I Would Like to Add My Voice to That of the Many Residents of Delta Who Are Urging You to Hold a Full Panel Review of Port Metro Vancouver`S Terminal 2 Proposal

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Environmental Review of Terminal 2 Proposal Date: November 30, 2013 7:01:48 PM

I would like to add my voice to that of the many residents of Delta who are urging you to hold a full panel review of Port Metro Vancouver`s Terminal 2 proposal. Persons with more scientific expertise than myself have, I am sure, provided extensive reasons why the most detailed and comprehensive review of this project is needed. I would like to mention a few of the issues I believe are most compelling from my perspective as a recently retired financial and economic analyst.

Only a few years ago there were only two container berths at Roberts Bank. When the third birth was added the cumulative impact of planned development was not considered as the prospective Terminal 2 project was ruled irrelevant as it had not been `formally` proposed at that point, even though it was no secret that it was in the planning horizon of the port. If Terminal 2 goes ahead it must be seen as a tripling of previous capacity, not just a doubling from current capacity with the recent completion the third berth. This of course means at least three times the environmental impact already absorbed by the Fraser estuary and surrounding area from an already problematic level of development.

It is this sort of sleight of hand, transparent as it is, that creates cynicism among residents about both the proponent and regulatory bodies. Only a full panel review can hope to restore any confidence regarding the impartiality and objectivity of the process.

Furthermore, the environmental impacts of the Terminal 2 proposal which cannot be minimized or mitigated must be weighed against the claimed or potential economic benefits. Given the importance and fragility of the whole area that will be affected these benefits would have to be extremely significant to justify the risks entailed in this development. Therefore it is essential that the assumptions, expectations and forecasts of the proposal be subjected to the most comprehensive and objective examination by experts and critics.

Residents of Delta are well aware that the Terminal 2 proposal is part of an extensive package of developments connected like dominoes across the region. Anticipated expanded capacity at the port was a major part of the justification for the South Fraser Perimeter Road. Plans for a huge development of logistics and storage centres on protected farmland were revealed when secret options to purchase were exposed. A potential commercial real estate bonanza all along the SFPR has been trumpeted by the industry; the list goes on and on. Any attempt to obscure or minimize the connectedness and cumulative impact of the totality of prospective industrial development south of the Fraser will be met with the scepticism and opposition it deserves.

I therefore urge you to uphold your responsibilities to the citizens of BC and provide the greatest possible scope and opportunity for the review and determination of the full implications of the Terminal 2 project.

Sincerely,

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Panel Review for Terminal 2 Date: November 30, 2013 3:35:12 PM

Please, please, please do a full Panel Review for this project.

We live on Tsawwassen Beach and see the devastation daily this port has caused : - we now have piles of dead seaweed wash in at high tide, this never happened before the ocean floor was gutted for terminal 1. - we used to have crystal clear water lapping up on the beach it is now seldom that it even looks clean. - where do the tiny salmon hide without a healthy bay for shelter? - we always fished in front of the coal port but since terminal 1 the fish do not swim there. - when out fishing we often saw killer whales but since terminal 1 it is very seldom we see any - we often find dead jelly fish and dead starfish on the beach this too was not so before terminal 1. -on a quiet night at low tide Awe can hear the low drone of the tankers tied up for days with third world motors running. - we cannot see the air pollution and can only imagine what this air is doing to our lungs.

Terminal 2 will in all probability increase all of these at least 2 fold. Why on earth would you accept the PAM assessment as fact? Do a proper independent assessment; that is what you exist for - Care for this beautiful planet.

Sincerely, Dr Moe and Elinor Attalla . Delta, BC, 1

Terminal Two letter sent October 15, 2013 - via email to [email protected]

October 15, 2013

B.C. Great Blue Heron Society P.O. Box 307 Merville, B.C. V0R 2M0

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 410-701 West Georgia Street Vancouver, BC V7Y 1C6

Ladies and Gentlemen:

On behalf of our Society’s directors and members, we are writing to urge you in the strongest of terms to implement an Independent Panel Review for the Environmental Assessment of Terminal 2 at Roberts Bank in Delta, B.C. This proposal is located in the estuary of the Fraser River, one of the most important estuaries in the world for migratory birds. As you are aware, there is no significant bird sanctuary in the area, and widespread development of farmland in the estuary is encroaching on remaining habitat for five million birds and other global wildlife populations. Great Blue Herons are particularly at risk in the estuary now, as their numbers are dropping, probably due in large part to habitat loss.

