the valley and floodplain of these tributaries.

The results of the botanical inventory provided in the Terrestrial TDR (EIS Appendix E.16, Appendix B) identify that no provincially or federally rare species were observed in the PDA. As such, the magnitude of change to the terrestrial landscape is anticipated to be low.

While the terrestrial landscape will change based on the Project, the resulting changes are multifaceted and have been further refined under each of the VCs in the EIS. Specifically, the change in terrestrial landscape is evaluated for the effect it has on migratory birds (EIS Section 6.5.2, page 189 to 205), species at risk (SAR) (EIS Section 6.5.3, page 205 to 219), and socio-economic / land and resource use (EIS Section 6.5.5, page 231 to 245) to more fully understand the Project’s residual environmental effects. Since the terrestrial landscape is a broad term describing a general component of the environment, the EIS targeted more precise components of the terrestrial environment (i.e., vegetation communities as migratory bird habitat, vegetation communities as habitat for SAR, vegetation communities as a land and resource use within the landscape). In doing so, the specific, detailed changes to the terrestrial landscape resulting from the Project were identified and potential / residual effects considered.

As described in EIS Section 6.4.3 (page 165), and further in our response to IR18 (May 18, 2016), the Project will result in changes to the current terrestrial landscape, which is a landscape that has been subject to changes previously. Agricultural conversion and practices within the PDA, LAA and RAA have long altered the terrestrial landscape on both a broad scale (i.e., away from natural vegetation cover to anthropogenically altered communities, such as crops and cultural vegetation) and micro-scale (i.e., crop rotation). Further, development of residential and commercial uses has further changed the terrestrial landscape over time. The Project proposes to change the primarily agricultural environment within the PDA, which is already designated for development by local planning processes, through the proposed Project construction and operations activities.

Further discussion of terrestrial landscape changes are described in detail in EIS Sections 6.5.5 Socio-economic Conditions (page 231 to 245) and EIS Section 6.6.1.5 Assessment of Cumulative Environmental Effects on Socio-Economic Conditions (page 284 to 289).

References Land Information Ontario (LIO). 2015. Digital mapping: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

Information Access Section, May 2014 (woodland) and April 2015 (wetlands).

Lee, H.T., W.D., Bakowsky, J. Riley, Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhig, and S. McMurray. 1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario: First Approximation and its Application. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch. SCSS Field Guide FG-02.


File No. 160960844 18

SPECIES AT RISK AND MIGRATORY BIRDS AND THEIR HABITAT

IR19 – Noise

CEAA Comment:

Rationale: Additional information Requirement #19 required CN to provide an assessment of the potential environmental effects of noise during the construction and operations phases of the Project on migratory birds and species at risk.

The EIS Guidelines (Part 2, Section 6.5) require that the EIS present any residual environmental effects of the Project on valued components, and provide an analysis of the significance of the residual environmental effects that are considered adverse.

In its response to the additional information requirements, CN provided general information on anticipated changes to noise levels during the construction phase. The response indicated that construction will result in slightly larger changes in noise levels than were anticipated for the operation phase, and that during the construction phase, there may be a temporary displacement of a small number of locally occurring birds to adjacent areas where there are fewer disturbances. The response, however, did not specify which bird species were most likely to experience temporary displacement, how long this displacement would last, and at what noise level displacement is expected to occur. Further, the response did not describe whether the displacement would result in a residual adverse effect, and if so, whether that residual adverse effect is expected to be significant.

CN identified anticipated changes to noise levels during the operation phase of the Project at four wildlife receptors in or near the Local Assessment Area. CN noted that physiological responses to noise exposure in birds may begin to appear at levels of 55 to 60dB, and that anticipated increases in noise are slight and within levels that will allow wildlife to habituate. The EIS (Section 6.5.2.9.2) describes potential sensitivities to noise for some migratory birds. However, no information has been provided regarding the threshold at which increased noise levels would result in a migratory bird or species at risk being unable to habituate.

In addition, no information was provided on anticipated noise exposure during the construction and operations phase for Barn Swallow breeding habitats shown in Figure IR#19, which are at a closer proximity to the Project Development Area than the four wildlife receptor sites identified in that figure.

CN also identified a study regarding migratory bird breeding and rail lines, but did not provide any context to determine the specific results of the study, relevance of the findings of that study to the Project or specific species present in the Local Assessment Area for the Project.

Information Required: Provide data to specify the anticipated increase in noise during the construction phase for each of the four reference wildlife habitat locations provided in Figure IR#19. For Barn Swallow breeding habitat, provide data on noise increases and resulting environmental effects during both the construction and operation phase of the Project.


File No. 160960844 19

Alternatively, provide a rationale for why the increased noise levels anticipated for the construction phase (and operation phase for Barn Swallow) of the Project are not anticipated to affect the selected wildlife receptor locations shown in Figure IR#19.

Identify which species of birds are likely to be temporarily displaced due to noise during the construction phase of the Project, including an identification of whether any of these are species at risk. Provide an assessment of the effects of construction noise on the identified species, including a determination of whether or not the displacement of those species is expected to result in a significant adverse effect to migratory birds and species at risk.

Provide information on the threshold at which increased noise levels would result in a wildlife species (including migratory birds and species at risk) being unable to habituate.

In support of the above requirements, CN may wish to provide additional details as to how the referenced Whelan, et al. (2014) study relates to the assessment of noise during the construction and operation phases of the Project on migratory birds and species at risk.

CN Response:

The hearing of birds, with a few exemptions such as owls, is typically less sensitive over a range of frequencies than is mammalian hearing, including humans. The low sensitivity of hearing in birds can most likely be attributed to the physiology of the avian ear. Birds (again with the exception of owls) lack an outer ear which collects and amplifies sounds (Dooling and Popper, 2007). Birds have a basilar papilla which contains sensory hair cells that detect the sound vibrations. This basilar papilla is shorter (e.g., 2 mm in Canary and Zebra Finch) and different in structure than the homologous organ in mammals called the Corti (i.e., 30 mm in humans) (Dooling and Popper, 2007; Tanaka and Smith, 1978; Smith, 1985). This difference may account for the much narrower range of frequencies birds can hear, reducing the birds ability to detect both low and high frequencies as compared to most mammals (Dooling and Popper, 2007). Furthermore, birds have a single-bone middle ear, rather than the three-bone middle ear of mammals. It is hypothesized the single-bone physiology limits the frequencies birds can detect (Saunders et al., 2000). This understanding of the bird ear physiology and sensitivity can assist in predicting responses to birds from changes in ambient noise.

The following table provides the specific change to noise expected at reference locations within the PDA and LAA, including baseline ambient noise levels and predicted noise levels during construction and operation. This table has been updated from the previous response to IR19 provided May 18, 2016 based on modelling completed by Stantec to include construction noise levels for sites 1 through 4, as well as the additional sites 5 and 6 that represent the location of Barn Swallow nesting structures.


File No. 160960844 20

Wildlife Habitat Noise Level (dB)

Baseline Construction Operation

1 - Woodland at south end of LAA 68 69 73

2 - Grassland (hay) in LAA south of Lower Base Line 74 74 76

3 - Grassland (hay) in LAA west of Tremaine Road 72 72 71

4 - Grassland (hay) in LAA north of Britannia Road 71 71 69

5 – Barn supporting Barn Swallow in PDA north of Tremaine Road 72 74 77

6 – Barn supporting Barn Swallow in LAA south of Tremaine Road 74 75 74

Note: The location of these wildlife habitats areas is identified on Figure IR#19-2 provided in Attachment IR19-2 – Wildlife Noise Assessment.

Data on what noise levels are anticipated to result in physiological or displacement effects in different species of birds is generally not available. Dooling and Popper (2007) conclude that a threshold for the effects of noise should be site specific and based not just on individual species. For the purposes of our assessment, a site specific threshold for physiological or behavioral changes was adopted. As noted in Dooling and Popper (2007), the noise level a project produces is anticipated to start a physiological response at the point it reaches the level of ambient noise in the local landscape. As such, at each of the reference habitats in the table above, the threshold for potential physiological response is the baseline noise level (i.e., 68 to 74 dB). Those species sensitive to noises below the baseline noise level would have already been displaced or experiencing a physiological response. Any displacement or physiological response from the Project would begin with noises exceeding the baseline ambient noise level, with the magnitude of disturbance anticipated to increase as sound levels increase. As indicated in the table above, those predicted changes in noise level range from a decrease of 2 dB to an increase of 5 dB. Although we do not know what change in sound pressure could be perceived by the bird species in the LAA, in humans a minimum change of 3 dB is required to perceive an increase or decrease in sound (Bies and Hansen, 2009). Considering the hearing of birds is less sensitive than that of a human due to differences in physiological characteristics, a change in sound pressure of 5 dB is anticipated to be either imperceptible or barely perceptible by birds within the LAA.

Based on our expert opinion, although it is not possible to provide predicted displacement of each species within the LAA, change in the use of these habitats and corresponding breeding activities are not anticipated to be affected at these noise levels to adversely affect bird populations within the LAA. These species currently exist in an agricultural setting adjacent to a railway mainline and surrounding roads, and are already exposed to human activity and accustomed to noise.

Specific to the species at risk (SAR) birds within the PDA and LAA, reference sites 2, 3 and 4 represent Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark habitat retained in the LAA. The noise assessment predicted that in these habitats, noise levels during construction will be similar to baseline conditions. During operation, noise levels in two of the three reference habitats are predicted to experience a decrease (change of 1 to 2 dB) in noise compared to baseline, which can be


File No. 160960844 21

attributed to noise mitigation that will be implement. The third reference habitat is predicted to have a slight increase (change of 2 dB). The literature review did not find any studies on a noise threshold for either Bobolink or Eastern Meadowlark. However, these small changes in noise are anticipated to have negligible impacts to Bobolink or Eastern Meadowlark breeding productivity within the LAA.

The two Barn Swallow nesting sites are predicted to experience a slight increase in noise levels during construction (change of 1 to 2 dB), which is considered a small variation from ambient levels. During operation, the nesting structure south of Tremaine Road is expected to have no change in noise level, staying at 74 dB, as it is separated from the PDA by Tremaine Road, the primary ambient noise source at this site. Within the PDA, the Barn Swallow nest site at the barn is predicted to have a noise level of 77 dB, a 5 dB increase in noise during operation. The literature review did not find any studies on noise thresholds for Barn Swallow. However, as discussed above, a change in 5 dB is anticipated to not be perceivable or barely perceivable by the Barn Swallows. Furthermore, it is well documented this species commonly occurs and nests in close proximity to human presence and activities (Brown and Brown, 1999; Cadman et al., 2005; Heagy et al., 2014). Barn Swallow commonly nests in noisy areas, such as bridges and culverts along 400 series highways (Cadman et al., 2007), where noise levels would far exceed 77 dB. As such, there is no anticipated displacement of Barn Swallow resulting from the predicted changes in noise levels.

Whelan et al. (2014), conducted a study of breeding bird richness, abundance and nesting success along an existing rail corridor. The conclusion of this study found that:

• No species were either attracted to or avoided the rail corridor;

• Proximity to the rail corridor did not appear to affect vulnerability to predation;

• Predators known to prey on songbirds did not appear to exhibit differences in activity with proximity to the rail corridor; and,

• No change in behavior of parents was observed in proximity to the rail corridor.

Train traffic at the proposed Milton Logistics Hub is expected to have similar results.

Overall, the changes in noise levels during construction and operational of the Project are not anticipated to result in significant effects to migratory birds, including SAR.

References

Bies, David A. and Hansen, Colin H., 2009, Engineering Noise Control: Theory and Practice, 2009, Fourth Edition.

Brown, C.R. and M.B. Brown. 1999. Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/452 doi:10.2173/bna.452

Cadman, M.D., D.A. Sutherland, G.G. Beck, D. Lepage, A.R. Couturier. 2007. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, 2001-2005. (eds) Bird Studies Canada, Environment Canada,

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/452


File No. 160960844 22

Ontario Field Ornithologists, Ontario Ministry of natural resources, and Ontario Nature, Toronto, xxii + 706pp

Dooling. R.J. and A.N. Popper. 2007. The Effects of Highway Noise on Birds. Environmental BioAcountics LLC. Rockville, MD.

Heagy, A., D. Badzinski, D. Bradley, M. Falconer, J. McCracken, R.A. Reid and K. Richardson. 2014. Recovery Strategy for the Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) in Ontario. Ontario Recovery Strategy Series. Prepared for the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Peterborough, Ontario. vii + 64 pp.

Smith, C. A. (1985). Inner ear. In: Form and Function in Birds. Vol. 3, edited by A. S. King and J. McLelan (Academic Press, London), pp. 273-310.

Tanaka, K., and Smith, C. A. (1978). Structure of the chicken's inner ear: SEM and TEM study. Am. J. Anat. 153, 251-271.

Whelan. C.J., L.A. Leong, M.E. Sandor, A.K. Barner and J.D. Maddox. (2014). Composition and Reproductive Ecology of Breeding Bird Assemblages at Selected Natural Areas Along the EJ&E Rail Corridor, 2009–2013. In Impacts of the Elgin, Joliet, and Eastern Railway Line on Natural Areas in the Western Chicago Metropolitan Area. Heske, E. J., and D. M. Ruffatto, eds. 2014.

SPECIES AT RISK

IR21 – CC Values

CEAA Comment:

Rationale: Additional Information Requirement #21 required CN to provide a discussion of the coefficient of conservatism (CC) values, including how these were determined, used, and relevant to the findings of the baseline study and effects assessment for the Project.

In its response, CN provided a description of how the CC values were determined, and stated that these are an appropriate mechanism to describe whether individual plants or their habitats are sensitive to change resulting from adjacent Project activities. However, no description was provided regarding how this information was utilized in determining the potential effects of the Project.

For example, CN noted in its EIS and Appendix E.16 that none of the species observed at the Milton site had a CC value of 9 or 10, which indicates the species has a high degree of fidelity to a narrow range of habitat parameters. However, no rationale was provided regarding why only CC values of 9 or 10 were considered. For example, why was it not necessary to consider other species present at the site which had coefficient of conservatism values of 0 to 8 (indicating low, moderate or high sensitivity) in the effects assessment?


File No. 160960844 23

Additionally, CN’s response to Additional Information Requirement #21 does not provide any information regarding the absence of CC values for more than 70 vascular plants identified at the Project site (listed in Appendix B of Appendix E.16) or how the uncertainty regarding the missing CC values was considered in the EIS.

The EIS Guidelines (Part 1, Section 4.2) require that all assumptions be clearly identified and justified, and that all data, models and studies be documented such that the analyses are transparent and reproducible. The EIS Guidelines (Part 1, Section 4.2) further state that the uncertainty, reliability and sensitivity of models used to reach conclusions must be indicated.

Information Required: Provide a description of how fidelity of species to a narrow range of habitat parameters (CC values) was considered in the assessment of the effects of the Project on species at risk and terrestrial vegetation species.

Provide a rationale as to why species with a CC value of 8 or less were not considered in the effects assessment.

Describe any assumptions made with respect to the effects of the Project on species for which no CC value was provided (or available), or provide a description of how the uncertainty regarding the status of these species and the potential effects of the Project were incorporated into the effects assessment.

CN Response:

Coefficient of Conservatism (CC) values indicate a vascular plant species’ tolerance to change. As such, CC values can be used to assess whether individual plants or their habitats are sensitive to change resulting from adjacent project activities. The CC values were one of several indicators included in the Terrestrial TDR (EIS Appendix E.16). Other indicators of sensitive vascular plants included in EIS Appendix E.16 included ratio of native to non-native species, provincial (S) rank, as well as COSEWIC or COSSARO designations.

Vascular plant species CC values, as well as ratio of native species and provincial rank, were some of the parameters used to characterize the existing terrestrial landscape. This characterization was considered in the Changes to Terrestrial Landscape (EIS Section 6.4.3, page 165). Vascular plants designated by COSEWIC or COSSARO were addressed separately through the Species at Risk VC. EIS Appendix E.16 found a high representation of non-native species (approximately 1/3), no provincially rare plants (all vascular plant species were either S5 (secure) or S4 (apparently secure)) and no plants with CC values of 9 or 10. These findings suggest sensitive vascular plant species or communities were not present in the PDA, which is consistent with the agricultural landscape in which plant communities have previously undergone anthropogenic alteration.

EIS Appendix E.16 noted that no vascular plant species with CC values of 9 or 10 were found. When using CC values, it is common practice to focus on species with CC values of 9 or 10 as an indicator of sensitive plant communities. Oldham et al. (1995) states those plants with CC values of 9 or 10 have a high degree of fidelity to specific habitat parameters with little tolerance of


File No. 160960844 24

change. Plants with CC values of 7 to 8 were those taxa associated with late successional plant communities that have undergone minor disturbances. Taxa associated with a specific community, but were tolerant to moderate disturbance were assigned values of 4 to 6. An excerpt from Oldham et al. (1995) describing the methodology used to establish the CC values is included as Attachment IR21-2 – Coefficient of Conservatism Values.

Based on the designations from Oldham et al. (1995), plant communities with CC values of 9 or 10 may indicate a more natural community that has undergone little anthropogenic changes, or may be sensitive to new anthropogenic changes. Plant communities with CC values of 8 or less were considered to be less sensitive and adaptable to change in the assessment. Furthermore, as discussed above, vascular plant species CC values were only one of the indicators used to identify sensitive vascular plants or communities.

For “more than 70 vascular plants” in EIS Appendix E.16, no CC values were assigned because Oldham et al. (1995) focuses on vascular plant species native to Ontario, as the best indicators of the sensitivity of plant communities. Those vascular plants in EIS Appendix E.16 without a CC value are non-native species and therefore do not have CC values assigned. This does not add any degree of uncertainty in how these plants were considered in the EIS as other sensitivity criteria were used, as described above.

Reference

Oldham, M. J., W. D. Bakowsky, and D. A. Sutherland. 1995. Floristic quality assessment system for southern Ontario. Natural Heritage Information Centre, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Peterborough, Ontario. 23 pages + checklist for southern Ontario.

FISH AND FISH HABITAT

IR22 – Environmental Effects Assessment

CEAA Comment:

Rationale: Additional Information Requirement #22 required CN to provide descriptions of potential environmental effects of the Project to fish and fish habitat, including the effects of changes to water quality parameters. Additional Information Requirement #16 required that CN provide information on potential discharge concentrations for all contaminants of concern that may be released into the receiving environment as a result of the construction and operation of the Project. The follow-up requirements to Additional Information Requirement #16 outlined in this document requires additional information with regards to potential changes to water quality from the Project.

In its response to Additional Information Requirement #22, CN provided a table with references to the EIS and a summary of information previously submitted in the EIS. However, the response did not incorporate the new information provided in response to Additional Information Requirement #16. As changes to water quality from the Project inform the conclusions about


File No. 160960844 25

effects of the Project on fish and fish habitat, the additional information about changes to water quality must be integrated into the effects assessment for fish and fish habitat.

In its March 15, 2016 letter, the CEA Agency indicated that CN is expected to consider updated or new scientific, technical or other information that becomes available over the course of the environmental assessment and to incorporate relevant information into the assessment, as appropriate.

Information Required: Update the effects assessment for fish and fish habitat to include information on changes to water quality from the Project as described in the response to Additional Information Requirement #16, and any new information provided as follow-up. Indicate whether and how any information in those responses could affect or substantiate the previous conclusions made about potential effects of the Project on fish and fish habitat.

CN Response:

Attachment IR22-2 – Revised Summary of Assessment of Potential Effects on Fish and Fish Habitat provides an update to the table from the previous response to IR22 (May 18, 2016), to reflect information provided in IR16 related to changes in water quality. Water quality parameters of interest and its influence on fish habitat and fish communities were examined with respect to existing conditions and predicted changes following the treatment of runoff through the proposed stormwater management (SWM)and treatment train approach (Appendix B, Section 5.2, page 8 of the Surface Water TDR - EIS Appendix E.15). A stormwater treatment train involves the use of various treatment approaches employed linearly and consecutively to encourage the consecutive removal and uptake of pollutants with passage from one treatment to the next.

Tables 1, 2 and 3 of Attachment IR16-2 summarize the pollutant removal efficiencies of individual stormwater treatment approaches. Table 4 of Attachment IR16-2 provides the concentration levels of various pollutants as they are under existing runoff conditions, followed by a summary of the predicted levels of the constituents following treatment by the stormwater management system (i.e., predicted effluent conditions leaving the site).

Under existing conditions, unchecked runoff currently enters various points of the onsite watercourses, including Tributary A and Indian Creek. This runoff is agricultural in nature, containing high concentrations of total suspended solids, as well as transported sediment and its associated constituents derived from agricultural runoff, including fertilizer-derived contaminants such as phosphorous and nitrogen, pesticides/herbicides and bacteria, particularly if organic fertilizers (manure) are applied to the land. These loadings, in addition to their own detrimental effects on water quality, encourage the growth of algae and other aquatic plants which can affect diurnal dissolved oxygen concentrations within an aquatic system. Reduced water quality due to agricultural runoff decreases the quality of available habitat to fish, and also creates a stressor to individual fish residing in the system.

The SWM approach proposed for the site includes the incorporation of a variety of treatment methods which, taken individually, are effective at the removal of various pollutants (Appendix B, Section 5.2, page 8 of the Surface Water TDR - EIS Appendix E15). When combined in a consecutive treatment approach, the methods work in succession, resulting in a cumulative


File No. 160960844 26

improvement of water quality prior to discharge. The SWM measures have been designed to exceed the required quality control level given the existing conditions of the watercourses. The existing watercourses would typically require a “Normal” level of water quality control in compliance with the MOE 2003 guidelines, however an “Enhanced” level of quality control is proposed (Appendix B, Section 5.2, page 8 of the Surface Water TDR - EIS Appendix E.15), resulting in greater benefits to water quality. Runoff guidelines (i.e., MOE, 2003 and PWQO’s and water quality objectives (i.e., CCME – Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life (CCME, 2002)) are set to protect aquatic life, including fish and fish habitat, and the proposed “Enhanced” control will meet the necessary objectives.

Table 4 of Attachment IR16-2 demonstrates how individual pollutant concentrations will be reduced following treatment (influent vs. effluent). For all constituents, an improvement in water quality is predicted. The IR16 response also discusses dissolved oxygen (DO) and how maintenance of DO can be provided through the treatment system. MOE (2003) indicates that the 4.0 mg/L minimum DO criteria would be satisfactory for the protection of pike, darters, dace, stickleback, sunfish and brown bullhead, which are species that are similar to resident fish species communities in Tributary A and Indian Creek. The Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life (CCME, 1999) indicate a range of 5.5 to 6 mg/L minimum DO criteria for warmwater species. The changes in land use and employment of SWM that will replace the agricultural runoff currently sustaining the aquatic system will result in the removal of phosphorous and other nutrients that encourage algal growth, which will also positively affect DO concentrations in the receiving watercourses.

As water quantity and quality form the most essential component of fish habitat, it follows that improvements to water quality will inherently lead to improved fish habitat conditions. The transition of the site from agricultural land use and its unchecked runoff conditions to land uses where runoff is checked, treated sequentially to accepted guidelines and objectives and released to the receiver waterbodies is anticipated to have a positive effect on the aquatic system as a whole, as well as on-site conditions.

References

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 1999. Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life. Dissolved Oxygen (Freshwater). Canadian Environmental Quality Guidelines. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.

Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 2003. Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Ontario, Canada.


File No. 160960844 27

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT

IR25 – Methodology

CEAA Comment:

Rationale: Additional Information Requirement #25 required CN to provide a comprehensive list of all the projects and activities considered in the cumulative effects assessment, and a rationale for why each project or activity was considered or excluded.

In its response, CN included a table identifying the past, present and reasonably foreseeable physical activities that were considered in the cumulative effects assessment for each valued component.

Section 6.6.1 of the EIS included conclusions on the predicted contribution of the Project to cumulative effects. However, it did not include conclusions on the potential total cumulative effects from the Project in combination with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable physical activities identified for the cumulative effects assessment.

The EIS Guidelines (Part 2, Section 6.6.3) defines cumulative effects as changes to the environment due to the Project combined with the existence of other past, present and reasonably foreseeable physical activities.

The CEA Agency’s Technical Guidance for Assessing Cumulative Environmental Effects under CEAA 2012 states that assessing potential cumulative effects requires an understanding of both the estimated cumulative effects on valued components as well as the contribution of the Project to cumulative effects.

