vicki huntington - comments on eis completeness for roberts bank terminal 2

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Environmental Impact Statement Comments on Completeness

April 30 June 15, 2015

1

Participant: Vicki Huntington, MLA

Organization (if applicable): Member of the Legislative Assembly for Delta South General Comments: For completing this form the following acronyms were used: EISG = Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines TOC = Table of Concordance Comments on Completeness of Information in the EIS

Issue (if possible, please

include reference to the relevant section of

the EIS Guidelines)

Reference to EIS

Requested Completeness Information Rationale

EISG section 2.4 TOC pg. 1 Other alternatives to causeway construction not considered

Volume 1 5.4.2 (p. 5-15) Figure 5-5

Other alternatives to the causeway design, such as a suspension bridge to minimize impact on ecologically sensitive tidal flats. If not other alternatives, a thorough explanation of why other alternatives were not considered.

As this will be one of the projects major impacts on an ecologically sensitive area, more alternatives should be considered. E.g., a suspension bridge design now exists for the terminal design at Lulu Island (Pacific Northwest LNG) in order to minimize effects on eelgrass and fish habitat. The environmental conditions in Roberts Bank are similar, yet there appears to have been no consideration of such a possibility.

EISG - section 2.4 TOC pg. 1 Lack of evidence to support choice in terminal construction

Volume 1 5.4.1.3 (pg. 5-14)

A more detailed description on why other alternatives to the construction of the terminal were discarded.

The construction of the terminal itself is the largest impact on the marine environment. While the proponent has considered the possible use of a floating structure and a pile and deck structure, they do not give adequate evidence as to why these options were discarded.

EISG section 2.4 TOC pg. 1 Inadequate

Volume 1 5.4.2 (pg. 5-15)

A more detailed explanation on why the elevated structure option for an expanded causeway was discarded.

The proponent argues that the overall construction costs made the elevated causeway option not viable but gives no further explanation on what those costs were or how much they differed



2



the EIS Guidelines)

Reference to EIS


explanation for why elevated causeway option was discarded.

from the preferred option. The proponent should include data to support this position to improve the credibility of the EIS.

EISG section 3.1 TOC pg. 2 Lack of detail for approach channels.

Volume 1 4.1, 4.2.1, 4.2.3 (pg. 4-1 to 4-16) Fig 4-4 Fig 4-26

More detail is needed on the maps showing the approach channel for the marine terminal. More detail is also warranted in the description of the approach and exit channels.

This is a clear requirement of EIS guidelines. The included figures and description do not provide enough detail.

EISG section 3.1 TOC pg. 2 Question on the construction schedules.

Volume 1 17.1 (pg. 17-2)

Explanation of whether or not terminal construction and widened causeway construction will also only occur in the scheduled windows of time in order to minimize the impact on salmon and crabs.

The proponent says it will follow this practice for the dredging occurring for the project, but it does not discuss fill operations in this context. There needs to be clarification or a reference in the table of concordance to where this information can be found in the EIS.

EISG Section 3.2 TOC - pg. 3 The scope of assessment does not clearly highlight what effects will extend beyond the scope of the project.

Volume 2 8.1.3, 8.1.1 (pg. 8-1 8-12)

A clearer description and explanation of what possible effects will extend beyond the scope of the project. Or a reference to where this information can be found in the EIS.

This is a clear request from the EIS guidelines and has not been adequately addressed in these two sections. There is nothing written on what the actual effects will be or where the reader can find this information. The section needs to include a reference to where this information can be found and the table of concordance needs to be updated.



3



the EIS Guidelines)

Reference to EIS


EISG Section 3.2 TOC pg. 3 The scope of the assessment does not clearly indicate what the significance of effects will be.

Volume 2 8.1.7-8.1.9 (pg. 8-18 8-21)

A reference to other areas of the report that answer the EIS guideline requests.

These sections of the EIS do not clearly indicate where the actual significance of effects can be found. The process is outlined in detail but the results are not referred to.

EISG Section 3.2 TOC pg. 3 The scope of the assessment is lacking in detail on mitigation measures.

Volume 2 8.1.6 (pg. 8-18)

A reference to other areas of the EIS that answer the EIS guidelines and a modification of the table of concordance.

According to the table of concordance, the reader should be able to find the mitigation measures that are technically and economically feasible. This section simply states they were considered but gives no detail as to where the reader can find that information. The section needs to include a reference to where this information can be found and the table of concordance needs to be updated.

EISG Section 3.3.1 TOC pg. 4 Some valued components (VC)s are missing.

Volume 2 Table 8-2 (pg. 8-10) Appendix 8-B

More species need to be included in the sub-component section of Marine Invertebrates.

There are many species of crab that local First Nations harvest that are not solely Dungeness Crab. In addition there is no mention of the potential for sea cucumber harvesting that could be impacted from the project. The Valued Component of Marine Invertebrates should be expanded to include these other species.

EISG Section 3.3.1 TOC pg. 4 It is unclear if valued components were incorporated after aboriginal consultations.

Volume 2 8.1.2 (p. 8-3 8-11)) Table 8-2 (pg. 8-10)

Refer to consultations with Aboriginal peoples and how those consultations affected the selection of valued components. A reference to where this information can be found is necessary.

There is a stated requirement for the EIS to develop its VCs based in part on public and Aboriginal consultations. This section of the EIS (as referenced in the table of concordance) does not show where this information can be found or how it affected the selection of VCs.



4



the EIS Guidelines)

Reference to EIS


EISG - section 3.3.2 TOC Pg. 5 Spatial boundaries consultation

Volume 2 8.1.3 (pg. 8-11)

More detail on what type of public consultation occurred. Or a reference to where this information can be found in the EIS.

The guidelines state that the proponent is advised to consult with government departments and other stakeholders. The details of what type of consultation occurred and with whom are unclear in this section. This is a clear requirement that needs further information, or the section needs to include a reference to where this information can be found, and the table of concordance needs to be updated accordingly.

EISG - section 3.3.2 TOC Pg. 5 Inadequate description of project setting

Volume 2 8.1.4 (pg. 8-15)

More details are needed to address the relevant environmental effects of the project. Or a reference to where this information can be found in the EIS.

This section does not reference where the information on the project setting can be found to address the relevant environmental effects of the project. The section needs to include a reference to where this information can be found, or the table of concordance needs to be updated.

EISG - section 3.3.2 TOC pg. 5 Spatial boundaries for each VC not clearly identified.

Volume 2 8.1.3 (pg. 8-11) Table 8-3 (pg. 8-12)

Specifics for each Valued Component (VC) in table form of the spatial boundaries used. Or a reference to where this information can be found in the EIS.

This section does not clearly indicate what the spatial boundaries will be for each VC. It states that each VC will have clear spatial and temporal boundaries but fails to provide any. This information is either missing or the table of concordance needs to be updated to reflect where the information can be found.

EISG - section 3.3.2 TOC Pg. 5 Inadequate information regarding how spatial boundaries were considered with ATK.

Volume 2 8.1.3 (pg. 8 -11) Table 8-3 (pg. 8-12)

More information on how spatial boundaries are being defined in relation to Aboriginal traditional knowledge (ATK) as well as cultural considerations. Or a reference to where this information can be found in the EIS.

This section does not clearly indicate how the spatial boundaries have considered Aboriginal traditional knowledge. The table of concordance references a section that only briefly references its possibility. This is a clear requirement and should be addressed. Or this section needs to reference where the information can be found in the EIS and the table of concordance needs to be updated accordingly.



5



the EIS Guidelines)

Reference to EIS


EISG - section 3.3.3 TOC Pg. 5 Temporal boundaries consultation.

Volume 2 8.1.3 (pg. 8-11)

More detail is needed on how traditional and community knowledge has factored into the proponents decision on temporal boundaries. Or a reference to where this information can be found in the EIS.