It is Canada’s international disgrace, and an abrogation of our global responsibility, that we have not put into place permanent protection for the Fraser River delta habitat, as outlined below:

UN RAMSAR designation as internationally critical wetland UNPROTECTED

Named Western Hemispheric Shorebird Reserve UNPROTECTED

Named Most Important Migratory Bird Site in Canada 2

(Bird Life International) UNPROTECTED

Contains the three most significant Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in Canada (out of 597 sites) UNPROTECTED

Only habitat in Canada for 5 million migratory birds from over twenty countries UNPROTECTED

Only habitat in Canada for world population of Western Sandpipers UNPROTECTED

Canada’s most important wintering habitat for water birds UNPROTECTED

Canada’s most important wintering habitat for shorebirds UNPROTECTED

Canada’s most important wintering habitat for birds of prey UNPROTECTED

Habitat for last Canadian breeding population of barn owls UNPROTECTED

Habitat for 310 bird species (46% of Canadian land bird species) UNPROTECTED

Home of the world’s greatest salmon run UNPROTECTED

Largest eelgrass beds on Canada’s west coast (critical for fish, crustaceans and birds) UNPROTECTED

Habitat for over 90 species of fish in key life stages (Marshes and intertidal spawning and nursery areas) UNPROTECTED

Feeding ground of Canada’s Endangered Orca (south coast population) UNPROTECTED

Feeding ground of Threatened transient west coast Orca population UNPROTECTED

Home of endangered Fraser White Sturgeon (living up to 170 years and reaching half a ton) UNPROTECTED

This estuary continues to be unprotected and obviously still considered ‘open for business’, despite a host of regulations and conventions that the federal government purports to offer protection for our wildlife and ocean creatures:

• Canadians Fisheries Act • Canadian Migratory Birds Convention Act of 1994 • Canadian Environmental Assessment Act • Canadian Species at Risk Act 3

• Canadian Department of the Environment Act • Convention on Biological Diversity • Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation • North American Waterfowl Management Plan • GVRD Livable Strategic Plan and Green Zone • Georgia Basin Ecosystem Initiative • Georgia Basin Action Plan • The Ramsar Convention • National Recovery Strategy for Southern Resident Orcas.

Since this internationally important Fraser River estuary is largely unprotected, it is absolutely imperative that we have an INDEPENDENT REVIEW PANEL consider this project. That the federal government is even considering this project when the habitat and creatures of the estuary are without permanent and meaningful protection, is in itself an indicator of its inability to properly monitor the consideration of such a project.

Thank you for your attention to our Society’s concerns for B.C.’s Great Blue Herons, and of course, all the other wild creatures of B.C.’s air, land and water.

Sincerely yours, B.C. GREAT BLUE HERON SOCIETY

Gillian Anderson Chair

SUBMISSION TO CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AGENCY ON ROBERTS BANK TERMINAL 2 PROJECT

December 6, 2013

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 410 - 701 W. Georgia St. Vancouver, BC V7Y 1C6 [email protected]

Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Guidelines for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project

BC Nature (Federation of BC Naturalists) is the provincial voice for naturalists, representing 53 member clubs in British Columbia. Our motto is “know nature and keep it worth knowing”.

In this submission, we outline our concerns regarding environmental impacts at the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 site and ancillary developments, and also our concerns along the marine shipping route between the terminal and the open ocean.

DEFICIENCIES

The draft EIS guidelines for the Roberts Bank site are deficient in a number of respects. These include the need for a larger study area and for a Joint Review Panel assessment to be undertaken.

The scope of the draft EIS Guidelines does not cover the marine shipping route. We consider this to be a serious oversight that needs correction. The increased large ship traffic attributable to the project will significantly increase current environmental concerns along the route.

CEAA must recognize the profound changes in wildlife habitat at Roberts Bank and the Fraser Estuary over the years. The wetlands here, now a mere fraction of their former extent when Europeans arrived in the early 1800s, form part of the Pacific Flyway for migrating birds, which stretches from the far north of Canada to the tip of South America. The development of Roberts Bank Terminal 2 might well be the tipping point for these unique wetlands, and for the Pacific Flyway itself.