Information Required: For each valued component identified in the EIS and EIS Guidelines for which there is an identified residual effect of the Project, provide an assessment of the potential total cumulative effects from the Project in combination with the effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable physical activities identified in the EIS and the response to Additional Information Requirement #25. This response should also take into consideration the results of relevant Additional Information Responses that may identify residual effects of the Project on valued components such as air quality or terrestrial vegetation.

CN Response:

Further to the cumulative effects assessment provided in EIS Section 6.6.1 (pages 264 to 289), please see below for supplemental discussion of the cumulative effects of the Project in combination with the effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable physical activities for each of the Valued Components (VCs) identified in the EIS, as well as additional consideration for air quality, surface water, groundwater and terrestrial landscape.


File No. 160960844 28

Fish and Fish Habitat

Residual cumulative effects on fish and fish habitat were evaluated for a change of fish mortality as a result of the Project in combination with other planned projects in the area (EIS Section 6.6.1.1, page 264 to 269). Table 6.44 (EIS Section 6.6.1.1.3, page 268) provides a summary of the cumulative environmental effects on fish and fish habitat for the CN Project.

Past and present projects and activities in the Regional Assessment Area (RAA) listed in Table 6.43 (EIS Section 6.6.1.1.1, page 265) have acted cumulatively on fish mortality. Urbanization in the Town of Milton over the past several hundred years, as well as industrial development and agricultural conversion, has resulted in the realignment and channelization of watercourses, increased sedimentation in Indian Creek and its tributaries and affected water and sediment quality of the streams. These effects, which continue in the present, have determined the current conditions for fish and fish habitat within the RAA.

The CN Project and the three future physical activities, including the Boyne Planning District, the Britannia Road Transportation Corridor Improvements and the Union Gas Hamilton-Milton Project, listed in the assessment will continue to have the ability to contribute cumulatively to fish mortality. However, the implementation of mitigation measures, best management practices and working outside of the restricted activity period (RAP), as presented in the EIS (Section 6.5.1.9.4, page 193 to 184, and Chapter 7, Table 7.1, page 311 to 320), are expected to reduce the potential interaction between fish and construction equipment or from deleterious materials entering the watercourses. Any increase in fish mortality is expected to be limited and short-term in duration (i.e., during construction phase only).

All future projects developed in the RAA will be required to protect and minimize potential effects on fish and fish habitat in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. Development within the Boyne Secondary Plan Area identifies protection of the upper reaches of Tributary A, implementation of erosion and sediment control measures and provision SWM for water quality control. Similar protection measures are proposed for the future widening of Britannia Road and anticipated during construction of the Union Gas project. Culvert replacements along Britannia Road are subject to similar mitigation measures and timing windows as those proposed for the CN Project. These measures avoid in-water work at times when fish are most sensitive (i.e., reproduction), will preserve fish habitat, will maintain water flows and minimize potential introduction of deleterious substances into waters frequented by fish.

CN’s proposed naturalization of Indian Creek and portions of Tributary A (including removal of the on-line pond, as recommended by Conservation Halton in the 2002 Bronte Creek Watershed Study) would have a positive effect on the quality of the water in Indian Creek and tributaries and would therefore contribute to the protection of fish. Future physical activities, as defined above and in the EIS (Section 6.6.1.1.1, Table 6.43, page 265) within the RAA would be expected to follow the guidance provided in the Bronte Creek Watershed Study (2002), Boyne Survey Secondary Plan (Town of Milton, 2015) and associated compensation plans (AMEC, 2013), and therefore are not expected to increase mortality risk.


File No. 160960844 29

The productivity and sustainability of a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal (CRA) fishery has been used to determine whether the resulting cumulative effects of the CN Project on fish mortality, in combination with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the RAA, will be affected. Indian Creek and portions of Tributary A were determined to support a CRA fishery within the Project Development Area (PDA). As the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects overlap either one or both of these features in the RAA, the productivity and sustainability of a CRA fishery would be an appropriate marker for cumulative effects. Based on current conditions of the Indian Creek and tributaries in the RAA, as described in the Fish and Fish Habitat TDR (EIS Appendix E.4), the short-term duration of expected project-activity interactions for all future projects (including the CN Project, see EIS Section 6.6.1.1.3, Table 6.44, page 268), and through the implementation of mitigation measures, best management practices and RAPs, total cumulative effects on fish mortality in the RAA from the CN Project in combination with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects would not reduce the productivity or sustainability of a CRA fishery and are assessed to be not significant.

Migratory Birds

Residual cumulative effects on migratory birds were evaluated for direct migratory bird mortality, change in migratory birds use of the area and sensory disturbance (EIS Section 6.6.1.2, page 269 to 276). Table 6.46 (EIS Section 6.6.1.2.5, page 275) provides a summary of the cumulative environmental effects on migratory birds for the CN Project.

Similar to fish and fish habitat, agricultural practices and urbanization in the Town of Milton (including residential and commercial) over the past several hundred years have resulted in an increase in human population. Development within the RAA is guided by regional and municipal planning documents, which follow from the Province’s Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006 (Ministry of Infrastructure, 2013). To accommodate growth, the conversion of agricultural lands to residential, commercial and industrial uses have resulted in removal of natural vegetation communities and habitat for migratory birds, increased interactions with vehicles and equipment, houses and domestic animals, and light pollution influencing bird behavior. These effects persist in the present and have determined the current conditions for migratory birds within the RAA.

The CN Project and those projects listed in Table 6.45 (EIS Section 6.6.1.2.1, page 271) will have the ability to contribute cumulatively to direct migratory bird mortality, change in migratory birds use of the area and sensory disturbance. However, through proper mitigation strategies, best management practices and RAPs for clearing of vegetation (i.e., migratory bird habitat), interactions between migratory birds, the CN Project and the listed reasonably foreseeable future projects will be limited. Migratory bird habitat in natural heritage features, such as woodlands wetlands identified through municipal development plans (Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 38 [ROPA 38]), and provincially designated natural features (e.g., Trafalgar Moraine Provincially Significant Earth Science ANSI, Greenbelt Protected Countryside Area) are not affected (i.e., will be retained) by any of the present or reasonably foreseeable future projects.


File No. 160960844 30

Habitat for migratory birds within the RAA, as described in EIS Section 6.3.6 (page 144 to 147), include woodlands, grassland and wetlands, which are common in agricultural settings. The use of agricultural fields by migratory birds varies by year depending on the crop rotations, and species are accustomed to such changes. As noted in EIS Section 6.6.1.2.3 (page 273), the cumulative loss of terrestrial habitat is restricted to the residential development of the Boyne Planning District (934 hectares [ha]) and the loss or alteration of approximately 54.6 ha of terrestrial habitat within the PDA, which includes 50.9 ha of grassland habitat (i.e., hayfields, cultural meadows) and 3.7 ha of wetland habitat. This loss of habitat may displace some migratory bird species into habitat outside the PDA and the Boyne Survey development footprint, but they will still have access to suitable habitat elsewhere within the Local Assessment Area (LAA) and RAA. For the Project’s contribution to this loss, CN will be restoring or naturalizing 11.7 ha of land adjacent to Tributary A and Indian Creek (EIS Appendix B, Figure 4), which are anticipated to be used by migratory birds, and will be establishing 40.7 ha of Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark habitat to offset the loss of similar habitat within the PDA.

Through the reduction of habitat in the PDA, the opportunity for incidents of direct migratory bird mortality decreases. This is also true in other developed areas within the RAA or areas that will become developed in the future. Once vegetation is removed from an area, the area becomes less suitable for the birds, which will temporarily or permanently displace some migratory bird residences into habitat outside of the PDA and footprint of future projects, which limits the potential opportunities for interactions between vehicles and birds. During operations of the Project and once the residential development areas of the Boyne Planning District are completed, it is expected that the interactions with migratory birds will decrease as there will be limited habitat to attract the birds to the area. Within the residential developments, migratory birds would be susceptible to domestic animal interactions (i.e., mortality by cats), however these occurrences would be seasonal based on migratory birds in the area. Cumulative mortality resulting from the Project as well as future reasonably foreseeable projects in the RAA, are not anticipated to contribute to a decline of the migratory bird population such that it would be measurable.

Effects from indirect noise sensory disturbance are expected to be low in magnitude and reversible, even with the increase of construction noise from the Boyne Planning District and the CN Project. Background (ambient) noise levels already range between 68-74 dB in the grassland and woodland habitats within the LAA, similar to noise levels expected from the cumulative construction and operation of the identified future projects (see EIS Appendix E.9). Artificial lighting used in residential areas and at the CN Project site may act cumulatively. Nocturnal migratory birds, the group most affected by artificial lighting, are unlikely to occur within the RAA based on the absence of suitable habitat and surrounding attractants. However, mitigation through downward projected lights with limited light spill will be used to address this potential impact.

The sustainability of migratory bird populations that could be found within the RAA has been used to determine whether the resulting cumulative effects of the CN Project in combination with the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the RAA will be affected. Based on current conditions in the RAA, as described in the Terrestrial TDR (EIS Appendix E.16)


File No. 160960844 31

and response to IR20 provided May 18, 2016, the extent of expected project-activity interactions for all future projects (including the CN Project, see EIS Section 6.6.1.2.5, Table 6.46, page 275), and through the implementation of mitigation measures, best management practices and RAPs, total cumulative effects from direct migratory bird mortality, habitat loss and sensory disturbance in the RAA from the CN Project in combination with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects would not reduce the sustainability of migratory bird populations or use of the RAA and are evaluated to be not significant.

Species at Risk

Residual cumulative effects on Species at Risk (SAR) were evaluated for direct mortality on SAR and a change to critical habitat for SAR (EIS Section 6.6.1.3, Page 276 to 283). Table 6.48 (EIS Section 6.6.1.3.4, page 282) provides a summary of the cumulative environmental effects on SAR for the CN Project.

In the same manner as described above for migratory birds, and in the EIS (Section 6.6.1.3, page 276 to 283), SAR and critical habitat for SAR have been lost to agricultural conversion and the pressures of urbanization within the region and Town of Milton. The baseline conditions for the RAA are a product of change in habitat over the years through increased development and agricultural conversion from natural vegetation.

Direct mortality on SAR would be possible during construction phases for the Project through vegetation removal, site clearing (Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark), in-water works (Snapping Turtle) or through vehicular/equipment strikes (EIS Section 6.6.1.3.2, page 278). Similar threats to SAR mortality would be present for other reasonably foreseeable projects where such species and/or their habitat are present. Vehicle strikes would be expected to be infrequent based on mitigation measures, best management practices and RAPs employed and also based on the limited amounts of critical habitat or residence for SAR. Once the construction is completed on the Union Gas Hamilton-Milton Project, the habitat would be expected to return to pre-construction conditions. Development of the Boyne Planning District and CN Terminal will result in large paved areas, which will reduce the number of SAR birds (including Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark) in the area, resulting in little to no interaction between operations or residential activities and SAR. The number of Snapping Turtles in the area is not anticipated to change as a result of the Project and reasonably foreseeable future Projects, where this species remains within close proximity to Indian Creek and Tributary A. The Project includes mitigation and restoration measures to protect this species, and the future reasonably foreseeable Projects do not interact cumulatively on this species or its habitat.

The potential loss of critical habitat for SAR is limited in both the PDA and the Boyne Planning District due to the limited amount of naturally occurring critical habitat in these areas. Habitat loss or alteration was calculated cumulatively to be approximately 44.4 ha of SAR habitat, which includes 40.7 ha of Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark habitat (agricultural hay fields) and 3.7 ha of Snapping Turtle habitat (Indian Creek and Tributary A). Removing or altering this habitat may displace some SAR residences into habitat elsewhere within the RAA or outside of the RAA. For the Project’s contribution to this loss, CN will be restoring or naturalizing 11.7 ha of land adjacent to Tributary A and Indian Creek (EIS Appendix B, Figure 4), which are anticipated to be used by


File No. 160960844 32

Barn Swallows (foraging habitat) and Snapping Turtle (in addition to other species), and will be establishing 40.7 ha of Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark habitat to offset the loss of similar habitat within the PDA. Similar requirements are anticipated for any development within the RAA that would have effects on SAR habitat in accordance with applicable provincial and federal legislation, as appropriate. As such, cumulative environmental effects were rated as low in magnitude as mitigation measures will be implemented to prevent changes from affecting species populations.

Cumulative effects for SAR from increased sensory disturbance due to an increase in the frequency of construction traffic and intensity and duration of lighting at the Terminal and in the Boyne Planning District would be the same as discussed in the migratory bird cumulative effects discussion above. SAR in the RAA are currently exposed to elevated levels of noise, and the increase in noise levels based on the cumulative construction activities associated with the Project and Boyne Planning District, are expected to be low in magnitude and short in duration.

Total cumulative environmental effects on SAR based on activities from the Project and from the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects have been predicted to be not significant. This is based on the above evaluation of the rare occurrence of direct mortality of SAR, no net loss of habitat in the RAA and the change in sensory disturbance to be similar to baseline conditions.

Socio-Economic Conditions

Residual cumulative effects on Socio-Economic Conditions were evaluated on the change in the quality and quantity of land and resource use (EIS Section 6.6.1.5, Page 284 to 289). Table 6.50 (EIS Section 6.6.1.5.3, page 288) provides a summary of the cumulative environmental effects on socio-economic conditions for the CN Project.

Growth in the RAA has been controlled through municipal and regional plans developed or overseen by Halton Region. As part of Halton Region Official Plan, and in accordance with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006 (Ministry of Infrastructure, 2013), agricultural land within the RAA has been identified for development (Halton Region, 2014). As the need for growth continues, areas designated for expansion that are currently used as agricultural land will be converted. The Boyne Survey Secondary Plan Area is anticipated to result in the conversion of 3% of the agricultural land within Halton Region (Town of Milton, n.d.). The CN project will result in the loss of 30 ha of planned Agricultural Area (as per the Halton Region Official Plan [Halton Region, 2014a]) that overlaps the PDA, which represents approximately 0.1 % of the total planned Agricultural Areas in the RAA. When considered cumulatively, the total area of land affected is still only 3% of the land available in the RAA. Further, both the Project and the Boyne Survey Secondary Plan Area are set to occur within areas designated for urban growth and future development by the Town of Milton, Region of Halton and the Province.

Viewscapes are a dynamic feature of land and resource use. As a result, the continued development of lands will result in ongoing changes. Buildings and infrastructure will alter landscape views as rural areas continue to be developed. Mitigation measures to reduce the effects of a change in viewscapes will be incorporated into the final landscaping design of the


File No. 160960844 33

CN Project Terminal and within the Boyne Planning District. Restoration and naturalization areas are being incorporated into the Project, as outlined in the EIS (Appendix B, Figure 4) will improve the viewscape within the footprint and RAA.

The loss of natural vegetation to agriculture and the loss of agricultural resources to urbanization through past and present projects will continue in the future as growth in the RAA continues. Planned growth in the area will be managed by the Town of Milton and Halton Region in accordance with provincial plans. As the reasonably foreseeable future growth is being restricted to areas within designated development areas, the change in land use has been accounted for.

From a site development perspective, a positive cumulative effect is predicted as the Project will complement existing infrastructure and improve economic opportunities for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) and Canadian economy. This positive cumulative effect can be maximized with communication between the Town of Milton and other stakeholders (e.g., CN, regional planners) during Project planning and implementation to successfully service the economic needs of the community. Similar opportunities would be anticipated through development of the Boyne Planning District and future development of the employment designated lands.

With respect to the quality of the viewscape being changed, through the use of berms and strategic site layout, CN is limiting the adverse view that will be experienced by resource users (e.g., cyclists). As the Project will be one of the first to be developed in the RAA, the cumulative effect will increase as the development increases and infrastructure is built up. The overall cumulative effects will be adverse, low in magnitude and irreversible.

With proper mitigation, restoration and development completed in a manner to restrict the disturbance to the PDA and footprint of reasonably foreseeable future projects, the total cumulative environmental effects of the Project in combination with the effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable physical activities on the quality and quantity of land and resource use are predicted to be not significant.

Air Quality

An assessment of the cumulative effects on air quality as a result of the Project in combination with other future reasonably foreseeable projects in the area has been provided in response to IR13 above (see Attachment IR13-2). Based on this assessment, the Project’s contribution to cumulative changes in air quality is predicted to be not significant. While local air emission increases are predicted, the cumulative air quality effects of the change in air quality attributable to the Project are considered low and dissipate throughout the RAA, with the highest concentrations observed near the Terminal. The project itself promotes a modal change in transportation that will reduce the future number of long haul trucks on area highways, thereby reducing vehicle related emissions.

The cumulative air quality effect from the Project in combination with reasonably foreseeable future projects and activities is predicted to be below each respective criteria for all COPCs,


File No. 160960844 34

except B(a)P and benzene. The exceedances are largely reflective of the fact that ambient air quality currently exceeds these criteria under baseline conditions and will continue to exceed the criteria as a result of planned urban developments and corresponding traffic increases, with or without the Project.

Surface Water

Effects on surface water are assessed based on changes to hydrology, surface water quality and sediment quality conditions as described in the Hydrology TDR (EIS Appendix E.15). A characterization of the residual effects of the Project is presented in Section 6.4 of EIS Appendix E.15 and summarized in EIS Section 6.4.2 (pages 163 to 164).

Increased impervious surface cover, will result in slight reductions in infiltration and evapotranspiration and an increase in water surplus and surface run-off within the PDA (Appendix E.15, Section 6.2.1.1, page 69). These effects are consistent with anticipated changes resulting from the conversion of agricultural lands to an urban use. Similar effects have occurred as a result of past and present projects in the RAA, and the potential for such effects are similarly anticipated through reasonably foreseeable future projects, such as the Boyne Survey. However, through the implementation of stormwater management (SWM) measures designed to promote infiltration, and as a result of the low permeability of existing soils, the estimated decrease in infiltration is expected to be limited through the use of infiltration improvement features (i.e. grassed swales, pervious pavement, SWM ponds). Further, increases in surface water runoff will be controlled through SWM ponds designed to match pre-development conditions such that there will be no increase in direct surface run-off to Tributary A and Indian Creek. Assuming reasonably foreseeable future projects are designed to meet similar standards, cumulative effects on surface water quantity will be negligible (i.e., with detectable effects that are within the normal variability of baseline conditions).

There are expected localized, positive changes to surface water and sediment quality with respect to sediment, nutrient, metal and hydrocarbon in-stream and sediment concentrations within Tributary A and Indian Creek (EIS Appendix E.15). Sediment loading, which is identified as a constraint to water quality within the Indian Creek watershed, will be reduced through the implementation of SWM controls for the Project and are anticipated for reasonably foreseeable future projects. Mitigation of potential effects in the form of SWM measures designed in accordance with provincial SWM standards (per MOECC, 2003) and the Bronte Creek Watershed Study (2002) are proposed for the Project and presumed for future reasonably foreseeable projects. Further benefits to water quality (i.e., shading, channel stabilization) will result from the proposed restoration and naturalization or riparian areas along Tributary A and Indian Creek, with the similar establishment of natural areas proposed along Tributary A in the Boyne Survey. As such, positive, localized residual effects are expected within the RAA.

As a result, based on the characterization of surface water within the RAA presented in the Channel Realignment TDR (EIS Appendix E.2) and Hydrological TDR (EIS Appendix E.15), as well as through the implementation of water quality and quantity controls to minimize potential effects, the total cumulative effects of the Project in combination with the effects of past,


File No. 160960844 35

present and reasonably foreseeable physical activities on surface water are predicted to be not significant.

Groundwater

Effects on groundwater are assessed based on changes to groundwater recharge, groundwater flow and groundwater quality, as described in the Hydrogeology TDR (EIS Appendix E.6). A characterization of the potential effects of the Project is presented in Section 6.2 of EIS Appendix E.15 and summarized in EIS Section 6.4.2 (pages 164 to 165).

The RAA is generally characterized by tight soils with low groundwater recharge potential. Other areas within the regional groundwater system are more important for sustaining the recharge function of the regional groundwater system (EIS Appendix E.6, Section 5.1, page, 24). The Project and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the RAA are anticipated to increase impervious cover within the RAA (i.e., roads, paved surfaces, buildings, etc.). However, as noted above, through the implementation of SWM measures designed to promote infiltration and a result of the low permeability of existing soils, the residual effect of the reduced recharge is expected to be low in magnitude.

Interactions between the surface water and groundwater systems are limited within the RAA, as evidenced by the warmwater conditions within Indian Creek. Groundwater discharge to surface water features within the RAA, including Indian Creek and its tributaries, are limited and in some cases insufficient to maintain permanent flow year round (Conservation Halton, 2002). Sections of Indian Creek are considered losing streams, where surface water recharges the underlying groundwater system (Hydrogeological TDR - EIS Appendix E.4, Section 5.2, page 24).

Given the conditions described above, specifically the low soil permeability and increased imperviousness resulting from the Project and reasonably foreseeable future projects, changes to groundwater quality are not anticipated.

As a result, based on the characterization of groundwater within the RAA presented in the Hydrogeological TDR (EIS Appendix E.6), as well as through the implementation of SWM measures and spill prevention and containment, the total cumulative effects of the Project in combination with the effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable physical activities on groundwater are predicted to be not significant.

Terrestrial Landscape

Cumulative effects on the terrestrial landscape would result from a change in species/ community diversity based on the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects as evaluated on the RAA. The RAA for terrestrial landscape is described in EIS Appendix E.16 (page 7). Change in species/community diversity are measured based on plant resources traditionally used by Aboriginal communities, occurrences and population attributes of provincially or federally listed plant species at risk, occurrence and population attributes of non-native invasive plant species or changes in moisture regimes for rare plants.


File No. 160960844 36

Land cover in the RAA is comprised of agricultural land which mainly consists of row crops and some fields used to grow hay, woodlands and wetlands. Properties owned by CN are currently leased to local farmers and residents. The ground surface cover across the Project site is composed largely of farm fields, sparse hedgerows and drainage features including Indian Creek and its tributaries. There are a few residences fronting First Line, Tremaine Road and Lower Base Line which include landscaped grass and hard cover (driveways, walkways and similar). The reasonably foreseeable future cumulative loss of terrestrial habitat is restricted to the removal of agricultural fields for residential development of the Boyne Planning District (approx. 320 ha within the RAA) and the loss or alteration of approximately 54.6 ha of terrestrial habitat within the PDA, which includes 50.9 ha of grassland habitat (i.e., hayfields, cultural meadows) and 3.7 ha of wetland habitat. As noted in response to IR18 above, there are approximately 4 ha of natural vegetation (i.e., wetland and woodland) within the PDA, which represents 3.8% of the natural vegetation within the RAA. As part of the Project, CN is proposing to restore and naturalize approximately 11.7 ha of land adjacent to Indian Creek and Tributary A, which will provide natural vegetation communities within the valley and floodplain of these tributaries. Further, plans for the Boyne Planning District identify the establishment of natural buffers adjacent to the upper reaches of Tributary A, which covers approximately 47.5 ha. As such, through the proposed retention of natural features and restoration and naturalization of areas adjacent to Indian Creek and Tributary A, it is anticipated that the Project in combination with the reasonably foreseeable future projects, will result in an increase of 59.2 ha of natural vegetation within the RAA, as well as additional 40.7 ha of hay and meadow managed for grassland SAR either within or in close proximity to the RAA.

There are currently no traditional plant resources within the terrestrial RAA being used for Aboriginal communities, as discussed in the EIS (Section 6.2.2, Table 6.1, page 117). SAR potentially found within the RAA included Butternut and Eastern Flowering Dogwood, however, both these SAR occur in woodlands or hedgerows, which will not be removed or altered by either the Project or the Boyne Planning District. Non-native or invasive plant regimes are not anticipated to occur within the RAA based on either the Project or Boyne Planning District, as mitigation measures will be in place to prevent such events. The moisture regime within the wetlands currently within the PDA, LAA and in turn the RAA will be retained and restored, creating additional opportunities for an increase in terrestrial landscape vegetation.

Planned changes in the RAA to the terrestrial landscape have also been evaluated based on the Socio-Economic environmental effects, as described above and in the EIS (Section 6.5.5, page 231 to 245, and Section 6.6.1.5, page 284 to 289). Therefore, based on the described limited changes for terrestrial landscape within the RAA, the total cumulative effects of all projects and activities from the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future have been evaluated to be not significant.

References

AMEC. 2013b. Milton Urban Expansion Conceptual Fisheries Compensation Plan, Boyne Survey Area “Milton Phase 3”, Final Draft (March 2013).

Conservation Halton. 2002. Bronte Creek Watershed Study. Conservation Halton. 89 pp.