This section does not provide any details on how temporal boundaries accounted for traditional or community knowledge. This needs to be addressed or this section needs to include a reference to where this information can be found, or the table of concordance needs to be updated.

EISG Section 3.3.3 TOC pg. 5 Inadequate description of temporal boundaries for temporary worksites

Volume 2 8.1.3 (pg. 8-11)

More details are needed on the specific temporal boundaries for the decommissioning of temporary worksites. Or a reference to where this information can be found in the EIS.

This section of the EIS does not reference where more information on the temporal boundaries can be found. The section itself provides few details on the various temporal boundaries. The section needs to include a reference to where this information can be found and the table of concordance needs to be updated.

EISG Section 4.2 TOC pg. 6 Inadequate description of potential project effects and mitigation measures to address them.

Volume 2 8.1.5-8.1.8 (pg. 8-16 to 8-19)

More information is needed on both the effects likely to arise and the mitigation measures that will be applied to the project as a whole.

This section of the EIS explains how these matters will be looked at but does not provide any examples or reference to any other parts of the EIS where the information can be found. The section needs to include a reference to where this information can be found and the table of concordance needs to be updated.

EISG Section 4.2 TOC pg. 6 Study strategy and methodology; Aboriginal peoples

Volume 5 32.2.4.1; 32-31; 27.0; 27-C

A study of crabs discarded for black contamination found under the shell after cooking, documenting possible causes.

The EIS reports TFN concerns about crab contamination where black material is found under the shell, its presence not known until the crab is cooked and cracked open. The proponent examined a number of crabs, including those with visible black lesions on the outside of the shell. However, the proponent appears to have only solicited crabs with visible exterior black material for further study, not those that were discarded after cooking due to internal contamination (27-C-64). Furthermore, the



6



the EIS Guidelines)

Reference to EIS


proponents collected crabs from Roberts Bank did not exhibit abnormal black material internally (27-C-52), and the testing done therefore did not examine the stated concern. Additional research should be performed on specimens with internal contamination identified after cooking, in order to determine if the explanations of cuticle damage and bacterial contamination hold true for those specimens. The proponent also notes that it is currently working with Aboriginal groups to further investigate blackened crab observations in the Roberts Bank area. This statement indicates the research is incomplete and the baseline data on crab contamination is inadequate.

EISG Section 4.2 TOC pg. 6 Study strategy and methodology

Volume 5 32.2.5; Pg. 32-98

Justify the assumption that CRA fisheries regulatory regime, harvest quotas, and fisheries policies will remain unchanged to 2018.

This assumption is identified as such in 32.2.5, but it is not justified as required.

EISG Sections 4.3, 3.3.1, 12.1.2 Integration of EA, Aboriginal and public consultation information; valued components; cumulative environmental effects

Volume 2 7.3-B-3; 7.3-A-3; 15.3.1

An Agricultural Impact Assessment. Assessment should include proponents land use plan and the projects effects on the proponents acquisition of agricultural land for industrial use.

According to the proponent, The Project does not require the use of agricultural land, therefore an Agricultural Impact Assessment was not undertaken. The proponents stated requirement for an additional 2,300 acres of industrial land by 2025 indicates that an Agricultural Impact Assessment is required. The proponent has avoided examining an agricultural VC by stating that the project does not require the use of agricultural land, but residents and local and provincial government representatives have commented that agriculture will be affected



7



the EIS Guidelines)

Reference to EIS


as a result of this project, with consequent impacts on bird and wildlife habitat, food production, and the labour market. Examples of birds that rely on agricultural lands include dunlin (10-B-44), American wigeon (10-B-48), herons (15-29), and raptors (15-35). Agricultural habitat is included in the spatial boundary definition for coastal birds (15-8), and agricultural receptors are identified in the HHRA (27-A Appendix B-50). 105 hectares of ALR land are within the land and water use LAA (26-12). The CEAAs Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide advises proponents to use professional judgement to achieve an optimum balance between the minimum required by legislation and ideal goals when determining the scope of an assessment. The exclusion of agriculture does not reflect best practices. Furthermore, the EIS guidelines encourage the proponent to integrate public consultation outcomes into the consideration and mitigation of environmental effects. It has not done so in this instance. The concerns raised by the public and local governments are dismissed by the proponent in its response that the intermodal yard will not be located upland. However, the project is inextricably linked to the potential development of agricultural lands, as supported by the proponents land use plan and its existing agricultural holdings in Richmond. An Agricultural Impact Assessment is necessary for this project, which will lead to incidental activities affecting agricultural land and cumulative effects on agriculture.



8



the EIS Guidelines)

Reference to EIS


EISG section 4.4.3 TOC pg. 7 Inadequate list of other projects in the area.

Volume 2 8.1.9.1 (pg. 8-22 to 8-27)

Inclusion of other major projects in the area. Table 8-8 is insufficient in its current form. The table fails to list the Wespac/Fortis LNG plant expansion and Marine Jetty project, the Lehigh Hanson cement expansion, and any projects in Washington State other than the Cherry Point project.

EISG section 4.5 TOC pg.7 Presentation and organization of the EIS

Entire EIS

EIS documentation in an unlocked PDF format, and a PDF that combines all EIS report documents, including appendices but excluding the executive summary, title page, and figures, in a single searchable PDF.

According to the EIS guidelines, the proponent must provide copies of the EIS and its summary in an unlocked, searchable PDF format. Attempting to combine the numerous pdf documents into a single document using Adobe Acrobat (in order to simplify keyword searching of specific issues) results in an error message that the file is protected. Please enter a Permissions Password. The files should be unlocked as required, and a master pdf provided, in order to aid individuals in searching the documentation.

EISG section 4.5 Presentation and organization of the EIS

Volume 2 7.2-B-53

Clarify what footnote 1 in comment 146 is referencing.

It is unclear what is included in the footnote. There is an extra period before the next sentence, and there is a black line at bottom of page, but there is no apparent footnote.

EISG Section 6.1 TOC p.9 Inadequate assessment of the interrelationships between the bio-physical environment and people

Volume 1 3.3 (p. 3-4)

Provide a more thorough assessment of how the natural environment, people and communities interact.

There is little on the historical importance of the area, the importance of tourism that relies on the environment, the fishing industry, the numbers of birders, farming, etc. This is an important component of assessing the interactions between people and the environment. If it is found elsewhere in the EIS a reference to that section needs to be included.



9



the EIS Guidelines)

Reference to EIS


EISG section 6.1 TOC- pg. 8 Inadequate description of land and water lot area requirements

Volume 1 3.3.3 (pg. 3-8) fig 3-7

Increased descriptions of the amount of land required both for permanent and temporary use. Or a reference to where these can be found in the EIS.

While the land and water component areas are given in table 4-1, there are no specific details on the land or water that will be used for temporary purposes. Maps showing the area of the project (fig. 3-7) should be improved by showing exactly how much land or water is in each parcel.

EISG Section 6.2 TOC pg. 9 The EIS does not discuss implications of government policies/initiatives

Volume 1 Appendix 6-B

More information is needed on the implications of the various government policies, resource management, planning, or study initiatives pertinent to the project as they relate to the project.

The EIS guidelines clearly state that the implications of these policies/initiatives should be discussed, but the EIS fails to do so. It references policies/initiatives but fails to discuss their implications. For example, the Federal Bird Conservation Strategy is only mentioned in the references of section 15 (pg. 15-139). Its implications are therefore not discussed.

EISG Section 6.4 TOC p.9 Inadequate liability insurance description

Volume 1 1.3.3.1 (p. 1-8).

Provide a description of what liability coverage will be included in General Liability and Wrap-up Insurance. Explain what level of damages are covered by the insurance.

An accident in the ecologically sensitive region of Roberts Bank could be quite costly and have lasting impacts. The guidelines state that the EIS needs to include insurance and liability management related to the project, but there is currently an inadequate description. General liability coverage is too vague.

