Planning and Development Committee Agenda - Thursday, June 19, 2014 Page 2 of 3

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE June 19, 2014 SCRD Board Room, 1975 Field Road, Sechelt, BC

AGENDA

CALL TO ORDER 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA 1. Adoption of the Agenda

PART 1 (pages 1- 141) for pages 142 - 221 see PART 2, for pages 222 - 293 see PART 3, for pages 294 - 331 see PART 4

PETITIONS AND DELEGATIONS 2. Bryan Balmer, Manager, System Integrity Programs, and Rob Bradbeer, ANNEX A Operations Manager, Vancouver Island North, FortisBC pp 1 – 6 Regarding Pipeline Safety and Security (Regional Planning Services) 3. Adele Anderson (Applicant/Owner) VERBAL

a. Development Variance Permit Application No. 310.179 (Horst) ANNEX B Electoral Area B (Rural Planning Services) pp 7 – 25

b. Crown Application 2410904 (Horst) for a private moorage and boat launch ANNEX C Electoral Area B (Rural Planning Services) pp 26 – 66

INVITED GUEST – 1:00 p.m. 4. Rachelle McElroy, Executive Director, Coastal Invasive Species Committee VERBAL Regarding Invasive Species Management (Regional Planning Services)

REPORTS 5. Changes to Private Forest Land Council Regulation ANNEX D (Regional Planning Services) pp 67 – 74 6. Cumulative Effects Assessment Framework for Howe Sound ANNEX E (Regional Planning Services) pp 75 – 141 PART 2 (pages 142 - 221) for pages 1 - 141 see PART 1, for pages 222 - 293 see PART 3, for pages 294 - 331 see PART 4 7. Sunshine Coast Food Policy Council / Regional Food Sustainability ANNEX F Strategy pp 142 – 162 (Regional Planning Services) 8. Sunshine Coast Housing Committee Report on Affordable Housing ANNEX G Developments and Catalyst Community Developments Society pp 163 – 173 Backgrounder (Regional Planning Services) Planning and Development Committee Agenda - Thursday, June 19, 2014 Page 2 of 3

9. Sunshine Coast Regional District and BC Timber Sales Communication ANNEX H Protocol Agreement – Areas A, B, D, E & F pp 174 – 181 Electoral Areas A to F (Rural Planning Services) 10. Notification of BCTS Operations and Auctions – Areas D & E ANNEX I Electoral Areas D and E (Rural Planning Services) pp 182 – 189 11. Draft Terms of Reference for Electoral Area A: Egmont/Pender Harbour ANNEX J Official Community Plan (OCP) Review pp 190 – 198 Electoral Area A (Rural Planning Services) 12. Halfmoon Bay Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 675.1 ANNEX K Electoral Area B (Rural Planning Services) pp 199 – 201 13. Zoning Amendment Bylaw 337.111 (Whiskey Business, 12671 Sunshine ANNEX L Coast Highway – Pender Harbour Hotel/Grasshopper Pub) pp 202 – 221 Electoral Area A (Rural Planning Services) PART 3 (pages 222 - 293) for pages 1 – 141 see PART 1, for pages 142 - 221 see PART 2, for pages 294 - 331 see PART 4 14. Development Variance Permit Application No. 337.139 (Pearce) – Area A ANNEX M Electoral Area A (Rural Planning Services) pp 222 – 231 15. Development Variance Permit Application No. 310.180 (Hage for Lewis) ANNEX N (Area F) pp 232 – 236 Electoral Area F (Rural Planning Services) 16. Development Variance Permit Application No. 310.186 (Kiloh) (Area F) ANNEX O Electoral Area F (Rural Planning Services) pp 237 – 249 17. Highway 101 Music Festival Special Occasion Liquor License Application ANNEX P on the Pender Harbour Lions Club property – Area A pp 250 – 259 Electoral Area A (Rural Planning Services) 18. Hillside Activity Report – June 11, 2014 ANNEX Q Hillside pp 260 19. Building Department Revenues - May 2014 ANNEX R (Building Department) pp 261 – 263 20. Planning and Development Monthly Report - May 2014 ANNEX S (Regional/Rural Planning Services) pp 264 – 271 21. Sunshine Coast Housing Committee Minutes of April 29, 2014 ANNEX T (Regional Planning Services) pp 272 – 275 22. Agricultural Advisory Committee Minutes of May 27, 2014 ANNEX U (Regional Planning Services) pp 276 – 279 23. Egmont/Pender Harbour (Area A) APC Minutes of May 28, 2014 ANNEX V Electoral Area A (Rural Planning Services) pp 280 – 283 24. Halfmoon Bay (Area B) APC Minutes of May 27, 2014 ANNEX W Electoral Area B (Rural Planning Services) pp 284 – 286 25. Roberts Creek (Area D) APC Minutes of May 26, 2014 ANNEX X Electoral Area D (Rural Planning Services) pp 287 – 288 Planning and Development Committee Agenda - Thursday, June 19, 2014 Page 3 of 3

26. Elphinstone (Area E) APC Minutes of May 28, 2014 ANNEX Y Electoral Area E (Rural Planning Services) pp 289 – 290 27. West Howe Sound (Area F) APC Minutes of May 27, 2014 ANNEX Z Electoral Area F (Rural Planning Services) pp 291 – 293

PART 4 (pages 294 - 331) for pages 1 – 141 see PART 1, for pages 142 - 221 see PART 2, for pages 222 - 293 see PART 3 COMMUNICATIONS 28. Mark Anderson, District Manager, Sunshine Coast District, Ministry of ANNEX AA Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, dated May 6, 2014 pp 294 – 295 Regarding the establishment of woodlots on Gambier Island. 29. Doug Caul, Associate Deputy Minister, Environmental Assessment Office, ANNEX BB dated May 8, 2014 pp 296 – 297 Regarding the proposed increase in coal shipment by the Texada Quarrying Ltd. facility. 30. Nicholas Simons, MLA, Powell River-Sunshine Coast, dated May 15, 2014 ANNEX CC Regarding the proposed coal export terminal at Fraser Surrey Docks. pp 298 – 322 31. Institute for Sustainable Food Systems, dated May 26, 2014 ANNEX DD Regarding an invitation to a workshop on June 9, 2014. pp 323 32. Salman Maqsood, Licences and Permits Division, Office of Controlled ANNEX EE Substances, Health Canada, dated May 29, 2014 pp 324 – 329 Regarding a potential licensed producer within SCRD jurisdiction and FAQ on Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations for Municipalities. 33. Kate-Louise Stamford, Trustee, Gambier Island Local Trust Area, Islands ANNEX FF Trust, dated June 11, 2014 pp 330 – 331 Regarding woodlots on Gambier Island.

IN CAMERA

That the public be excluded from attendance at the meeting in accordance with Sections 90 (1) (a) “personal information about an identifiable individual…”, (e) “the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements…” and (g) “litigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality”, (i) “the receipt of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose”.

ADJOURNMENT

ANNEX AA

BRITISH CoLuMlu A

F ile: I 972020/W2068 I 9720-20/W2069 Cliff #206115

May 6,2014

I3YF’mu Lpaieun.

Dearl)r. MI. O’l)riscoll:

Thank you for your email of April 24, 2014 to the Honourable Minister Steve Thomson regarding the establishment of woodlots on Gambier Island. I have been asked to respond.

The ministry is aware of the concerns raised by local residents and island representatives regarding the potential impact of forest management activities on recreation, biodiversity and visual quality objectives.

Ministry staff have been communicating with the Islands Trust and community representatives since the planning started in 2012 and will continue to review comments we receive.

The Gambier Island Woodlots are part of the Provincial Woodlot Disposition Plan. The woodlots are established with an eye to promoting small scale forestry to the benefit of all British Columbians.

The Gambier woodiots are to be located in an area that is suitable for small scale area based tenures and are in compliance with the local Official Community Plan.

The prospective woodlot licensee will have to prepare a Woodlot Licence Plan which will address the management of riparian areas, recreation features, watersheds, visual quality objectives and other resource values, This plan must be made available for public review and comment at which time community members can influence the management of the woodlot licences,

The Statutory Decision Maker will consider the public comments and how these have been addressed by the woodlot licensee before making a decision on the Woodlot Licence Plan. During this planning process an appropriate balance between the different resource values (like recreation, timber, visual quality, etc.) will have to be found.

Page 1 of2

Ministry of Forests, Lands and Sunshine Coast Distxkt Mailing Address: Natural Resource Operations 7077 Duncan Street Powell River BC V8A IWI ‘rel: (604 485 0700 Fax: (604) 4850799

294 I)r, ML, ODriscoll

If you have any further questions about the woodlot license program or the Gambier Woodlot process please contact Chuck Andersono.ba.

Thank you again for bringing your concerns to my attention.