File No. 160960844 37

Town of Milton. n.d. Boyne Survey Secondary Plan. Last accessed July 8, 2015. Available online at: https://www.milton.ca/en/townhall/boynesurvey.asp.

Ministry of Infrastructure. 2013. Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2006. Office Consolidation, June 2013. www.placestogrow.ca.


ATTACHMENT IR6-2 – UPDATED SITE SELECTION ALTERNATIVES ADDENDUM

Attachment IR6-2 – Updated Site Selection Alternatives Addendum


Page 1 of 6

Revised Table 2 - Alternative Site Location Comparison – Potential Effects, Mitigation and Residual Effects on Valued Components

Criteria Brampton North South Milton Discussion Mitigation Residual Effects

1. Fish and Fish Habitat Preferred: South Milton

a. Number of potential watercourse crossings 26 10 South Milton

• Fewer number of potential watercourse crossings. Larger permanently flowing watercourse present within Assessment Area (Indian Creek classified as a warmwater watercourse), as well as smaller tributaries. This site includes three watercourses that support fish or fish habitat for warmwater fish species.

• Less potential stream length in the construction area, leading to reduced potential interaction with fish and fish habitat.

• The realignment of a larger waterbody has the potential for a greater magnitude of effects; however, Indian Creek is the most degraded tributary in the Bronte Creek watershed (Conservation Halton, 2002). This provides greater opportunities for enhancement.

Brampton North • Greater number of small yet sensitive tributaries of

the Credit River within the Assessment Area potentially affected. Tributaries of the Credit River run directly through the proposed site, providing potential habitat for a wider range of species suited to the different thermal regimes (Cold and warm water).

• Opportunities to avoid watercourses may be feasible, but not likely avoidable. This may result in the need for channel realignment, and/or partial enclosures of habitats considered more sensitive to change than at South Milton.

Potential environmental effects for both sites could include: • Change in fish habitat, riparian and in-water habitat

availability. • Change in fish movement, migration and fish

passage, including flow rates or obstructions. • Change in fish mortality, including direct mortality

risk. • Change in water quality, including water quality

parameters and sediment load and quality. Site specific potential environmental effects : South Milton • Greater interaction with fish habitat due to

realignment of Indian Creek, although removal of on-line pond and restoration / naturalization

Mitigation measures applicable at both sites could include: • Potential presence and location of

watercourses would be subject to site investigation.

• Standard mitigation considered for either location, where necessary (e.g., timing windows for in-water work, erosion and sediment controls, etc.).

Site-specific mitigation measures could include: South Milton • Realignment and reconstruction of Tributary A

and Indian Creek at South Milton and incorporation of habitat offsetting is in line with recommendations from the Bronte Creek Watershed Study (Conservation Halton, 2002).

Brampton North • Additional mitigation presumed necessary to

avoid and protect Redside Dace habitat at Brampton North (see below).

• Greater number of watercourses cross the Brampton North site, so opportunities to avoid or minimize removal of riparian vegetation are considered minimal. Channel realignment and partial enclosures would likely be required to accommodate a project at this site.

• A site with fewer potentially effected features (South Milton) is lower risk from an environmental perspective than a site with more of the features (Brampton North), as potential interactions between the Project and these features are reduced.

• The adverse residual environmental effects from a logistics hub are limited to a change in fish mortality once mitigation and offsets have been implemented. The change in fish mortality risk is low considering the risk only occurs during construction, and in water construction is only occurring outside of the restricted activity period.

• Mitigation and offsets identified through the completion of the EIS demonstrate that there will be no significant adverse residual effects on Fish and Fish Habitat for South Milton.

• Similar mitigation would be anticipated for Brampton North.

b. Total stream length 19.7 km 15.1 km

Attachment IR6-2 – Updated Site Selection Study Alternatives Addendum


Page 2 of 6

Criteria Brampton North South Milton Discussion Mitigation Residual Effects provides benefits to improve Indian Creek in accordance with the Bronte Creek Watershed Study (Conservation Halton, 2002).

Brampton North • Greater potential to adversely affect fish habitat

through potential channel realignments and/or partial enclosures due to the cold water nature and sensitivity of tributaries of Credit River.

2. Migratory Birds Preferred: No Preference

a. Number of wetlands 2 2 • Similar potential for disturbance to wetland habitats, which are potentially frequented by migratory birds during various life cycles.

• Reduced potential for disturbance to woodland habitats through direct or indirect effects, including potential removal of woodland vegetation.

Potential environmental effects for both sites could include: • Change in migratory bird mortality from vehicular

strikes, collision with project infrastructure, clearing of sites, and contact with contaminated water.

• Change in migratory bird use of the area due to increased disturbance, or habitat changes.

• Sensory disturbance such as indirect effects caused by project site lighting.

• Similar potential for disturbance to agricultural fields and wetland habitats, which are potentially frequented by migratory birds during various life cycles.

Site specific potential environmental effects : South Milton • Sited to avoid woodland removal, but would require

wetland alteration and enhancement. Brampton North • Pockets of unevaluated wetlands and woodlands

located to the north and south of the mainline. Opportunities to avoid encroachment on wetlands and woodlands at Brampton North may be feasible at some locations, but not avoidable to accommodate the footprint of the facility.

A site with a smaller area of potentially effected features (South Milton) is lower risk from an environmental perspective than a site with a greater area of the features (Brampton North), as potential interactions between the Project and these features are reduced.

Mitigation measures applicable at both sites could include: • Potential migratory bird use of the wetlands

and woodlots would be subject to site investigation.

• Standard mitigation considered for either location, where necessary (e.g., construction during daylight hours wherever practicable, retaining natural habitat features and vegetation wherever practicable, demarcate construction work areas, etc.).

• Residual adverse effects on migratory birds related to a logistics hub include change in direct mortality, change in use of habitat, and sensory disturbance due to attraction to Project lighting. • The Project at either site could have

adverse effects on migratory birds but all adverse effects would be considered to be low in magnitude, restricted to the regional assessment areas and would not substantially affect the local or provincial bird populations.

• The risk of migratory bird mortality during construction, including site preparation, is anticipated to be negligible with the implementation of mitigation such as timing windows and lighting.

• For both sites it is anticipated that the loss of habitat during site preparation would be offset by grassland habitat creation offsite and wetland habitat enhancements onsite, if required.

• Noise emissions during operations are estimated to be the same regardless of site and similar to baseline conditions at either site and as such expected to have a negligible effect.

• Change in bird habitat use are likely to occur from disturbance from construction and operation, but are not anticipated to reduce species diversity in either Assessment Area.

• Project residual effects are not expected to cause measurable effects to local and provincial bird populations.

• Residual effects of the Project on migratory birds are predicted to be not significant.

b. Wetland Area 5.1 ha 4.5 ha

c. Woodlot Area 134 ha directly or indirectly effected

50 ha directly or indirectly effected



Page 3 of 6


3. Species at Risk Preferred: South Milton

a. Number of SAR potentially impacted

4 5

Brampton North • NHIC records indicate potential for Bobolink

(Dolichonyx oryzivorus) [THR], Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna) [THR], Butternut (Juglans cinerea) [END], and Redside Dace (Clinostomus elongates) [END]. Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) [THR] was not identified in the NHIC review; however, as a newly listed species, occurrences of the species are currently under represented on NHIC. Given the agricultural landscape of the site, including barns and other outbuildings, Barn Swallow would be anticipated to be present.

South Milton • NHIC records indicate potential for Bobolink, Eastern

Meadowlark, Butternut, Eastern Flowering Dogwood (Cornus florida) [END], and Shortnose Cisco (Coregonus reighardi) [END]. Field surveys confirmed the absence of Eastern Flowering Dogwood and Butternut, but confirmed presence of Barn Swallow and Snapping Turtle within the project development area. Habitat for Shortnose Cisco is considered absent from the South Milton site.

Potential environmental effects for both sites could include: • Changes in direct mortality to SAR from vehicular

strikes or clearing activities. • Change in critical habitat of SAR from removal or

changes in habitat or increased disturbance effects. Site specific potential environmental effects: Brampton North • Greater potential to affect SAR through habitat

removal or effects to contributing flows (water quality, silt) to downstream reaches known to contain Redside Dace. This species is sensitive to the loss of riparian channel vegetation and sedimentation. Construction, channel realignments, culverts and other activities may result in an increase in suspended sediment introduced to downstream watercourses and removal of habitat / riparian vegetation along watercourses supporting or contributing to Redside Dace habitat.

Mitigation measures applicable at both sites could include: • Potential presence and location of species

would be subject to site investigation. • Standard mitigation considered for either

location, where necessary (e.g., speed limits on internal roads, avoid unnecessary vegetation clearing, etc.).

• For Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark mitigation would be proposed to avoid any affects to individuals of the species during construction (i.e. timing windows). The same mitigation measures and compensation would be in place at both sites should these SAR be present.

• Similar to South Milton, in the event barns occurred at the Brampton North site, options to avoid removal of the barn could be considered; however, where barn removal is proposed, it is anticipated Barn Swallow habitat would be compensated through the creation of suitable nesting structures.

• Protection of Snapping Turtle includes timing windows for in-water work, exclusion fencing and relocation.

Site-specific mitigation measures for Brampton North could include: • Additional mitigation presumed necessary to

avoid and protect Redside Dace habitat due to the sensitivity of this species to the loss of riparian habitat and sediment loading

• Mitigation measures would be required to ensure that appropriate erosion control and stormwater treatment (consistent with Redside Dace biological requirements).

• Compensation for the loss of habitat resulting from watercourse reaches being realigned or enclosed to avoid the project may not be possible at this site, and would require compensation elsewhere within the drainage area, confirmation of which would be subject to the Fisheries Act). As a result of the presence of an endangered species (Redside Dace), compensation efforts would likely be of larger magnitude at Brampton North than those at South Milton.

• If Butternut is present at the Brampton North site, it is anticipated that compensation measures could be put in place to avoid effects on species.

• Changes in indirect disturbances (e.g. noise) would be anticipated to be of similar magnitude at both sites and not anticipated to be significant.

• Residual adverse effects on SAR related to the Project include change in direct mortality and changes to critical habitat for some species.

• A logistics hub could have adverse effects on SAR but would be expected to be considered low in magnitude, restricted to the local assessment area and would not substantially affect the local or provincial bird populations. The risk of SAR mortality during construction, including site preparation, would be anticipated to be negligible with the implementation of mitigation such as timing windows for birds.

• Changes in residences during site preparation could be offset by Bobolink and Eastern Meadowlark habitat creation, and installation of Barn Swallow nesting structures.

• Noise emissions during operations are estimated to be similar to baseline conditions and as such expected to have a negligible effect.

• In consideration of the low magnitude of the potential project-specific effects and the mitigation measures that will be implemented, residual effects at South Milton are not expected to cause measurable effects to SAR populations.

• While the majority of residual effects of the Project on SAR at Brampton North are predicted to be not significant, there is some degree of uncertainty as to whether effects on Redside Dace could be offset, which would require further site specific information (field surveys) to confirm the extent of habitat and options for restoration / compensation offsite. Alterations to habitat along tributaries contributing to Redside Dace habitat suggest that greater level of protection due to the sensitivity of the receiving streams would be required.



Page 4 of 6


4. Socio-Economic Conditions Preferred: South Milton

a. Existing land use compatibility Low High

South Milton • Site is considered highly compatible with existing

land use, as the majority of the site is agricultural, separated from existing built up residential and in proximity to other compatible land uses (i.e., Halton Region Waste Management Site, Burlington Airpark).

• Site is considered to have greater compatibility with planned land uses, as lands to the west of existing mainline are designated for future employment within the Urban Boundary, adjacent lands east of the existing mainline are designated as future strategic employment areas, potential to maintain separation from planned residential uses (north of Britannia Road), and the Region is aware of planned rail-based development on this site and acknowledges CN’s long-range plan for an intermodal facility (as per Halton Region TMP 2011-2013).

• Site has greater potential effects on cultural heritage resources – includes 1 property designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and 23 properties listed on the Town of Milton’s Heritage List.

Brampton North • Site is considered low compatibility with existing land

use. While the majority of the site is agricultural, the site is located adjacent to an existing residential development east of Mississauga Road, with an existing school located within the site on the west side of Winston Churchill Boulevard (Norval Outdoor School), and a church located within the site east of Heritage Road (St. Elias Ukrainian Catholic Church).

• Site is considered low compatibility with future planned land uses, where the City of Brampton Official Plan has designated these lands as part of the North West Brampton Urban Development Area, which is planned as a mixed-use development that includes a range of housing types and densities and employment lands (City of Brampton 2013). This limits the land available for the proposed intermodal terminal, as well as the potential for buffering, as the entire Brampton North site is planned for such purposes.

• Site has a low potential for cultural heritage resource concerns, as within the boundaries of the site two properties were identified as being designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and two properties are listed on the City of Brampton’s municipal register.

Mitigation measures applicable at both sites could include: • Standard mitigation considered for either

location, where necessary (e.g., consultation with municipalities, regulatory agencies and the public, completion of a heritage assessment, etc.).

Site-specific mitigation measures could include: South Milton • Mitigation of potential effects to heritage

properties is feasible. Brampton North • Additional mitigation presumed necessary for

Brampton North to avoid the area of the site encroaching on existing and planned residential development, as well as the school and church within the site.

• Additional mitigation and potential effect on planned land use presumed necessary for Brampton North as the planned land use is an urban development area for a compact, complete and connected community, including residential uses, limiting land available for a Terminal.

• The presence of a terminal has the potential to alter the overall environment that provides the background for the enjoyment of the area by all recreational users for both sites, however could be managed to an acceptable level through the application of standard mitigation for acoustic and atmospheric emissions (i.e., use of berms to reduce sound effects and reduce effects on viewscapes).

• The lands in South Milton have been identified in municipal planning documents to be developed as rail-based development or future intermodal terminal, in an area designated for future employment lands near the existing landfill. However, the lands in Brampton North are not compatible with a terminal due to the future planned residential uses at this site.

• As Project specific environmental effects on heritage resources are continually mitigated to the standards established, after implementation of these mitigation measures, there would be no residual environmental effects from the Project at either site. With the application of standard mitigation measures, effects of the Project on heritage resources would be not significant.

• Based on the completion of the necessary follow-up work and mitigations, including the use of buffer zones and selective documentation and salvage, the Project-related environmental effects on cultural heritage resources for South Milton would be assessed to be neutral.

• Overall the residual environmental effects on socio-economic conditions would be predicted to be not significant at both sites.

b. Planned land use compatibility Low Moderate

c. Potential for cultural heritage resource concerns Low High



Page 5 of 6

Criteria Brampton North South Milton Discussion Mitigation Residual Effects Potential environmental effects for both sites could include: • Change in demand for community services and

infrastructure, including potential effects to traffic flow for road users.

• Change in the quantity and quality of land and resource use, such as site preparation and changes in access to the site may reduce the area available for agriculture.

• Emissions and changes in viewscapes may affect the quality of the experience of land and resource users, including recreational users (e.g., cyclists).

• Unauthorized disturbance or destruction of part or all of a heritage resource.

Site specific potential environmental effects: South Milton • Greater potential effects on cultural heritage

resources at South Milton, as the site includes 1 property designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and 23 properties listed on the Town of Milton’s Heritage List.

Brampton North • Heritage Road and Winston Churchill Boulevard run

through the Site Location, and may not be avoidable when siting Terminal infrastructure due to land requirements for the Project. Potential closure of a portion of the roads or further grade separations could result in potential effects to road users in the area.

• Greater potential to effect existing property owners at Brampton North as the properties are owned by others than CN and may not be available for consideration.

5. Aboriginal Peoples Preferred: No Preference

a. Potential for archaeology concerns High High • High potential for archaeology concerns due to

presence of watercourse (no differentiation between sites).

• The same Aboriginal communities would have been identified for consultation (no differentiation between sites).

Potential environmental effects for both sites could include: • Unauthorized disturbance or destruction of part or

all of an archaeological site or sites, such as removal or disturbance of artifact or archaeological site through site preparation and clearing or surface/subsurface disturbance.

Mitigation measures applicable at both sites could include: • A Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment

would be completed for each site to determine archaeological potential.

• Standard mitigation measures for archaeological finds would be expected for both sites, no differentiation.

• Consultation and engagement of Aboriginal communities would be required for each site throughout the life of the project.

• The objective of the mitigation would be to limit the loss of archaeological resources or site integrity due to Project-related activities. The best and regulator preferred mitigation option is avoidance and protection of the resource(s). This can occur through Project redesign,

• As project specific environmental effects on archaeological resources are continually mitigated to the standards set by the regulatory agency, after implementation of the mitigation measures, there will be no residual environmental effects anticipated at either site.

• Through the completion of any necessary follow-up work and mitigations, including Stage 3 and, if necessary, Stage 4, potential environmental effects on archaeological resources would be anticipated to be Neutral at either site.

• In addition, the accumulation of new knowledge at either site could be considered a Positive change.

• At either site, through the provision of appropriate mitigations for expected or

b. Identified Aboriginal communities 4 4



Page 6 of 6

Criteria Brampton North South Milton Discussion Mitigation Residual Effects excluding the archaeological site area from the Project, or incorporating the area of the archaeological site into the Project location but without alteration. Any of these avoidance options would also require the installation of a protective barrier around the site and a buffer zone.

• If avoidance and protection of archaeological resources is not feasible then controlled salvage excavations (Stage 3 and 4 as appropriate) of the archaeological resources, or parts thereof as applicable, will be required. These salvage excavations will be based on the requirements as outlined in the MTCS Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists Sections 4.1.6, 4.2 and 4.23.

• In addition, key construction staff would be trained in the recognition of basic archaeological artifacts such as Aboriginal material culture (e.g., clay ceramics, lithic artifacts, and faunal remains), and Euro-Canadian material culture (e.g., refined ceramics, glassware, construction debris, and personal effects) in case any archaeological resources are found during Project construction.

• Although it is not anticipated that human remains will be found, if a discovery is made, CN will stop work immediately and contact the police or coroner, registrar or Deputy Registrar of the Cemeteries Regulation Section of the Ontario Ministry of Government and Consumer Services, as well as the Archaeology Programs Unit.

potential effects, the residual environmental effects of the Project on archaeological resources would be considered to be not significant.

References Conservation Halton. 2002. Bronte Creek Watershed Study. Conservation Halton. 89 pp.


ATTACHMENT IR9-2 – EXCERPT OF SECTION 2.2 FROM THE 2011 STANDARDS

AND GUIDELINES FOR CONSULTANT ARCHAEOLOGISTS

2.1.9 Property su1·vey of undisturbed forest floors

Test pit excavation can be difficult or impossible in undisturbed forest floors that exhibit shallow soil

horizons. In these conditions, archaeological resources are often visible to surface inspection only once

vegetation is cleared. This method may be used at the discretion of the licensed archaeologist in either

Stage 2 or 3, as appropriate.

Sta11dards Guidelines

1. Cany out surface inspection of the forest floor in addition to test pit survey, as appropriate.

2. If soil horizons are absent or very thin, conduct a surface inspection of the forest floor as an alternative to a test pit survey.

3. When clearing vegetation for surface inspection:

a. Use a soft-toothed leaf rake.

b. Clear areas at least 2 m in diameter, spaced at no more than 5 m intervals between the centres of cleared areas.

c. When live vegetation cover is dense, augment raking with close ("hands and knees") visual inspections.

d. When archaeological resources are found, clear a 1 0 m

square centred on the positive cleared area. If positive cleared areas continue beyond this area, resume dearing 2 m areas at 5 m intervals, noting where the positive cleared areas end.

2.2 Analysis: Determining the requirement for Stage 3 assessment

Archaeological resources must have cultural heritage value or interest to meet the definitions of "artifact"

and "archaeological site" under the Ontario Heritage Act. Archaeological resources meeting the criteria set

out below indicate archaeological resources that meet these definitions and require Stage 3 assessment.

Archaeological resources that do not meet these criteria either do not have cultural heritage value or interest,

or their cultural heritage value or interest has been sufficiently assessed and documented in Stage 2.

2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists I 39

When determining whether archaeological sites require Stage 3 assessment, bear in mind that Aboriginal communities

may have an interest in the identification of all Aboriginal archaeological sites that may be affected. Where a consultant

archaeologist assesses an Aboriginal archaeological site as meeting the criteria for Stage 3 and as clearly having

cultural heritage value or interest. with a high potential to go to Stage 4, informing interested Aboriginal communities

at the end of Stage 2 is a recommended first step toward preparing for their engagement in Stage 3. Early engagement

with relevant Aboriginal communities is strongly recommended. For more information, see the Ministry of Tourism

and Culture's draft bulletin on Engaging Aboriginal Communities in Archaeology.

Standards

1. Artifacts, groups of artifacts or archaeological sites meeting the following criteria require Stage 3 assessment

a. pre-contact diagnostic artifacts or a concentration

of artifacts (or both):

within a 10 m by 1 0 m pedestrian survey area:

Guidelines

1. The consultant archaeologist may engage with relevant Aboriginal communities to determine their interest (general or site-specific) in the Aboriginal archaeological

resources found during Stage 2 and to ensure there are no unaddressed Aboriginal archaeological interests connected with the land surveyed or sites identified.

(1) at least one diagnostic artifact or fire cracked 2. Based on professional judgment, the consultant archaeologist may recommend Stage 3 archaeological assessment for archaeological sites even if they do not meet the above criteria.

rock in addition to two or more non

diagnostic artifacts

{2) in areas east or north of the Niagara Escarpment

at least five non-diagnostic artifacts

{3) in areas on or west of the Niagara Escarpment

at least 1 0 non-diagnostic artifacts

ii. within a 10 m by 10 m test pit survey area:

{1) at least one diagnostic artifact from combined

test pit and test unit excavations

(2) at least five non-diagnostic artifacts from

combined test pit and test unit excavations

b. single examples of artifacts of special interest

i. Aboriginal ceramics

ii. exotic or period-specific cherts

iii. an isolated Paleo-Indian or Early Archaic

diagnostic artifact

40 j Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists 2011

3. Using professional judgment the consultant archaeologist may determine on a case-by-case basis whether concentrations of five to nine non-diagnostic artifacts found in areas on or west of the Niagara Escarpment require Stage 3.

4. Where a cemetery or an archaeological site with cultural heritage or interest is known to be located immediately adjacent to the limits of the property that has been surveyed, Stage 3 assessment to confirm whether that cemetery or archaeological site extends into the property under assessment may be recommended. The Stage 3 archaeological assessment may be recommended regardless of whether artifacts were recovered by the Stage 2 survey in the part of the subject property adjacent to that cemetery or archaeological site.

Standards

c. post-contact archaeological sites containing at least

20 artifacts that date the period of use to before

1900. (Further guidance for evaluating the potential

cultural heritage value or interest of post-1830

Euro-Canadian domestic sites is provided in 3 Stage

3: Site-Specific Assessment)

d. twentieth century archaeological sites, where

background documentation or archaeological

features indicate possible cultural heritage value

or interest

e. the presence of human remains

Related sections

1 Stage 1: Background Study and Optional Property Inspection

3 Stage 3: Site-specific Assessment

5 Using the Global Positioning System (GPS)

7.8 Project reports: Stage 2

2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists I 41


ATTACHMENT IR13-2 – CUMULATIVE AIR QUALITY EFFECTS ASSESSMENT

ATTACHMENT IR13-2 CUMULATIVE AIR QUALITY EFFECTS ASSESSMENT


Page 1 of 6

Introduction

In response to IR13, the following analysis provides an assessment of the cumulative air quality effects of the Project in combination with air quality effects from past, present and reasonably foreseeable future physical activities, including the increase in truck traffic in the RAA.

Baseline Air Quality

Air quality within Halton Region is similar to other urban environments within Canada. Emissions primarily from transportation, industrial fossil fuel combustion, as well as residential and commercial heating sources contribute to ambient air quality conditions (Region of Halton, 2011). While existing ambient levels of NO2, CO, SO2 and PM2.5 are all below relevant federal and provincial air quality standards, airborne benzene and B(a)P concentrations above applicable relevant criteria is a common province-wide concern in Ontario, with exceedances of both contaminants routinely observed in the published background data (Air TDR, EIS Appendix E.1, Section 9, page 94 to 95). These degraded background conditions exist today.

Approach

To assess cumulative air quality effects of the Project in combination with reasonably foreseeable future activities, an air quality assessment has been prepared that includes emissions from existing activities (i.e., published ambient air quality data), future emissions from on-site Project sources (i.e., Air Quality TDR - EIS Appendix E.1), truck movements associated with the Project (i.e., up to 800 trucks per day each way) and a forecast of road traffic increases resulting from urban developments in the area and planned roadway improvements for the planning years 2021 and 2031 within the RAA.