EISG section 7.1 (TOC pg. 10) Failure to include information about a potential short-sea-shipping warf.

Volume 1 5.4.4.1 (p.g 5-19)

Any information the proponent has in what a future short-sea-shipping wharf may entail. Its design, construction, and purpose.

The proponent explains that the Tug Basin location is located where it is because of the potential of a future short-sea-shipping wharf (pg. 5-19). This indicates that the project could be extended off the western side. As such the information around that possible extension should be included.



10



the EIS Guidelines)

Reference to EIS


EISG section 7.1 TOC pg. 11 Major future infrastructure project not included.

Volume 1 Figure 4-1

The map should be expanded to include the Massey Tunnel and the future Massey Tunnel Replacement Project.

The Massey Tunnel replacement project is a major infrastructure project that is significant to the flow of traffic in the region and thus, significant to the operation of the port and transport of goods in the region. It should be included on this map and its implications assessed.

EISG Section 7.1 TOC pg. 10 Inadequate cargo traffic descriptions

Volume 1 Figure 4-28, 4.4.2, Appendix 4-D

A more thorough description of cargo traffic that will be passing through RBT2.

The EIS guidelines ask that cargo traffic (including type, tonnage, and storage time in the terminal for goods handled) be described. In reviewing these sections there is little information on the type of goods and storage time anticipated in these sections. This needs to be addressed or the section needs to include a reference to where this information can be found and the table of concordance needs to be updated.

EISG Section 7.2 TOC pg. 12 Inadequate description of post-construction clean-up and on-site grounds reclamation

Volume 1 4.4.1 (pg. 4-19)

Information on how post-construction clean-up will occur including timelines and processes. Information on how on-site grounds reclamation will occur, particularly for temporary construction infrastructure.

There are no details in how on-site ground reclamation will happen or what it will consist of in this section. This is particularly important for temporary construction infrastructure that will be decommissioned. This needs to be addressed or the section needs to include a reference to where this information can be found and the table of concordance needs to be updated.

EISG Section 7.2 TOC pg. 12 Inadequate description of how project activities could affect wetlands

Volume 3 17.3 (pg. 17-5)

Details on what the wetland ecological function assessment will entail and when it will occur.

The proponent claims that there is no need for a Wetland Compensation Plan with this project and instead notes that it will do a wetland ecological functions assessment. In fact, the assessment is necessary to see if there is a need for a Wetland Compensation Plan. That there is no Wetland Compensation Plan seems to be a significant omission. The proponent does not give adequate information surrounding how the assessment will be conducted, or its timeline.



11



the EIS Guidelines)

Reference to EIS


EISG Section 8 (TOC- p.13) Lack of definition or criteria for technically and economically feasible,

Volume 1 Section 5.2.1, 5.2.2 (pg. 5-3 to 5-4)

Define technically and economically feasible for each alternative means. Provide the actual criteria (i.e., data, statistics, graphs, professional comments, etc.) for the public in determining the economic and technically feasible alternative means and how they apply and dont apply for each alternative means.

Each alternative means does not go into enough depth for how they are or are not technically or economically feasible. A concrete definition or criteria would be appropriate for the public to understand why an alternative means was discarded.

EISG Section 8 (TOC pg. 13) Lack of comparison of effects between alternatives to RBT2.

Volume 1 Section 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 (pg. 5-3 to 5-26)

Provide a comparison of the effects or impacts that would be caused by the alternatives to the project.

It is crucial for the proponent to include comparison charts of all the effects that could occur from the nine alternative means provided, in order to fully appreciate the scope of each respective possibility. The EIS guidelines ask for a comparison of the effects between the project and any alternative means, but alternative means are currently written off before any comparison on the effects is given.

EISG Section 8 Inclusion of other VCs in consideration of alternative means.

Volume 1 Section 5.6.1 (pg. 5-27)

Provide the other ten VCs in the analysis of the alternative means of carrying out the RBT2 project.

There are 16 key valued components and it is inappropriate and inadequate to simply consider only six of those VCs. The VCs mentioned in the EIS include: coastal birds; human health, including noise and air quality intermediate components; marine fish; marine invertebrates; marine mammals; and marine vegetation. The proponent mentions that leaving out the other VCs does not diminish their importance within the main Project assessment. Since this is a major project with many cumulative effects, the other VCs should be included in the effects criteria for identifying the effects of technically and economically feasible alternative means of carrying out the project.



12



the EIS Guidelines)

Reference to EIS


EISG Section 8 (TOC pg. 13) Alternatives to RBT2 not discussed.

Volume 1 Section 5.3 (pg. 5-4 to 5-11)

Provide studies on Port Albernis Transshipment Hub (PATH) as an alternative to the project. Or give a thorough explanation of why it was not included as part of an alternative means of carrying out the project. In Appendix 7.2-B the proponent simply states it is in the early stages of proposal and thus is not considered. This is not sufficient as the project could substantially change the dynamics of container flow in the region.

Port Alberni and its potential as a regional trade hub is only mentioned in passing in an appendix. The PATH project could impact the forecast predictions that underpin the need for the project. The city of Port Alberni is serious in its bid to be a new regional container hub. They have sent delegations promoting the idea to various ports and municipalities.

EISG Section 8 (TOC pg. 13) Alternatives to RBT2 not discussed.

Volume 1 Section 5.3, 5.4, 5.5 (pg. 5-3 to 5-26)

Provide studies on Ashcroft terminal as a viable alternative to the project. Or give a thorough explanation of why it was not included as an alternative means of carrying out the project. The description given for why it was not included found in Appendix 7.2-A is insufficient. There is no discussion of how the project could change the dynamics of container flow and reduce the forecasted demand which underlies this project.

The Ashcroft Inland Terminal is a serious project that aims to restructure the flow of container goods passing through the Lower Mainland. It has support from a wide array of public officials and strong community support. If the Ashcroft project moves forward it could substantially change the dynamics of forecasted container demand; consequently, it deserves a stronger explanation.

EISG Section 8 (TOC pg. 13) Inadequate explanation of why Deltaport expansion not considered.

Volume 1 Section 5.3.1.1 (pg. 5-5)

Provide a more thorough explanation of why additional expansions of Deltaport were [not] considered feasible whereas the project is a preferred means despite concern of environmental effects.

According to the EIS (pg. 5-5), No additional expansions were considered feasible as early feedback from regulatory agencies on the potential environmental effects of a Deltaport Terminal expansion within the inter-causeway area suggested that the potential environmental effects were unacceptable by regulators. An explanation of how these effects were more detrimental than the current RBT2 proposal is warranted.



13



the EIS Guidelines)

Reference to EIS


EISG - Section 8 (TOC- pg 13) Alternative sand storage areas

Volume 1 5.5.2 (pg. 5-22)

More detailed information on why other alternative locations were not considered for temporary sand storage.

Only one possible sand storage alternative location was identified and then discarded as it was too small. The EIS should explain why alternative locations were not considered and whether or not there is a possibility of a floating storage system.

EISG section 9.1.1 TOC pg. 14 Unable to find a map of the ecological land classification used.

Volume 3 Section 11 (pg. 11-1 to 11-125)

An explanation of how the process of ecological mapping of aquatic vegetation was incorporated into the EIS. An exact reference to where the ecological mapping of aquatic vegetation types can be found is needed.

In searching through this section a map showing ecological land classification was not found. A reference to where this mapping can be found is needed as it is a clear requirement of the EIS guidelines.

EISG section 9.1.1 TOC pg. 14 Unable to find a map of the ecological land classification used

Volume 1 Section 3.0 (pg. 3-1 to 3-12)

An explanation of how Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping was used in the EIS. An exact reference to where this use of Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping can be found is needed.

It is unclear if the proponent used Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping as was required in the EIS guidelines. An exact reference to where the reader can see this use of Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping is needed.