Mark Anderson, R.P.F. District Manager Sunshine Coast District cc: Dave Peterson, AlDeputy Minister, Minister of Forests, Lands & Natural Resource Operations Davetcrsonovbc,ca

Honourable Shirley Bond, Minister of Jobs, Tourism & Skills Training JTST.Minister(,govbc.ca

Jordan Sturdy, MLA West Vancouver-Sea to Sky JordanSturdym1alegbc.ca

Nicholas Simons, MLA Powell River-Sunshine Coast

Gambier Island Local Trust Committee kstarnford(islandstrust.bc.ca and jjggendornislandstrust.bc.ca

Gary Nohr, Chair Board of Directors, Sunshine Coast Regional District and Lee Tumbull, Electoral Area F Representative (West Howe Sound) inth(scrdca

Page 2 of 2 295 ANNEX BB

BRITISH COLUMBIA Reference: 104094

May 8, 2014

Chief Garry Feschuk PC Box 740 SecheltBC VON 3A0 Dear Chief Feschuk and Council: Thank you for your letters of December 6, 2013, and March 4, 2014, addressed to the Honourable Mary Polak, Minister of Environment regarding the proposed increase in coal shipment by the Texada Quarrying Ltd facility, a subsidiary of Lafarge Canada. I have been askedto respond. I apologize for the delay in responding. Under the British Columbia EnvironmentalAssessment Act (Act), the Reviewable Projects Regulation (Regulation) has thresholds that identify when a proposed project is considered reviewable. The Act and Regulation can be accessed on the Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) website at www.eao.qov.bc.ca. Lafarge’s application to amend their existing British Columbia Mines Act permit to expand the coal storage area at their Texada Island Quarrying Ltd. does not trigger a provincial environmental assessment as it does not meet any of the thresholds in the Regulation, specifically those related to foreshore modification or new railway tracks. On March 12, 2014, the Ministry of Energy and Mines issued a Mines Act amendment with conditions to Texada Quarrying Ltd. I can advise you that staff in the Ministry of Environment provided technical input to the Ministry of Energy and Mines during the Mines Act permit amendment process to ensure that environmental protection issues were addressed. I have taken the liberty of forwarding your letter to the Ministry of Energy and Mines to ensure they are aware of your concerns.”

I hope that you find this information useful and thank you again for your letters.

Sincerely,

Doug Caul Associate Deputy Minister ./2

Environmenta’ Office of the Mailing Address: Location: Assessment Associate P0 Box 9426 Stn Prey Govt 2 Fl — 836 Yates St Office Deputy Minister Victoria BC V8W 9V1 Victoria BC V8W 1 L8 296 cc: Chief Clint Williams Sliammon First Nation

Chief Ian Campbell Squamish First Nation

Garry Nohr, Board Chair Sunshine Coast Regional District

Ed Taje, Regional Manager Ministry of Energy and Mines

Heather MacKnight, Regional Executive Director Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations

297 ANNEX CC

Nicholas Simons, MLA Constituency Office: (Powell River — Sunshine Coast) 109 - 4675 Marine Ave. Parliament Buildings Powell River, BC V8A 2L2 Victoria, BC V8V 1X4 Phone (604) 485 - 1249 Ph: (250) 953 —4702

Fax: (250) 387 - 4680

5 — 4720 Sunshine Coast Hwy Sechelt, BC VON 3A2

Phone (604) 741 - 0792 Honourable Christy Clark, Premier P0 Box 9041, Stn Prov Govt. Victoria, BC V8W 9E1

May 15, 2014

Dear Premier,

I hope you are well. Constituents of mine have been expressing their concern about the proposed coal export terminal known as Fraser Surrey Docks, and the impact this proposal, if approved, would have on them and their environment.

The project will result in a significantly larger amount of coal coming to, and leaving Texada Island, near Gillies Bay. Currently 400,000 metric tonnes get trans-loaded there. It is proposed that this amount be increased to 8 million per year.

Notwithstanding concerns about the apparent increase in our coal export capacity, my current concerns relate to the three following issues:

1. The lack of consultation with the public and First Nations. 2. The absence of a navigational risk assessment and spill response plans. 3. Inadequate health and environmental impact assessments.

1. The public and First Nations have not had an opportunity to provide real input. To make their project work, Port Metro Vancouver, run by a federal government appointed board, set the terms of reference for the health and environmental impact assessments that required it from its tenant, Fraser Surrey Docks, so that the tenant could build a new coal export facility and earn more for the proponent’s landlord, which happens to be Port Metro Vancouver.

No impartial government agency has been part of the review —not the Ministry of Health, not the Ministry of Environment, and not the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation. The government has created a situation where the shIshálh (Sechelt) Nation have said they would blockade the shipments or pursue governments through the courts.

I refer you to three residents groups (letters I-Ill, attached), along with local government (letter IV) and groups dedicated to protecting our environment have also expressed their concerns (letters V, VI). 298 -VE 4S.

2. While Port Metro Vancouver may well think that their reviews are sufficient, clearly the public has not accepted the depth or scope of their reviews, and the fact remains none have looked at any of the impacts, real or potential, of the barges of coal once they have cleared the sand heads at the mouth of the Fraser River.

The coal, in twin barges, would be pulled up along the Sunshine Coast and through the Sabine Channel between Texada and Lasqueti Island, and through fish conservation zones and three Provincial Marine Parks. It will go past, or through the traditional territories of Coast Salish nations including the Squamish, Sechelt and Sliammon Nations.

Despite the inadequate assessments on the project within the purview of Fraser Surrey Docks, and despite the coal moving up the Salish Sea to Texada Island, through the parks and conservation areas, through fishing areas and sensitive habitat, nobody has bothered to ask questions about the impact on navigation, and nobody has determined what would happen in the event of an accident. 1 reiterate my request that your Government order appropriate navigational risk assessment and demand a spill response plan for the entire project.

3. The navigational risks and spill response measures as they relate to the transport of coal from Fraser Surrey Docks to Texada Island are important, but even more pressing are concerns around pollutants from the storage and management of coal as it relates to the Lower Mainland as well as the Sunshine Coast and Texada Island. I refer you to a letter from the Chief Medical Health Officers of the Fraser Health Region and the Vancouver Coastal Health Region (VII), and from the Medical Health Officer of the Sunshine Coast (VIII). Their concerns should not be ignored, and if they’re not being ignored, the public would like to know what actions the government will take to protect their interests.

We must pay attention to local and regional health and environmental impacts. That is what I, along with First Nations, many municipalities, health professionals, and concerned citizens, am requesting of you. I look forward to your response.

Nicholas Simons, MLA Powell River-Sunshine Coast Opposition Critic for Agriculture

299 cc. Chief CaMn Craigan and Council, shlshdih (Sechelt) Nation Chief Clint Williams, Tia’amin (Sliammon) First Nation Minister Bill Bennett, Energy and Mines and Core Review Minister Mary Poiaic, Environment Minister Terry Lake, Health Director Garry Nohr (Haifmoon Bay), Chair, Sunshine Coast Regional District Director Cohn Palmer (flea C), Chair, Powell River Regional District Director Dave Murphy (Area D), Texada island Dogwood initIative Sunshine Coast Conservation Association Texada Action Network Van Anda ResIdents’ Association Van Dada Improvement DIstrIct

300 e Sunshine Coast Conservation Association

P0 Box 1969, Sechelt, BC, VON 3AO Port Metro Vancouver 100 The Pointe, 999 Canada Place Vancouver, BC V6C 3T4 December 17, 2013

RE: SUNSHINE COAST CONSERVATION ASSOClATlONS PUBLIC COMMENT ON FRASER SURREY DOCKS’ “ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE DIRECT TRANSFER COAL FACILITY” (NOVEMBER 2013)

The Sunshine Coast Conservation Association (SCCA) is a registered charity (1997> whose mandate is to protect biodiversity values within the Sunshine Coast Forest District and adjoining marine waters. Our membership is broadly based consisting not only of individuals and families but also of local conservation and community groups. Currently, with respect to the marine environment, the SCCA has received federal funding to participate in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency transitional comprehensive study for the Burnco Aggregate Mine Project. In addition, the SCCA is actively working with a stakeholder group seeking protection for the globally unique glass sponge reefs recently discovered in the Strait of Georgia. The Sunshine Coast Conservation Association has grave concerns regarding the climate change implications of the Direct Transfer Coal Facility (Project). We will however restrict our comments to our mandate and hence to the Strait of Georgia portion of the Project as identified in the scope of the Environmental Impact Assessment for the Project: the barge transport of coal from the Project site to Texada Island (page ii, Volume I). Transhipping the coal from barge to freighter at Lafarge Canada’s site on Texada Island was first brought to the SCCA’s attention in June 2013 during a public presentation on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012 hosted by the SCCA. A letter requesting an extension of the review period for Texada Quarries (Lafarge Canada) application for an amendment to Permit M-66, File ref. no.14745-20, was subsequently sent to the Ministry of Mines in August 2013. The letter further identified environmental concerns, not only with the Texada Quarries, but with the transportation of the coal both by barge and by ship in the Strait of Georgia. The appropriate transportation concerns are reiterated below.