The draft guidelines do not cover the marine shipping route at all. We consider this to be a serious oversight, to be corrected. The increased large ship traffic attributable to the project, estimated to be up to an additional thousand or more transits of the route every year, will significantly increase environmental concerns. These include:

BC Nature 1620 Mt. Seymour Road, North Vancouver, BC V7G 2R9 T: 604.985.3057 F: 604.985.3059 www.bcnature.ca email: [email protected]

 First Nations concerns, including those of the Lummi Nation who have legal rights in the U.S. to protection and restoration of salmon habitat.

 Increased possibility of oil spills from container ships carrying heavy loads of fuel for their voyage across the Pacific Ocean.

 Increased disturbance to the endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales.

 Increased pressure on other marine species listed as endangered, threatened or of special concern in the U.S. and Canada.

 Introduction of invasive species.

 Effect on quality of life and tourism in the Gulf Islands and San Juan Islands.

 Impacts on North America's largest fishing grounds in the Aleutian Islands, an area notorious for adverse marine weather.

CONCERNS RELATED TO THE ROBERTS BANK SITE

1. Cumulative Impacts At our annual general meeting in May 2009, a resolution passed unanimously to urge the federal government to advise Port Metro Vancouver that any further expansion of Deltaport was unacceptable due to the cumulative environmental impact of additional expansion when combined with previous developments in this ecologically critical area. Roberts Bank and the Fraser Estuary have suffered overwhelming losses in their ecological values since the arrival of Europeans in the early 1800s.

2. Ecosystem Impacts Deltaport is situated on Roberts Bank in the very centre of the Fraser Estuary ecosystem. The importance of this ecosystem has been recognized under the following designations:  Ramsar Site (United Nations Wetland of International Importance)  Globally significant Important Bird Area (IBA), under BirdLife International, with the greatest number of bird species reaching global population thresholds of any IBA in Canada  Hemispheric site in the Western Hemispheric Shorebird Reserve Network  National Wildlife Area and provincial Wildlife Management Areas

Roberts Bank lies at the mouth of the Fraser River, which has Canada’s largest salmon runs. The Bank is also habitat for marine mammals, including the endangered southern resident population of killer whales, humpback whales, grey whales, two species of sea lion, and two species of porpoise, among other species. The expansion of the terminal and causeway for BC Ferries, the operation of the coal port and sequential expansions of the existing container terminal have already resulted in massive disturbance of the ecosystems of Roberts Bank. In 1979, an independent panel review of port development stated:

"From the point of view of estuarine ecology, the Panel has concluded that the potential impacts on the Fraser River estuary, of which Roberts Bank is part, are too great to recommend that the port expansion be approved as proposed. The extent and ecological significance of the Fraser River estuary, particularly its use by fish and wildlife, make it unique in North America. A major salmon fishery depends on its preservation as do hundreds of thousands of migratory birds." BC Nature 1620 Mt. Seymour Road, North Vancouver, BC V7G 2R9 T: 604.985.3057 F: 604.985.3059 www.bcnature.ca email: [email protected]

Federal agencies, including Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Canadian Wildlife Service of Environment Canada, have repeatedly expressed serious misgivings regarding the expansion of port facilities on Roberts Bank. Environment Canada scientists are on record as stating:

“We are concerned that the chain of the Pacific Flyway could be broken for shorebirds at some point given the ongoing economic development in the Delta. This constitutes a major risk for Canada’s environmental reputation and the economic and social benefits derived from wildlife."

Since these comments were made, further extensive expansion of the port has taken place. The situation for fish, migratory birds, marine mammals and the ecosystem as a whole is becoming critical. 3. Social Impacts The proposed Terminal 2 can be expected also to cause numerous sociological impacts on surrounding communities, including noise and light pollution, and concerns about air quality, traffic, quality of life, and decline in property values. Expansion will also lead to further loss of British Columbia’s most productive farmland, increase difficulties in maintaining a local agriculture industry and precipitate further impacts on wildlife, particularly migratory birds, that make use of agricultural land.

CONCERNS RELATED TO THE MARINE SHIPPING ROUTE

It is curious that the draft EIS neglects to include increased ship traffic in its scope. In contrast, in the current Environmental Review of Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point in Whatcom County, Washington state, the federal scope (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) includes a detailed evaluation of vessel traffic to a point 8 miles west of Cape Flattery, and the Whatcom County scope requires a general assessment of cargo-ship impacts beyond Washington waters.(1)

Several issues related to the increase in ship traffic that is projected due to the Terminal 2 project should be covered by CEAA. These are discussed briefly below.