EISG Sections 9.1.1, 18.1 Methodology

Volume 5 32.2.4.2; pg. 32-46

Data on the habitat of qmin and the projects likely effects on qmin if it occurs within the LAA or RAA.

The Musqueam First Nation reports that qmin is only available in the Musqueam study area. The EIS does not comment on the habitat of qmin or the projects likely effects on qmin. According to the EIS guidelines, marine and terrestrial vegetation at regional and local scales should be defined.



14



the EIS Guidelines)

Reference to EIS


EISG section 9.1.2 TOC pg. 15 Missing compounds of potential concern.

Volume 2 Section 9.2.4.1 (pg. 9.2-6)

The inclusion of other forms of sulphur oxides (rather than just sulphur dioxide) in the list of contaminants. Or a rationale for why other sulphur oxides are not included.

The EIS guidelines specifically note SOx as a set of contaminants to be included. However the proponent only includes the use of one SO2.

EISG section 9.1.2 TOC pg. 15 Emissions sources not included in Air Study Modeling.

Volume 2 9.2.6 (pg.9.2-1 to 9.2-80) Appendix 9.2 A

Inclusion of other major sources of air pollution and contaminants in the assessment of current and future air quality.

The EIS did not include major sources of emissions in the regions such as the HeidelbergCement plant and the Fortis gas plant. Both of these projects are also planning expansions that could impact overall air quality but neither are accounted for in this assessment.

EISG section 9.1.2 TOC pg. 15 Air quality, noise, lighting and climate

Volume 1 1.3.3.2; Pg. 1-11

Provide a cross-reference to an up-to-date resource for current and past noise levels at Roberts Bank.

The EIS refers to live online noise monitoring that is available to the public. The EIS notes that the Delta monitors are not streaming live as of March 1, 2015. These are the most relevant monitors to the T2 expansion project. In lieu of live streaming, a cross-reference to a resource where current and past noise levels at Roberts Bank are available should be provided.

EISG 9.1.3 TOC pg. 15 Coastal Geomorphology

Volume 2 Appendix 9.5A

A complete analysis for all subjects for those waters and marine beds south of the ferry causeway and adjacent to Point Roberts, USA.

The Guidelines require a sediment transport model for the regional and local project areas. The existing port and causeway divert the Fraser River plume away from these areas. The diversion will be exacerbated by the proposed RBT2. These waters and marine beds are part of the southern Roberts Bank and the shoreline, sediment transport, marine vegetation and habitat value have been visibly impacted over the long term.



15



the EIS Guidelines)

Reference to EIS



Volume 2 Appendix 9.5A Section 4.1

Examination of bed shear stress and surface sediments on the tidal flat south of ferry causeway and adjacent to Point Roberts, USA.

The guidelines require regional modelling and proposed RBT2 will have a further long term impact on fate of sediment.


Volume 2 9.5.6 9.6.6

Proponent should do multi-seasonal baseline survey of bathymetry; tides and currents; velocities; waves; other hydrodynamic process; sediment transport and erosion patterns, including long shore drift and sediments sinks of waters and marine beds south of the ferry causeway and adjacent to Point Roberts, USA.

The guidelines require data for regional as well as local areas. Regional data is missing.


Volume 1 9.5.5.2 (pg. 9.5-7) Appendix 9.5A

Proponent should show sediment characteristics both between and south of causeway and a discussion of long term impacts.

RBT2 likely to further influence this area. Proponent notes a diminished influence from the Fraser River plume. That plume has been diverted by existing terminal. The cumulative impacts of RBT2 should be noted and explained in this context.


Volume 2 Appendix 9.6A (pg. 37)

An assessment on the implications of having higher amounts of arsenic and copper than the CCME guidelines suggest.

While the report notes that the concentrations of 2-methylnaphthalene exceed the CCME ME ISQG guidelines, there is no discussion on the implications of this phenomenon. How will the project impact current levels?



16



the EIS Guidelines)

Reference to EIS




An impact assessment of the reduction in the deposition of silt and clay in the inter-causeway area, and south of the ferry causeway, and an analysis of how this project will impact on future deposition of silt and clay in that area.

The proponent notes that there is less potential for the deposition of silts and clays from the Fraser River due to the existing causeways. The project is likely to exacerbate that effect. An impact assessment highlighting how sediment deposition in the area has changed due to the two causeways and how the impact of this project will likely exacerbate the change.



An assessment of observed decreases in the percentage of sand adjacent to Roberts Bank Terminals. An environmental analysis of how this loss of sand has impacted the environment.

The proponent notes the decrease in sand is consistent with scouring effects from current regimes as influenced by the terminals. The proponent should explain the environmental impacts that this decrease of sand has caused in the area and explain how the project could exacerbate this trend.



An assessment of the long term impact of the decrease in fines in the inter-causeway area.

The proponent notes an overall increase in percent sands and decrease in percent fines in inter causeway area may have arisen as a reflection of the lower delivery of fines resulting from construction of causeway. The long term impacts of this change should be characterized as per EIS guidelines.



An assessment of why the PCB concentrations were much higher in the Roberts Bank area than in the Georgia Straight a decade ago.

The proponent notes that the higher findings of PCB concentrations, in comparison to previous samplings, were probably attributable, in part, to the closer proximity to the mouth of the Fraser. This is not a suitable assessment of why PCB concentrations are higher and what this could mean for changing trends in the local study area.



17



the EIS Guidelines)

Reference to EIS



Volume 2 Appendix 9.6A Section 5.0 (pg. 82)

Water quality studies for regional and local areas south of ferry terminal and Point Roberts, USA.

EIS guidelines require a regional and local area survey at a minimum. To omit areas south of ferry terminal in all evaluations is a failure to observe guidelines.


Volume 2 Appendix 9.6A Section 5.5.1 (pg. 92)

Data on salinity south of causeway and into Point Roberts, USA.

EIS guidelines require a regional and local area characterization of salinity. This is not done outside of the local study area.


Volume 2 Appendix 9.6A Section 5

Assessment of impacts of differences in water column north of terminal and that of the inter causeway area. Similarly, water column analysis should be undertaken south of ferry terminal and at Point Roberts, USA

EIS guidelines require a regional and local area characterization of water columns. This is not done outside of the local study area.



A cumulative impact assessment of how the existing terminal has impacted mudflat growth and deterioration as well as an assessment of how the project will impact mudflat trends.

One third of Roberts Bank has been altered by the Deltaport diversion of the Fraser River plume. The diversion will increase with RBT2. Guidelines require analysis of long term fate of sedimentation.



18



the EIS Guidelines)

Reference to EIS




More data and a more thorough assessment of tidal flat erosion.

EIS requires characterizations of hydrology and sediment regimes. The impact of RBT2 will be greatest on the tidal flats and a complete assessment of the impact on productivity and receiving environment should be required.

EISG section 9.1.4 TOC pg 16 Insufficient description of invasive plant species.

Volume 3 11.2.1 (pg. 11-5)

A more thorough description of English cordgrass as well as a description of other non-native eelgrass species. A summary that there are no other invasive plant species (if that is the case) should also be provided.

The EIS guidelines note that the EIS should include a description of invasive plant species. Only one species is mentioned and its description is minimal.

EISG section 9.1.4 TOC pg. 16 No locations given for the sources of groundwater discharge and recharge areas.

Volume 2 9.1.2 (pg. 9.1-11)

The actual location of groundwater discharge and recharge areas.

The EIS guidelines ask for the locations of discharge and recharge areas; however, the EIS simply describes the process and fails to give any actual locations.

EISG section 9.1.4 TOC pg. 16 A description of groundwater flow patterns and rates is missing

Volume 2 9.1.2 (pg. 9.1-11

The rates of groundwater flow in the region. A clear requirement of the EIS guidelines is for a description of groundwater flow patterns and rates. The patterns are generally described (although not in much detail) and there is no information on the actual rate of flow provided.