In response to IR25 dated May 18, 2016, a revised Table 6.2 was provided to identify reasonably foreseeable future physical activities, including various road developments / upgrade projects, and proposed urban developments planned within the RAA. Each of these activities is anticipated to result in increased traffic, which will result in some increased air emissions in the area.

Predicted future air emissions were determined based on predicted emissions that would be generated from increases in traffic associated with these future projects, as well as the future Project operation. To assist in this process, the BA Group developed a set of forecasts of peak hour traffic volumes on the relevant Regional arterial roads for the planning years 2021 and 2031 (Attachment A). The forecasts considered:

• Improvements to the Regional road systems;

• Heavy truck traffic servicing the Project site; and

• Expected traffic growth as a result of other new urban development.



Page 2 of 6

This information was used as input to the assessment of cumulative air quality effects associated with the Project in combination with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects.

Methods

Unlike other jurisdictions in Canada, a regional airshed model that can assess cumulative air quality effects is not available for Ontario. Specific air emission studies from future projects and activities, such as urban developments or road expansions, are not required under Provincial legislation and therefore details relating to air quality changes are not available. To approximate that assessment, traffic emission and air dispersion models were used to predict the future emissions that would act cumulatively with the emissions from the Project, and the effect of such cumulative emissions on area receptors.

Regional Assessment Area

The RAA for the cumulative environmental effects assessment for air quality was selected based on the suitable Regional arterial roadways and available traffic data that lead to the PDA from the surrounding 400 series highways, which represent the arterial roadways most likely to be travelled by trucks accessing the proposed Terminal. This was determined appropriate for the analysis as the RAA includes reasonable route alternatives that would be used to reach 400-series highways.

Roadways within the RAA include various alternative routes between the proposed Terminal location and surrounding 400-series highways, which includes Regional arterial roadways that have been identified as network connections or infrastructure improvements for future traffic (as planned to 2031). In addition to those projects listed in the Revised Table 6.2 (dated May 18, 2016), the planned Highway 401 interchange at Tremaine Road has been included in this assessment as it is anticipated to influence future local traffic patterns.

Traffic Projections

To determine where Project effects may act cumulatively with other emissions within the RAA, a total of 166 roadway segments within the RAA were considered for the cumulative effects. These roadway segments included the traffic routes identified in the EIS as those anticipated to experience a noticeable or considerable change during weekday AM or PM peak periods after the CN terminal is in operation (Traffic TDR, EIS Appendix E.17, Figure 11), as well as additional representative routes likely to be used by CN-related truck traffic. These routes are identified on Figure IR13-1 (Attachment B).

On a standard arterial road, a ‘noticeable change’ in traffic conditions is considered where 10 to 20 additional heavy-truck movements occur per direction per hour, while a ‘considerable change’ is considered where greater than 20 additional heavy-truck movements occur per direction per hour (Traffic TDR, EIS Appendix E.17, Section 7, page 23).



Page 3 of 6

Subsequent to the filing of the EIS, the traffic volume forecasts were assembled from various sources. In the absence of access to a current version of the Region’s transportation planning model, the forecasts represent what is in BA Group’s opinion a reasonable set of volumes for the purpose of making a comparative assessment. The forecasts reflect roadway improvement plans published by the Region of Halton. The road link locations, coordinates, length, lanes and traffic volume data are provided in Attachment A.

Emissions Data

Emissions from past and present physical activities in the RAA are represented by the ambient air quality data available, including meteorological data (2010 – 2015) from the nearest met station, as described in the Air Quality TDR (EIS Appendix E.1, Section 5.3, page 25 to 26).

The Project case for the Air Quality TDR (EIS Appendix E.1) was considered only for emissions within the PDA, including the site-specific daily traffic. As requested to be part of this IR, contributions from the proposed increase in truck traffic within the RAA associated with the Project have also been determined, based on up to 800 trucks per day each way entering and exiting the proposed Terminal (modelled as 1,600 separate movements). This updated Project emissions data is summarized in Table 1 (Attachment C).

Two scenarios were chosen to represent the future increases in traffic related emissions, based on predicted traffic data for 2021 and for 2031. The predicted traffic volumes along the identified 166 roadway segments within the RAA account for increased traffic from future urban developments and facilitated by future roadway improvements. The emissions contribution from the future developments is assumed to primarily be related to increases in residential traffic.

Consistent with the Air Quality TDR (EIS Appendix E.1), the following contaminants of potential concern (COPCs) and key VOC data collected at receptors included: Nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matters (including total PM, PM10 and PM2.5), benzene, 1,3-butadiene, acrolein, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde and benzo(a)pyrene (B(a)P). These COPCs and key VOCs are considered typical and representative contaminants from vehicle traffic (per U.S. EPA MOVES 2014).

Air quality concentrations within the RAA for the traffic emissions were derived at a total of 58 special receptors. These receptors include residential homes, farm houses and commercial buildings at selected locations along the 166 roadway segments. The location of these receptors and their UTM coordinates are provided in the Air Quality TDR (EIS Appendix E.1, Section 5.2, page 24 to 25).

Cumulative Effects Assessment

The cumulative effects assessment was completed for 2 scenarios - (a) 2021 and (b) 2031 - and includes emissions from the Baseline, the Project case and reasonably foreseeable future projects and activities in the RAA including associated traffic increases.



Page 4 of 6

Cumulative Air Quality Effects Assessment (2021)

The 2021 emissions data are presented in Table 1 (Attachment C). Similar to the baseline study (see Air Quality TDR - EIS Appendix E.1, Section 7.6.2, page 84), a large proportion of the emissions are associated with existing background concentrations. Of the contaminants assessed for cumulative effects, only B(a)P and benzene were found to result in exceedances of the applicable criteria, and these exceedances are attributed to existing baseline conditions.

For B(a)P, the maximum predicted contribution to cumulative effects from the Project case (i.e., Project plus Project-related truck traffic) at the most affected receptor represents 11% (24-hour) and 4% (annual) of the total cumulative concentrations. The Project-related truck traffic alone accounts for approximately 2% of these contributions. However, existing baseline levels already exceed the 24-hour and annual limits by approximately 13 times and 25 times, respectively. Further, exceedances are expected into the future, independent of the Project, as contributions from reasonably foreseeable future traffic in the RAA are predicted to exceed the 24-hour and annual limits by approximately 6 times and 8 times, respectively. Overall, the cumulative 24-hour and annual concentrations are predicted to be approximately 19 and 34 times the criteria, respectively, with Project-related contributions representing only a small component of this value.

For Benzene, the maximum predicted contribution from the Project case (i.e., Project plus Project-related truck traffic) at the most affected receptor is 2% (24-hour) and 1% (annual) of the cumulative concentrations. Overall, the cumulative 24-hour concentrations are predicted to be below the applicable criteria, although annual concentrations are predicted to exceed the applicable criteria by approximately 1.8 times. This exceedance is attributed to existing baseline levels.

Project related truck traffic (i.e., up to 800 trucks per day each way) increased emissions within the RAA as expected. However, the maximum predicted concentrations of all the contaminants of concern resulting from these truck emissions are below their respective criteria at all the special receptors (Table 1, Attachment C).

Cumulative Air Quality Effects Assessment (2031)

The 2031 emissions data presented in Table 1 (Attachment C) illustrate a slight decrease in predicted cumulative effects as compared to 2021. The modeled decrease in emissions is attributed to anticipated advances in engine technologies associated with future traffic.

Similar to the results predicted for 2021, only B(a)P and benzene were found to result in exceedances of the applicable criteria and again, are attributed to existing baseline conditions. None of the other contaminants assessed were predicted to exceed applicable criteria.

For B(a)P, the maximum predicted contribution from the Project case (i.e., Project plus Project-related truck traffic) at the most effected receptor are 13% and 5% of the cumulative concentrations. While this appears to be a slightly higher percentage of the contribution to



Page 5 of 6

cumulative effects compared to 2021 results, project-specific concentrations do not account for advances in engine technology for on-site sources or new regulatory requirements (i.e., our model conservatively assumed on-site emissions would remain consistent, although advancements in engine technology would similarly be expected for on-site emission sources, such as trucks and locomotives). The Project-related truck traffic accounts for approximately 1% of these contributions.

Similar to the 2021 case, the cumulative 24-hour and annual concentrations of B(a)P are predicted to be approximately 15 and 28 times the respective criteria, primarily related to the exceedances associated with the existing baseline levels. Contributions from other future traffic in the RAA are predicted to exceed the 24-hour and annual limits by approximately 2 times and 3 times, respectively, which are anticipated with or without the Project.

For Benzene, the maximum predicted contributions from the Project case (i.e., Project plus Project-related truck traffic) at the most effected receptor are 2% (24-hour) and 1% (annual) of the total cumulative levels. Overall, the cumulative 24-hour concentrations are predicted to be below the applicable criteria, although annual concentrations are predicted to exceed the applicable criteria by approximately 1.8 times. Again, this exceedance is attributed to existing baseline levels.

For Project-related truck traffic alone in 2031, the maximum predicted concentrations of all the contaminants of concern resulting from these truck emissions are below their respective criteria at all the special receptors (Table 1, Attachment C). The results are slightly improved as emissions from the up to 800 trucks are anticipated to be reduced as a result of improvements in engine technology.

Discussion of Project Contributions to Cumulative Air Quality Effects

Project related emissions dissipate throughout the RAA, with the highest concentrations observed near the Terminal where there is a high concentration of truck traffic and is combined with other emissions related to Project operations. Air quality effects resulting from Project related truck traffic are predicted to be below criteria.

Over time, emissions from the Project case (i.e., Project plus Project-related truck traffic) are anticipated to decrease as a result of improvements in engine technology and improved emissions requirements. Similarly, cumulative air quality effects in the area are anticipated to decrease over time, despite predicted increases in overall traffic volumes within the RAA between 2021 and 2031.

The cumulative air quality effects of the change in air quality attributable to the Project are considered low. While local increases are predicted, the project itself promotes a modal change in transportation that will reduce the future number of long haul trucks on area highways (i.e. movement of containers via train as part of CN’s supply chain rather than by long haul trucks). It encourages a shift in the transportation mode from long haul trucks to trains for up to 450,000 containers per year, a means of transportation four times more fuel efficient (EIS Section 8.2,



Page 6 of 6

page 322). This modal shift is identified in the Region’s Transportation Master Plan as a means to reduce roadway truck traffic (Appendix F4 of the Halton Region Transportation Master Plan, 2001) and contributes to Provincial and municipal efforts of reducing vehicle related emissions. In the analysis of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) in the associated Report on Greenhouse Gases (June 17, 2016), the net mitigation benefit (reduction) in air emissions is developed and presented, with an overall benefit experienced on a provincial and national scale.

For the reasons described above, the contribution to cumulative changes in air quality resulting from emissions from the Project is predicted to be not significant.

Summary of Cumulative Air Quality Effects

The ambient air quality in the area currently exceeds applicable criteria for B(a)P and Benzene, with individual receptors throughout the RAA already experiencing exceedances of both criteria. As noted above, this baseline condition for benzene and B(a)P exists across the Province and in many communities and is primarily attributed to the burning of fossil fuels (EIS Appendix E.1, Section 7.4.1.5, page 78 and Section 7.4.1.10, pages 79 to 80). The cumulative air quality effect from the Project in combination with reasonably foreseeable future projects and activities in 2021 and 2031 scenarios is predicted to be below each respective criteria for all COPCs, except B(a)P and benzene. This is largely reflective of the fact that ambient air quality currently exceeds these criteria under baseline conditions (Air TDR, EIS Appendix E.1, Section 9.0,, page 94 to 95), and will continue to exceed the criteria as a result of planned urban developments and corresponding traffic increases, independent of the Project.

Exceedances of the B(a)P and benzene are anticipated with or without the Project. As discussed above, and as referenced in the Report on Greenhouse Gases (June 17, 2016), the Project provides the opportunity to reduce overall traffic on area highways by facilitating a modal shift from long haul trucks to trains, reducing future truck traffic on area highways, and providing a net mitigation (reduction) of emissions in the RAA.

Conclusion

Based on the above assessment of cumulative air quality effects of the Project in combination with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects and physical activities, the Project’s contribution to the cumulative air quality effects is predicted to be not significant.

The Project-related emissions, including sources from the Project as defined in the EIS (i.e., on-site emissions), as well as Project-related truck traffic, decrease with distance from the proposed Terminal and represent a relatively small contribution to the overall cumulative air quality in the area. Air quality exceedances are attributed in large part to existing baseline conditions. The proposed Project represents an air emissions mitigation measure (i.e., modal shift) aimed at accommodating the movement of 450,000 containers that would otherwise move via long haul trucks onto more efficient rail to service the GTHA. This, in combination with other federal, provincial and municipal efforts to combat air emissions, will facilitate a decrease in cumulative air emissions for the area.



Page 7 of 6

References

Halton Region (2011). The Road to Change: Halton Region Transportation Master Plan 2031, Appendix F4 - Goods Movement. http://www.halton.ca/cms/one.aspx?objectId=57549.

http://www.halton.ca/cms/one.aspx?objectId=57549



ATTACHMENT A TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS

(2021 AND 2031)

BA Consulting Group Ltd. MOVEMENT 300 – 45 St. Clair Ave. W TEL 416 961 7110 IN URBAN Toronto ON M4V 1K9 EMAIL [email protected] ENVIRONMENTS BAGROUP.COM

P:\60\71\11\Reports\7. Air Quality Traffic Volumes Feb‐April 2016\Air Quality Traffic Volumes 2016‐09‐30.docx

September 30, 2016

Darren Reynolds Manager, Corporate Development CN - Canadian National Railway Company 935 de La Gauchetière Street West, 8th Floor Montreal, QC H3B 2M9

RE: CN Milton Intermodal Terminal – Preliminary Traffic Volume Information

Dear Sir:

Kindly find attached traffic volume projections for the existing, 2021 and 2031 horizon years for inclusion in

the air quality analysis that Stantec is finalizing and submitting shortly.

These volumes were submitted to Stantec, on the following dates, for the explicit purposes of the air quality

analysis and represent a first iteration of traffic volume projections within the air quality analysis study area.

Projections for future time horizons are based on growth rates provided by the Region.

Email dated February 12, 2016 – Existing Traffic Volumes;

Email dated March 11, 2016 – 2021 Future Background and Future Total Traffic Volumes; and

Email dated April 21, 2016 – 2031 Future Background and Future Total Traffic Volumes.

If you have any questions, please let us know.

Sincerely,

BA Consulting Group Ltd.

Amy Z. Jiang, M.Eng., P.Eng.

cc. Robert McBride, BA Group Anthony Yates, BA Group Steven Kwan, BA Group

CN Milton Intermodal Terminal Existing Traffic Volumes - ALL Vehicles6071-11 Weekday AMDate of Survey:

Peak Hour:

HWY 401

Node 0 235 210 0.99 Node 0 970 1080 0.93 Node 0 110 230 0.97

40% 5% 3% 20 10% 0 5% 2% 13% 460 11% 0 0% 2% 0% 80 1% 0

25 4% 0 170 12% 0 365 12% 0

Steeles Ave W 30 5 160 70 95 11% 140 Steeles 470 270 275 425 25 0% 655 Steeles 740 5 45 60 140 14% 585110 0% 15 0 175 400 555 Ave W 780 4% 345 30 275 80 920 Ave E 1075 0% 60 370 90 320 11500 5% 85 0 5% 415 0 5% 770

0 30% 10 0% 7% 4% 0 5% 20 7% 2% 4% 0 13% 245 11% 1% 5%

265 575 0 0 320 385 0 0 430 780 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t N

Marti

n St

Onta

rio S

t N

Node 0 280 585 0.90

0% 6% 10% 40 10% 0

0 0% 0

0 0 240 40 55 9% 95 Main Main St E0 0% 0 0 545 110 150 St W0 0% 0

0 0% 0 0% 1% 1%

295 655 0 0

Node 0 340 600 0.94 Node 0 580 910 0.94 Node 0 740 550 0.98 Node 0 850 1235 0.97

3% 5% 20% 50 2% 0 7% 11% 4% 180 9% 0 1% 4% 3% 95 20% 0 16% 5% 4% 110 2% 0

270 2% 0 480 5% 0 295 6% 0 290 7% 0

Derry Rd 455 145 155 40 85 1% 405 Derry Rd 650 85 380 115 205 5% 865 455 145 335 260 40 3% 430 435 45 705 100 110 1% 510 Derry Rd830 2% 400 40 150 55 460 1480 4% 250 85 480 130 1350 2070 0% 205 15 250 405 2500 2455 2% 485 100 640 185 19200 1% 365 0 2% 1105 0 1% 1835 0 1% 1635

0 8% 65 10% 3% 2% 0 4% 125 7% 7% 5% 0 7% 30 7% 2% 0% 0 2% 335 10% 3% 2%

305 245 0 0 710 695 0 0 405 670 0 0 1150 925 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t S

Four

th L

ine

Jam

es S

now

Pkwy

Traf

algar

Rd

Node 0 475 275 0.93 Node 0 455 285 0.88 Node 0 990 540 0.98 Node 0 620 180 0.98 Node 0 1305 910 0.98

7% 3% 30% 25 60% 0 10% 1% 5% 50 8% 0 8% 9% 1% 60 5% 0 11% 0% 2% 115 6% 0 37% 5% 2% 80 9% 0

85 2% 0 145 12% 0 180 3% 0 275 7% 0 190 5% 0

Britannia Rd 140 45 390 40 40 8% 150 160 10 325 120 45 2% 240 Britannia Rd 265 65 720 205 220 7% 460 350 75 0 545 0 0% 390 315 30 1120 155 150 1% 420 Britannia Rd280 9% 65 10 185 45 275 265 0% 30 5 205 75 425 415 6% 50 20 430 145 700 640 14% 65 0 0 0 1120 945 11% 45 95 785 310 10050 2% 190 0 5% 230 0 3% 350 0 3% 575 0 1% 540

0 8% 25 20% 4% 4% 0 20% 5 0% 1% 0% 0 13% 15 20% 10% 3% 0 0% 0 0% 0% 0% 0 5% 360 8% 6% 1%

455 240 0 0 375 285 0 0 955 595 0 0 0 0 0 0 1630 1190 0 0

Firs

t Lin

e

Reg

Rd 25

Four

th L

ine

Traf

algar

Rd

SITE

CN Milton Intermodal Terminal Component of Existing Traffic Volumes that are MEDIUM Trucks6071-11 Weekday AMDate of Survey:

Peak Hour:

HWY 401

Node 0 4 4 1.00 Node 0 33 34 1.00 Node 0 1 2 1.00

1 0 25 0 1 0

1 0 8 0 19 0

Steeles Ave W 2 1 3 0 4 6 Steeles 15 7 4 22 0 33 Steeles 40 0 1 0 5 254 0 0 3 4 5 Ave W 20 9 0 0 1 34 Ave E 30 0 21 1 4 240 1 0 11 0 20

0 3 0 0 0 10

10 7 0 0 4 1 0 0 16 26 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t N

Marti

n St

Onta

rio S

t N

Node 0 8 3 1.00

0 0

0 0

0 0 8 0 0 0 Main Main St E0 0 3 1 1 St W0

0

8 4 0 0


0 0 3 0 4 0 1 0

4 0 8 0 5 0 5 0

Derry Rd 9 3 4 1 1 5 Derry Rd 15 3 17 2 6 17 7 1 4 1 1 10 13 4 17 2 1 7 Derry Rd10 5 2 1 1 5 7 3 4 15 1 5 7 0 1 4 1 8 15 5 4 11 1 90 3 0 2 0 6 0 6

0 2 0 2 0 1 0 4

7 4 0 0 25 20 0 0 6 6 0 0 22 16 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t S

Four

th L

ine

Jam

es S

now

Pkwy

Traf

algar

Rd


15 0 2 0 1 0 5 0 6 0

2 0 15 0 3 0 15 0 7 0

Britannia Rd 6 2 8 9 3 20 16 1 2 5 0 17 Britannia Rd 10 4 18 2 7 11 21 6 0 4 0 20 19 8 28 3 0 13 Britannia Rd7 6 2 1 1 10 9 0 0 0 0 14 10 1 3 28 4 13 21 8 0 0 0 17 20 4 4 18 0 60 0 0 9 0 7 0 13 0 3

0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 13

12 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 27 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 22 0 0

Firs

t Lin

e

Reg

Rd 25

Four

th L

ine

Traf

algar

Rd

SITE

CN Milton Intermodal Terminal Component of Existing Traffic Volumes that are HEAVY Trucks6071-11 Weekday AMDate of Survey:

Peak Hour:

HWY 401

Node 0 8 11 1.00 Node 0 41 38 1.00 Node 0 0 0 1.00

1 0 26 0 0 0

0 0 13 0 23 0


0 0 0 1 0 21

11 21 0 0 2 10 0 0 35 31 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t N

Marti

n St

Onta

rio S

t N

Node 0 11 8 1.00

4 0

0 0

0 0 7 4 5 9 Main Main St E0 0 0 4 0 4 St W0 0

0 0

12 4 0 0


1 0 14 0 15 0 1 0

2 0 14 0 12 0 14 0


0 3 0 3 0 1 0 4

6 5 0 0 33 28 0 0 12 3 0 0 20 17 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t S

Four

th L

ine

Jam

es S

now

Pkwy

Traf

algar

Rd


0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 1 0

0 0 2 0 3 0 3 0 2 0

Britannia Rd 1 1 3 3 0 0 2 0 2 1 1 5 Britannia Rd 5 1 44 1 8 13 5 2 0 5 0 5 9 3 24 0 1 4 Britannia Rd5 0 0 7 1 8 3 0 0 2 0 3 4 2 1 14 1 4 8 1 12 10 1 4 30 3 60 4 0 2 0 2 0 7 0 3

0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6

4 8 0 0 4 2 0 0 52 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 37 0 0

Firs

t Lin

e

Reg

Rd 25

Four

th L

ine

Traf

algar

Rd

SITE

CN Milton Intermodal Terminal Existing Traffic Volumes - ALL Vehicles6071-11 Weekday PMDate of Survey:

Peak Hour:

HWY 401

Node 0 215 185 0.97 Node 0 1440 1155 0.94 Node 0 95 75 0.94

0% 2% 3% 25 0% 0 3% 1% 5% 590 5% 0 0% 0% 0% 45 0% 0

80 3% 0 410 2% 0 760 2% 0


0 0% 5 0% 2% 22% 0 3% 40 0% 2% 0% 0 4% 370 5% 0% 6%

565 270 0 0 555 370 0 0 730 545 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t N

Marti

n St

Onta

rio S

t N

Node 0 620 345 0.90

0% 1% 2% 30 3% 0

0 0% 0

0 0 565 55 95 0% 125 Main Main St E0 0% 0 0 315 65 120 St W0 0% 0

0 0% 0 0% 2% 0%

660 380 0 0


1% 2% 0% 40 0% 0 1% 3% 1% 135 1% 0 1% 1% 7% 290 1% 0 2% 3% 0% 100 1% 0

385 0% 0 1105 1% 0 1405 1% 0 1470 1% 0


0 4% 55 0% 3% 0% 0 1% 75 2% 4% 4% 0 0% 20 0% 1% 2% 0 4% 125 1% 2% 3%

290 345 0 0 665 730 0 0 670 395 0 0 1005 1265 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t S

Four

th L

ine

Jam

es S

now

Pkwy

Traf

algar

Rd


4% 7% 5% 55 9% 0 0% 1% 4% 130 2% 0 16% 5% 2% 240 0% 0 0% 0% 0% 605 1% 0 5% 4% 2% 115 4% 0

220 0% 0 285 4% 0 350 1% 0 700 1% 0 660 1% 0


0 0% 10 7% 1% 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1% 3% 0 7% 15 8% 5% 3% 0 0% 0 0% 0% 0% 0 1% 180 1% 4% 0%

245 355 0 0 215 360 0 0 635 915 0 0 0 0 0 0 1300 1640 0 0

Firs

t Lin

e

Reg

Rd 25

Four

th L

ine

Traf

algar

Rd

SITE

CN Milton Intermodal Terminal Component of Existing Traffic Volumes that are MEDIUM Trucks6071-11 Weekday PMDate of Survey:

Peak Hour:

HWY 401

Node 0 4 1 1.00 Node 0 15 19 1.00 Node 0 0 0 1.00

0 0 10 0 0 0

1 0 5 0 10 0


0 0 0 1 0 9

8 4 0 0 3 3 0 0 11 14 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t N

Marti

n St

Onta

rio S

t N

Node 0 1 4 1.00

1 0

0 0

0 0 1 0 0 1 Main Main St E0 0 3 0 0 St W0

0

1 3 0 0


0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0

0 0 5 0 9 0 5 0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

3 2 0 0 7 10 0 0 1 3 0 0 8 12 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t S

Four

th L

ine

Jam

es S

now

Pkwy

Traf

algar

Rd


5 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 4 0

1 0 10 0 2 0 3 0 3 0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

7 3 0 0 2 1 0 0 13 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 22 0 0

Firs

t Lin

e

Reg

Rd 25

Four

th L

ine

Traf

algar

Rd

SITE

CN Milton Intermodal Terminal Component of Existing Traffic Volumes that are HEAVY Trucks6071-11 Weekday PMDate of Survey:

Peak Hour:

HWY 401

Node 0 1 2 1.00 Node 0 29 23 1.00 Node 0 0 0 1.00

0 0 18 0 0 0

1 0 2 0 7 0


0 0 0 0 0 6

8 24 0 0 1 2 0 0 10 14 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t N

Marti

n St

Onta

rio S

t N

Node 0 7 4 1.00

0 0

0 0

0 0 6 1 0 0 Main Main St E0 0 0 4 0 1 St W0 0

0 0

6 4 0 0


0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0

1 0 5 0 6 0 3 0


0 2 0 1 0 0 0 3

4 3 0 0 9 19 0 0 3 0 0 0 18 14 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t S

Four

th L

ine

Jam

es S

now

Pkwy

Traf

algar

Rd


0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0

0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 0

Britannia Rd 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 Britannia Rd 1 0 12 0 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 5 3 1 9 0 1 3 Britannia Rd1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 22 4 5 27 4 23 9 6 1 25 0 30 0 0 0 0 1 0 23 0 3

0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

7 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 15 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 26 0 0

Firs

t Lin

e

Reg

Rd 25

Four

th L

ine

Traf

algar

Rd

SITE

CN Milton Intermodal Terminal 2021 Future Background Traffic Volumes - ALL Vehicles6071-11 Weekday AMDate of Survey:

Peak Hour:

HWY 401

Node 0 1200 1335 1.00 Node 0 1565 1035 1.00 Node 0 110 230 1.00

40% 2% 2% 80 4% 0 5% 2% 10% 535 10% 0 0% 2% 0% 80 1% 0

55 4% 0 195 11% 0 440 10% 0


0 8% 50 0% 2% 4% 0 5% 20 7% 3% 4% 0 12% 265 7% 1% 4%

1100 1595 0 0 550 285 0 0 480 1270 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t N

Marti

n St

Onta

rio S

t N

Node 0 1060 1350 1.00

0% 2% 7% 40 10% 0

0 0% 0

0 0 985 75 55 9% 95 Main Main St E0 0% 0 0 1310 145 220 St W0 0% 0

0 0% 0 0% 1% 1%

1040 1455 0 0


3% 1% 10% 105 2% 0 6% 9% 4% 195 9% 0 2% 4% 3% 135 15% 0 6% 9% 4% 130 2% 0

295 2% 0 225 10% 0 420 5% 0 445 5% 0


0 6% 100 8% 1% 2% 0 4% 130 5% 5% 4% 0 6% 35 5% 2% 1% 0 3% 560 7% 5% 2%

1110 1155 0 0 875 1180 0 0 545 975 0 0 1095 1030 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Four

th L

ine

Jam

es S

now

Pkwy

Traf

algar

Rd


4% 3% 15% 365 4% 0 3% 1% 2% 290 1% 0 5% 6% 1% 70 4% 0 6% 0% 2% 150 5% 0 17% 7% 2% 140 6% 0

180 2% 0 580 4% 0 640 2% 0 475 5% 0 310 4% 0


0 7% 30 13% 4% 4% 0 20% 5 0% 1% 0% 0 1% 245 2% 6% 3% 0 0% 0 0% 0% 0% 0 5% 450 5% 8% 1%

690 350 0 0 385 395 0 0 1560 1215 0 0 0 0 0 0 1515 1380 0 0

Firs

t Lin

e

Reg

Rd 25

Four

th L

ine

Traf

algar

Rd

SITE

CN Milton Intermodal Terminal Component of 2021 Future Background Traffic Volumes that are MEDIUM Trucks6071-11 Weekday AMDate of Survey:

Peak Hour:

HWY 401

Node 0 11 15 Node 0 49 37 Node 0 1 22 0 27 0 1 0

2 0 9 0 21 0


0 4 0 0 0 10

18 17 0 0 9 1 0 0 17 36 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t N

Marti

n St

Onta

rio S

t N

Node 0 15 90 0

0 0

0 0 14 1 0 0 Main Main St E0 0 0 9 2 3 St W0 0

0 0

14 11 0 0

Node 0 14 15 Node 0 27 28 Node 0 11 12 Node 0 29 301 0 3 0 5 0 1 0

5 0 9 0 8 0 8 0


0 3 0 2 0 1 0 9

14 13 0 0 28 30 0 0 8 12 0 0 30 27 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Four

th L

ine

Jam

es S

now

Pkwy

Traf

algar

Rd

Node 0 25 25 Node 0 11 4 Node 0 29 33 Node 0 12 15 Node 0 45 4016 0 2 0 1 0 6 0 7 0

4 0 18 0 6 0 19 0 9 0


0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 15

17 6 0 0 2 2 0 0 30 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 35 0 0

Firs

t Lin

e

Reg

Rd 25

Four

th L

ine

Traf

algar

Rd

SITE

CN Milton Intermodal Terminal Component of 2021 Future Background Traffic Volumes that are HEAVY Trucks6071-11 Weekday AMDate of Survey:

Peak Hour:

HWY 401

Node 0 9 13 Node 0 45 38 Node 0 0 01 0 26 0 0 0

0 0 13 0 23 0


0 0 0 1 0 21

12 23 0 0 3 10 0 0 35 33 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t N

Marti

n St

Onta

rio S

t N

Node 0 12 104 0

0 0

0 0 8 4 5 9 Main Main St E0 0 0 6 0 4 St W0 0

0 0

13 6 0 0


2 0 14 0 13 0 15 0


0 3 0 3 0 1 0 5

7 7 0 0 34 30 0 0 13 5 0 0 22 20 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Four

th L

ine

Jam

es S

now

Pkwy

Traf

algar

Rd


0 0 3 0 4 0 4 0 3 0


0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6

4 8 0 0 4 2 0 0 53 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 39 0 0

Firs

t Lin

e

Reg

Rd 25

Four

th L

ine

Traf

algar

Rd

SITE

CN Milton Intermodal Terminal 2021 Future Background Traffic Volumes - ALL Vehicles6071-11 Weekday PMDate of Survey:

Peak Hour:

HWY 401

Node 0 1680 1275 1.00 Node 0 1565 1090 1.00 Node 0 95 75 1.00

0% 1% 1% 65 2% 0 5% 1% 7% 630 5% 0 0% 0% 0% 45 0% 0

100 2% 0 435 2% 0 810 2% 0


0 2% 65 0% 1% 24% 0 2% 45 0% 2% 0% 0 4% 410 4% 0% 5%

1490 1255 0 0 780 270 0 0 790 760 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t N

Marti

n St

Onta

rio S

t N

Node 0 1420 1090 1.00

0% 1% 2% 30 3% 0

0 0% 0

0 0 1330 90 95 0% 125 Main Main St E0 0% 0 0 1060 100 190 St W0 0% 0

0 0% 0 0% 1% 1%

1425 1160 0 0


1% 1% 1% 75 1% 0 2% 3% 2% 165 1% 0 1% 2% 6% 365 2% 0 2% 7% 1% 130 2% 0

400 0% 0 1065 2% 0 1615 1% 0 1735 1% 0


0 3% 110 0% 1% 1% 0 1% 85 3% 4% 4% 0 0% 25 0% 1% 1% 0 4% 165 1% 4% 2%

1110 1060 0 0 955 945 0 0 900 490 0 0 840 1040 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Four

th L

ine

Jam

es S

now

Pkwy

Traf

algar

Rd


3% 4% 3% 370 1% 0 1% 1% 1% 360 1% 0 6% 3% 3% 250 0% 0 2% 0% 1% 660 1% 0 3% 5% 2% 205 3% 0

260 1% 0 640 2% 0 830 1% 0 1000 1% 0 835 1% 0


0 0% 20 3% 1% 1% 0 0% 0 0% 1% 2% 0 0% 250 1% 3% 3% 0 0% 0 0% 0% 0% 0 1% 240 1% 6% 1%

610 615 0 0 220 460 0 0 1415 1755 0 0 0 0 0 0 1450 1455 0 0

Firs

t Lin

e

Reg

Rd 25

Four

th L

ine

Traf

algar

Rd

SITE

CN Milton Intermodal Terminal Component of 2021 Future Background Traffic Volumes that are MEDIUM Trucks6071-11 Weekday PMDate of Survey:

Peak Hour:

HWY 401

Node 0 13 11 Node 0 30 21 Node 0 0 01 0 11 0 0 0

1 0 6 0 11 0


0 1 0 1 0 10

18 13 0 0 7 3 0 0 12 19 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t N

Marti

n St

Onta

rio S

t N

Node 0 8 101 0

0 0

0 0 7 1 0 1 Main Main St E0 0 0 9 1 2 St W0 0

0 0

7 10 0 0


0 0 10 0 16 0 13 0


0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3

11 7 0 0 13 15 0 0 6 4 0 0 14 16 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Four

th L

ine

Jam

es S

now

Pkwy

Traf

algar

Rd


2 0 11 0 6 0 9 0 7 0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

14 8 0 0 2 2 0 0 19 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 28 0 0

Firs

t Lin

e

Reg

Rd 25

Four

th L

ine

Traf

algar

Rd

SITE

CN Milton Intermodal Terminal Component of 2021 Future Background Traffic Volumes that are HEAVY Trucks6071-11 Weekday PMDate of Survey:

Peak Hour:

HWY 401

Node 0 3 4 Node 0 32 23 Node 0 0 00 0 18 0 0 0

1 0 2 0 7 0


0 0 0 0 0 6

10 26 0 0 2 2 0 0 10 15 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t N

Marti

n St

Onta

rio S

t N

Node 0 9 50 0

0 0

0 0 8 1 0 0 Main Main St E0 0 0 5 0 1 St W0 0

0 0

8 5 0 0


1 0 6 0 8 0 5 0


0 2 0 1 0 0 0 3

5 4 0 0 10 20 0 0 4 0 0 0 19 15 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Four

th L

ine

Jam

es S

now

Pkwy

Traf

algar

Rd


0 0 0 0 2 0 5 0 2 0


0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

7 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 17 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 27 0 0

Firs

t Lin

e

Reg

Rd 25

Four

th L

ine

Traf

algar

Rd

SITE

CN Milton Intermodal Terminal 2021 Future Total Traffic Volumes - ALL Vehicles6071-11 Weekday AMDate of Survey:

Peak Hour:

HWY 401

Node 0 1210 1352 1.00 Node 0 1570 1038 1.00 Node 0 110 230 1.00

40% 3% 2% 80 4% 0 6% 2% 10% 537 11% 0 0% 2% 0% 80 1% 0

55 4% 0 195 11% 0 440 10% 0


0 8% 50 #DIV/0! 5% 4% 0 5% 20 7% 3% 4% 0 13% 267 8% 1% 4%

1113 1613 0 0 550 285 0 0 482 1272 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t N

Marti

n St

Onta

rio S

t N

Node 0 1073 1368 1.00

#DIV/0! 5% 7% 40 10% 0

0 #DIV/0! 0

0 0 998 75 55 9% 95 Main Main St E0 #DIV/0! 0 0 1328 145 220 St W0 #DIV/0! 0

0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 4% 1%

1053 1473 0 0


3% 4% 10% 105 2% 0 6% 10% 4% 195 9% 0 2% 6% 3% 135 15% 0 6% 12% 4% 130 2% 0

295 2% 0 225 10% 0 421 5% 0 446 6% 0


0 6% 100 8% 5% 2% 0 4% 130 5% 6% 6% 0 6% 35 5% 4% 1% 0 3% 560 7% 6% 2%

1123 1173 0 0 878 1184 0 0 550 978 0 0 1102 1033 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t S

Four

th L

ine

Jam

es S

now

Pkwy

Traf

algar

Rd


4% 3% 40% 383 14% 0 3% 1% 2% 290 1% 0 10% 6% 1% 70 4% 0 13% #DIV/0! 2% 150 5% 0 34% 7% 2% 140 6% 0

180 2% 0 605 12% 0 658 7% 0 488 10% 0 316 8% 0

Britannia Rd 305 110 595 98 65 6% 628 690 70 325 455 55 2% 950 Britannia Rd 1035 118 1085 270 230 7% 958 633 145 0 590 0 #DIV/0! 638 583 77 855 195 210 1% 666 Britannia Rd350 9% 70 15 280 55 403 352 0% 40 15 295 85 847 732 19% 59 259 800 160 854 854 13% 128 0 0 0 1316 1311 9% 138 190 785 405 13230 2% 250 0 18% 307 0 9% 424 0 6% 726 0 4% 723

0 7% 30 13% 4% 4% 0 20% 5 0% 1% 0% 0 4% 249 5% 6% 3% 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0 5% 450 5% 8% 1%

690 350 0 0 385 395 0 0 1564 1219 0 0 0 0 0 0 1515 1380 0 0

Firs

t Lin

e

Reg

Rd 25

Four

th L

ine

Traf

algar

Rd

SITE

CN Milton Intermodal Terminal Component of 2021 Future Total Traffic Volumes that are MEDIUM Trucks6071-11 Weekday AMDate of Survey:

Peak Hour:

HWY 401

Node 0 11 15 Node 0 49 37 Node 0 1 22 0 27 0 1 0

2 0 9 0 21 0


0 4 0 0 0 10

18 17 0 0 9 1 0 0 17 36 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t N

Marti

n St

Onta

rio S

t N

Node 0 15 90 0

0 0

0 0 14 1 0 0 Main Main St E0 0 0 9 2 3 St W0 0

0 0

14 11 0 0


5 0 9 0 8 0 8 0


0 3 0 2 0 1 0 9

14 13 0 0 28 30 0 0 8 12 0 0 30 27 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t S

Four

th L

ine

Jam

es S

now

Pkwy

Traf

algar

Rd


4 0 18 0 6 0 19 0 9 0


0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 15

17 6 0 0 2 2 0 0 30 38 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 35 0 0

Firs

t Lin

e

Reg

Rd 25

Four

th L

ine

Traf

algar

Rd

SITE

CN Milton Intermodal Terminal Component of 2021 Future Total Traffic Volumes that are HEAVY Trucks6071-11 Weekday AMDate of Survey:

Peak Hour:

HWY 401

Node 0 19 30 Node 0 50 41 Node 0 0 01 0 28 0 0 0

0 0 13 0 23 0


0 0 0 1 0 23

25 41 0 0 3 10 0 0 37 35 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t N

Marti

n St

Onta

rio S

t N

Node 0 25 284 0

0 0

0 0 21 4 5 9 Main Main St E0 0 0 24 0 4 St W0 0

0 0

26 24 0 0


2 0 14 0 14 0 16 0


0 3 0 3 0 1 0 5

20 25 0 0 37 34 0 0 18 8 0 0 29 23 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t S

Four

th L

ine

Jam

es S

now

Pkwy

Traf

algar

Rd


0 0 28 0 22 0 17 0 9 0


0 1 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 6

4 8 0 0 4 2 0 0 57 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 39 0 0

Firs

t Lin

e

Reg

Rd 25

Four

th L

ine

Traf

algar

Rd

SITE

CN Milton Intermodal Terminal 2021 Future Total Traffic Volumes - ALL Vehicles6071-11 Weekday PMDate of Survey:

Peak Hour:

HWY 401

Node 0 1691 1295 1.00 Node 0 1570 1094 1.00 Node 0 95 75 1.00

0% 3% 1% 65 2% 0 6% 1% 8% 632 5% 0 0% 0% 0% 45 0% 0

100 2% 0 435 2% 0 810 2% 0


0 2% 65 0% 5% 27% 0 2% 45 0% 2% 0% 0 5% 412 5% 0% 5%

1504 1277 0 0 780 270 0 0 792 762 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t N

Marti

n St

Onta

rio S

t N

Node 0 1434 1112 1.00

#DIV/0! 3% 2% 30 3% 0

0 #DIV/0! 0


0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 5% 1%

1439 1182 0 0


1% 4% 1% 75 1% 0 2% 3% 2% 165 1% 0 1% 4% 6% 365 2% 0 2% 12% 1% 130 2% 0

400 0% 0 1065 2% 0 1616 2% 0 1736 1% 0


0 3% 110 2% 6% 1% 0 1% 85 3% 5% 7% 0 0% 25 0% 3% 1% 0 4% 165 1% 5% 2%

1124 1083 0 0 958 949 0 0 905 493 0 0 849 1043 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t S

Four

th L

ine

Jam

es S

now

Pkwy

Traf

algar

Rd


3% 4% 27% 393 13% 0 1% 1% 1% 360 1% 0 10% 3% 3% 250 0% 0 5% #DIV/0! 1% 660 1% 0 14% 5% 2% 205 3% 0

260 1% 0 669 10% 0 852 6% 0 1017 5% 0 843 3% 0


0 0% 20 3% 1% 1% 0 #DIV/0! 0 0% 1% 2% 0 4% 254 4% 3% 3% 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0 1% 240 1% 6% 1%

610 615 0 0 220 460 0 0 1419 1759 0 0 0 0 0 0 1450 1455 0 0

Firs

t Lin

e

Reg

Rd 25

Four

th L

ine

Traf

algar

Rd

SITE

CN Milton Intermodal Terminal Component of 2021 Future Total Traffic Volumes that are MEDIUM Trucks6071-11 Weekday PMDate of Survey:

Peak Hour:

HWY 401

Node 0 13 11 Node 0 30 21 Node 0 0 01 0 11 0 0 0

1 0 6 0 11 0


0 1 0 1 0 10

18 13 0 0 7 3 0 0 12 19 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t N

Marti

n St

Onta

rio S

t N

Node 0 8 101 0

0 0

0 0 7 1 0 1 Main Main St E0 0 0 9 1 2 St W0 0

0 0

7 10 0 0


0 0 10 0 16 0 13 0


0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3

11 7 0 0 13 15 0 0 6 4 0 0 14 16 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t S

Four

th L

ine

Jam

es S

now

Pkwy

Traf

algar

Rd


2 0 11 0 6 0 9 0 7 0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

14 8 0 0 2 2 0 0 19 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 28 0 0

Firs

t Lin

e

Reg

Rd 25

Four

th L

ine

Traf

algar

Rd

SITE

CN Milton Intermodal Terminal Component of 2021 Future Total Traffic Volumes that are HEAVY Trucks6071-11 Weekday PMDate of Survey:

Peak Hour:

HWY 401

Node 0 14 24 Node 0 37 27 Node 0 0 00 0 20 0 0 0

1 0 2 0 7 0


0 0 0 0 0 8

24 48 0 0 2 2 0 0 12 17 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t N

Marti

n St

Onta

rio S

t N

Node 0 23 270 0

0 0

0 0 22 1 0 0 Main Main St E0 0 0 27 0 1 St W0 0

0 0

22 27 0 0


1 0 6 0 9 0 6 0


0 2 0 1 0 0 0 3

19 27 0 0 13 24 0 0 9 3 0 0 28 18 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t S

Four

th L

ine

Jam

es S

now

Pkwy

Traf

algar

Rd


0 0 29 0 24 0 22 0 10 0


0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0

7 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 21 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 27 0 0

Firs

t Lin

e

Reg

Rd 25

Four

th L

ine

Traf

algar

Rd

SITE

CN Milton Intermodal Terminal Future Background Total (2031) Traffic Volumes6071-11 Weekday AMDate of Survey:

Peak Hour:

HWY 401

1460 1520 1.00 2415 1155 1.00 110 230 1.00

40% 2% 2% 130 3% 4% 2% 7% 620 9% 0% 2% 0% 80 1%

80 4% 225 10% 525 9%

Steeles Ave W 85 5 1230 225 105 11% 315 Steeles 880 625 740 1050 35 0% 880 Steeles 1240 5 45 60 205 10% 810285 2% 85 0 1305 405 750 Ave W 975 5% 360 30 175 80 1725 Ave E 1230 0% 60 710 90 660 1605

3% 120 4% 595 5% 885

6% 80 0% 2% 4% 5% 20 7% 3% 4% 11% 285 7% 1% 4%

1415 1710 795 285 535 1460

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t N

Marti

n St

Onta

rio S

t N

1335 1455 1.00

0% 2% 6% 40 10%

0 0%

0 0 1230 105 55 9% 95 Main Main St E0 0% 0 0 1415 155 260 St W

0% 0

0% 0 0% 1% 1%

1285 1570

1395 1755 1.00 1085 1445 1.00 1615 1975 1.00 1420 2620 1.00

2% 2% 8% 170 2% 5% 7% 3% 215 8% 2% 3% 3% 200 11% 4% 6% 3% 165 2%

325 2% 280 9% 630 4% 705 4%

Derry Rd 575 175 1090 130 205 1% 700 Derry Rd 605 155 710 220 250 4% 745 960 265 965 385 80 3% 910 1340 335 870 215 125 1% 995 Derry Rd1015 2% 475 75 1110 150 680 1665 4% 285 170 945 255 1720 2610 0% 755 65 1020 595 2795 2660 2% 795 300 1660 355 1850

1% 400 2% 1245 1% 1815 2% 1280

5% 140 7% 2% 2% 4% 135 5% 5% 4% 5% 40 3% 2% 1% 3% 585 5% 3% 2%

1435 1335 1095 1370 1085 1680 1580 2315

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t S

Four

th L

ine

Jam

es S

now

Pkwy

Traf

algar

Rd

1150 885 1.00 940 695 1.00 1760 1130 1.00 1120 360 1.00 2065 2080 1.00

3% 2% 10% 405 4% 3% 1% 2% 305 1% 4% 6% 2% 80 4% 4% 0% 2% 200 5% 6% 5% 2% 225 4%

270 2% 710 4% 810 2% 755 4% 475 3%

Britannia Rd 475 185 830 135 90 6% 765 830 100 325 515 65 2% 1080 Britannia Rd 1250 170 1245 345 240 6% 1130 1125 370 0 750 0 0% 955 1290 305 1515 245 295 1% 995 Britannia Rd415 8% 75 20 405 70 510 395 0% 50 20 340 90 945 775 5% 60 270 990 180 990 955 7% 160 0 0 0 1545 1415 5% 165 510 1690 465 1480

2% 305 4% 340 2% 465 3% 795 2% 770

6% 35 10% 3% 3% 20% 5 0% 1% 0% 1% 250 1% 5% 3% 0% 0 0% 0% 0% 5% 480 4% 5% 1%

955 495 395 450 1735 1440 0 0 2290 2665

Firs

t Lin

e

Reg

Rd 25

Four

th L

ine

Traf

algar

Rd

SITE

CN Milton Intermodal Terminal Number of Future Background Total 2031 Traffic that is MEDIUM TRUCKS6071-11 Weekday AMDate of Survey:

Peak Hour:

HWY 401

Node 0 17 19 1.00 Node 0 67 40 1.00 Node 0 1 2 1.00

3 0 29 0 1 0

3 0 10 0 23 0


0 5 0 0 0 10

25 19 0 0 14 1 0 0 18 40 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t N

Marti

n St

Onta

rio S

t N

Node 0 21 11 1.00

0 0

0 0

0 0 19 2 0 0 Main Main St E0 0 0 11 2 4 St W0 0

0 0

19 13 0 0


2 0 3 0 6 0 2 0

6 0 10 0 12 0 13 0


0 4 0 2 0 1 0 10

20 17 0 0 33 35 0 0 19 26 0 0 40 53 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t S

Four

th L

ine

Jam

es S

now

Pkwy

Traf

algar

Rd


17 0 2 0 1 0 7 0 9 0

6 0 21 0 9 0 25 0 12 0


0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 16

23 9 0 0 2 3 0 0 33 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 60 0 0

Firs

t Lin

e

Reg

Rd 25

Four

th L

ine

Traf

algar

Rd

SITE

CN Milton Intermodal Terminal Number of Future Background Total 2031 Traffic that is HEAVY TRUCKS6071-11 Weekday AMDate of Survey:

Peak Hour:

HWY 401

Node 0 10 14 1.00 Node 0 49 38 1.00 Node 0 0 0 1.00

1 0 26 0 0 0

0 0 13 0 23 0


0 0 0 1 0 21

13 24 0 0 4 10 0 0 35 33 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t N

Marti

n St

Onta

rio S

t N

Node 0 13 11 1.00

4 0

0 0

0 0 9 4 5 9 Main Main St E0 0 0 7 0 4 St W0 0

0 0

14 7 0 0


1 0 14 0 15 0 1 0

2 0 14 0 14 0 16 0


0 3 0 3 0 1 0 5

8 8 0 0 35 31 0 0 16 8 0 0 24 26 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t S

Four

th L

ine

Jam

es S

now

Pkwy

Traf

algar

Rd


0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 1 0

0 0 4 0 5 0 5 0 4 0


0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6

4 8 0 0 4 2 0 0 54 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 46 0 0

Firs

t Lin

e

Reg

Rd 25

Four

th L

ine

Traf

algar

Rd

SITE

CN Milton Intermodal Terminal Future Background Total (2031) Traffic Volumes6071-11 Weekday PMDate of Survey:

Peak Hour:

HWY 401

1860 1600 1.00 1975 1190 1.00 95 75 1.00

0% 1% 1% 95 2% 4% 1% 6% 675 6% 0% 0% 0% 45 0%

115 2% 465 2% 865 2%

Steeles Ave W 125 5 1470 385 150 9% 360 Steeles 1180 680 760 535 100 0% 1240 Steeles 1555 20 45 30 360 2% 1270325 2% 120 5 1385 140 615 Ave W 1055 4% 310 35 205 30 1260 Ave E 1115 0% 10 670 20 360 1040

2% 90 1% 695 3% 650

2% 115 0% 1% 19% 2% 50 0% 2% 0% 4% 455 4% 0% 4%

1735 1530 910 270 860 1050

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t N

Marti

n St

Onta

rio S

t N

1535 1335 1.00

0% 1% 2% 30 3%

0 0%

0 0 1435 100 95 0% 125 Main Main St E0 0% 0 0 1305 130 230 St W

0% 0

0% 0 0% 2% 2%

1530 1435

1575 1515 1.00 1545 1320 1.00 2180 1305 1.00 1625 1715 1.00

1% 1% 1% 115 2% 2% 3% 2% 185 1% 1% 2% 5% 400 2% 2% 4% 2% 140 1%

420 0% 1235 2% 1745 2% 1890 1%

Derry Rd 960 420 1000 155 130 2% 665 Derry Rd 1860 420 785 340 205 2% 1625 2595 745 1195 240 430 1% 2575 2850 560 870 195 340 1% 2370 Derry Rd750 2% 275 120 1125 175 630 1310 2% 305 205 830 195 1445 795 2% 220 105 685 95 880 1065 6% 150 400 1425 160 1040

2% 300 1% 910 3% 545 3% 685

2% 175 0% 2% 1% 1% 95 2% 4% 4% 0% 30 0% 2% 2% 3% 230 2% 3% 2%

1305 1420 1085 1230 1655 885 1440 1985

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t S

Four

th L

ine

Jam

es S

now

Pkwy

Traf

algar

Rd

980 1250 1.00 675 875 1.00 1585 1950 1.00 1300 890 1.00 2585 1960 1.00

3% 3% 3% 385 1% 1% 1% 1% 365 1% 6% 3% 3% 255 0% 2% 0% 2% 675 1% 3% 4% 2% 235 3%

300 1% 695 2% 935 1% 1095 1% 890 1%

Britannia Rd 560 210 645 125 70 1% 755 820 90 185 400 40 3% 1100 Britannia Rd 1430 200 1105 280 170 4% 1360 1790 695 0 605 0 0% 1770 2040 480 1830 275 315 2% 1440 Britannia Rd490 2% 65 50 800 110 630 500 3% 75 35 435 60 885 855 11% 70 295 1625 350 1155 865 3% 215 0 0 0 1255 1105 8% 195 670 1530 200 1060

2% 395 4% 425 5% 525 6% 650 2% 585

0% 30 2% 2% 2% 0% 0 0% 1% 2% 0% 260 1% 3% 3% 0% 0 0% 0% 0% 2% 325 1% 4% 1%

745 960 225 530 1535 2270 0 0 2470 2400

Firs

t Lin

e

Reg

Rd 25

Four

th L

ine

Traf

algar

Rd

SITE

CN Milton Intermodal Terminal Number of Future Background Total 2031 Traffic that is MEDIUM TRUCKS6071-11 Weekday PMDate of Survey:

Peak Hour:

HWY 401

Node 0 16 18 1.00 Node 0 38 23 1.00 Node 0 0 0 1.00

2 0 12 0 0 0

1 0 7 0 12 0


0 2 0 1 0 11

23 19 0 0 9 3 0 0 14 25 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t N

Marti

n St

Onta

rio S

t N

Node 0 10 15 1.00

1 0

0 0

0 0 9 1 0 1 Main Main St E0 0 0 14 2 3 St W0 0

0 0

9 16 0 0


2 0 1 0 6 0 1 0

0 0 13 0 19 0 16 0


0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4

15 14 0 0 16 21 0 0 21 12 0 0 26 35 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t S

Four

th L

ine

Jam

es S

now

Pkwy

Traf

algar

Rd


5 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 7 0

3 0 12 0 8 0 11 0 8 0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

16 15 0 0 2 3 0 0 21 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 47 0 0

Firs

t Lin

e

Reg

Rd 25

Four

th L

ine

Traf

algar

Rd

SITE

CN Milton Intermodal Terminal Number of Future Background Total 2031 Traffic that is HEAVY TRUCKS6071-11 Weekday PMDate of Survey:

Peak Hour:

HWY 401

Node 0 4 5 1.00 Node 0 35 31 1.00 Node 0 0 0 1.00

0 0 26 0 0 0

1 0 2 0 7 0


0 0 0 0 0 6

11 27 0 0 3 2 0 0 10 17 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t N

Marti

n St

Onta

rio S

t N

Node 0 10 6 1.00

0 0

0 0

0 0 9 1 0 0 Main Main St E0 0 0 6 0 1 St W0 0

0 0

9 6 0 0


0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0

1 0 7 0 9 0 6 0


0 2 0 1 0 0 0 3

5 5 0 0 10 21 0 0 8 2 0 0 22 19 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t S

Four

th L

ine

Jam

es S

now

Pkwy

Traf

algar

Rd


0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0

0 0 0 0 3 0 5 0 2 0


0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

7 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 18 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 31 0 0

Firs

t Lin

e

Reg

Rd 25

Four

th L

ine

Traf

algar

Rd

SITE

CN Milton Intermodal Terminal Future Total (2031) Traffic Volumes6071-11 Weekday AMDate of Survey:

Peak Hour:

HWY 401

Node 0 1470 1537 1.00 Node 0 2420 1158 1.00 Node 0 110 230 1.00

40% 3% 2% 130 3% 0 5% 2% 8% 622 9% 0 0% 2% 0% 80 1% 0

80 4% 0 225 10% 0 525 9% 0

Steeles Ave W 85 5 1240 225 108 17% 318 Steeles 883 628 740 ### 35 0% 882 Steeles 1242 5 45 60 205 10% 810285 2% 85 0 1322 406 751 Ave W 976 5% 361 30 175 80 1727 Ave E 1232 0% 60 712 90 660 16050 3% 120 0 4% 595 0 5% 885

0 6% 80 #DIV/0! 5% 4% 0 5% 20 7% 3% 4% 0 12% 287 7% 1% 4%

1428 1728 0 0 795 285 0 0 537 1462 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t N

Marti

n St

Onta

rio S

t N

Node 0 1348 1473 1.00

#DIV/0! 4% 6% 40 10% 0

0 #DIV/0! 0


0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 4% 1%

1298 1588 0 0


2% 4% 8% 170 2% 0 5% 8% 3% 215 8% 0 2% 4% 3% 200 11% 0 4% 7% 3% 165 2% 0

325 2% 0 280 9% 0 631 4% 0 706 4% 0


0 5% 140 7% 5% 2% 0 4% 135 5% 5% 5% 0 5% 40 3% 3% 1% 0 3% 585 5% 4% 2%

1448 1353 0 0 1098 1374 0 0 1090 1683 0 0 1587 2318 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t S

Four

th L

ine

Jam

es S

now

Pkwy

Traf

algar

Rd


3% 2% 27% 423 13% 0 3% 1% 2% 305 1% 0 8% 6% 2% 80 4% 0 7% #DIV/0! 2% 200 5% 0 10% 5% 2% 225 4% 0

270 2% 0 735 10% 0 828 6% 0 768 7% 0 481 6% 0


0 6% 35 10% 3% 3% 0 20% 5 0% 1% 0% 0 4% 254 4% 5% 3% 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0 5% 480 4% 5% 1%

955 495 0 0 395 450 0 0 1739 1444 0 0 0 0 0 0 2290 2665 0 0

Firs

t Lin

e

Reg

Rd 25

Four

th L

ine

Traf

algar

Rd

SITE

CN Milton Intermodal Terminal Number of Future Total 2031 Traffic that is MEDIUM TRUCKS (WITH Tremaine Scenario)6071-11 Weekday AMDate of Survey:

Peak Hour:

HWY 401

Node 0 17 19 Node 0 67 40 Node 0 1 23 0 29 0 1 0

3 0 10 0 23 0


0 5 0 0 0 10

25 19 0 0 14 1 0 0 18 40 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t N

Marti

n St

Onta

rio S

t N

Node 0 21 110 0

0 0

0 0 19 2 0 0 Main Main St E0 0 0 11 2 4 St W0 0

0 0

19 13 0 0


6 0 10 0 12 0 13 0


0 4 0 2 0 1 0 10

20 17 0 0 33 35 0 0 19 26 0 0 40 53 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t S

Four

th L

ine

Jam

es S

now

Pkwy

Traf

algar

Rd


6 0 21 0 9 0 25 0 12 0


0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 16

23 9 0 0 2 3 0 0 33 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 60 0 0

Firs

t Lin

e

Reg

Rd 25

Four

th L

ine

Traf

algar

Rd

SITE

CN Milton Intermodal Terminal Number of Future Total 2031 Traffic that is HEAVY TRUCKS6071-11 Weekday AMDate of Survey:

Peak Hour:

HWY 401

Node 0 20 31 Node 0 54 41 Node 0 0 01 0 28 0 0 0

0 0 13 0 23 0


0 0 0 1 0 23

26 42 0 0 4 10 0 0 37 35 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t N

Marti

n St

Onta

rio S

t N

Node 0 26 294 0

0 0

0 0 22 4 5 9 Main Main St E0 0 0 25 0 4 St W0 0

0 0

27 25 0 0


2 0 14 0 15 0 17 0


0 3 0 3 0 1 0 5

21 26 0 0 38 35 0 0 21 11 0 0 31 29 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t S

Four

th L

ine

Jam

es S

now

Pkwy

Traf

algar

Rd


0 0 29 0 23 0 18 0 10 0


0 1 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 6

4 8 0 0 4 2 0 0 58 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 46 0 0

Firs

t Lin

e

Reg

Rd 25

Four

th L

ine

Traf

algar

Rd

SITE

CN Milton Intermodal Terminal Future Total (2031) Traffic Volumes6071-11 Weekday PMDate of Survey:

Peak Hour:

HWY 401

Node 0 1871 1620 1.00 Node 0 1980 1194 1.00 Node 0 95 75 1.00

0% 3% 1% 95 2% 0 5% 1% 7% 677 6% 0 0% 0% 0% 45 0% 0

115 2% 0 465 2% 0 865 2% 0


0 2% 115 0% 4% 22% 0 2% 50 0% 2% 0% 0 5% 457 4% 0% 4%

1749 1552 0 0 910 270 0 0 862 1052 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t N

Marti

n St

Onta

rio S

t N

Node 0 1549 1357 1.00

#DIV/0! 3% 2% 30 3% 0

0 #DIV/0! 0


0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 5% 2%

1544 1457 0 0


1% 4% 1% 115 2% 0 2% 3% 2% 185 1% 0 1% 3% 5% 400 2% 0 2% 6% 2% 140 1% 0

420 0% 0 1235 2% 0 1746 2% 0 1891 1% 0


0 2% 175 2% 5% 1% 0 1% 95 2% 4% 6% 0 0% 30 0% 3% 2% 0 3% 230 2% 4% 2%

1319 1443 0 0 1088 1234 0 0 1660 888 0 0 1449 1988 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t S

Four

th L

ine

Jam

es S

now

Pkwy

Traf

algar

Rd


3% 3% 23% 408 13% 0 1% 1% 1% 365 1% 0 8% 3% 3% 255 0% 0 4% #DIV/0! 2% 675 1% 0 6% 4% 2% 235 3% 0

300 1% 0 724 10% 0 957 6% 0 1112 4% 0 898 3% 0


0 0% 30 2% 2% 2% 0 #DIV/0! 0 0% 1% 2% 0 3% 264 4% 3% 3% 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0 2% 325 1% 4% 1%

745 960 0 0 225 530 0 0 1539 2274 0 0 0 0 0 0 2470 2400 0 0

Firs

t Lin

e

Reg

Rd 25

Four

th L

ine

Traf

algar

Rd

SITE

CN Milton Intermodal Terminal Number of Future Total 2031 Traffic that is MEDIUM TRUCKS (WITH Tremaine Scenario)6071-11 Weekday PMDate of Survey:

Peak Hour:

HWY 401

Node 0 16 18 Node 0 38 23 Node 0 0 02 0 12 0 0 0

1 0 7 0 12 0


0 2 0 1 0 11

23 19 0 0 9 3 0 0 14 25 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t N

Marti

n St

Onta

rio S

t N

Node 0 10 151 0

0 0

0 0 9 1 0 1 Main Main St E0 0 0 14 2 3 St W0 0

0 0

9 16 0 0


0 0 13 0 19 0 16 0


0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4

15 14 0 0 16 21 0 0 21 12 0 0 26 35 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t S

Four

th L

ine

Jam

es S

now

Pkwy

Traf

algar

Rd


3 0 12 0 8 0 11 0 8 0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

16 15 0 0 2 3 0 0 21 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 47 0 0

Firs

t Lin

e

Reg

Rd 25

Four

th L

ine

Traf

algar

Rd

SITE

CN Milton Intermodal Terminal Number of Future Total 2031 Traffic that is HEAVY TRUCKS6071-11 Weekday PMDate of Survey:

Peak Hour:

HWY 401

Node 0 15 25 Node 0 40 35 Node 0 0 00 0 28 0 0 0

1 0 2 0 7 0


0 0 0 0 0 8

25 49 0 0 3 2 0 0 12 19 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t N

Marti

n St

Onta

rio S

t N

Node 0 24 280 0

0 0

0 0 23 1 0 0 Main Main St E0 0 0 28 0 1 St W0 0

0 0

23 28 0 0


1 0 7 0 10 0 7 0


0 2 0 1 0 0 0 3

19 28 0 0 13 25 0 0 13 5 0 0 31 22 0 0

Trem

aine R

d

Bron

te S

t S

Four

th L

ine

Jam

es S

now

Pkwy

Traf

algar

Rd


0 0 29 0 25 0 22 0 10 0


0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0

7 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 22 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 31 0 0

Firs

t Lin

e

Reg

Rd 25

Four

th L

ine

Traf

algar

Rd

SITE



ATTACHMENT B FIGURE IR13-1: AIR QUALITY TRAFFIC

ASSESSMENT

#*#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*#*#* #*

#*#* #*#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*

#*

#*

%L %L

%L

%L%L

%L

%L%L

%L

%L%L

%L%L

%L

%L

%L%L

%L

%L

%L

%L

%L%L

%L%L

%L

%L%L

%L

%L

%L%L

%L

%L

%L

%L

%L

%L

%L

%L

%L

%L

%L

%L

%L

%L

%L

%L

%L%L%L

%L

%L%L%L

%L%L%L

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")") ")")")

")

")

")

")

")") ")

")

")

")

")

")")

")")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

")

Future Tremaine Road

Dundas

Street West

4th Line

Indian

Road

Mavis Road

Glen Erin Drive

Trafalgar Road

Dundas

Street

East

Burnham

thorpe

RoadWestBrita

nnia R

oad W

est

8th Line

Gro svenor Street

Hurontario Street

Postm aster Drive

Speer

s Road

Confedera tio n Parkwa y

Winston Churchill Boulevard

6th Line

B attlef

ordRoad

Millcreek Drive

9th Line

Lisgar Drive

Main Stre

et East

ErinCentr

eBo

ulevar

d

Dundas

Street

West

Creditview Road

Centr

e View Driv

e

Derry R

oad

Lorne Park Road

Brist

ol RoadWest

The Collegew

ay

Terry Fox Way

3rd Line

Queensw

ay West

Argenti

a Road

Lakesh

ore Road

East

Eglinton

Avenue

West

Ontario Street South

Derry Road

West

Reid Si

deroa

d

Erindale Station Road

Thomas

Street

Lakesh

ore Road

West

Tremaine Road

Cornwall

Road

Chartwell Road

Queen Street South

Paisley

Boulev

ard West

Mississauga Road

Maple Grove Drive

Britann

ia Road

Proudfoot Trail

Ford Drive

Bloor Street

Queensw

ay East

McDow

ell Driv

e

10th Line West

Morrison Road

Glenasht

on

Dr ive

Southdown Road

Churchill Meadows Boulevard

Royal W

indsor

Drive

Martin Street

Central Pa

rkway

West

Child s Drive

Bronte Street South

Clarkson Road

Terrag

ar

Boulevard

Neyagawa Boulevard

Tru s co

tt Drive

Wyecrof

t Road

CommercialStree t

4th Line

Nottinghill Gate

Devo n Road

Wood

ward

Avenue

Reynolds Street

Upper

Middle Road

West

Lakesh

ore Road

West

Lauri

erAv

enue

Morden Road

Appleby Line

Thompson Road South

Kings

wayD

rive

James Snow Parkway South

Steeles

Avenue

East

South

Servi

ceRoad

East

Regional Road 25

Dundas

Street

East

Laird Road

Ridgeway Drive

Orr Road

Lower

Baseline

East

Twiss Road

Hornby Road

Bronte Road

Steele

s Aven

ue

Guelph Line

Campb

ellville

Road

Burnha

mthorpe

Road East

5th Side

road

Tre lawn y Circle

Erin Mills Parkway

Rathb

urnRo

adWest

GrandBo

uleva

rd

Mis si ss augaVall eyBou

levard

Upper

Middle Roa

d East

Rebecca

Street

Pilgrims W ay

Herita

geWay

15th S

ideroa

d

Dorval Drive

Kerr Street

Highway 401

Queen E

lizabet

h Way

Highway403

Highway

407

Osenego Creek

Mary Fix Creek

S heridan Creek

Shannon'sCreek

Cle arv iewCreek

Turtle Creek

Bronte Creek

Joshua'sCreek

McCraney Creek

Wedgewood Creek

Fourteen MileCreek

Lornewood Creek

Cooksvill e Creek

Indian Creek

Sixteen Mile Creek

Mid dle SixteenMile Creek

Te cumseh CreekGlen Erin Brook

Limestone Creek

Carol

ynCre

ek

East Sixteen MileCreek

Morrison Creek

Sawmill Creek

Stavebank Creek

Wabu

kayn

e Cree

k

Munn's Creek

Kenollie CreekMullet Creek

Lake Ontario

580000

580000

585000

585000

590000

590000

595000

595000

600000

600000

605000

605000

610000

610000

4810000

4810000

4815000

4815000

4820000

4820000

4825000

4825000

LegendSeptem b er 2016

160960844Client/Project

Figure No.IR13-1

T itleAir Quality Traffic Assessment

0 2 4km

1:90,000

0 2 4km

\\Cd1220-f02\01609\active\60960844\drawing\MXD\Atmospheric\Air\Report_Figures\Technical_Report\Post_Submission\160960844_Air_FigIR13_1_Air_Quality_Traffic_Assessment_wStn_Receptors.mxd

Revised: 2016-09-30 By: pworsell

Project ComponentsProject Developm ent Area

Air Quality Receptors%L Specia l Receptors (Cum ula tive Effects, 2016)") Specia l Receptors (Air TDR, 2015)#* Specia l Receptors (Tra ffic “W orst Ca se” prediction, 2015)

Air Quality Alternative Truck RoutesConsidera b le Cha nge (BA, 2015)Noticea b le Cha nge (BA, 2015)Additiona l T ruck Routes Considered

Existing FeaturesExpresswa y / Highwa yM a jor Roa dLoca l Roa dFuture Trem a ine Roa dExisting Ra ilwa y

W a tercourseW a terb ody

±

Coordina te System : NAD 1983 U T M Zone 17N

Ba se fea tures produced under license with the O nta rioM inistry of Na tura l Resources a nd Forestry © Queen's Printerfor O nta rio, 2016. Site la yout: July 10, 2015.

"Review of T erm ina l-Genera ted Truck T ra ffic" (BA Group,Nove m b er 30, 2015) (EIS Appendix E17)

Notes1.

2.

3.

Ca na dia n Na tiona l Ra ilwa yM ilton Logistics Hub



ATTACHMENT C TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE AIR

QUALITY EFFECTS ASSESSMENT

Attachment IR13-2 – Air Quality Cumulative Effects Prepared on September 30, 2016

Page 1 of 1

Attachment C - Table 1 - Summary of Cumulative Air Quality Effects Assessment: Predicted Ground Level Concentrations at Traffic Receptors (2021 and 2031)

Subs

tanc

e

Ave

ragi

ng

Perio

d (h

ours

)

Air

Qua

lity

Obj

ectiv

es /

Crit

eria

(µ

g/m

3 )

Regu

latio

n

(Ref

er to

Air

TDR,

Tabl

e 4.