Although the increase in numbers of container ship arrivals directly resulting from Terminal 2 cannot be predicted precisely because of possible changes in average vessel size over the next decade, an additional 500 or more ship arrivals per year is possible, or more than 1,000 transits of the route per year. See Appendix A, Ship Traffic.

The marine route would run from Deltaport terminal into Georgia Strait, through Boundary Pass and Haro Strait between the Gulf Islands and San Juan Islands, and into the Strait of Juan de Fuca. From there, the primary route for ships going to Asia transits the North Pacific great circle route, intersecting the Aleutian Islands.

The marine aspects of this project cannot be considered in isolation. There are currently nearly 3,000 foreign vessel arrivals (container ships, bulk carrier and tanker) at Port Metro Vancouver terminals per year, or nearly 6,000 transits of the route to and from Metro Vancouver (Appendix A). The proposed Trans Mountain project would add another 700 transits per year. The current expansion at Deltaport will add another 300 transits per year in 2014. The expansion of coal-carrying vessels from Neptune Terminals in Burrard Inlet will add additional vessels in 2014, as would the proposed expansion of coal-carrying vessels from Fraser Surrey Docks on the Fraser River. If the proposed Deltaport 2 terminal were built, there could be in the order of 8,000 transits every year from Metro Vancouver through the Gulf Islands/San Juan Islands and on from there by 2024. That's about 22 large ship transits through Haro Strait every day.

BC Nature 1620 Mt. Seymour Road, North Vancouver, BC V7G 2R9 T: 604.985.3057 F: 604.985.3059 www.bcnature.ca email: [email protected]

ISSUES ALONG THE MARINE SHIPPING ROUTE THAT CEAA MUST ADDRESS

1. First Nations Consultation should be undertaken with First Nations whose traditional territories include the shipping route through the Gulf Islands and San Juan Islands. Those not mentioned in CEAA's draft EIS Guidelines include Sencot'en Alliance (Tsartlip, Tsawout, Pauquachin) and Te'mexw Treaty Association (Songhees, T'sou-ke, Malahat) in BC and Lummi Nation in northwest Washington state.

In the case of Lummi Nation, note that United States federal court rulings, starting with the Boldt decision of 1974 (U.S. v. Washington), re-affirmed the rights of Western Washington tribes to fish, hunt and gather shellfish, among other activities. The tribes are established as co-managers of the salmon resource with the state, with the right to protection and restoration of salmon habitat. For treaty rights to be honoured, there need to be real gains in habitat protection and restoration.(2) Increased ship traffic, with the accompanying increase in shipping accidents and possibility of catastrophic fuel spills, increases the likelihood of harm to fish.

The waters of the San Juan Islands have a significant presence of salmon, including Chinook salmon, listed as 'threatened' under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Also, some species of salmon from the Fraser River and elsewhere that spend time in lower Georgia Strait migrate thousands of kilometres north along the west coast of BC and southeast Alaska to reach the biologically rich waters of the Gulf of Alaska during their life cycle(2). The effect on salmon in any of this wide-ranging habitat potentially impacted by vessel traffic occasioned by the Terminal 2 project must be investigated.

The San Juans have documented 59 forage fish spawning sites that extend along the shoreline. In addition, eelgrass, a priority species and habitat listed along with surf smelt spawning beaches under San Juan County's Critical Areas Ordinance, is present throughout the San Juans. Due to such factors, the San Juans have a relatively pristine shoreline.(2) Consultation should take place with San Juan County.

2. Shipping Accidents, with Possible Loss of Huge Amounts of Ship Fuel Shipping accidents are possible anywhere along the route, including the Fraser delta, the Gulf Islands and San Juan Islands, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and the Aleutian Islands. The effects of any such accidents could be disastrous.

Risk analysis, prevention and remediation measures proposed, response plans; effects on ecosystems - vegetation, seabirds, marine life including fish, mammals and other vertebrates and invertebrates including intertidal and subtidal - need to be assessed.