In reviewing the Environmental Impact Assessment for the Direct Transfer Coal Facility November 2013 (EIA), the SCCA commends Fraser Surrey Docks (FSD) for so quickly, since June 2013, implementing enhanced risk mitigation measures. ilPage

301 barged coal in which Specific to this submission is the measure for dust suppression of prior to barge dust suppression agents will be added to the coal surface immediately transfer. of the coal along However, the SCCA is both disappointed and alarmed that the barging as the FSD the Strait of Georgia has not received a similar level of assessment facility and the Fraser River portions of the Project. for the The SCCA believes that an environmental assessment must be conducted during the life Sunshine Coast portion of the Project as there will be coal dust released to an unexpected of the Project and to provide for a more effective emergency response greater loss of either dust or of the coal itself. fugitive dust It is understood that FSD will, with its barge partner Lafarge, mitigate and turbulence, during marine transit by profiling the coal so as to reduce wind erosion in winds that are the barges will only be filled to 85% capacity and will not be operated Due to greater than 40 km per hour that are sustained for more than five minutes. that the variable wind conditions this will present some difficulties. It is further stated if required, coal will be coated with both a binding and a surfactant during loading; and have additional suppressing. However, there is no documentation that the chemicals Electric, states been tested on barges in the marine environment. The supplier, General on train cars.’ in a letter dated November, 2013 that their products were 90% effective of the Will the addition of salt water spray during transport diminish the effectiveness amounts of treatment. The barges, once unloaded will still likely contain significant transport residual coal. How will this be prevented from entering the environment during as the empty barges are neither covered or treated for dust control?

testing for the loss of coal dust in actual marine conditions with uncovered Without to barges, and based on the experience of train transport, it would not be unreasonable amount could assume that there will be losses with each loaded barge movement, This is expected by be significant over the lifetime of the Project. The Project, as described, potential of 8 Year 2 to be transporting 4 million metric tonnes of coal per year, with the 6.2 barge million tonnes per year being barged by Year The corresponding loaded to 4 per day movements in the Strait of Georgia would likely increase from 2 per day (640/year to 1280/year). dispersed Documentation appears to be lacking for how the treated coal dust might be local in the air and marine waters and how once settled it might interact with the ecosystems.

If the identified method of barging proceeds, the SCCA requests that a detailed portions of environmental assessment be conducted similar to that granted to the other including the Project. Such an assessment would include, but not be limited to, effects Partnership, November 2013, Volume II lOne test was conducted on one train in 2009. Letter to FSD Ltd

Plan, FSD, June 2013 vS. page 5; Volume it 2 Offloading track and barge loading for PRB coat, Environmental Management

2lPage

302 cumulative, mitigation, residual effects and proposed monitoring for air quality, marine sediments, including shoreline; fish and fish habitat, vegetation and wildlife including marine and shoreline ecosystems. Cumulative effects need especially to consider the existing coal operation at Texada Quarries. In addition bio-accumulation and bio magnification of the heavy metals (e.g. mercury) and particulate matter associated with the source Powder River Basin coal on receiving ecosystems must be evaluated.

The Vananda Creek Stickleback Pairs (Gasterosteus spp. 16 & 17) residing on the Sunshine Coast were identified in the EIA as “Species of Concern”. Many other species of plants, animals and ecosystems of the Sunshine Coast and Strait of Georgia were not. For example: among federally identified animals Northern Abalone (Haliotis kamtschatkana), Olympia Oyster (Ostrea lurida), Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), Great Blue Heron supspecies fannini (Ardea herodias fannini) and the Killer Whale Northeast Pacific West Coast Transient population and Southern Resident populations (Orcinus orca). It is recommended that the South Coast Conservation Program and the BC Conservation Data Centre, be contacted to obtain a complete list of species and ecosystems, both flora and fauna, marine and terrestrial of the Sunshine Coast/Georgia Strait region which are identified federally and/or provincially.

The route as indicated in the EIA (page 5, Volume I) shows the tugs and barges travelling between the west side of Texada Island and east side of Lasqueti Island through Sabine Channel. Areas of special concern in this region are Jedediah Island Provincial Park, South Texada Island Provincial Park, Squitty Bay Provincial Park and Sabine Channel Marine Park.

Further special areas recognized in other legislation such as Rockfish Conservation Areas and others not yet specifically protected such as the world unique Glass Sponge Reefs must be identified, mapped and assessed in the Strait of Georgia.

In addition, coastal ecosystems, such as estuaries are recognized as one of the most productive ecosystems on earth and must especially be protected to preserve their function as barriers against the effects of climate change. For example, eelgrass meadows excel in sequestering organic carbon especially in sediments below the meadows. Such ecosystems must be identified, assessed, monitored and plans made for ensuring that any accidents and or malfunctions involving the barging of coal be quickly contained to avoid potential damage and destruction.

The EIA states “... the effects of and on climate change have been excluded from the scope of this assessment” (page ii, Volume I). If Port Metro Vancouver does give approval to the project as described the effects of climate change on the Project must be identified and planned for. Specific to the concerns of the SCCA is the phenomenon of storminess. Aside from the predicted sea level rise of 1 meter in the near future; it is understood that the weather patterns themselves will become more unpredictable and severe. It is likely that winds will more frequently reach beyond the 40 km/hr mark in the Strait of Georgia. The winds and the waves generated from them will at the very least have an impact on the barging schedules. Operating procedures

3lPage

303 must be developed that reassures the public that towing speeds and wind levels will not be increased to make up for lost delivery times.

The concern on the Sunshine Coast for marine accidents involving barges is based on the recent experiences. In July 2009, a tug towing equipment within the Skookumchuk Rapids of Sechelt Inlet was flipped over and in May, 2005, a barge containing limestone from Texada Island was accidently beached on the community beach at Davis Bay near Sechelt. Both of these incidents represent the potential for an environmental marine disaster.

In spite of a lack of consultation with the public and major stakeholder the shishálh Nation by FSD, interest in this Project is growing on the Sunshine Coast. On November 23, 2013 the SCCA, the Council of Senior Citizens’ Organizations — Sunshine Coast on coal Branch and Alliance 4 Democracy - Sunshine Coast co-hosted a panel forum and this Project at the Sechelt Indian Band Hall. Invited speakers included a medical doctor, scientist, professor, provincial politician, researcher and community activists. The media reported 150-200 participants.

With such interest in the Project and lack of information on the possible impacts on the the Strait of Georgia and nearby coastline ecosystems, the Sunshine Coast Conservation Association recommends that Port Metro Vancouver not approve the current version of the Fraser Surrey Docks Environmental Impact Assessment for the Direct Transfer Coal Facility (November 2O13).

To assist in communicating with our members and local citizens, we request that a copy of Port Metro Vancouver’s decision and rationale be sent to office(thescca.ca

Sincerely,

Jason Herz Chair

Cc realporthearings.com SIB MLA MP SCRD CEO of Fraser Surrey Docks Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communitities Chief Medical Health Officer Minister of the Environment DFO Nanaimo Environment Canada

4J Page

304 Concerned Citizens of Texada

Honourable Mary Polak, Minister of Environment, Victoria BC November 8, 2013

BY E-MAIL.

Dear Honourable Minister,

Proposed expanded coal handling and storage area on Texada Island. Request for a full Health Impact Assessment on Texada.

By letter dated September 13, 2013, Dr Martiquet, the Medical Health Officer for Vancouver Coastal Health, a jurisdiction that includes Texada and the Sunshine Coast, has called for a full I-Iealth Impact Assessment (HIA) to be conducted on Texada and environs. The HIA would assess the health and other impacts of Lafarge’s proposed expansion of its coal handling facility on Texada, above Gillies Bay.

Given the public health and other matters addressed by our Medical Health Officer -- where he has a statutoly duty to report and advise on public health issues-- concerned citizens on Texada have signed a letter in support of his request for a full HIA. Similarly Lafarge has been requested to support an HIA; residents here consider Lafarge should have instigated a full HIA and cannot understand its reluctance to do so.

The Van Anda Improvement District, the Texada Health Services Society and the Texada Action Now Community Association (TAN) have now joined the call for a full H1A here on Texada,

Drinking and domestic-use watershed reservoirs for VanAnda and Gillies Bay are within 4 km of the proposed open-aired coal dump exposed to the vagaries of the weather, which is often stormy along the coast.

Dr Martiquet reports that Lafarge has a poor track record in addressing concerns of run off from the limestone quarry that has affected a neighbouring watershed with elevated heavy metals and nitrates. The local Drinking Water Officer has been working with Lafarge to resolve these serious contamination issues but since 2009 there has been very little progress towards resolution.

Potential heavy metals in the coal is one of Dr Martiquet’s larger concerns in view of the fact that drinking water for the Lafarge quarry on Texada is already being treated for elevated arsenic, antimony, and uranium. Dr Martiquet therefore recommends that an assessment of the receiving environment should be included in the HIA.

305 Texada has finite water resources. Lafarge presumably will be required to use water for dust and particulate control. so the source, volume and subsequent impact must be identified in the HIA, including the impact on watershed resources.

I trust you agree that a full and independent H1A for this project is absolutely essential if we are to protect public health on Texada and our drinking water resources.

BC’s provincial health officer, Dr. Peny Kendall, Dr. Patricia Daly, Vancouver Coastal Health’s chief medical health officer, and Dr. Paul Van Buynder, Fraser Health Authority’s chief medical officer have all asked for a full Health Impact Assessment of the project.