19



the EIS Guidelines)

Reference to EIS


EISG section 9.1.5 TOC pg. 17 Migration routes not clearly indicated or mapped.

Volume 2 & 3 9.5.6, 11.5 (pg. 9.5-1) (pg. 11-11 to 11-45) Figures 11-2, 9.5-13

Maps highlighting the migration routes for fish in the area.

These sections did not provide a map indicating migration routes for fish as the EIS guidelines ask for. There needs to be a reference as to where this information can be found.

EISG section 9.1.5 TOC pg. 16 Inadequate attention paid to the Cohen commissions findings.

Volume 3 13.2.1 (pg.13-7).

The findings of the Cohen Commission need to be more thoroughly incorporated into the description of the baseline salmon population and associated habitat.

The EIS guidelines specifically note that particular attention should be paid to the findings of the Cohen Commission. The EIS references it only in passing.

EISG section 9.1.5 TOC pg. 17 Inadequate description of predator-prey interactions for identified fish populations.

Volume 3 12.5, 13.5, 14.5 (pg. 12-12 to 12-31) (pg. 13-20 to 13-60) (pg.14-23 to 14-43)

A more thorough description of predator-prey interactions for fish populations in the area. Particularly during spawning or juvenile stages.

These sections of the EIS do not give a description of predator-prey interactions (except for killer whales and sea lions). More is needed to satisfy the EIS guideline requirements.



20



the EIS Guidelines)

Reference to EIS


EISG Sections 9.1.5, 9.1.8 TOC pg. 17, 19 Fish and fish habitat; Aboriginal peoples

Volume 5 32.2.4.2; Pg.32-48; 17-C-3

Separate sections, statements, and/or data addressing the projects likely effects on sea urchin and sea cucumber populations and current and potential harvesting. Where effects on sea urchins and sea cucumbers are currently anonymized under the category epifaunal grazers, specific information for sea urchins and sea cucumbers should be identified.

The Musqueam First Nation state that for any and all resources currently unavailable, there is a desire to harvest these resources again. Musqueam have also stated that forced changes in diet, for example as a result of food avoidance, may be a contributing factor in the overall health of community members. There is no readily available information on the current status of sea urchins and sea cucumbers in the report, or the projects likely effects on the same, despite the Musqueam First Nations stated interest in harvesting these species. Where information is present, it is lumped into the category epifaunal grazer, making it difficult to determine the projects effects on sea urchins and sea cucumbers specifically. There appears to be no consideration of changes to harvesting potential and consequent socio-economic effects related to sea urchin and sea cucumber populations, despite the stated potential decrease in epifaunal grazer biomass.

EISG Section 9.1.5 TOC pg. 17 Fish and fish habitat

Volumes 3 & 5 32.2.4.2; 32.2.4.10; 16.6.1.2; (pg. 32-95; 16-44)

A description of the lifecycle and key habitat features of groundfish, with a particular focus on dogfish and ratfish. A detailed explanation of how the project will affect the populations of these two species and the mitigation measures that could be used.

The EIS notes that the project is expected to negatively impact the productive potential of groundfish. The Musqueam express a desire to catch ratfish and dogfish; the Tsawwassen First Nation harvests dogfish; and the Hwlitsum report past or present fishing of dogfish in the project area. The desire to harvest/continue harvesting ratfish and dogfish by three First Nations should ensure that the EIS includes the projects expected effects on these species and a description of their habitat. Very little information is provided on these two species in the EIS.



21



the EIS Guidelines)

Reference to EIS


EISG- Section 9.1.5; 9.1.8 (TOC pg. 17, 19) Fish and fish habitat; Aboriginal peoples

Volume 5 32.2.4.2 (pg. 32-52)

Identify effects of existing projects on whales feeding habits and respond to Musqueam First Nations statements about changes in whales feeding habits.

The Musqueam First Nation says whales cant access Roberts Bank to feed properly. The effects of existing projects on whale feeding habits should be clearly identified in response to the stated concerns, with identified mitigation measures as needed.

EISG Section 9.1.6 (TOC pg. 17) Birds, wildlife and their habitat

Volume 3 15.7.2 (pg. 15-77)

Characterization of the way existing artificial light affects bird distributions at the project site.

Some of the sub-headings addressing artificial light (e.g., minimising effects from artificial light) do not mention how those issues affect bird distributions at the project site.


Volume 3 10.1 (Pg. 10-2)

Statistics on the usage levels of Blue- and Red-listed terrestrial wildlife species mentioned.

Occasional use by these species is not defined. The EIS guidelines require a characterization of other wildlife and their habitat that could be impacted by project activities using existing data, supplemented by surveys as appropriate. No data on their usage levels are provided, making it impossible to corroborate the proponents conclusions.


Volume 3 Appendix 15-A (Pg. 10-2; 10-3; 10-4)

A list of all potential or known species at risk that may be affected by the project (flora and fauna).

The list provided in appendix 15-A only includes bird species. The Pacific water shrew and the northern red-legged frog are identified as occasional users of land potentially affected by the project. Six marine mammal and four marine fish species at risk are identified elsewhere as well. According to the EIS guidelines, they must be included in a master list of all species at risk that may be affected by the project.



22



the EIS Guidelines)

Reference to EIS



Volume 3 11.5.4.4 (pg.11-32)

A quantitative study of the consumption of biomat by waterfowl.

Data on the consumption of biomat by waterfowl are necessary to establish the importance of biomat and the consequences of any project effects.


Volume 3 11.5.5.3; 11.6.3.5; (pg. 11-37; 11-81)

Large-scale field study or similar to improve determination of the projects likely effects on biofilm.

The proponent states that biofilm is resilient and able to return to a highly productive assemblage once optimal conditions return, but adds that there is no precedence to support the predictions made about the projects effects of biofilm because there are no observed effects of similar projects. This information gap has large implications for determining the significance of the projects environmental effects.

EISG Section 9.1.7 TOC pg. 18 Human environment

Volume 4 26.5.3.2; 26.5.4.2; 26.6.4; 26.7.4

The projects effects on the Roberts Bank WMAs existing management objectives.

The proponent states that the effects on activities in the Roberts Bank WMA will be limited, because Other areas of the WMA are available for users; marine access to the northern portion of the WMA will be available; and activities currently take place within the WMA despite the existing terminal activities. The proponent has not adequately justified its assumptions or provided detailed information on the current management objectives of the WMA and how each may be affected.


Volume 4 24.5.4.1 (pg. 25-18)

Data on the level of trail use for walking, running, and cycling within the LAA and RAA.

The number of recreational users within the LAA and RAA determines in part the magnitude of the projects effects on recreation. The level of use for other recreation activities (e.g., hunting and windsport) are provided.



23



the EIS Guidelines)

Reference to EIS


EISG Sections 9.1.7; 12.1.2 TOC pg. 18; 28 Human environment; cumulative environmental effects

Volume 4 27.6.1.4; 3-A (pg. 27-44)

Consideration of how pressures to develop agricultural land resulting from the project will affect the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes.

Section 27.6.1.4 does not acknowledge the proponents stated desire in its land use plan to acquire 2,300 acres of property to develop as industrial land. As noted elsewhere in the EIS, a high percentage of Delta land is ALR land. Agriculture is considered to be an activit[y] contributing to existing conditions (3-A 2). Agricultural lands surrounding the project were historically included in plans for Port development, and it is reasonably foreseeable that the project would lead to development on these lands. According to the CEAAs Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide, Best practice suggests that effort should be made in identifying actions if there is reason to believe they may occur, yet are not overly hypothetical. The industrialization of 2,300 acres of land is a reasonably foreseeable incidental effect that will alter the current use of lands for food.


Volume 4 20.6.4.1 (pg. 20-40)

The economic development effects assessments consideration of potential project-related effects should include likely pressures on agricultural lands as a result of project.