A recent report on West Coast Spill Response (3) commissioned by the BC government indicates that response to a BC oil spill would be devastatingly slow and incomplete. Only 3 to 4% of a relatively small oil spill off the north coast of BC would be recovered in the first five days.

The report is part of a detailed assessment that brought to light weaknesses in BC’s spill response system. In releasing the three-volume report, the BC government concluded “more federal resources are needed to protect the west coast”.

In the Strait of Juan de Fuca, where resources and equipment are closer, between 9 and 31% of a 70,000- barrel spill would be recovered under several scenarios and seasons. Regardless of conditions, global statistics show it is universally difficult to recover oil in the event of a spill.

While more oil could be recovered beyond the five days modelled in BC waters, oil also disperses over time, BC Nature 1620 Mt. Seymour Road, North Vancouver, BC V7G 2R9 T: 604.985.3057 F: 604.985.3059 www.bcnature.ca email: [email protected] increasing the difficulty of recovery.

The study also found there is no federal or provincial law that establishes how long-term impacts to the environment or affected communities will be established or compensated.

3. Southern Resident Killer Whales The Northeast Pacific Southern Resident Killer Whale population is listed as endangered in Canada under the Species at Risk Act and in the U.S. under the Endangered Species Act. Vessel traffic is a threat due to possible collisions with whales, general disturbance, and also due to acoustic disturbance.

The number of boats in the water, including commercial ships, has increased dramatically in recent years. The increase in traffic has the potential to disrupt killer whales simply because more vessels are passing through their habitat and potentially disturbing how whales move through the available space(4)

The shipping route through Boundary Pass and Haro Strait is in designated 'critical habitat' in both the U.S. and Canada for this population. The Canadian federal Court of Appeal confirmed, in February 2012, that the government must legally protect all aspects of critical habitat (in Canada), including quality of the marine environment such as acoustic disturbance.(5)

The Canadian recovery strategy states that sound at received levels of 120 dB typically disrupts the behaviour of cetaceans. In the U.S., the National Marine Fisheries Service is developing comprehensive guidance on what levels of sound exposure are likely to cause behavioral responses or injury, in the context of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Until formal guidance is available, the NMFS is using an interim sound exposure level for impulsive sources of 180 dB as a threshold for temporary or permanent hearing loss of cetaceans, and 160 dB for behavioural disruption.(4)

Commercial ships emit sound in the range of 160 to 200 dB at 1 metre, in the frequency range of 10 Hz to >1 kHz. Killer whales show behavioral responses to sound from 75 Hz to >100 kHz.(4)

4. Other Wildlife COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada) lists several marine species in this region as endangered, threatened or of special concern. Over 100 species in the Salish Sea (the unified bi- national ecosystem that includes Washington State's Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the San Juan Islands, the Gulf Islands, and the Strait of Georgia) are listed as endangered, threatened, or are candidates for listing by at least one of four jurisdictions (British Columbia provincial government, Canadian federal government, Washington state government and US federal government)(6).

In addition, there are numerous species in severe decline that COSEWIC has not considered, including Common Goldeneye, which has declined 62% since 1970 and Eared Grebe, which has declined 72%(7)

Assessment of wildlife impacts should also include impacts from changes in physical oceanographic change/habitat change (e,g., changes in nearshore currents), light pollution from vessels at night, noise pollution, oil spills, vessel impacts.

5. Invasive Species(8) Invasive non-native species are successful competitors in new ecosystems, often displacing native species and disrupting ecosystem processes. Coastal estuarine and marine ecosystems are among the most heavily invaded systems in the world. Dominant sources for marine invasive species have included ballast water and hull fouling from ships.

BC Nature 1620 Mt. Seymour Road, North Vancouver, BC V7G 2R9 T: 604.985.3057 F: 604.985.3059 www.bcnature.ca email: [email protected]

Examples in coastal southern BC include the cord grass Spartina anglica, Batillaria snail, oyster drill (a serious problem in commercial oyster beds), European green crab (a predator on clams, oysters, mussels), and numerous tunicate species.

6. Quality of Life and Tourism in the Gulf Islands and San Juan Islands The Gulf Islands and San Juan Islands are home to more than twenty thousand people who have chosen to live there because of the quality of life. Others choose to visit, an important economic engine in the islands. Hundreds of thousands of tourists enjoy the beauty of the San Juan and Gulf Islands annually, and the marine waters are a central theme. Families rent sailboats and yachts, children attend camp, kayakers paddle, and vacationers enjoy the local restaurants, accommodations and shops.