We would be grateful if you would join the Minister of Health who has a statutory duty under the Public Health Act to inquire into health hazards and health impediments faced by the population of British Columbia, in authorizing a full and independent HIA on Texada. Substantive community consultation is seen as a critical component of the acceptability of the outcome of the HIA.

The attachments form part of this submission.

Yours truly

Adrian Sterrenburg Cresc Bay John Hollo Van Anda Amos Zook Gillies Bay Karen May Van Anda Anne Carney Gillies Bay 1ary Lock Gillies Bay Bob Kappmeier Van Anda Mary Leopkey Gillies Bay Brett Gagne Gillies Bay Mike Gagne Gillies Bay Carolyn \Vood Van Anda Paula Brunelle Gillies Bay Chris Bernard Gillies Bay Pam Mackenzie Gillies Bay Cora Sterrenburg Cresc Bay Pat Kelly Gillies Bay Dale Leopkey Gillies Bay Phyllis Soles Van Anda Dr Andrew Mackenzie Gillies Bay Peter Lock Gillies Bay Doby Dobrostanski Gillies Bay Richard Fahlman Gillies Bay Fran Garner Gillies Bay Richard Fletcher Gillies Bay Geraldine McDonald Van Anda Ruth Linsey Gillies Bay Gerry Gagne Gillies Bay Terry Hoilo Van Anda Jane Boardman Gillies Bay Sharon Black Gillies Bay James Mack Van Anda Steve Perkins Gillies Bay Jim Cairns Gillies Bay

CONCERNED CITIZENS OF TEXADA.

[email protected]

306 Copies to:

Honourable Terry Lake, Minister of Health Dr Peny Kendall Provincial Health Officer Dr Martiquet Medical Health Officer, Texada and the Sunshine Coast. Nicholas Simons. MLA. Powell River and the Sunshine Coast. EdTaje Energy and Mines. Mike Simpson Groundwater Protection Officer, Environment Dr Kevin Black Texada GP.

Attachment: Medical Health Officer’s letter of Sept 13, 2013. Attachment: Concerned Citizens: letter to Lafarge, Oct 29, 2013

307 VanJ1ndà Impro’ernent eDistnct (Bo1I5 Van4n4 (BC V0w37(O Mr. Bob Timms, Chafrman T&ephone: (604) 485-0449 Mrs. Heidi Gable, Administrator Fax: (604) 48E7671

November 12, 2013

Mr. EdTaje Senior Inspector of Mines, Permitting arid Health aSae Ministry of Energy and Mines

trt

Dear Mr. Taje:

Re: Proposed Expansion of Coal Handling & Storage on Texada Isand

At the October 29, 2013 meeting of the Van Anda Improvement District on Texada island, the trustees passed a moion to write a letter in support of the recommendations of Dr. Paul Martiquet— Medical Health Officer for Coast Gariba di, Bella Bella, Belia Coola and Vancouver Coastal Health Authority — Dr. Paul Van Buynder — Chief Medical Health Offlce’, Fraser Health Authority — and Dr. — Patricia Daly Chief Medical Health Officer, Vancouver Coastal Health Authority— the inclusion of an independent, comprehensive Hearth Impact Assessment in the review of the proposed exDanded coal handling and storage area on Texada Island.

As the Board of Trustees for the Van Anda Improvement District we have the responsibility for ne provision of safe drinking water for our residents, and we have serious concerns about LhC effects of uiis dramatic increase in moiemnnt and storage of thermal coal on our island, in close proximity to the watershed arourd Priest Lake that serves Van 4nda water system. it is our hope that this i4ealth impact Assessment will give us the information we need to make responsible, informed decisions with regard to the care and management of our most precioJs resource our water.

We thank you for your diligent attention to our concerns.

Bob Timms, Chair Van Anda lmprovement District cc: Andre Balfe, General Manager, Texada Quarrying Ltd., Texada Island, BC Brad Kohl, Vice President Western Division, Lafarge Dave Murphy, Area D Director, Powell River Regional District Nicholas Simons, MLA, Powell River—Sunshine Coast

308 _

Stánshne Coast Regional District 1W5 Field Road P604.885.6800 Sechelt, &itlsh Colümbta F G4885.79U9 [email protected] Canada VON 3A1 Tolifrea t800.687.5753 www.scrd.ca z.

December 17, 2013

Honourable Mary Polak Minister of Environment P0 BOX 9047 STN PROV GOVT VICTORIA, BC V8W 9E2

Dear Minister Polak:

RE: Proposed Coal Shipments from Fraser Surrey Docks to Texada Island

The Sunshine Coast Regional District is concerned about the proposal to transport coal from brought by rail to the Fraser Surry Docks and then by barge to Texada Island. The SCRD Board adopted the following resolution: 543/13 Recommendation No. 3 Coal Shipments to Texada Island THAT the staff report dated November 7, 2013 titled “Coal Shipments to Texada Island” be received; AND THAT the SCRD Board forward the following comments to the Ministry of Health, Minister of Environment, Port Metro Vancouver and the Ministry of Energy and Mines a> The SCRD Board is concerned about the shipping of US coal through Canada and the potential health and environmental impacts of coal dust from barge traffic; b> That a full environmental assessment be conducted to allow for comprehensive public input from people along the entire route and that it includes but is not limited to the consideration of following:

i. Health Impact Assessment, that includes consideration of the impacts of coal dust escape during barge transport and transfer; ii. Navigational Risk Assessment; iii. Environmental Management Plan addressing but not limited to the impact of local wind direction, impact on marine environment and ecosystems such as fish and glass sponge reefs; iv. Spill Response Plan;

ELECTORAL AREAS: A - Egmont, Fender Harbour B Halfrnoon - Bay D Roberts Creek E - Efphinstone F. West Howe Sound MUNICIPALITIES: District of Sechelt I Sechelt Indian Government District / Town of Gibsons 309 ______—______

Letter regarding Texada Coal shipment proposal Dated December 17, 2013

v. Air Quality Management Plan addressing measures to prevent coal dust escaping during transport; vi. Comprehensive Economic Impact Study of all the above noted items to include public consultation and an assessment of what benefits would accrue to local communities to ascertain the effect on communities along the way; AND THAT the comments be copied to: a) Squamish Nation; b) shIshálh Nation; c) Powell River Regional District; d) Nicholas Simons, MLA Powell River Sunshine Coast;

e) MP John Weston, West Vancouver — Sunshine Coast — Sea to Sky; f) Town of Gibsons; g) District of Sechelt; h) Sliammon Band; i) UBCM; j) Association of Vancouver Island Coastal Communities (AVICC); k) Federal Transport Minister; I) Department of Fisheries and Oceans; and m) B.C. Ministry of Health; The Sunshine Coast Regional District is also concerned about the lack of engagement with the shIshám Nation as the barge route goes through its territory. This needs to be addressed before any decision is made regarding the proposal. Please contact me if you have any questions ([email protected] or 604 885 6804 ext 4).

Yours truly,

SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT

David Rafael Senior Planner cc: (see list above)

310 Su’JS NG1-3

To: Port Metro Vancouver From: Sunshine Coast Clean Air Society Date: 16 December 2013

Opposition to a Coal Transfer Facility at Fraser Surrey Docks and Transportation to Texada Island

The Sunshine Coast Clean Air Society is opposed to a coal transfer facility at Fraser Surrey Docks and the transport of coal to Texada Island on the Sunshine Coast for the following reasons: (1) There are health hazards due to the transportation of coal and coal dust such as increased damage to cardiovascular and pulmonary systems, increased severity and frequency of asthma attacks, heart attacks, and ER visits, and increased incidences of bronchitis and risk to cancer. There’s cognitive impairment in children. Children and the elderly are most susceptible to coal dust pollutants such as mercury and sulphur. (2) There’s increased cost to our health care system because of these health hazards. The coal industry is passing their costs onto the health system/taxpayer. (3) Coal, more than any other source of energy, contributes to greenhouse gases and climate change. It’s the dirtiest form of energy, and many parts of the world have stopped burning coal for the environmental and health hazards it causes. (4) Port Metro Vancouver is undermining Metro Vancouver’s goal of reducing air pollution. Coal dust is a major air pollutant.

The Sunshine Coast Clean Air Society joins others opposing your coal project: Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, British Columbia Nurses’ Union, The Fraser and Vancouver Coastal Health Authorities, the Provincial Chief Medical Officer, the city councils of New Westminster, White Rock and Surrey, the Sunshine Coast Regional District, our MLA, Nicholas Simons, the Shishalh Nation on the Sunshine Coast. We support the June 2013 Board of Metro Vancouver’s request for a health impact assessment and oppose expansion of coal shipments in the Fraser River Estuary. We’re pleased that the states of Washington and Oregon refuse transportation of coal trains through their states and that the World Bank in July 2013 stopped financing the construction of coal-fired power plants in developing countries due to global warming impacts. We support the Shishalh Nation on the Sunshine Coast, whose traditional waters will be impacted, in their request for a full Environmental Assessment, a Health Impact Assessment, a Navigational Risk Assessment, an Environmental Management Plan, a Spill Response Plan, and an Air Quality Management Plan. for the Sunshine Coast Clean Air Society Elizabeth McNeill President

311 LAWN. — Texada Action Now

November 25. 2013. Honourable Terry Lake. Minister of Health,

fl Honeurable Mary Polak, Minister of Environment.