3, p

g. 2

0) Maximum Predicted Ground-Level Concentration (µg/m3)

Baseline CN Project

Case (no offsite traffic)

CN Related Offsite Truck Traffic CN Contribution (Project + Offsite Traffic)

Future Traffic (From BA Regional Traffic Assessment)

Cumulative Effect Assessment (CN Contribution + Future Traffic +

Background)

Con

cent

ratio

n

Perc

enta

ge *

*

Con

cent

ratio

n

Perc

enta

ge *

*

2021 2031 2021 2031 2021 2031 2021 2031

Con

cent

ratio

n

Perc

enta

ge *

*

Con

cent

ratio

n

Perc

enta

ge *

*

Con

cent

ratio

n

Perc

enta

ge *

*

Con

cent

ratio

n

Perc

enta

ge *

*

Con

cent

ratio

n

Perc

enta

ge *

*

Con

cent

ratio

n

Perc

enta

ge *

*

Con

cent

ratio

n

Perc

enta

ge *

*

Con

cent

ratio

n

Perc

enta

ge *

*

NO2 1 400

NAAQO 46.8 12% 6.89E+01 17% 1.59E+00 0.40% 1.27E+00 0.32% 6.95E+01 17.39% 6.94E+01 17.35% 5.98E+00 1.50% 4.65E+00 1.16% 1.19E+02 29.79% 1.18E+02 29.47%

24 200 38.9 19% 3.50E+01 18% 5.56E-01 0.28% 4.45E-01 0.22% 3.51E+01 17.57% 3.51E+01 17.56% 2.62E+00 1.31% 2.64E+00 1.32% 7.46E+01 37.31% 7.44E+01 37.19% Annual 100 23.0 23% 7.92E+00 8% 1.70E-01 0.17% 1.36E-01 0.14% 7.95E+00 7.95% 7.94E+00 7.94% 7.44E-01 0.74% 7.39E-01 0.74% 3.11E+01 31.09% 3.10E+01 31.02%

CO 1 35,000

NAAQO 437.2 1% 1.37E+02 0% 5.20E+00 0.01% 1.54E+00 0.00% 1.39E+02 0.40% 1.37E+02 0.39% 2.66E+02 0.76% 1.67E+02 0.48% 7.91E+02 2.26% 6.81E+02 1.95%

8 15,000 413.0 3% 6.77E+01 0% 2.93E+00 0.02% 8.59E-01 0.01% 6.90E+01 0.46% 6.81E+01 0.45% 2.05E+02 1.36% 1.37E+02 0.91% 6.26E+02 4.18% 5.58E+02 3.72%

SO2 1 900

NAAQO 22.6 3% 3.17E-01 0% 2.33E-02 0.00% 2.43E-02 0.00% 3.27E-01 0.04% 3.27E-01 0.04% 2.86E-01 0.03% 3.40E-01 0.04% 2.31E+01 2.56% 2.31E+01 2.57%

24 300 20.6 7% 7.70E-02 0% 8.10E-03 0.00% 8.20E-03 0.00% 8.40E-02 0.03% 8.41E-02 0.03% 1.31E-01 0.04% 1.88E-01 0.06% 2.07E+01 6.92% 2.08E+01 6.94% Annual 60 7.8 13% 1.50E-02 0% 2.50E-03 0.00% 2.50E-03 0.00% 1.55E-02 0.03% 1.55E-02 0.03% 3.75E-02 0.06% 5.32E-02 0.09% 7.80E+00 13.00% 7.82E+00 13.03%

PM 24 120

NAAQO n/a* n/a 1.29E+01 11% 1.14E+00 0.95% 8.09E-01 0.67% 1.33E+01 11.12% 1.32E+01 11.00% 2.62E+01 21.87% 4.24E+01 35.36% 2.73E+01 22.79% 4.34E+01 36.14%

Annual 70 n/a* n/a 2.32E+00 3% 3.43E-01 0.49% 2.44E-01 0.35% 2.38E+00 3.40% 2.36E+00 3.37% 7.68E+00 10.97% 1.23E+01 17.56% 7.93E+00 11.32% 1.25E+01 17.83% PM10 24 50 AAQC 30.7 61% 5.08E+00 10% 6.44E-01 1.29% 4.30E-01 0.86% 5.33E+00 10.67% 5.24E+00 10.47% 8.45E+00 16.90% 1.31E+01 26.29% 3.97E+01 79.40% 4.43E+01 88.56%

PM2.5 24 27

CAAQS 13.2 49% 3.04E+00 11% 3.84E-01 1.42% 1.23E-01 0.45% 3.20E+00 11.86% 3.09E+00 11.45% 2.78E+00 10.30% 2.88E+00 10.65% 1.71E+01 63.15% 1.68E+01 62.19%

Annual 8.8 6.9 78% 5.47E-01 6% 1.16E-01 1.32% 3.71E-02 0.42% 5.64E-01 6.41% 5.52E-01 6.27% 7.96E-01 9.04% 8.25E-01 9.37% 7.76E+00 88.17% 7.74E+00 87.98%

Benzene 24 2.3

AAQC 1.59 69% 3.72E-02 2% 3.17E-03 0.14% 1.26E-03 0.05% 3.86E-02 1.68% 3.76E-02 1.63% 7.85E-02 3.41% 3.51E-02 1.53% 1.67E+00 72.60% 1.63E+00 70.97%

Annual 0.45 0.79 176% 6.79E-03 2% 9.53E-04 0.21% 3.74E-04 0.08% 6.93E-03 1.54% 6.84E-03 1.52% 2.23E-02 4.95% 9.83E-03 2.18% 8.16E-01 181.39% 8.03E-01 178.55%

1,3-Butadiene 24 10

AAQC 0.09 1% 9.69E-03 0% 1.09E-03 0.01% 2.81E-04 0.00% 9.96E-03 0.10% 9.74E-03 0.10% 1.03E-02 0.10% 1.46E-03 0.01% 1.06E-01 1.06% 1.04E-01 1.04%

Annual 2 0.05 2% 1.94E-03 0% 3.28E-04 0.02% 8.38E-05 0.00% 1.99E-03 0.10% 1.95E-03 0.10% 2.90E-03 0.15% 3.99E-04 0.02% 5.31E-02 2.65% 5.19E-02 2.60%

Acrolein 1 4.5

AAQC n/a* n/a 9.23E-02 2% 7.26E-03 0.16% 2.80E-03 0.06% 9.62E-02 2.14% 9.37E-02 2.08% 2.32E-02 0.52% 1.10E-02 0.24% 1.06E-01 2.35% 9.65E-02 2.14%

24 0.4 n/a* n/a 2.48E-02 6% 2.66E-03 0.67% 1.02E-03 0.26% 2.58E-02 6.45% 2.52E-02 6.29% 1.21E-02 3.02% 6.10E-03 1.53% 2.75E-02 6.87% 2.55E-02 6.37%

Acetaldehyde 0.5 500

AAQC n/a* n/a 9.52E-02 0% 4.85E-02 0.01% 2.07E-02 0.00% 4.22E-01 0.08% 4.06E-01 0.08% 1.77E-01 0.04% 8.54E-02 0.02% 7.54E-02 0.02% 3.90E-02 0.01%

24 500 n/a* n/a 9.09E-02 0% 1.46E-02 0.00% 6.21E-03 0.00% 9.63E-02 0.02% 9.30E-02 0.02% 7.54E-02 0.02% 3.90E-02 0.01% 1.04E-01 0.02% 9.52E-02 0.02% Formaldehyde 24 65 AAQC n/a* n/a 1.90E-01 0% 3.37E-02 0.05% 1.67E-02 0.03% 2.03E-01 0.31% 1.96E-01 0.30% 1.59E-01 0.25% 1.05E-01 0.16% 2.18E-01 0.34% 2.02E-01 0.31%

Benzo(a)pyrene 24 0.00005

AAQC 0.00064 1273% 9.82E-05 196% 2.02E-05 40% 3.82E-06 8% 1.05E-04 211% 9.96E-05 199% 3.02E-04 605% 1.06E-04 212% 9.55E-04 1910% 7.50E-04 1499%

Annual 0.00001 0.00025 2461% 1.44E-05 144% 6.01E-06 60% 1.13E-06 11% 1.51E-05 151% 1.45E-05 145% 8.66E-05 866% 2.97E-05 297% 3.36E-04 3365% 2.77E-04 2768% Note: Results presented are single receptor maximum concentrations out of 58 modeled receptors. Concentrations presented may not sum up as the values presented in each column may not necessarily be at the same receptor. Note: Additional sources of emission from future urban developments would be a contribution (i.e. residential heating), however these emissions have not been defined and limited data exists for these predicted emissions. Yellow highlight identifies exceedance of applicable criteria. *n/a - background concentration for the pollutant in not available from nearby monitoring stations ** Percentage of Applicable Criteria


ATTACHMENT IR16-2 – SURFACE WATER CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN – MODEL

RESULTS

Attachment IR16-2 Surface Water Contaminants of Concern – Model Results


Page 1 of 6

The following surface water contaminants of concern from the site runoff during operation were identified and discussed in our response to IR16 (May 18, 2016):

• Sediment /Turbidity;

• Oxygen Levels and Water Temperature;

• Phosphorus;

• Metals (i.e. iron, copper, zinc, manganese and chromium);

• Hydrocarbons; and,

• Salinity and Salt.

PROPOSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

The stormwater management (SWM) system for the Project will include the following measures to manage, convey and treat surface water runoff (stormwater) from within the PDA to ensure full compliance to regulatory requirements prior to its release:

• Oil grit separators (OGS);

• Grassed swales; and,

• SWM ponds.

Runoff from the site will be collected and conveyed through a network of OGS, storm sewers and drainage grassed swales to two SWM ponds before draining into Indian Creek or Tributary A, as illustrated in Figure 5 of the SWM Strategy (Appendix B of the Hydrology TDR (Appendix E.15)). See Figure 5 – SWM Concept Yard & Administration Building Area provided in Attachment A.

Storm sewers and drainage ditches will be installed for the collection and direction of surface water into one of two on-site SWM ponds. The stormwater treatment process will start with OGS, followed by grassed swales and then SWM ponds. OGS capture litter, coarse sediment, some nutrients such as particulate phosphorus and oil and greases (hydrocarbons). OGS will be installed along the stormwater drainage system associated with the administration building parking lot and gate area to provide pre-treatment of run-off prior to discharge to the grassed swales and SWM ponds. A series of grassed swales are proposed following the OGS and between the yard, gate and administration building to collect, attenuate, and convey storm run-off from the site to the SWM ponds. The grass swales also provide pre-treatment of surface runoff through filtering by the vegetation, filtering through a subsoil matrix, and /or infiltration into the underlying soils before discharge to the SWM ponds.

Removal Efficiency of Oil Grit Separators

OGS units are structures consisting of one or more chambers that remove sediment, screen debris and separate oil from stormwater. OGS units are particularly well suited to capture particulates and hydrocarbons from small highly impervious areas such as residential



Page 2 of 6

townhouse/apartment parking lots, loading/parking areas at commercial facilities and gas stations. They are recommended for areas where incidental spills/leaks may have increased frequency, such as parking lots, gas stations and transportation facilities. Ontario MOE (2003) provides design and performance guidance (in Sections 4.6.8 and 6.4.2.9) to OGS units and recommends their use in pre-treatment of stormwater in a treatment process approach. Two basic types of oil and grit separators are available, including the three chamber OGS and the manhole OGS. The Ontario Ministry of the Environment (Henry, et al., 1999) carried out a comparison study for these two types of oil and grit separators and the results of the removal efficiency for these oil and grit separators are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Pollutant Removal Efficiency of Oil and Grit Separators (Henry et al., 1999)

Type of OGS Chamber Size Percent Removal

TSS Heavy Metals Oil/Grease Three Chamber OGS 52 m3 48% 21-36% 42% Manhole OGS with

Bypass 35 m3 61% 42-52% 50%

Removal Efficiency of Grassed Swales

Grassed swales are proposed as they have been demonstrated to treat and attenuate storm runoff for a specified water quality volume. As stormwater runoff flows through the channel, it is treated through filtering by the vegetation in the channel, filtering through the subsoil matrix, and/or infiltration into the underlying soils. Studies conducted suggest relatively high removal rates for TSS and moderate removal capacity for phosphorus. MOE (2003) provides design guidance for grassed swales. It is indicated that grassed swales are most effective for stormwater treatment when depth of flow is minimized, bottom width is maximized (≥0.75 m) and channel slope is minimized (e.g., ≤1%). The removal efficiencies for the grassed swales range from 60 to 80%. Table 2 below provides pollutant removal data derived from the Centre for Watershed Protection’s (CWP’s) National Pollutant Removal Database for Stormwater Treatment Practices.

Table 2. Pollutant Removal of Water Quality Swales (Winer, 2000) Pollutant Removal Efficiency (%)

TSS 81(±14)1 TP 34(±33)

NOX 31(±49) Metals 42(±71)

1. ± values represent one standard deviation

Removal Efficiency of Stormwater Management Ponds As shown in Attachment A the SWM ponds are proposed to be located adjacent to the Terminal truck gate (SWM Pond 1) and the administration building and maintenance garage (SWM Pond 2). These ponds have been designed as wet detention ponds equipped with shut-off valves to be engaged in the event of an accidental spill to protect the downstream environment. Wet



Page 3 of 6

ponds are among the most cost-effective and widely used stormwater treatment practices. A wide range of research is available to estimate the effectiveness of wet ponds (Hartigan, 1988; Maryland Department of the Environment, 1986; Schueler, 1992; Urbonas, 1993; MOE, 2003).

The SWM ponds will treat incoming stormwater runoff by sedimentation and microbial mediation. The primary removal mechanism is sedimentation while stormwater runoff is detained in the pond. Nutrient uptake also occurs through biological activity in the pond.

The SWM Ponds proposed for the Logistics Hub have been designed to MOE (2003) SWM design criteria to achieve 80% (Enhanced) TSS removal. Table 3 below provides pollutant removal estimates derived from CWP’s National Pollutant Removal Performance Database for Stormwater Treatment Practices (Winer, 2000).

Table 3. Pollutant Removal Efficiency of Stormwater Wet Ponds (Winer, 2000) Pollutant Removal Efficiency (%)

TSS 80 (±271) TP 51(±21) TN 33(±20)

NOX 43(±38) Metals 29(±73)

Bacteria 70(±32) 1. ± values represent one standard deviation

SITE RUNOFF EFFLUENT QUALITY – SURFACE WATER DISCUSSION

Based on the discussion of pollutant removal efficiency from Table 1 to Table 3 for the proposed SWM measures, a spreadsheet based site runoff effluent quality model has been developed to estimate the stormwater quality after treatment before draining into Indian Creek or Tributary A. Stormwater influent or runoff quality was estimated in the previous response to IR16 and 17 provided May 18, 2016) and based on raw stormwater quality information provided in additional literature (Aquafor, 1993). The results of the model are presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Predicted Water Quality After Treatment

COC Units Treatment System Removal Efficiency (%) Estimated

Influent Stormwater

Quality

Stormwater Effluent

Quality After Treatment

CCME- CWQG-

FAL3 Oil and Grit Separators

Grass Swales

SWM Wet Ponds

Suspended Sediment mg/L 48 - 61 81 80 87-1881 1.72 – 2.79 Narrativ

e4 Iron ug/L

21 - 52 42 - 71 29 -73

- - 300

Zinc ug/L 23 - 180 0.86 - 58.6 30

Copper ug/L 25 - 92 0.94 - 3.46 2-4

Chromium ug/L 2.9 - 5.3 0.11 - 1.72 -

Manganese ug/L - - -



Page 4 of 6

Table 4. Predicted Water Quality After Treatment

COC Units Treatment System Removal Efficiency (%) Estimated

Influent Stormwater

Quality

Stormwater Effluent

Quality After Treatment

CCME- CWQG-

FAL3 Oil and Grit Separators

Grass Swales

SWM Wet Ponds

Lead ug/L 9.3-16 0.35 -5.21 1-7

Hydrocarbons mg/L 42 - 50 - - - - -

Total Phosphorus mg/L 40-602 34 51 0.55 0.07 – 0.11 - 1- Aquafor, 1993 2- Assumed based on grit/particulate removal functionality following manufacturer’s maintenance recommendations. 3- CCME CWQG-FAL refers to Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment - Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the

Protection of Aquatic Life. 4- Suspended Solids CWQG –FAL: 1) for clear flow conditions, maximum increase of 25 mg/L from background levels for any short-

term exposure (e.g., 24-h period). Maximum average increase of 5 mg/L from background levels for longer term exposure (e.g., inputs lasting between 24 h and 30 d); 2) for high flow conditions, maximum increase of 25 mg/L from background levels at any time when background levels are between 25 and 250 mg/L. Should not increase more than 10% of background levels when background is ≥ 250 mg/L.

Based on the model results, it is predicted that water quality after the treatment are generally below the CWQG limits. TSS removal efficiency is expected to reach >95% due to the proposed treatment process approach, which is expected to minimize effluent turbidity to below the narrative CWQG-FAL criteria. Total phosphorus removal is expected to be > 80% removal. Metals removals are also proposed to be high due to the treatment process approach with all stormwater effluent concentrations predicted below CWQG-FAL concentrations. Hydrocarbon removal has been quantified for OGS units, but will also occur in the grassed swales and SWM pond. The SWM ponds are proposed to be designed as bottom/sub-surface draw ponds to provide capture to Light Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (LNAPL) and equipped with outlet valves to contain all runoff in the event of an accidental spill release. Therefore, based on the proposed treatment process and spill containment/ contingency plan, hydrocarbon concentrations in stormwater effluent are expected to be very low.

The Information Request calls for estimation of dissolved oxygen and temperature in stormwater effluent. The proposed stormwater system will provide aeration of runoff through shallow overland flow, turbulent mixing and oxygenation in catch basins, OGS units, the grassed swales and storm sewer conveyance system. Stormwater will be detained in the SWM ponds to effect sedimentation and other processes. However, due to the relatively short detention time, low anticipated biochemical oxygen load, shallow pond depths and large surface areas of the ponds, dissolved oxygen concentrations are not expected to cause water quality concerns. MOE (2003) sets a minimum dissolved oxygen concentration of 4.0 mg/L based on SWM designs following the design manual, which has been observed for the Logistics Hub. MOE (2003) indicates that the 4.0 mg/L minimum DO criteria would be satisfactory for the protection of pike, darters, dace, stickleback, sunfish and brown bullhead similar to resident fish species communities in Tributary A and Indian Creek.

Stormwater temperatures typically reflect ambient temperatures during precipitation events except when they are sourced from snowmelt and detained for extended periods in the SWM pond. As indicated above, the proposed use of turbulent conveyance (grassed swales, OGS units) and a below surface outlet configuration is expected to mitigate thermal charging in the



Page 5 of 6

SWM system. MOE (2003) sets maximum stormwater effluent temperature design criteria of 30ºC for SWM systems designed to Manual guidance.

Salinity was discussed at length in the previous response to IR16 (May 18, 2016). Salinity is a recognized concern particularly in stormwater from transportation infrastructure (roads, parking lots) where road salt may be implemented. Sodium chloride is very difficult to remove from stormwater and does not attenuate well in soils. Due to difficulty in treating salinity, the most effective approach is to implement salt management to minimize the use of road salt for traction control. While salt will be used to manage ice and ensure a safe working area at the terminal, its use will be managed through a salt management program proposed to increase the use of sand and other traction/friction control agents and to restrict implementation of melting agents (i.e., road salt) only to periods when temperatures and road surface conditions permit.

SURFACE WATER MONITORING RESULTS FROM A RECENT AND SIMILAR FACILITY

To support the discharge water quality projections discussed above, water quality sampling results from a recent and similar facility have been referenced. Water quality samples were collected for the period from September 2013 to June 2016 from the stormwater ponds on site. All samples for hydrocarbons were under detection limits, with the exception of a single elevated toluene level. Total metals for all samples are primarily below CWQG, except for cadmium, zinc, aluminum, and copper. However, mean concentrations for cadmium, zinc and copper are below the CWQG limits. Only mean aluminum concentrations from stormwater ponds are above the CWQG-FAL limit of 0.1 mg/L. Attachment B summarizes the stormwater effluent monitoring results from this facility with parameter values above detection limits. Attachment C lists all the parameters where concentrations were below the detection limit.

CLOSURE

The additional information provided above with respect to predicted effluent quality provides more detail regarding the expected water quality after treatment. The stormwater effluent monitoring results from a similar facility illustrate the effectiveness of stormwater mitigation in managing surface runoff quality. The predicted concentrations of contaminants of potential concern for the Project are below CWQG-FAL (Table 4) and will not impair the water quality of Tributary A or Indian Creek.

The information provided in the initial IR response (May 18, 2016) or the above supplemental response does not change the assessment of effects or the results of the EIS.

REFERENCES Aquafor Beech Ltd. 1993. Wet Weather Discharges to the Metropolitan Toronto Waterfront,

prepared for the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Remedial Action Plan.

Hartigan, J.P. 1988. “Basic for Design of Wet Detention Basin BMPs”, in Design of Urban Runoff Quality Control. American Society of Engineers 1988.



Page 6 of 6

Henry, D., W. Liang, and S. Ristic. 1999. Comparison of Year-Round Performance for Two Types of Oil and Grit Separators, Presented at the International Congress on Local Government Engineering and Public Works, Sydney, Australia, August 22-26, 1999.

Maryland Department of the Environment. 1986. Feasibility and Design of Wet Ponds to Achieve Water Quality Control. Sediment and Storm Water Administration.

Ministry of the Environment (MOE). 2003. SWM Planning and Design Manual 2003. Prepared by Aquafor Beech Ltd. and Marshall Macklin Monaghan Ltd.

Schueler, T.R. 1992. A Current Assessment of Urban Best Management Practices. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.

Urbonas, B. and P. Stahre. 1993. Storm Water Best Management Practices and Detention for Water Quality, Drainage and CSO Management. PTR Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Winer, R. 2000. National Pollutant Removal Performance Database for Stormwater Treatment Practices: 2nd Edition. Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, MD.

http://www.stormwatercenter.net/Manual_Builder/STP%20Pollutant%20Removal%20Database%20Document.pdf

http://www.stormwatercenter.net/Manual_Builder/STP%20Pollutant%20Removal%20Database%20Document.pdf



ATTACHMENT A FIGURE 5: SWM CONCEPT YARD & ADMINISTRATION BUILDING AREA

DD

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D D D D D

D

DDD

D

D

D

D

D

D D

D

D

DD

D

DD

D

!(

!(

C4 C5 C6

C3

C1

C9

C8

C7

C2

Culvert 3

Culvert 5

Culvert 1

Culvert 2B

Existing Culvert (#40.69)to be maintained/extendedor equivalent provided

Culvert 2A

Culvert 4

Proposed Tributary ARe-Alignment

Proposed Indian CreekRe-Alignment

ExistingTributary AAlignment

Tributary B

Tributary C

Tributary A

Indian Creek

TributaryA

Tributary D

Indian

Creek

IndianCreekLow

er Base Line

Britannia R

d

First Line

Tremaine Rd

Britannia R

d

Pond 1 Pond2

5920

00

592000

5930

00

593000

594000

594000

595000

5950

00

596000

5960

00

4811000

4811

000

4812000

4812

000

48130004814000La

st s

aved

by:

LE

VE

SQ

UE

I (20

15-1

0-22

)Fi

lena

me:

D:\P

RO

JEC

TS\A

EC

OM

\603

3227

5\92

0-92

9 (G

IS-G

RA

PH

ICS

)\MA

PS

\WO

RK

ING

\OC

T 20

15\6

0332

275_

FIG

5_S

WM

CO

NC

EP

T_A

DM

INA

RE

A_R

1.M

XD

Last

Plo

tted:

Wed

Oct

28,

201

5A

ppro

ved:

AN

SI B

279

.4m

m x

431

.8m

m

SWM

CO

NC

EPT

YAR

D &

AD

MIN

ISTR

ATIO

N B

UIL

DIN

G A

REA

MIL

TON

LO

GIS

TIC

S H

UB

CN

, Milt

on, O

ntar

ioP

roje

ct N

o.: 6

0332

275

Dat

e: O

ctob

er 2

015

Figu

re: 0

5

KelsoLake

LakeOntario

Hwy 6

Highway40

1Ea

st

Highway

40

3W

est

Highw

ay40

7 EastMilton

Oakville

Burlington

Carlisle

HaltonHills

NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N²1:12,000

This drawing has been prepared for the use of AECOM's clientand may not be used, reproduced or relied upon by third parties,except as agreed by AECOM and its client, as required by law orfor use by governmental reviewing agencies. AECOM accepts noresponsibility, and denies any liability whatsoever, to any party thatmodifies this drawing without AECOM's express written consent.

Basemap: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.Additional Sources:Ortho-Imagery:

Key Map

120 0 120 240 36060

Metres

LegendProposed Culverts

DProposed Ditches withChannel Identification No.

DSouthern Swale withChannel Identification No.

!( Oil-Grit Separator

Proposed Storm Sewer

Proposed Ponds

Proposed Yard

Administration Building/Gate Area

Proposed Tributary A Re-Alignment

Propsoed Indian Creek Re-Alignment

Water FeaturesLake

Intermittent Stream

Permanent Stream

Exisiting Floodplain

!

SiteLocation

Pro

ject

Man

agem

ent I

nitia

ls:

Des

igne

r: IL

Che

cked

: JK

C4

C6



ATTACHMENT B: SUMMARY OF STORMWATER EFFLUENT

QUALITY FROM A SIMILAR FACILITY



Attachment B Summary of Stormwater Effluent Quality from a Similar Facility

Parameter Units CWQG-FAL Stormwater Pond1 (Sept. 2013 -

Jun. 2016) South Stormwater Pond2 (Sept.

2013 - Mar. 2016)

Short Term Long Term Sample No. mean Sample No. mean

Total Metals

Aluminum mg/L n/a 0.1 for freshwater 8 0.25 8 0.75

Arsenic mg/L n/a 0.005 - - 1 0.0015

Boron mg/L 29 1.5 - - 1 0.024

Cadmium ug/L 1 0.09 8 0.03 8 0..063

Chromium mg/L n/a n/a 8 0.001 8 0.003

Copper mg/L n/a 0.004 8 0.002 7 0.003

Iron mg/L n/a 0.3 1 0.22 2 3.75

Lead ug/L n/a 7 8 0.4 8 1

Mercury ug/L n/a 0.026 7 0.011 7 0.0026

Nickel mg/L n/a 0.15 8 0.003 7 0.004

Phosphorous mg/L n/a n/a 7 0.36 6 0.061

Silver ug/L n/a 0.1 8 ND 7 ND

Zinc mg/L n/a 0.03 7 0.011 8 0.023

Dissolved Metals

Calcium mg/L n/a n/a 7 95.3 5 94.6

Magnesium mg/L n/a n/a 7 59.7 5 48.8

Mercury ug/L n/a n/a 1 0.001 - -

Physical Parameters

Hardness mg/L n/a n/a 7 481 5 444

pH pH n/a 6.5-9.0 8 8.32 7 7.94

Total Suspended Solids mg/L n/a Narrative c 8 12.1 7 45.3

Dissolved Inorganics



Parameter Units CWQG-FAL Stormwater Pond1 (Sept. 2013 -

Jun. 2016) South Stormwater Pond2 (Sept.