Maintaining the health, integrity and natural beauty of these islands is critical to preserving the local and regional economies.(2)

7. Aleutian Islands For ships travelling to and from northern Pacific ports such as Vancouver, the North Pacific great circle route intersects the Aleutian Islands. The Aleutians are home to North America's largest and most valuable commercial fishing grounds and the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge.

As of 2006, about 3,000 ships per year pass through the Aleutians, including approximately 1,200 container ships per year with a median fuel capacity of 1.6 million U.S. gallons. Thus, we have a major trans- oceanic shipping route passing through North America's largest fishing grounds in an area notorious for adverse marine weather. Numerous oil spills of note from vessels have occurred, including the 2004 spill from M/V Selendang Ayu at Unalaska Island(9).

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 would add an additional 1,000 container ship transits annually.

Regards,

John Neville, President BC Nature (Federation of BC Naturalists)

BC Nature 1620 Mt. Seymour Road, North Vancouver, BC V7G 2R9 T: 604.985.3057 F: 604.985.3059 www.bcnature.ca email: [email protected]

Appendix A, Ship Traffic

Large Ship Transits through the Gulf Islands and San Juan Islands from Metro Vancouver

Number of Ship Transits ~5,600/year Current (container, bulk carrier, tanker) (10) (>15/day)

Confirmed additions (under construction): Neptune Terminals upgrade (coal) (11) Scheduled completion: 2014 100/y (Coal from eastern BC by rail to Vancouver) Deltaport/Roberts Bank upgrade (containers) (12) 300/y Scheduled completion: 2014

Proposed additions: Fraser Surrey Docks project (coal) (13) (Coal from Wyoming to be shipped by Burlington Northern-Santa Fe railway through the US, entering est. 70/y Canada just north of Bellingham WA) Proposed completion: 2014 Kinder Morgan (tankers - tar sands bitumen) (14) Trans Mountain Expansion project 700/y Proposed completion: 2017 Deltaport/Roberts Bank Terminal 2 (containers) (15) Proposed completion: 2024 >1,000/y ~8,000/y Total 2024 (~22/day)

BC Nature 1620 Mt. Seymour Road, North Vancouver, BC V7G 2R9 T: 604.985.3057 F: 604.985.3059 www.bcnature.ca email: [email protected]

References (1) Agencies set scope of environmental impact assessment for proposed Cherry Point export project, Washington State Department of Ecology, July 31, 2013 www.ecy.wa.gov/news/2013/197.html

(2) Friends of the San Juans, Scoping Comments for GPT/BNSF Custer Spur EIS, January 2013

(3) Nuka Research & Planning Group, LLC, West Coast Spill Response Study, July 2013

[4] Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Recovery Strategy for the Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) in Canada, Final - Amended, August 2011

(5) Ecojustice, www.ecojustice.ca

(6) Gaydos, J.K. and N.A. Brown, Species of Concern within the Salish Sea: Changes from 2002 to 2011, Proceedings of the 2011 Salish Sea Ecosystem Conference, October 2011, Vancouver, BC

(7) NABCI Canada, State of Canada's Birds 2012

(8) Gillespie, A., Risk of Aquatic Invasive Species associated with Vessel Traffic, Scoping Memorandum Concerning the Pacific Gateway Terminal, for Friends of the San Juans, January 2013

(9) Nuka Research & Planning Group, LLC, Vessel Traffic in the Aleutians Subarea, report for Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation, September 2006

(10) Port Metro Vancouver, 2012 Statistics Overview Report, www.portmetrovancouver.com

(11) Port Metro Vancouver, Neptune Terminals Upgrades Coal Handling Expansion, January 2013

(12) Port Metro Vancouver, Deltaport Terminal, Road and Rail Improvement Project, www.portmetrovancouver.com

(13) Port Metro Vancouver, Fraser Surrey Docks Direct Transfer Coal Facility, November 18, 2013

(14) National Energy Board, Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC - Trans Mountain Expansion, September 2013

(15) Port Metro Vancouver, Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project, www.portmetrovancouver.com Note: Ship traffic due to Terminal 2 cannot be predicted accurately because of possible changes in average vessel size over the next decade.