Honourable Bill Bennett Minster of Energy and Mines

P.O. Box 9060 SIN PROV GOVT Victoria, B.C., V8W 9E2

Re: Coal Storage on Texada Island

Texada Action Now (TAN) is a not for profit society that was established to deal with the environmental, social and economic fabric of the Texada Island Community. Having received information from Lafarge about its proposal to expand coal storage on Texada; and being aware of concerns expressed about potential health effects, the Executive of TAN on November 18 approved the following motion: Texada Action Now will write a letter to the Ministers of Health, Environment and Energy Mines, and requesting the inclusion of a full Health Impact Assessment in the review of the proposed expanded coal handling and storage area on Texada Island”.

TAN is not at this time taking a position on the merits of coal storage on Texada but does believe that there are many health related questions that need to be addressed before any decision can be made concerning increased coal storage.

Sincerely,

Leslie Gorey, Vice-Chaip’ lexada Action Now c.c. Dave Murphy, Texada Director, Powell River Regional District Andre Balfe, General Manager. Lafarge Texada Operations Brad Kohl, VP Western Division, Lafarge Canada Mike Simpson, Groundwater Protection Officer. Ministry of Environment Ed Taje, Ministry of Energy and Mines fNicholas Simons, MLA

P0 BOX 128 ,Van Anda, BC VON3KO 312 Coast Garibaldi/BoNe Belle/Belle Coda Health Services Ccx 73. 494 South Fletcher Road Vancouver ons, BC VON F Tel: 604-885-5600

- -fleaLLH Fax:604-886-2250

September 13, 2013

Ministry of Energy and Mines kEEaVEb Mining & Mineral Division 6th Floor, 1810 Blanshard Street SEP 2- 5 2013 Victoria, B.C. POWELL RIVER V8W9M9 REGIONAL DISTRICT Attention; Ed Taje

Re; Review of Proposed Expansion of Coal Handling Facility on Texada Island

I am writing to you as the Medical Health Officer designated for the geographic area of the Sunshine Coast, Sea to Sky, Bella Bella/ Bella Coola. It is my duty to protect the public as established in the BC Public Health Act, specifically Section 73 where I am required to report and advise on public health issues.

I understand that Texada Quarries has applied to the Ministry of Energy and Mines to increase their coal storage permit (Permit M-66, File 1475-20) from 400,000 tonnes per year to 8,000,000 tonnes per year over 5 years. Accompanying the application was a Stormwater Management Plan specifically related to the proposed coal stockpile and loading area prepared by Norwest Corporation.

I support the views of my colleagues; Dr Paul Van Buynder (Chief Medical Health Officer, Fraser Health Authority) and Dr. Patricia Daly (Chief Medical Health Officer, Vancouver Coastal Health Authority) in their recommendation for the inclusion of a Health Impact Assessment (F-HA) in the review of the expanded coal handling and storage area on Texada Island. This HIA will supplement the review of this entire project including Metro Vancouver ports, Neptune Terminals and Fraser Surrey Docks. We believe it is extremely important in addressing questions from both the public and local government about potential health impacts of expanded coal storage, transport and shipmentthroughout each geographical area.

As Medical Health Officer for this area I recommend the following: 1. That a full Health Impact Assessment be completed to include a comprehensive consultation with the affected regional health authorities, local governments, First Nations and the public. The HIA should include but not be limited to: the impacts of airborne dust, potential contamination of air, land, fresh water and tidal water, diesel exhaust impacts, excessive noise and the effects of increased marine traffic. 2. There are outstanding questions related to the stormwater management plan. For example; we have concerns about utilizing an estuary for the purpose of coal dust runoff containment and there is conflicting evidence that an estuary actually exists. The effectiveness of the settling ponds is questionable due to the low specific gravity of the coal dust. We recommend that the stormwater management plan be revised and included in the HIA. 313 Ouerries Seotember 13. 2013 Letter to Enerv end Mines Re Texada

3. Lafarge has a poor track record in addressing concerns of run-off from the limestone quarry that has affected a neighbouring watershed with elevated heavy metals and nitrates. Drinking Water Officer Dan Glover is presently working with Lafarge to resolve these serious contamination issues, but since 2009 there has been very little progress towards resolution, We recommend that this be resolved as a condition of expansion of the coal storage area, 4. Potential heavy metals in the coal are one of our larger concerns in view of the fact that the drinkrng water for Texada Quarries is already being treated for elevated arsenic, antimony and uranium. An assessment of the impact on the receiving environment should be included in the HIA. 5 Details should be included in the I-HA regarding potential fuel spills on land and in the marine environment. 6. If water is going to be utilized for dust and particulate control, the source, volume and subsequent impact should be identified in the HIA.

be I concur with my colleagues Dr. Van Buynder and Dr. Daly, that the proponents of these projects required to undertake the HIA, that the terms of reference of the HIA be agreed with us prior to its commencement and that the independent contractors employed to undertake the activity be approved by us prior to the commencement of the review.

It is also recommended that verification processes be built into the HIA and that non-compliance has meaningful consequences in the permit approvals. Substantive community consultation will be a critical component of the acceptability of the outcome of the HIA

Yours sincerely,

Paul Ma rtiquet, M.D.,C. M,CCFP., M. H.Sc.,FRCP(c) Medical Health Officer Tel: 604-886-5620 Fax: 604-886-2250 [email protected] www.vch.ca

314 Vancouver .— 8+, Hea Lth f ra s e r health Best in eat care. Promoting oe1iness. Ensuring care.

November 13, 2013

DARRELL DESJARDIN Director, Environmental Programs Port Metro Vancouver 100 The Pointe 999 Canada Place Vancouver, BC V6C 3T4

Dear Mr. Desjardin:

RE: October 24 2013 draft of the Fraser Surrey Docks EIA

We thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the above document prepared by SNC Lavalin for Fraser Surrey Docks (FSD). We apologize for missing the agency comment deadline. To minimize delay in the review process, we will provide a copy of our comments to the proponent (FSD) directly. Due to the short turnaround time for agencies to provide response, we will provide additional comments as necessary during the public comment period.

Should it proceed as planned, this project will see the transportation of coal on a segment of the BNSF line that did not transport coal before, through urban neighborhoods that never had experience with coal as a commodity on the railway, and into a port facility (FSD) that has never handled coal . Being this is a first” in a number of fronts, expectations are appropriately high that the proponents will exercise very careful considerations with respect to the project’s impact on the health and safety of the public, as well as its environmental impact.

We were encouraged when Port Metro Vancouver indicated the requirement that Fraser Surrey Docks complete an Environmental Impact Assessment of the project that included an assessment of health impacts of the full project, not limited only to impacts from activity at FSD. After reviewing the report, we provide the following high-level feedback: 1. The SNC-Lavalin report is primarily a repackaging of work previously done by other consultants, primarily Levelton Consultants Inc., with limited additional analyses to address concerns raised by ourselves, the public and local governments.

315 2. Most of the conclusions in the report about potential environmental and health impacts rely upon modeling work done by Levelton i.e. “Air Quality Assessment’. We are concerned about the underlying assumptions that informed that model, which were not assessed critically by SNC-Lavelin. 3. The assessment of potential health impacts is particularly disappointing, and receives minimal attention in the document. Of note, much greater consideration is given to the potential effects of the project on plants, fish and wildlife than to people. The report does not meet even the most basic requirements of a health impact assessment. SNC-Lavalin has included a 4-page summary describing general air toxins and their known health effects, but no link to this project. The appendix includes a short letter written by a toxicologist, Dr. Leonard Ritter, with his opinion about the potential health impacts of coal dust. The letter is based on the assumption that the Levelton model is accurate, and includes only a single reference pertaining to the potential health impacts of coal dust. No discussion is included of any other potential health impacts. This single toxicologist’s opinion does not meet the standards of a health impact assessment. 4. The report does not deal with the full scope of the project, from the time coal crosses the Canadian border to its transport and loading at Texada Island.

Based on these shortfalls, this report adds little to the information we require to determine the potential health impacts of the project and does not allow us to address legitimate concerns raised by members of the public and local governments.

We would still be very willing to meet with SNC-Lavalin to identify the parameters required to do an appropriate assessment of the potential health effects of the project, and we urge Port Metro Vancouver to ask Fraser Surrey Docks to revisit this report with that recommendation.

In addition to these general comments, we provide the following specific feedback on this 27th draft of the report. Firstly, we ask that the May 2013 letter to Port Metro Vancouver from Dr. Van Buynder Chief Medical Health Officer for Fraser Health, is included as an appendix, and that those concerns outlined in the letter are addressed in the report.

Since the May letter, we understand that a number of revisions has been made to the project with the intention to at least partially address the concerns. It is with this in mind that we provide the following additional comments. the EIA 1. The Spatial , Population, and Temporal Scope of Spatial The draft EIA primarily covers the FSD site and the immediate surrounding areas on land and water. While we understand the limited jurisdiction Port Metro Vancouver has and that this EIA is primarily to address Port Metro Vancouver’s requirements, it is still disappointing that the proponent (FSD) chose not to includ the Canadian side of the project supply chain from the border to Texada Island in the EIA. Locations where potential health impacts could be of concern are not limited to the FSD site and its vicinity. For the health and safety of the of this EIA should not be limited to the construction and operations that will public, the scope 27th occur at the FSD site. As Dr. Van Buynder pointed out in his May letter, “the public are particularly intolerant of piecemeal approaches to major projects”. This EIA will not be credible to the public unless it covers the entire geographic area in which this project will operate within British Columbia.