2013 - Mar. 2016)


Sulphide mg/L n/a n/a 8 0.003 7 0.005

Biochemical oxygen demand mg/L n/a n/a 8 1.65 8 65

Chemical oxygen demand mg/L n/a n/a 8 44.3 8 134

Phosphorous mg/L n/a n/a 7 0.36 6 0.061

Non-chlorinated Phenols

Phenol mg/L n/a n/a 7 0.003 7 0.005

Notes:

ND denotes concentration under detection limit

A. all the samples are below detection limit, only one sample exceeded the CWQG with value of 0.0044 mg/L. half detection value were used to calculate the mean.

B. Most of the results are under detection limits, have values of detection limits have been used to calculate the mean values.

1. Stormwater pond is labeled an Evaporation Pond at the site

2. South Stormwater Pond is labeled the South Evaporation Pond at the site

Exceedance of CWQG



ATTACHMENT C SUMMARY OF STORMWATER EFFLUENT QUALITY FROM A SIMILAR FACILITY –

PARAMETERS UNDER DETECTION LIMITS



Attachment C Summary of Stormwater Effluent Quality from a Similar Facility – Parameters under Detection Limits

Parameter Units CWQG-FAL Stormwater Pond1 (Sept. 2013

- Jun. 2016) South Stormwater Pond2 (Sept.

2013 - Mar. 2016)


Monocyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

Benzene mg/L n/a 0.37 7 ND 8 ND

Toluene mg/L n/a 0.002 7 ND 8 0.0007A

Ethylbenzene mg/L n/a 0.09 7 ND 8 ND

Xylenes mg/L n/a n/a 7 ND 8 ND

Gross Parameters

Hydrocarbons C5-C10 mg/L n/a n/a 6 ND 7 0.058B

Hydrocarbons C5-C30 mg/L n/a n/a 7 ND 8 0.195B

TEH (C10-C30) mg/L n/a n/a 4 ND 5 0.192B

TEH (C11-C30) mg/L n/a n/a 4 ND 3 ND

Petroleum Hydrocarbon Fractions

F1-BTEX (C6-C10) mg/L n/a n/a 7 ND 8 ND

F1 (C6-C10) mg/L n/a n/a 7 ND 8 ND

Hydrocarbons

n-Undecane mg/L n/a n/a 4 ND 3 ND

Dodecane mg/L n/a n/a 4 ND 3 ND

Tridecane (C13) mg/L n/a n/a 4 ND 3 ND

Tetradecane (C14) mg/L n/a n/a 4 ND 3 ND

Pentadecane (C15) mg/L n/a n/a 4 ND 3 ND

Hexadecane (C16) mg/L n/a n/a 4 ND 3 ND

Heptadecane (C17) mg/L n/a n/a 4 ND 3 ND

Octadecane (C18) mg/L n/a n/a 4 ND 3 ND

Nonadecane (C19) mg/L n/a n/a 4 ND 3 ND

n-Eicosane mg/L n/a n/a 4 ND 3 ND





2013 - Mar. 2016)


Heneicosane (C21) mg/L n/a n/a 4 ND 3 ND

Docosane (C22) mg/L n/a n/a 4 ND 3 ND

Tricosane (C23) mg/L n/a n/a 4 ND 3 ND

Tetracosane (C24) mg/L n/a n/a 4 ND 3 ND

Pentacosane (C25) mg/L n/a n/a 4 ND 3 ND

Hexacosane (C26) mg/L n/a n/a 4 ND 3 ND

Heptacosane (C27) mg/L n/a n/a 4 ND 3 ND

Octacosane (C28) mg/L n/a n/a 4 ND 3 ND

Nonacosane (C29) mg/L n/a n/a 4 ND 3 ND

Triacontane (C30) mg/L n/a n/a 4 ND 3 ND

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons

B(a)P Equivalency mg/L n/a n/a 6 ND 5 ND

Acenaphthene mg/L n/a 0.0058 6 ND 5 ND

Acenaphthylene mg/L n/a n/a 6 ND 5 ND

Acridine mg/L n/a 0.0044 6 ND 5 ND

Anthracene mg/L n/a 0.000012 6 ND 5 ND

Benzo(a)anthracene mg/L n/a 0.000018 6 ND 5 ND

Benzo(b+j)fluoranthene mg/L n/a n/a 6 ND 5 ND

Benzo(k)fluoranthene mg/L n/a n/a 6 ND 5 ND

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene mg/L n/a n/a 6 ND 5 ND

Benzo(c)phenanthrene mg/L n/a n/a 6 ND 5 ND

Benzo(a)pyrene mg/L n/a 0.000015 6 ND 5 ND

Benzo(e)pyrene mg/L n/a n/a 6 ND 5 ND

Chrysene mg/L n/a n/a 6 ND 5 ND

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene mg/L n/a n/a 6 ND 5 ND





2013 - Mar. 2016)


Fluoranthene mg/L n/a 0.00004 6 ND 5 0.000009B

Fluorene mg/L n/a 0.003 6 ND 5 ND

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene mg/L n/a n/a 6 ND 5 ND

2-Methylnaphthalene mg/L n/a n/a 6 ND 5 ND

Naphthalene mg/L n/a 0.0011 6 ND 5 ND

Phenanthrene mg/L n/a 0.0004 6 ND 5 ND

Perylene mg/L n/a n/a 6 ND 5 ND

Pyrene mg/L n/a 0.000025 6 ND 5 ND

Quinoline mg/L n/a 0.0034 6 ND 5 ND

Total LMW PAH mg/L n/a n/a 6 ND 5 ND

Total HMW PAH mg/L n/a n/a 6 ND 5 ND

Total PAH mg/L n/a n/a 6 ND 5 ND

Notes:

ND denotes concentration under detection limit

A. all the samples are below detection limit, only one sample exceeded the CWQG with value of 0.0044 mg/L. half detection value were used to calculate the mean.

B. Most of the results are under detection limits, have values of detection limits have been used to calculate the mean values.

1. Stormwater pond is labeled an Evaporation Pond at the site

2. South Stormwater Pond is labeled the South Evaporation Pond at the site

Exceedance of CWQG


ATTACHMENT IR19-2 – WILDLIFE NOISE ASSESSMENT LOCATIONS

!(

!(

SNTU-1

SNTU-2SNTU-4

SNTU-3

")

")

")

")

Grassland (hay) in LAAnorth of Britannia Road

Grassland (hay)in LAA west ofTremaine Road

Grassland (hay)in LAA south ofLower Base Line

Woodland at southend of LAA

Tremaine Road

Lower Base Line

2nd Sideroad

Britannia Road

First Line

Barn supporting BarnSwallow in LAA south

of Tremaine Road

Barn supporting BarnSwallow in PDA northof Tremaine Road

TributaryA

Indian Creek

Tributar y C

Tributary B

LegendAugust 2016

160960844Client/Project

Figure No.IR# 19-2

TitleWildlife Noise AssessmentLocations

0 300 600m

1:12,000

0 300 600m

\\Cd

1220

-f02\

0160

9\ac

tive\

6096

0844

\dra

wing

\MXD

\Terr

estria

l\CEA

A_Re

spon

se\R

espo

nse_

2\16

0960

844_

CEAA

_FigI

R19_

2_W

ildlife

_Nois

e_Re

cept

or_L

ocat

ions.m

xdRe

vised

: 201

6-08-2

6 By:

pwor

sell

Project ComponentsProject Development AreaLocal Assessment AreaExisting Double Track MainlineDouble Track - MainlineProject ComponentCN-Owned PropertySWM Pond

Existing FeaturesPermanent StreamIntermittent StreamWaterbody

!( Barn Swallow Breeding Habitat (BARS)Bobolink/Eastern Meadowlark Breeding HabitatGrassland Migratory Bird HabitatWoodland Migratory Bird HabitatSnapping Turtle Habitat (SNTU)

Wetland Migratory Bird HabitatWestern Chorus Frog Critical Habitat

") Representative Location of Noise Assessment

±

Coordinate System: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 17N

Base features produced under license with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry© Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2016. Site layout: July 10, 2015.

Orthoimagery © First Base Solutions, 2016. Imagery taken in 2014.

Notes1.

2.

3.

Milton

Oakville

4th Line 6th Line

Walkers Line

Tremaine Road

First LineAppleby Line

Highw

ay 407

Bell School Line

Key Map

Canadian National RailwayMilton Logistics Hub

cjpowell

Typewritten Text

1

cjpowell

Typewritten Text

2

cjpowell

Typewritten Text

3

cjpowell

Typewritten Text

4

cjpowell

Typewritten Text

5

cjpowell

Typewritten Text

6


ATTACHMENT IR21-2 – COEFFICIENT OF CONSERVATISM VALUES

FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT SYSTEM

FOR SOUTHERN ONTARIO

M.J. Oldham, W.D. Bakowsky and D.A. Sutherland

Natural Heritage Infomation CentreOntario Ministry of Natural Resources

Box 7000, PeterboroughOntario K9J 8M5

Canada

December 1995

6

METHODOLOGY

Coefficients of Conservatism

A vascular plant checklist was compiled for southern Ontario by combining the regional checklists ofRiley (1989), Cuddy (1991), and Oldham (1993). Rarely encountered interspecific hybrids and a fewvary rare introduced species were omitted from the list. For our purposes southern Ontario has beendefined as Ontario south of the Precambrian Shield and excluding Manitoulin Island (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Checklist area: southern Ontario off the Precambrian Shield

7

Each native taxon was assigned a rank of 0 to 10 ("coefficient of conservatism") based on its degree offidelity to a range of synecological parameters. Plants found in a wide variety of plant communities,including disturbed sites, were assigned ranks of 0 to 3. Taxa that typically are associated with a specificplant community, but tolerate moderate disturbance, were assigned ranks of 4 to 6. Rankings of 7 to 8were applied to those taxa associated with a plant community in an advanced successional stage that hasundergone minor disturbance. Those plants with high degrees of fidelity to a narrow range ofsynecological parameters were assigned a value of 9 to 10 (Andreas & Lichvar 1995).

Coefficients of conservatism were independently assigned to all native plants in southern Ontario by eachof the three co-authors. These numerical values were based on our collective field experience in southernOntario of over 50 years. We then discussed our scores for each taxon and arrived at a consensus. Ourdraft list was independently reviewed by four field botanists with extensive experience in the southernOntario flora: Vivian R. Brownell, Daniel F. Brunton, William J. Crins, and John L. Riley. Followingthis external review we re-evaluated each species where one or more of the reviewers recommended achange in rank.

It is important to emphasize that the numerical values assigned to the native species of southern Ontariowere derived from the observed behaviour of populations in this defined area. As one travels away fromthe region, locally applied values may become decreasingly valid (Wilhelm & Masters 1995) and are notrecommended for use outside southern Ontario.

Weediness Index

Southern Ontario natural areas contain anywhere from 0 to 50% non-native plant species, with most sitesin the 20 to 30% range. Although many non-native plant species have little impact on natural areas,occurring mainly on edges, along trails and in other disturbed parts of the site, a few introduced speciescan cause major problems. Aggressive species such as purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) and garlicmustard (Alliaria petiolata) can become local dominants, excluding native species and radically altering anatural area (White, Haber & Keddy 1993).

In order to come up with a rating system for introduced plants, we assigned values between -1 and -3 tonon-native plant species in the southern Ontario flora. Plants with little or no impact on natural areaswere given a score of -1. The vast majority of southern Ontario non-native plants fall into this category.Those species which sometimes cause problems, but only relatively infrequently or in localized areaswere ranked -2. Introduced species which can become serious problems in southern Ontario natural areaswere scored -3. Some of these species may currently be problems only in a few areas, but have thepotential to become serious weeds. A particular weedy species may occur in a natural area, but in suchsmall numbers to have little or no impact on the area, but these values are intended to indicate the degreeof potential impact to the natural area.

As with the co-efficients of conservatism, weediness values for southern Ontario were independentlyassigned by each co-author, then discussed to arrive at a single value. These values were circulated tofour reviewers (Vivian Brownell, Daniel Brunton, William Crins, and John Riley). Reviewers commentswere incorporated into the final values included in Appendix C.


ATTACHMENT IR22-2 – REVISED SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT OF

POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON FISH AND FISH HABITAT

Attachment IR22 – Revised Summary of Assessment of Potential Effects on Fish and Fish Habitat Prepared on September 30, 2016

Page 1 of 5

Potential Environmental Effect (EIS Table 6.9, page

169)

Effect Pathway

(EIS Table 6.9, page 169)

Measurable Parameter(s) and Units of Measurement (EIS Table 6.9, page 169)

Quantitative Description of Existing Environmental Conditions

Description of how the Project is expected to result in changes to the measureable

parameter

Discussion of Implications of these changes to Fish and Fish Habitat

Change in fish habitat Change in riparian and in-water habitat availability (including critical habitat for SAR)

• Areal extent of altered or destroyed habitat (m2)

The following existing habitat conditions were observed during field investigations:

• Indian Creek existing channel area where works are to take place (i.e., channel realignment reach): 11,503 m2

• Tributary A existing channel area where works are to take place (i.e., channel realignment, wetland, and culvert installation): 2,594 m2

*Note: These values have been revised from those presented in the EIS (Section 6.5.1.9 pages 177 to 179) through on-going refinements as input to the DFO Authorization process.

As reported in Section 6.5.1.9.2 (page 175 to 180) of the Milton Logistics Hub EIS, the following changes to existing conditions are expected as a result of the Project:

Indian Creek

• Change in channel area during low flow conditions: -11,503 m2 (loss of habitat as a result of channel realignment)

• New/altered channel and seasonally connected wetlands: 10,624 m2

• Net change in channel enhancements: -897 m2 (loss in habitat)

• Riparian and floodplain enhancement area: 59,455 m2 (habitat enhancements)

Tributary A

• Removal of channel at various points within the project area (cumulative removal): -2,594 m2

• Removal of culvert and berm resulting in daylighting of channel: gain of 13 m2 and an increase in fish passage potential.

• Removal of ongoing erosion and sedimentation issues associated with breached pond berm/dam and undermined culvert.

• Removal of online pond (-2,500 m2) and associated impacts such as solar warming affecting water quality, obstructed fish passage and disrupted natural sediment transport processes.

• Construction of new channel and seasonally connected wetlands: 3,690 m2

• Riparian and floodplain enhancements: 11,460 m2

• Changes will generally result in an increase in habitat quality through implementation of natural channel

Numerically, the net change in habitat area is expressed as a loss; however, the new channel will provide improved habitat quality. Additionally, the inherent benefits of the riparian and floodplain enhancements will contribute greatly to overall habitat quality, but are not factored into the calculation of habit net change.

It is anticipated that the proposed works as designed will not result in residual serious harm to fish, as defined by the Fisheries Act. Further refinement of the channel design plans will occur as required, in consultation with DFO during the Fisheries Act approval process. Changes will result in an increase in habitat quality and fish passage potential through implementation of natural channel design principles and riparian enhancements.


Page 2 of 5


169)

Effect Pathway





parameter


design principles and riparian enhancements.

• Net change in fish habitat: 1,096 m2

Tributary C

• Installation of 30 m long culvert beneath a proposed noise mitigation berm will result in the alteration of a poorly defined channel that contributes indirectly to fish habitat, or supports fish habitat on a seasonal basis.

• Habitat productivity (Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE), density, biomass)

Indian Creek

CPUE: 0.065 fish/electrofishing second

Density: 1.31 fish/m2

Biomass: 9.2 g/m2

Tributary A

CPUE: 0.0 fish/electrofishing second

Density: 0.0 fish/m2

Biomass: 0.0 g/m2

*Note: No fish were caught during fish community sampling in 2015, however, 5 species were observed in 2013 (absence / presence).

Following implementation of the mitigation and offsetting measures (identified in Section 6.5.1.9, page 175 to 189), there are anticipated to be no changes to habitat productivity (CPUE, density, biomass).

Through the implementation of mitigation and offsetting measures, it is anticipated that the proposed works as designed will not result in a decrease in fisheries productivity. The channel and associated features have been designed to replicate or enhance existing features that will be altered as a result of the Project.

• Species and life stage diversity

Juvenile and adult fish of 16 of the 17 species listed in Section 5.1.2 (page 20 to 30) of the Milton Logistics Hub Technical Data Report, Fish and Fish Habitat (Appendix E.4) were captured during sampling. No adult Largemouth Bass were captured during sampling.

No negative changes to fish species and life stage diversity are anticipated.

It is anticipated that there will be no negative change in fish species and life stage diversity as a result of the Project. The channel and associated features have been designed to replicate or enhance existing features that will be altered as a result of the Project. Therefore, it is anticipated that the project will not result in serious harm to fish.


Page 3 of 5


169)

Effect Pathway





parameter


Change in fish movement, migration and fish passage

Change in flow rates or obstructions

• Minimum and maximum seasonal flows (m3/s)

Please refer to Table 5.25 (page 53) of the Milton Logistics Hub, Hydrology and Surface Water Quality Technical Data Report (Appendix E.15) for existing flow characteristics.

Section 6.1.1.1 (page 62 to 67) of Milton Logistics Hub, Hydrology and Surface Water Quality Technical Data Report (Appendix E.15) presents discussion regarding predicted hydrologic characteristics resulting from the construction of the Project. The following conclusions are presented in that same report:

Indian Creek: The expected changes in average floodline elevations within Indian Creek are negligible (0 m) and existing condition environmental flows will be maintained.

Tributary A: The relative changes in flow are small for Tributary A and environmental flows will be maintained, including flows into the wetland downstream of the removed on-line agricultural pond dam structure and the connection with Indian Creek.

Tributary C: The culvert proposed for installation in Tributary C will be sized during detailed design to prevent changes in flow. Therefore, it is anticipated that there will be no change in existing flow conditions.

It is anticipated that there will no net change in hydrologic conditions in Indian Creek, and only small changes to hydrologic characteristics associated with Tributary A. The changes in Tributary A are not anticipated to result in residual serious harm to fish.

• Creation of flow or passage obstruction in-water

There is no measureable parameter associated with the obstruction of flow.

Indian Creek: No flow impediments were observed in the Indian Creek PDA during field investigations.

Tributary A and Tributary C: Both tributaries are intermittent watercourses and fish passage obstruction typically occurs throughout the summer as a result of their intermittent nature (refer to Section 6.5.1.7, page 172 to 173, of the Milton Logistics Hub EIS).

A potential impediment to fish passage exists as a result of the partially breached berm on Tributary A, immediately upstream of Tremaine Road.

As discussed in Sections 6.5.1.9.3 (page 180 to 183), 6.5.1.9.6 (page 187 to 188), and 6.6.2.4.4 (page 295 to 296) of the Milton Logistics Hub EIS, creation of short-term flow or passage obstruction is possible during construction as a result of the potential need to isolate work areas in-water using coffer dams.

Additionally, an increase in fish passability is anticipated as a result of flow attenuation and associated decreases in flow periodicity due to SWM designs, as well as increased definition in the proposed realigned channel of Tributary A and the removal of the berm an on-line pond located immediately upstream of Tremaine Road.

Obstructions to flow and fish passage are expected to be short-term. Mitigation measures will include dam and pump operation to maintain flows around the isolated work area, within the appropriate fisheries timing window. Additional, final details regarding design of isolation measures, timing, duration and magnitude of flow or passage obstructions will be determined in consultation with DFO during the Fisheries Act approval process. No residual serious harm to fish is anticipated as a result of short-term flow or passage obstructions created by the Project.

Additionally, an increase (i.e., a positive effect) in fish passability is anticipated as a result of Project activities, as described in the preceding columns.


Page 4 of 5


169)

Effect Pathway





parameter


Change in fish mortality

Change in direct mortality risk

• Fish mortality occurrences

No measureable parameter is associated with existing fish mortality risk. Increase in mortality risk can’t be quantified; however, mortality occurrences during construction can be measured in numbers of dead fish.

As discussed in Sections 6.5.1.9.4 (page 183 to 184) and 6.5.1.9.5 (page 185 to 187) of the Milton Logistics Hub EIS, short-term increases in the risk of fish mortality are associated with in-water works as a result of increases in suspended sediment and as a result of fish rescue activities. Mitigation measures described in Section 6.5.1.9.4 (page 183 to 184) are intended to reduce the risk of fish mortality. It is anticipated that there will be a low risk of fish mortality as a result of the Project.

It is anticipated that with the implementation of effective mitigation measures, fish mortality risk will be low. Additionally, unanticipated fish mortalities as a result of the Project are not anticipated to result in impacts that will affect productivity of Commercial, Recreational, or Aboriginal, fisheries.

• Water quality measurements will be compared to the Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network baseline data and Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) guidelines for the protection of aquatic life (CCME 2002)

Please refer to the discussion presented below in relation to the “Change in Water Quality” Potential Environmental Effect.



Change in water quality

Change in water quality parameters Change in sediment load and quality

• DO, temperature turbidity and Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQOs)/ or CCME targets. IR-16, Table 4 contains the results of estimated concentrations of influent constituents prior to treatment compared against the expected concentration of effluent constituents following treatment by the proposed water quality management system.

The following applies to all phases of the Project:

Provincial Water Quality Monitoring Network (PWQMN) baseline characteristics were used to characterize baseline water quality and sediment quality within PDA watercourse reaches. Baseline water quality data and sediment quality data are included in Tables 4.5 (page 19) and 4.6 (page 23) (respectively) of the Milton Logistics Hub, Hydrology and Surface Water Quality Technical Data Report (Appendix E.15) and are discussed in Sections 4.3.4.1 (page 21 to 22) and 4.3.5 (page 22 to 26) of that report. Further discussion is provided related to relevant water quality guidelines in Section 4.2.2 (page 15 to16) of the Milton Logistics Hub, Fish and Fish Habitat Technical Data Report (Appendix E.4).

Section 6.2.1.3 (page 70 to 74) of the Milton Logistics Hub, Hydrology and Surface Water Quality Technical Data Report (Appendix E.15) indicates that there will be an overall improvement in water and sediment quality, with reductions in sediment and nutrient loading, the potential for decreases in thermal impacts (resulting from an increase in shade from riparian planting, removal of the in-line pond), and a potential increase in dissolved oxygen concentrations resulting from the potential decrease in thermal impacts. Additionally, channel realignment and enhancement is intended to reduce erosion and erosion potential at several locations within the PDA.

It is anticipated that the Project will result in positive effects to fish and fish habitat through decreases in anthropogenic sediment and nutrient levels, decreases in erosion rates and potentials, moderation of water temperatures, and increases in dissolved oxygen concentrations.

The removal efficiencies outlined in Table 4 of the response to IR16 demonstrate that various constituents will be reduced to acceptable levels consistent with water quality objectives. Improved water quality following treatment, in comparison to existing water quality conditions resulting from agricultural runoff, will result in improved habitat conditions for resident fish and is a positive effect.


Page 5 of 5


169)

Effect Pathway





parameter


Baseline water quality data are presented in the following Milton Logistics Hub, Technical Data Reports:

• Channel Realignment (Appendix E.2) - Sections 6.1.3.9 (page 23 to 24) and 6.2.3.9 (page 45)

• Fish and Fish Habitat (Appendix E.4) - Table 5.2 (page 28) and Section 5.1.4 (page 30 to 32)

• Hydrology and Surface Water Quality (Appendix E.15) - Sections 5.6.1 (page 54 to 58) and 5.6.2 (page 58 to 60)

Tables 1, 2 and 3 of the IR16 response summarize removal efficiencies of various water quality parameters and pollutants. Table 4 of the response to IR16 summarizes the predicted effluent following treatment in comparison to influent values for various parameters. Under existing conditions, untreated runoff currently enters the various watercourses including Tributary A and Indian Creek, carrying sediment loads and associated constituents including fertilizer-derived contaminants such as phosphorous and nitrogen, and other pesticides/herbicides and bacteria, particularly if organic fertilizers (manure) are applied to the land.

The treatment system proposed is designed to treat influent to an enhanced level of protection consistent with MOEE (2003) and CCME PAL guidelines. The treatment process will effectively remove a number of constituents to acceptable levels consistent with water quality objectives, resulting in improved water quality conditions in comparison to existing baseline levels.

Documents

CN Response to the Canadian Environmental Assessment ... · Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) Additional Information Request 2 ... IR21 – CC VALUES ... documents (2015). Technical