The proponents discussion of Potential Effect #3 Consistency with Economic Development Plans references the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy, 2011. That document includes Strategy 2.3, Protect the supply of agricultural land and promote agricultural viability with an emphasis on food production. The proponent should discuss the potential project effect of industrializing agricultural land in Metro Vancouver to support its land use plan.



24



the EIS Guidelines)

Reference to EIS


9.1.8; 9.1.5; 12.1.2 Aboriginal peoples; fish and fish habitat; cumulative environmental effects

Volume 5 32.2.4.1; 32.2.4.2; 32.2.4.3; 32.2.4.4; (Pg. 32-35; 32-61; 32-72; 72.2-B-32; 72.2-B-35; 13-8)

An assessment of eulachon within the forage fish sub-component, and a socio-economic assessment of the projects likely effect on eulachon recovery, particularly in light of current, past, and desired harvesting of eulachon in the Roberts Bank area.

The Tsawwassen First Nation believe the project could be a possible tipping point for eulachon; the Musqueam note opportunities for harvesting are limited; the Semiahmoo state that eulachon was a fish species that was once consumed; Tsleil-Waututh Nation notes that they harvested eulachon; the CNA note that the area once supported eulachon; and the Hwlitsum report that the effects of the ferry terminal and contamination in the Roberts Bank area have affected their ability to harvest eulachon. The EIS must provide baseline conditions related to socio-economics, physical and cultural heritage and current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes. The EIS currently ignores eulachon because of their rarity in the Roberts Bank area. The cumulative effect of the project on possible eulachon recovery needs to be considered, given its socio-economic importance to multiple First Nations. By comparison, the proponent acknowledges a continued significant cumulative effect to southern resident killer whales.

EISG Sections 9.1.8; 9.1.7; 9.1.3; 12.1.2 Aboriginal peoples; human environment; coastal geomorphology, seismic hazard and geotechnical stability; cumulative environmental effects

Volume 5 32.2.4.1; (pg. 32-42)

A quantitative and qualitative review of the socio-economic effects of existing and project-related sediment buildup.

The Tsawwassen First Nation says Changes to current flows and sediment buildup over the past 20 years are the reason that Canoe Passage has become difficult to transit other than at high tide. They also report that Canoe Passage has become narrower, meaning that fewer fishing vessels are able to fish in the area at any one time. The socio-economic effects of sediment buildup do not appear to be considered in the EIS.



25



the EIS Guidelines)

Reference to EIS


EISG - Section 9.1.8 TC pg 19 Aboriginal peoples

Volume 5 32.2.4.7; 32.3.2.2; (pg. 32-85; 32-140)

A statement on how the project could affect: saltwater and freshwater interaction; a northerly shift in freshwater; and biofilm and biomat locations and coastal bird habitat.

The Lyackson First Nation raised these concerns, which are not acknowledged or addressed in section 32.3.2.2.

EISG - Sections 9.1.8; 9.3; 4.2 Aboriginal peoples; noise and vibration; study strategy and methodology

Volume 5 32.2.4.7; (pg. 32-86; 32-141)

Reports on the study of noise on Leeyqsun. The Lyackson First Nation reports an irregular low-frequency noise and associated vibration at Leeyqsun. They believe the source of the noise and vibration is from the screws of large vessel traffic. The EIS reports that noise from the project will not travel that far, and that the proponent has been working with Lyackson to determine the source of the noise and vibration. The EIS must contain a balanced presentation of the issues and a statement of the proponent's conclusions when the proponents findings differ from traditional knowledge. The research findings on noise on Leeyqsun should be included to ensure they support the findings presented in 9.3.

EISG Sections 9.1.8; 12.1.2 Aboriginal peoples; cumulative environmental effects

Volume 5 32.2.4.7; 32.2.6; 32.2.9; 32.3.2.2; (pg. 32-86; 32-100; 7.2-B-61; 32-122)

The cumulative effects of the project on the quality and availability of marine resources for asserted and desired use by Aboriginal peoples.

The Lyackson First Nation reports a change in taste to marine resources due to existing pollution, and calls the inter-causeway area a dead zone. The projects role in exacerbating these concerns is not acknowledged or addressed in section 32.3.2.2. The proponent says it does not have to assess cumulative effects on the ability of Aboriginal groups to exercise their asserted or established treaty or Aboriginal rights (7.2-B-61); only Current Use effects are listed for the Musqueam First Nation, for example. However, the guidelines require that Other information or factors of importance to Aboriginal groups be reflected as necessary. Concerns about how cumulative effects are applied to impacts to



26



the EIS Guidelines)

Reference to EIS


Rights were raised by at least eight First Nations (7.2-B-61). Stating that the Project is not expected to contribute to cumulative effects affecting Aboriginal peoples is disingenuous.

EISG Section 9.1.8 TOC pg. 19 Aboriginal peoples

Volume 5 32.2.4 (pg. 32-22)

Include statements on Aboriginal peoples reliance on garden produce.

The EIS must include information on Aboriginal peoples reliance on country foods, which the EIS notes includes garden produce (6-4). Garden produce is not mentioned in 32.2.4.


Volume 5 32.2.4.2; 29-F; (pg. 32-56)

Explicitly include more vessel interactions as an effec[t] of changes to the environment on Aboriginal peoples.

The Musqueam First Nation reports increasing vessel traffic has led to more vessel interactions, loss of fishing gear, and safety concerns. This effect should be explicitly listed as a potential effect in Appendix 29-F, along with mitigation measures, residual effects, significance, and cumulative effects.


Volume 5 32.2.6 (pg. 32-99)

Document the effects of the project on traditional and desired use of marine resources by Aboriginal peoples.

The EIS must include Other information or factors of importance to Aboriginal groups. The focus on current use in 32.2.6 ignores the potential socio-economic effects of the project on Aboriginal peoples who are looking to engage in new or increased aquaculture or harvesting practices identified in section 32.2.4, as well as those who no longer harvest all the marine resources they have traditionally used due to cumulative environmental effects of existing projects. The project may affect the availability and quality of fish and bivalve populations, which could limit opportunities for Aboriginal peoples looking to engage in



27



the EIS Guidelines)

Reference to EIS


traditional use practices or for those groups who have stated they would like to engage in new aquaculture projects. The EIS references harvesting closures due to contamination numerous times, which are used as a reason not to assess the projects effects on their current use (32-126). In addition, the EIS reports on what Aboriginal peoples consider a dead zone. This section should acknowledge and examine the effects of the project on traditional and desired use of marine resources.

EISG Section 9.1.8; 12.2.2 TOC pg. 19, 28 Aboriginal peoples; cumulative environmental effects

Volume 2 & 5 7.2.2.5; 7.2-A-7; 32.2.9; (pg. 8-22; 32-122)

Include the proponents stated intention to acquire and develop 2,300 acres of land for industrial use in the projects cumulative effects assessments.

The proponent has stated the Vancouver Gateway will need approximately 2,300 additional acres by 2025 to meet increasing cargo demand in its land use plan. This acquisition is a reasonably foreseeable development that should be included in all considerations of cumulative effects. Other projects included in the EIS are those that have been publicly announced and for which information regarding project scope and timing is publicly available. The intended acquisition of 2,300 acres of land has been publicly announced, and the scope (2,300 acres) and timing (by 2025) are known as well. Additionally, the Summary of Aboriginal Group Issues and Interests notes that Aboriginal peoples identified addressing cumulative effects from the Project and other past, present, and future (reasonably foreseeable) projects as a key issue. The proponent says it incorporated TFNs economic development plans, including a list of projects and associated details for consideration in the Projects cumulative effects assessment. The proponent also says it included its own land use plan when determining upcoming projects (8-22), but it has not included this significant portion.