316 Population. The draft EIA provided only general descriptions of the population and growth trends for Surrey and Delta. While the document correctly identified children and the elderly as two of the vulnerable populations who could be more sensitive to project impacts such as air quality degradation, the document did not provide much detail on the sizes and locations of potentially sensitive population groups along the rail corridor from White Rock to FSD. The air dispersion modeling in appendix VIII did include sensitive receptors (locations of schools, child care and hospitals) in a 20km x 20km domain. However only the FSD emissions were included in the dispersion model. Indeed the distribution of the sensitive receptors in the model suggests that vulnerable populations are located all along the rail corridor and that modeling emissions from FSD only is not adequate.

As the draft EJA showed, the populations of Surrey and Delta are increasing. Yet the document did not include information on how these population increases may affect the size of the vulnerable population over the proposed life time of the project. Nor did the document include information on other important characteristics of the population such as socioeconomic status. The narrow geographic scope also meant the exclusion of populations near the proposed operations at Texada Island in the assessment, Indeed while the draft EIA rightly included extensive documentation and analyses of sensitive plants, and non-human animal species that may potentially be impacted by the project, the same effort was not given to describing the human population that may potentially be impacted.

Information on potentially vulnerable populations impacted by the project should be included and could be accessed through government sources. This information is essential to determine population health risk based on those exposed.

• Temporal boundary The draft EIA states that this project has a life span of six years. At the same time however, the draft EIA also states that the FSD facility improvements will not be decommissioned after completion of the project. In addition, the planned expansion work at the Port Authority Rail Yard (PARY) is for accommodating two unit trains at a time. The draft EIA states: “the current capacity at the PARY is one unit coal train at a time, based on its capability to : receive, stage,and depart trains. Even at the proposed maximum capacity for this project, there will be only one unit train a day arriving at FSD. The current project should not require tracks to accommodate two unit trains at a time. It is therefore unclear whether continuation and further expansion of the project beyond six years are being contemplated, or whether the capacity for one additional unit train is intended as temporary coal storage in lieu of the original emergency coal storage stockpile that was deleted from the revised proposal. Clarification of intent is critical. It is not appropriate for example to be limiting the EIA to consider only six years of operation and at the stated volume if the ultimate goal is to expand beyond six years and or current volume.

2. Air Quality • Coal dust We acknowledge that a number of positive changes have been proposed with respect to coal dust mitigation: elimination of the emergency storage stockpile, additional use of sealants during transit on the incoming coal trains, and the addition of sealant during transfer and

317 on the loading onto the barges. The proposed dust mitigation strategies will now rely much EIA to use of sealants, and load profiling. Neither data nor references are given in the draft but support the efficiency claims for these strategies. They could be as efficient as claimed, by the as written, it would appear the authors of the draft EtA simply took the values provided project proponent I product manufacturer without any effort to seek independent validation, Research With respect to the health effects from coal dust, the WHO International Agency for as a on Cancer (IARC) recently announced the inclusion of outdoor air pollution in general Group 1 carcinogen. In making its decision IARC included both anthropogenic and natural sources of air pollution. (http://www.thelancet.com/iournals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470- 2045%281 3%2970487-XIfulltext, httr:Ilwww. iarc.fr/enfmedia centre/pr/2013/pdfs/pr221 E.pdf) The Health Effects Institute also recently published its the review on particulate (PM) air pollution. While the review found stronger evidence for that health effects from certain types of particulates, “the review panel concluded, however, or size the studies do not provide compelling evidence that any specific source, component, class of PM may be excluded as a possible contributor to PM toxicity.’ dust (http://www.healtheffects.org/Pubs/NPACT-ExecutiveSu mmary. pdf) In other words, coal will contribute to the total toxicity from outdoor air pollution when it is present. Dr Ritter’s light of comments with respect to the 1997 IARC monograph on coal should be considered in these recent scientific developments.

We note in the draft EIA mention of the use of a ten fold (10 X) factor for transforming occupational health limits to sensitive populations such as children and the elderly (pages 121, 124). The document goes onto intimate that this is a common and accepted practice. We request the document author to supply references from published literature to support this assumption specifically for coal dust. the draft A brief summary on the type and composition of the coal to be shipped is provided in lead, EtA. The description, unfortunately, does not contain information regarding mercury, arsenic, and other possible contaminants as requested by Dr. Van Buynder in his May 27 letter. This could be important information for assessing the potential impacts on food grown by residents and farms along the railway track leading to the FSD site coal Much was mentioned in the draft EtA and in the appendices on the 1986 ESL study on dust at Agassiz BC. This study is more than 25 years old. Air quality instrumentation and older measurement protocols have advanced considerably since. It is unknown whether the instruments and measurement protocols in 1986 would have under or over estimated the In actual levels. More recent data do exist and would have been helpful to include them, addition, averaging the particulate concentration over 24 hours will mask any shorter term concentration levels that may have short term health effects.

The revised plan has deleted the emergency coal storage stockpile. The revised plan however considers the possibility of loaded barges staying at the dockside in the event of during passage to Texada high winds (> 40 kmlhr) as a way of reducing the risk of blown dust Island. In effect, during these weather events these barges would be providing a function loaded similar to the original emergency stockpile. Although the dispersion modeling included barges at dockside as a source of emission, it is unclear whether the modeling considered severe wind events when the barges may stay at dockside much longer than during normal to operations. It would be important to determine the possible frequency of such events and

318 model the impacts to air quality when the loaded barges stay at dockside for extended periods of time.

Diesel emissions The assessment of health impacts in the report focuses primarily on coal dust, with little consideration of the increase in diesel emissions from trains, barges, trucks and idling vehicles at railway crossings. Given that diesel emissions are associated with many acute and chronic health impacts, and are a known carcinogen, this is a significant deficiency of the report. We find this surprising because Levelton, in 2007, completed the “Air Toxics

Emissions Inventory and Health Risk Assessment — Summary Report” on behalf of Metro Vancouver. (http:Ifwww. metrovancouver, org/aboutIublications/PublicationsfAir Toxics Emission. pdf) This report estimated about 350 cancers per one million population over a 70 year lifespan from diesel emissions in the Metro Vancouver region. Levelton could use this model to estimate the cumulative effects from the added diesel emissions from this proposed project for the potentially affected populations.

Dispersion modeling We defer the detailed review of the dispersion model to Metro Vancouver staff. Much of the EIA conclusions on the health effects from air emissions from this project are dependent on the validity of the dispersion modeling, and the interpretation of the intent of the Ambient Air Quality Objectives (AAQO). The BC Government has this to say regarding the use of the AAQO: “As even low Tevels of air pollution can affect some individuals, air quality objectives should not be viewed as leveTs we can “pollute up to,’ but levels to stay well below.” (http://www.bcairguality.ca/requlatory/air-objectives-standards.html) Moreover, in setting the AAQO, the BC Government considers other factors besides health evidence. The final AAQO is an integration of “information from the risk assessment with economic and technical factors as well as ethical, social, legal, ecological and achievability considerations”. (http:h’www. bcairguality. cafreports/pdfslago-framework-information-sheet. pdf) Furthermore, the AAQO is only meant as a guide for decision making. (http://www. bcairguality. ca/regulatorv/air-objectives-standards. html). It is therefore inappropriate for this EIA document to use the AAQO as the definitive criteria to characterize the level of health effects from the air quality predictions.

We have already mentioned above that there is a lack of information in the EIA regarding the efficiency of the dust sealants and other coal dust mitigation strategies, and therefore it is impossible for us to determine whether the emission factors used for the model are correct. We have also noted that the time and spatial domains chosen for the model will influence whether the model will be able to assess any possible short term health effects. While using the 24 hours and annual averages will allow comparison to existing air quality objectives over a wide area, they are not as useful for assessing short term local impacts. In addition, there is no known threshold below which particulate air pollution have no health effects. There are health effects even at the current air quality objectives. Concentration response functions are available to assess health effects at different levels of different air pollutants. It is much more informative to derive estimates of additional health effects directly from a validated model as opposed to simply commenting on whether the existing air quality objectives will be exceeded.

e South Fraser Health Region 1998 Letter

319 The draft EtA included a 1998 letter to the Corporation of Delta from Dr Robert Strang, then Associate Medical Health Officer, South Fraser Health Region. The letter was in response to concerns regarding dust originating from Westshore Terminals affecting the health of Delta data on respiratory residents — in particular Tsawwassen children. The letter presented illness and asthma related hospitalization and deaths, comparing different areas in the former South Fraser Health Region and elsewhere in BC. The spatial unit of analysis used was the Local Health Area (LHA), which is equivalent geographically to the local school district. The letter concluded that the information available did not point to concerns about higher levels of asthma or respiratory disease in Delta compared to other areas in the South Fraser Health Region or the province. LHA 37 is equivalent in size and geographic location as the Delta School District (SD 37). LHA 37 is a large geographic area, and includes three town centers (Tsawwassen, Ladner, and North Delta), with even the closest of them (Tsawwassen) still some distance away from the Westshore Terminals. If there were any health effects associated with dust exposure for the smaller number of people who lived closer to the coal port or along the railway tracks that served the port, the signals would have been drowned out by the health experiences of the large population centers. As well, the analysis did not adjust for socioeconomic status, smoking status or other potential confounders when comparing the different LHAs. The geographic location of Tsawwassen in relation to Westshore Terminals is also different from the geographic relationship between FSD and its neighboring residential areas. Dr. Strang provided no conclusion in his letter about whether or not populations living in close proximity to coal dust transport and handling had suffered undue health effects, nor was the analyses included appropriate to answer that question. It is not appropriate to use the letter as evidence for assessing health effects for the FSD project.

• Air Quality Monitoring Dr Van Buynder in his May 27 letter emphasized the need for adequate air quality monitoring to verify the dispersion modeling results should the project proceed. It is not clear reading the draft EIA whether the entire monitoring proposal in Levelton’s May 2013 draft Air Quality Management Plan is to be carried forward. Even if it does, the single air quality monitor station proposed outside of the FSD site is not adequate. Additional air quality monitoring at strategic locations on the rail corridor are needed to resolve issues including coal dust falls, train diesel emissions, and motor vehicle emissions at rail crossings given the increased wait times. Also in the earlier May 2013 draft Air Quality Management Plan barge based monitoring for particulates was proposed. Again, it is unclear in the draft EtA whether this is still the case.

3. Emergency Vehicle Access The draft EIA suggests that the current arrangements for ensuring timely access across rail crossings for emergency vehicles are adequate. Without additional information, we remain concerned. We recommend that the proponent asks BC Ambulance Service, the Surrey and Delta Fire Departments and other appropriate first responders to review the proposal for adequacy with respect to emergency response access.

4. Recreation, Livability, Amenities The impact of dust falls from passing coal trains on neighborhood livability is not addressed in the draft EIA. Complaints of coal dust soiling windows, covering outdoor structures have been recorded from residents living close to railway tracks in other locations such as was in Agassiz. (The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. “A Study of Fugitive Coal

320 Dust Emissions In Canada’. 2001) The dispersion modeling presented in the EIA is not useful for predicting dust fouling of outdoor living spaces in residential areas and in recreational amenities such as trails that run parallel to segments of the BNSF tracks. There is also no information on the increased potential for injury to the public at rail crossings. Neither baseline injury data nor possible future impacts are presented.

The EIA described some general strategies that the project will be using to mitigate noise impact. In order to ensure that these strategies will work, baseline noise measurements and ongoing noise monitoring during both the construction and operation phases of the project are needed

5. Public Engagement Informationcontained in the draft EJA and its appendices do not permit an assessment on the adequacy of the public engagement process. Written public comments were summarized, but no attempt was made to map the public feedback, including feedback at public meetings, to the draft EIA so that reviewers can tell how the concerns were addressed. Importantly, there was no information with respect to actions or decisions by local government following presentations from FSD to the mayors and councils. We remind Port Metro that the Board of Directors of Metro Vancouver has called for a health impact assessment of the project, and that two Lower Mainland municipalities have recently passes motions banning coal from municipal lands. These decisions are important context that was not noted amongst the public feedback. Nor was recent correspondence from the Fraser and Vancouver Coastal Chief Medical Health Officers found in the appendices, even though a letter from an Associate Medical Health Officer written some 15 years ago was included.

A noise complaint response process for the FSD site of the project is described in the draft EtA. An air quality complaint tracking system for the FSD site is included in the May 2013 draft Air Quality Management Plan. There is a need for a coordinated complaint response system for this project that covers concerns arising from both within and without the FSD site. It is unclear whether such is being planned. The absence of coordinated and timely response to complaints will frustrate the public and potentially lead to unnecessary escalation of concerns.

In summary, we were pleased that Port Metro Vancouver requested a more comprehensive impact assessment for this direct transfer coal facility project. Unfortunately, this draft EPA fell well short of adequately addressing the human health impacts of the proposal. We, as the Medical Health Officers responsible for protecting the public health in the regions impacted by the project are being asked by the public and the local governments whether this project will have health impacts. Regrettably we are no closer to answering this question, even having reviewed the draft EPA. In our letter of September 25, 2013 we requested that health authorities be provided with an opportunity to assist in the scoping of the EPA. This offer still stands and we once again urge the project proponents (FSD and its business partners in this project) to conduct a health impact assessment that includes all of the project components from the U.S-Canada border to Texada Island.

Health Impact Assessments are designed to minimize the negative and maximize the positive impacts of large projects. We believe it is the most appropriate and socially responsible approach for the proponents to address our concerns and those of the public.

321 Sincerely,

Paul Van Buynder, MBBS, MPH, FAFPHM Patricia Daly MD, FRCPC Chief Medical Health Officer and Chief Medical Health Officer and Program Medical Director, Public Health Vice-President, Public Health Fraser Health Authority Vancouver Coastal Health

CC: Dr. Perry Kendall, Provincial Health Officer Roger Quan, Air Quality Policy & Management Division Manager, Metro Vancouver

Jurgen Franke, Director, Engineering and Maintenance, Fraser Surrey Docks — contact for proponent (jurgenf@fsd bc. ca)

Attachments: 1. May 27 2013 letter from Dr. Van Buynder to PMV 2. September 25 2013 letter from Drs. Van Buynder and Daly to PMV

322 ANNEX DD

Date: May-26-14 9:44:40 AM

Kwantlen Polytechnic University’s Institute for Sustainable Food Systems (ISFS) is engaging Southwestern BC communities to develop the Bio-Regional Food System Design for 2050. The design and plan will offer a vision and roadmap of prioritized steps for farmers, entrepreneurs, consumers, governments, and First Nations communities to create a ‘Bio-Regional Food System’ that reflects aspirations for increased food security, self-sufficiency, and economic development. More details of the initiative are found here: http://bcfoodsystem.com/

A phase I workshop will be held for the Sunshine Coast on June 9th from 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the Sunshine Coast Botanical Garden Society site on Mason Road. Workshop organizers have extended their invitation to Regional District Board members, and all elected officials. To register please follow the link below:

http://www.eventbrite.ca/o/institute-for-sustainable-food-systems-6548495825?s=24886425

Gregory Gebka, MCIP, RPP Planner Planning & Development Division Sunshine Coast Regional District 1975 Field Road, Sechelt, BC V0N 3A1 Phone: 604-885-6804, Ext. 3 Fax: 604-885-7909 www.scrd.ca

323 ANNEX EE

Subject: FAQ on Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations for Municipalities Attachments: FAQ on Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations for Municipalities.pdf

From: Salman Maqsood [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of MMPR-RMFM Sent: May-29-14 6:44 AM To: Lesley-Ann Staats Subject: FAQ on Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations for Municipalities

Good morning Ms. Staats,

This is a follow-up to a conversation you have had with a Health Canada official regarding an application that has been received from a proponent in your jurisdiction to obtain a licence to produce marihuana for medical purposes.

As you are aware, the new Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations means that, as of April 1, 2014, individuals will no longer be authorized to produce marihuana in their homes and marihuana for medical purposes will be available only through regulated licensed producers. This will address many of the public health and safety concerns regarding the Marihuana Medical Access Program, and will be a safer regime for both patients and communities moving forward. For more information regarding the MMPR, please visit: www.healthcanada.gc.ca/mma.

As a municipality with a potential licensed producer in your jurisdiction, we would like to take this opportunity to remind you of the requirements regarding notifications to local authorities. The Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations require potential licensed producers of marihuana for medical purposes to notify their municipality, local fire official, and local law enforcement of their application to Health Canada to inform them of the activities that they wish to conduct with marihuana and the specific address of their facility. Notification must also be provided to local authorities upon any change in the status of a licence (i.e. issuance, suspension or revocation) within 30 days of the change.

Other questions that you may have regarding the new regulations and the role of local authorities in that regime may be answered by the attached frequently asked questions document.

If you have any additional concerns or questions, please do not hesitate to contact us via email: [email protected].

Salman Maqsood Licences and Permits Division Office of Controlled Substances Health Canada

1 324 Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations

Q&A package for Municipalities

A. Licensing Process

1. Is there a limit on how many production licences will be approved in each jurisdiction?

The Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations do not limit the number of licensed producers of marihuana for medical purposes based on geographic location.

2. Are licensed producers required to display their HC licence on site?

No. Licensed producers must keep the original copy of the licence issued by Health Canada, but it does not need to be posted in the facility. A list of licensed producers is available on the Health Canada website.

3. What should a licensed producer include in a notification to local authorities?

Under the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations, a potential licensed producer must provide a written notice to a senior official of the local government, fire authority and local police force or detachment of the RCMP in the area in which the site is located. This written notice must include the name of the applicant, the date on which the application will be submitted, the address of the proposed site and each building on the site, and the activities for which the licence is being sought.