28



the EIS Guidelines)

Reference to EIS


To cite an example where the environmental effects assessment is insufficient without its inclusion, the proponent states that the year 2025 represents the greatest potential change in annual predicted emissions associated with the Project (9.2-11). 2,300 acres of land in the region are set for acquisition and development by 2025, for which the stated predictions and cumulative effects assessments do not account. The land acquisition is not listed as a reasonably foreseeable project or activity that could contribute to effects on air quality (9.2-B). The omission of this future development undermines the EIS. Project construction will not be completed until 2023, during which time these 2,300 acres of land will have been acquired to support the project. The EIS is incomplete in its current form, and this information gap would prevent the Review Panel from undertaking its technical review.


Volume 4 27.6.1 (pg. 27-42)

General health conditions and demographics of Aboriginal peoples and/or updated table of concordance.

The table of concordance indicates that this information, required by the EIS Guidelines, is included in section 27.6.1. There is passing reference to effects on Current Use in 27.6.1.4, but there is nothing about general health conditions and demographics of Aboriginal peoples in 27.6.1.


Volume 4 24.5 (pg. 24-10)

Aboriginal peoples recreational uses of the project area.

The EIS guidelines state: With respect to Aboriginal peoples that might be affected by the project, the EIS will include recreational uses of the project area. Section 24.5 does not indicate if Aboriginal peoples participate in the listed recreational uses, as is required per the table of concordance. This information appears in large part in Sections 8.0 of appendices 18-A and 18-B, but only for the Tsawwassen First Nation and Musqueam First Nation.



29



the EIS Guidelines)

Reference to EIS


EISG Section 9.2 TOC pg. 20 Potential or established Aboriginal and treaty rights and related interests

Volume 1 Appendix 7.2-B

Responses from government on key comments and concerns identified by Aboriginal peoples.

The EIS guidelines note that responses to concerns raised by Aboriginal peoples are to include government responses, as appropriate. There are multiple cases in 7.2-B where an issue is raised and the proponent either defers to the DFO or flags an issue for the CEAAs attention; no responses are provided for those issues. These answers should be solicited and included, per the guidelines.

EISG - Section 10.1.2 TOC pg. 23 Changes to the environment not fully measured.

Volume 5 Appendix 29-A

More information on the nature of productivity loss for Migratory Birds. More information on how the project will affect migratory birds is necessary.

There is little on how the project could impact migratory birds in other ways than simply productivity loss. There are likely impacts from light and noise that could affect navigation and flight patterns. This needs to be discussed in more detail or an explanation given as to why it is not considered significant.

EISG - Section 10.1.2 TOC Pg. 23 Insufficient detail on the transboundary changes to the environment.

Volume 5 Appendices 29-B, 29-C

More information on any transboundary effects of the project. What impacts will be felt in which areas specifically.

The EIS gives no specific areas (other than the proponents jurisdiction) that might be impacted by this project. It does give a list of effects that may have trasnsboundary implications but does not highlight where these effects would occur. Specific areas with specific impacts should be identified.

EISG -Section 10.1.3 TOC pg. 23 Insufficient explanation of how visual resources will not be impacted.

Volume 5 Appendix 29-F

More detail on the rationale of why all of the listed effects have been deemed insignificant, particularly on visual resources.

It is difficult to believe the daytime visual resources will not be negatively impacted or significant. Thus a further explanation must be given as to why the effect will not be significant.



30



the EIS Guidelines)

Reference to EIS


EISG Sections 10.1.3; 11.1.1; 18.1 Effects of changes to the environment; methodology

Volume 5 33.0; 32.2.4.3; (pg. 32-59; 32-60)

The likely effects of the project on the marine vegetation aquaculture potential of the region.

The project could have economic ramifications for the potential for marine vegetation and shellfish aquaculture. The projects effects on aquaculture potential should be explored. In particular, the Semiahmoo are interested in commercial sea asparagus aquaculture. They have expressed interest in developing aquaculture and commercial harvesting of sea cucumber. The EIS must describe the effects of any changes the project may cause to the environment, with respect to Aboriginal peoples, on socio-economic conditions. It must also include policies and arrangements directed at mitigating adverse socio-economic effects.

EISG - section 10.1.4 TOC pg. 23 The QRA was not done for all potential marine accidents.

Volume 5 30.4 (p.30-12) Table 30-3

A Quantitative Risk Assessment for all vessel movements during project construction and for vessel-related accidents must be covered by a QRA.

The EIS guidelines note that the proponent will list and identify the probability of potential accidents and malfunctions related to the project. Yet a QRA was not done for certain marine-based accidents. The rationale for why this was not done is unclear. This could affect the probability of a vessel grounding in table 30-3 (if only groundings with a spill factor are counted).

EISG-section10.1.4 TOC - pg. 23 It is unclear what well-maintained and regularly serviced indicates for independent contracted vessels.

Volume 5 30.4.5 (p. 30-21)

The guidelines and rules for what is acceptable to the proponent in defining well-maintained and regularly serviced. As this is a precursor of a contractors project involvement there should be more detail on what this entails.

The probability of an onboard fire or explosion while vessels are assisting in the projects development is considered to be very low, but the reason for this categorization is because these vessels must be maintained and regularly serviced by their contractors. The EIS should state the guidelines the proponent is using to classify regularly serviced and well-maintained to allow the review panel to evaluate them.



31



the EIS Guidelines)

Reference to EIS


EISG- section 10.1.4 TOC pg. 23 The spill response plans are not yet developed.

Volume 5 33.4.7 (p33-19)

Detailed contingency and response plans are needed for accidents and malfunctions.

The EIS simply states that plans will be developed. It does not present those plans in any detail as the EIS guidelines require.

EISG-section 10.1.5 TOC pg.23 Climate change considerations are not fully addressed.

Volume 5 31.2.6 (pg 3-16)

More information on how climate change may affect the project and the projects viability into the future.

The EIS devotes two paragraphs to how climate change may impact the project and (with the exception of sea-level rise) comes to the conclusion (citing one article) that there are not likely to be any major or significant changes to related weather conditions. Climate change is likely to impact numerous environmental conditions, and it appears to not have been given due consideration.

EISG section 10.1.5 TOC pg. 23 There is a lack of probability patterns for how the environment will affect the project.

Volume 5 31.2 (Pg 31-1 to 31-18)

The natural events need to be considered in a more detailed probability pattern. Additionally, an explanation of how repeated 100-year events impact the project is needed.

While the worst case effects of major weather or seismic events are described and considered, the smaller events that may also have an impact, particularly over time, do not receive the same attention. Additionally, the wharf structure and terminal are not designed to withstand a tsunami event. In the context of climate change, bigger storms are expected on a more frequent basis. The EIS should reflect that understanding.

EISG section 11.1.1 TOC pg. 25 Follow-up Program is inadequate for Orange Sea Pens

Volume 5 Appendix 33-A

The EIS should, in its follow-up program, monitor the productivity loss for orange sea pens and how effective the transplant program has been. Currently it appears that there will only be monitoring of the transplant sites during construction.

The orange sea pen is one of the most affected species of this project. Thus it would seem that there needs to be an accurate baseline as well as post-construction follow-up to measure how much the productivity of the species has been affected.



32



the EIS Guidelines)

Reference to EIS


EISG section 11.1.1 TOC pg. 25 Unclear how the proponent will ensure the compliance of contractors.

Volume 5 33.0 (pg. 33- 1 to 33-23)

The EIS should note any penalties or fines that may exist to ensure that contractors and sub-contractors comply with the commitments made by the proponent in the EIS. Currently there is only a requirement for contractors to undertake training.

The proponent gives a detailed description of its commitments and environmental protections that will be in place but fails to explain the mechanisms that will ensure contractors and sub-contractors comply with the commitments of the project proponent. The proponent should explain if contracts will be terminated if procedures are violated, or if it will administer fines.

EISG section 11.1.1 TOC pg. 25 System of accountability not clearly defined.

Volume 5 33.0 (pg. 33- 1 to 33-23)

The EIS should note the responsibilities of the reviewing agencies and the power they have (e.g., fines, permit withdrawal, ability to shut down operations).