The same information must be provided to the local authorities upon a change to the licence (i.e., issued, amended, revoked or suspended) within 30 days of the status change.

Please note that a response from the local authority is not required.

4. Who will inform the local authorities when a licence to produce marihuana for medical purposes has been revoked?

Under the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations, the licensed producer is required to notify their local authorities regarding changes to the status of their licence, including revocation. This notice to local authorities must occur within 30 days of the change. In addition, Health Canada’s website is updated regularly.

5. Are there any restrictions on where production sites can be located?

Production of marihuana under the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations can only be indoors and cannot be conducted in dwelling places. 1 | P a g e

325 Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations

Q&A package for Municipalities

Licensed producers must also comply with all applicable provincial/territorial and municipal legislation and regulations. Parties interested in becoming licensed producers are encouraged to communicate with their municipal officials to determine if there are any zoning or by-law restrictions.

6. Can a licensed producer operate multiple locations?

Yes. If the applicant intends to engage in an activity at more than one site, the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations indicate that a separate application must be made for each proposed site.

7. Are delivery systems such as storefronts or vending machines compliant with the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations?

No. Licensed producers must ship dried marihuana directly to the client.

8. Can compassion clubs dispense for a licensed producer?

No. Licensed producers must ship dried marihuana directly to the client.

B. Bylaws and Zoning

9. Do municipal zoning by-laws apply to production sites under the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations?

Licensed producers must comply with all other federal, provincial and municipal laws and by-laws, including municipal zoning by-laws. It is the responsibility of the municipality to conduct the relevant inspections for compliance with by-laws such as zoning.

Health Canada can only inspect for compliance with the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations and any related federal legislation.

10. Can municipalities stop the licensing process if they disagree with the proposed site of production or any other requirement?

Health Canada will issue a licence to produce as long as the applicant satisfies the requirements set out in the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations. If

2 | P a g e

326 Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations

Q&A package for Municipalities

municipalities disagree with the proposed site of production, they can communicate any concerns directly to the owner of the production site and enforce local by-laws.

Licensed producers are subject to local by-laws. It is the responsibility of the municipality to conduct the relevant inspections for compliance with local requirements such as zoning.

C. Security

11. How is HC and/or RCMP/local police enforcing security measures?

All applicants for a producer’s licence under the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations have to meet rigorous physical security requirements, including a site design and security system that prevents unauthorized access to their facility.

Additionally, enhanced background checks are undertaken, in cooperation with the RCMP, to ensure that there are no associations with individuals or organizations that pose an unacceptable risk, such as the risk of diversion of marihuana to the illicit market. These checks are required for key personnel and alternates, officers and directors of corporation. For more information on security, please visit: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp- mps/marihuana/info/add-supp-eng.php

Once licences are issued, licensed producers are subject to compliance and enforcement measures, including audits and inspections by Health Canada.

D. Inspections

12. When are inspections conducted by HC?

All licensed producers (LP) of marihuana for medical purposes will be subject to ongoing inspection on a broad range of factors. There will be three core inspection types: pre- licensing inspections, full inspection and targeted inspections.

After an application has been screened and reviewed with a focus on security measures at the site and for key personnel, a pre-licence inspection is conducted. This is prior to the issuance of a licence under the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations.

Once an applicant has passed a pre-licence inspection and has met all requirements under the regulations, a licence is issued. Upon receipt of a licence to produce marihuana for medical purposes, producers are subject to audits and inspections by Health Canada.

A full inspection is an inspection after the licence has been issued where the licensed producer will be assessed against the full range of elements required under the MMPR, 3 | P a g e

327 Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations

Q&A package for Municipalities

such as: security measures, record keeping, product storage, review of loss and theft reports, review of monthly sales reports, inventory audit, etc.

A targeted inspection is an inspection which will focus on previously identified criteria, such as follow-up to observations previously identified on an inspection or a review of certain high risk elements, such as review on inventory, product storage, security, etc.

13. Can a municipality request a Health Canada inspection?

If there are concerns regarding the activities taking place at a licensed producer’s site, the information can be provided to Health Canada and the information will be considered for follow up on a case-by-case basis.

Licensed producers must comply with all other federal, provincial and municipal laws and by-laws, including municipal zoning by-laws. It is the responsibility of the province, territory, or municipality to conduct the relevant inspections for compliance with their laws.

14. What is the scope of an inspection executed by Health Canada?

Health Canada inspects licensed producers for all requirements under the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations and other related legislation, such as the Narcotic Control Regulations and Food and Drugs Act. For example, this includes inspecting their production practices, record-keeping and security measures. In addition, licensed producers are required to have standard operating procedures. All of these measures mitigate risks to individual and public health and safety.

15. If non-compliance is identified, does Health Canada have the authority to suspend or revoke the licence?

Yes. Health Canada has the authority to suspend or revoke a licence as described in the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations. Examples of circumstances where a licence can be suspended or revoked include:

grounds to believe that the licence was issued on the basis of false or misleading information; the licensed producer has contravened a provision of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act or the Food and Drugs Act ; the licensed producer has contravened a condition of their licence or of an import or export permit issued under the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations;

4 | P a g e

328 Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations

Q&A package for Municipalities

information received from law enforcement raises grounds to believe that they have been involved in the diversion of a controlled substance to an illicit market; key persons required to hold a security clearance do not hold a valid clearance; and it is necessary to suspend or revoke the licence to protect public health, safety, or security.

E. Transition from the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations

16. What will happen to all of the marihuana plants that were legal under the old program?

When a licence to produce or an authorization to possess marihuana for medical purposes expires or is revoked under the Program participants must destroy all marihuana in their possession and notify the Minister of Health of the destruction within 10 days.

If participants do not comply with the requirement to notify Health Canada, the department may take compliance and enforcement actions, including notifying law enforcement of non-compliance.

17. What experience does Health Canada have in regulating manufacturers and distributors of drugs (like marihuana)?

Health Canada has been regulating the activities of manufacturers and distributors of controlled drugs, including cannabis, since the coming into force of the Narcotics Control Act in 1961. The Narcotics Control Act was repealed in 1996 by the current Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Health Canada has a licensing scheme in place that is supported by compliance and enforcement activities to ensure compliance with the Act and its regulations.

5 | P a g e

329 ANNEX FF

Subject: Gambier Woodlots FW: Islands Trust follow up to May 30th meeting at Sewell's Marina

From: Kate-Louise Stamford [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: June-11-14 2:50 PM To: Craig Sutherland Cc: Heather MacKnight; Robert Van der Zalm; Jordan Sturdy; 'Snell, Peter V.'; Daniel Bauman; 'Chris & Nancy Ashton'; ' '; Ian Roxburgh; Lee Turnbull; Nicholas MLA; ; Scott Harrison Subject: Islands Trust follow up to May 30th meeting at Sewell's Marina

Mr. Sutherland,

Thank you for accepting my request to attend the May 30th meeting at Sewell’s Marina. It was promising to see a full discussion of the issues.

I noticed that the Regional Executive Director, Heather MacKnight was taking notes during the meeting. It would be beneficial to have a summary of the meeting disseminated to the attendees so everyone is on the same page.

Significant points:

It was very concerning to me that there is no record of Minister Thomson agreeing to a “pause” in the woodlot application process during the May 1st meeting at the legislature. I have confirmed with my fellow Trustee, Jan Hagedorn, and with MLA Simons, who was also in attendance, that that was the assurance by provided Minister Thomson.

The attendees invited to attend the May 30th meeting did not constitute an appropriate representation of Gambier interests – the most significant omissions were the Gambier Island Conservancy, Douglas Bay residents and someone to represent the children’s camps interests. For these reasons I did not consider this the “senior level meeting” that was requested at the May 1st meeting with Minister Thomson. I am therefore still expecting the woodlot process to be on hold until such a meeting can be convened.

It was encouraging to hear that there is some movement towards a public forum and a planning group. I am finding there to be a significant gap between ministry staff and the public, including Islands Trust, about what is considered appropriate public “consultation” versus simply “information dissemination”. An appropriate public process is what the Gambier Island Local Trust committee has been advocating for over the past year. The possibility that the woodlot boundaries could be moved is also a significant point for further consideration.

Here are the action items I took out of the meeting: 1. A crown‐land management planning group comprised of key individuals with direct Gambier Island interests be convened to advise on specific concerns. Attendees of the Sewell’s meeting to provide suggestions of appropriate representatives/groups.

2. A public forum to be held prior to awarding the lease licence to provide specific information and get feedback about the woodlots and the cut process to concerned Gambierites – preferably in West Vancouver.

3. Robert Van der Zalm and Islands Trust to post a link to the latest management plan for Gambier Island Woodlot W0039.

1 330 4. Robert Van der Zalm and Islands Trust to post a link to the woodlot lease application information package with accompanying restrictions.

5. FLNRO to provide a copy of an accurate brochure outlining the current woodlot lease program and information about how the criteria is changed (what is the process) specifically relating to size of individual woodlots.

I look forward to hearing from you soon regarding these items.

Kate-Louise Stamford Trustee, Gambier Island Local Trust Area 877 West Bay Road Gambier Island, BC V0N 1V0 604-886-4752 778-235-2240

2 331