For example, if the proponent fails to have a prepared EMP before construction begins, the consequences should be explained. The reviewing agencies are important third parties that will presumably ensure the proponent follows the commitments made in the EI, but the accountability framework should demonstrate to the reader how the proponent will actually be held accountable.

EISG section 11.1.1 TOC pg. 25 Risk to the environment from a decimated Sea Pen population.

Volume 3 Volume 5

The potential risks to the environment from a significantly affected sea pen population need to be explained in far greater detail.

The orange sea pen is one of the species to be most dramatically affected by the project. However, little is known about their ecological role except that they are considered ecosystem engineers (p.12-28). The transplant program proposed by the proponent is a good attempt at mitigation, but it is uncertain if it will prove effective. If the transplant fails, the sea pen population will be effectively decimated. The EIS guidelines clearly state that the EIS should provide a clear and concise description of these risks should the mitigation efforts fail. It fails to do so for this species.

EISG section 11.1.1 TOC pg. 25 Justification for lack of mitigation measures.

Volume 3 17.0 Volumes 4, 5

The EIS does not give a range of alternative measures for many mitigation efforts. It simply describes the mitigation activity or states that it was not technically or economically feasible (e.g. subtidal sand flats pg. 17-12).

The EIS clearly states that the trade-offs between cost savings and effectiveness of the various forms of mitigation will be justified. Simply stating that a mitigation measure was not pursued because it was not technically or economically feasible is not adequate justification.



33



the EIS Guidelines)

Reference to EIS


EISG section 11.3 TOC pg. 26 Summary of public discussions.

Volume Appendix 7.3-A & 7.3-B

Provide the methods used, locations, actual dates, and the extent to which consultations changed the project designs or mitigation measures.

These sections of the EIS do not describe the methods used, provide the locations, or the actual dates of when the discussions occurred. They also fail to demonstrate how these discussions directly impacted the proponent: e.g, was the proponent doing these things anyway, or did they do it as a response to the concerns raised? This needs to be addressed or a reference to where this information can be found in the EIS is needed.

EISG section 11.4 TOC pg. 27 Summary of public discussions.

Volume 5 33.5 (pg. 33-20) Appendix 33-A

The Follow-Up Program Document. The EIS alludes to a follow up program document but does not provide it. It says it will create it after the EIS has been submitted. However, by doing so it does not meet the EIS guideline requirements as the follow-up program is not described in sufficient detail.

EISG Section 12.1.1; 12.1.2 Residual environmental effects; cumulative environmental effects

Volume 5 32.2.4.6 (pg. 32-80)

The cumulative effects assessment should examine the impact of the existing terminals, increasing vessel traffic, and over-fishing on fish populations and First Nation fishing activities.

The Lake Cowichan First Nation identifies these elements as leading to concerns about interference with their fishing efforts. It is a clear statement about current cumulative effects impacting socio-economic activities, which would likely be exacerbated by the project.

EISG Section 12.1.1 TOC pg. 28 Residual environmental effects

Volume 3 14.9 (pg. 14-90)

An explanation of the definition of a significant adverse effect to SRKWs, North Pacific Humpback whales, and Steller sea lions as one which could jeopardise survival or recovery of the species.

The definition is narrow and should be justified in this section.



34



the EIS Guidelines)

Reference to EIS


EISG Section 12.1.2 TOC pg. 28 Project description; cumulative environmental effects

Volume 5 32.2.4.1 (pg. 32-28)

Proponent should state its intention for parcels beside the Roberts Bank causeway.

Two parcels beside the Roberts Bank causeway have been identified for transfer, assignment, or sublease from PMV to Tsawwassen First Nation in the event they are not required for the Project. The proponent should clarify its intention for these parcels as part of the project. Their inclusion or exclusion would affect the nature of the project and consequent effects on VCs (e.g., marine fish).

EISG Section 12.1.2 Cumulative environmental effects

Volume 2 8.1.4; 8.1.9 (pg. 8-15; 8-20)

Assess the projects cumulative effects in sections 8.1.4 and 8.1.9, or update the table of concordance.

The projects cumulative effects are not assessed in 8.1.4 or 8.1.9 as indicated by the table of concordance.


Volume 1 3.4; (pg.3-4) Appendix 3-A

A narrative description of the historical environmental conditions prior to the development of the existing causeways (Port Metro Vancouver and BC Ferries).

The EIS guidelines say The narrative discussion should include historical data, where available and applicable, to assist interested parties to understand the potential effects of the project and how they may be addressed. Furthermore, the CEAAs Operational Policy Statement on assessing cumulative effects says A description of past environmental conditions can at times improve the understanding of cumulative environmental effects. The CEAAs Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide says temporal baselines can also include the time when a land use designation was made, or a historical baseline of pre-disturbance conditions. The brief description of human uses of the region in the 1800s is insufficient (3-4).



35



the EIS Guidelines)

Reference to EIS



Volume 3 14.10; 14-A; (pg. 14-93)

Include Wespac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project in cumulative effects assessments, particularly for marine mammals.

The proposed Wespac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project would increase marine traffic on the Fraser River. The project does not appear to have been included in the cumulative effects assessment of in the list of projects intentionally excluded from the assessment. It is of particular importance for inclusion in the assessment of cumulative effects on marine mammals.

EISG- section 13.1.1 TOC pg. 29 There is no analysis of the significance of residual environmental effects.

Volume 2 8.1.7 to 8.1.9 (pg 8-18 to 8-21)

Actual analysis of the significance of residual environmental effects should be provided.

The table of concordance notes that the reader should be able to find a detailed analysis of the significance of adverse residual environmental effects. While the process of how a residual effect was determined to be significant is discussed, no examples are given. There is no analysis or a reference to where the analysis can be found in this section.

EISG- section 13.1.1 TOC - pg. 29 It is unclear if the ecological and social context was adequately implemented.

Volume 2 8.1.7 to 8.1.9 (pg 8-18 to 8-21)

A clearer definition of how the proponent will use ecological and social context in determining the significance of residual effects is needed.

The proponent gives a vague understanding of how context will be used in assessing the significance of residual effects. However, the EIS guidelines state that the ecological and social context is one of the primary elements that must be included for reaching conclusions. Thus, the parameters of the social and ecological context should be more carefully defined (e.g., the temporal boundaries used to assess the context).

EISG section 13.1.1 TOC pg. 29The existence of environmental standards, guidelines, or objectives is not given

Volume 2 8.1.7 to 8.1.9 (pg 8-18 to 8-21)

How existing environmental standards, guidelines, or objectives of the proponent are a factor in determining the significance of residual effects. The provision of a list of what standards, guidelines or objectives were used in this way is necessary.

The proponent is required under the EIS guidelines to demonstrate how the existence of environmental standards, guidelines, or objectives will be used to help determine the significance of residual effects and as well to use those guidelines/standards/goals for assessing the impact and implications of any revisions. This section says that they were incorporated but fails to explain how or reference the section of the EIS where this can be found.



36



the EIS Guidelines)

Reference to EIS


EISG section 18.1; 12.1.2 Economic, social, heritage and health factors; cumulative environmental effects.

Volume 4 26.5.3.1 (pg.26-10)

A consideration of how the Ports intention to obtain 2,300 acres of land for industrial use by 2025 will affect economic, social, heritage, and health issues in combination with the Project.

The EIS must include a description of the effects of the Project on social, economic, heritage and health matters that do not arise from changes to the environment caused by the Project. The project will play a central role in the proponents desire to create or acquire industrial lands as stated in its land use plan. The EIS guidelines indicate the EIS should examine the cumulative effects of all c

vicki huntington - comments on eis completeness for roberts bank terminal 2

Documents

terminal construction

eisg section

causeway construction

terminal design

eis guidelines reference

marine terminal

roberts bank terminal

eis issue