BC Nature 1620 Mt. Seymour Road, North Vancouver, BC V7G 2R9 T: 604.985.3057 F: 604.985.3059 www.bcnature.ca email: [email protected]

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: terminal 2 expansion , Roberts Bank Date: November 30, 2013 7:30:20 PM

This massive project is complex and has so many ramifications both ecological and sociological, that a full panel review of the impacts and consequences is a vital necessity. There is no rush.The environmental consequences of this project are so far reaching, sufficient time must be allowed to consider them before we sacrifice more critical salmon habitat on the Fraser delta to say nothing of the inexorable paving of the best farmland in BC and the threat to marine health in the Strait of Georgia.Is anyone looking at the totality of energy projects proposed in B.C.? Coal exports, oil and LNG.The mind boggles. May you exercise your powers in the best service of mankind. david f boehm gabriola island

THE ROBERTS BANK TERMINAL. Revision by PortExpertise

Antwerp - Rotterdam, November 11, 2013.

PortExpertise

PortExpertise is an independent company formed and managed by maritime port professionals. We all combine the traditional project methodology together with a profound knowledge of port and terminals related projects. Each professional has a long track proven record in maritime and port activities.

This concentrated expertise enables tailor-made solutions for your projects in port and maritime related sectors.

Our clients belong to the group of terminals owners, port authorities, manufacturing companies, Logistic Service Providers, finance companies,...and are globally active.

Last year PortExpertise worked closely together with Canada’s top university on the benchmarking of one of the world’s largest chemical clusters, located in a world maritime port area. The studied areas were W-Europe, Canada, Middle- & Far East.

In Canada PortExpertise’s representative is Mr.Charland, president & CEO NSIP3 Inc. (www.nsip3.com).

NSIP3 Inc. is a federally incorporated Canadian company with expertise in the creation of strategic critical infrastructure that supports sustainable economic growth around the world. The company leverages the strengths of public-private partnerships to develop and enhance the creation of critical infrastructure such as; airports, railways, mining exploration, marine ports, telecommunications, power utilities, public safety and military facilities. At present the company’s geographical focus is:

- Canada’s northern and Arctic regions - The Caribbean, Central and South America.

Through NSIP3 PortExpertise was invited to valuate the Roberts Bank Terminal Project.

Roberts Bank Terminal Project

The Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, doing business as Port Metro Vancouver (PMV), proposes to build a new container terminal at Roberts Bank, Delta, B.C. The terminal is intended to meet growing demand for container capacity in support of Canada’s import and export markets. The proposed project, titled Roberts Bank Terminal 2, and referenced throughout this document as the

Project, will involve creating additional land area on the seaward end of the existing Roberts Bank causeway and widening that causeway.

The Project is expected to be subject to both a federal Environmental Assessment (EA) and review process under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012), and a provincial Environmental Assessment and review process under the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Act (BCEAA). The Canada-British Columbia Agreement on Environmental Assessment Cooperation (2004) provides for a joint provincial and federal review when a project is subject to review pursuant to both CEAA 2012 and BCEAA.

Key steps in the environmental assessment and review process will involve the identification and evaluation of potential effects associated with the construction and operations phases of the Project; the development of mitigation measures that will be used to avoid and/or minimise potential negative effects; and the development of measures to enhance the positive effects of the Project. First Nations, members of the public, stakeholder groups, and other interested parties have been, and will continue to be, consulted and given the opportunity to provide input throughout the EA and review processes.

Based on the data provided by the executive summary we have only limited comments. The environmental assessment is on the main lines similar to the methodology used in Europe. For that reason we listed a few items which are not commented extensively in the report, but to our expertise, have an impact on the location and lay out of phase 2 of the terminal.

1. Are the potential alternatives for this container terminal well studied and motivated in order to justify this project? Including the actual layout and design of the terminal?

2. The project is located close to areas with a high environmental value and to the Fraser River Estuary. This means that sediment transport due to the works or due to the new container terminal should be well studied. A new artificial construction of this dimension could impact potential sediment transport on the sea bottom.

3. The study mentioned environmental studies for noise and air quality. For noise the main source according to the document are locomotives, train movements and the container handling movements. Are mitigation measures taken into account, such as rubber blocks under the railway line, or material to absorb the noise generated by the wheels?

4. Air quality due to the ship emissions and the bad fuel used on board of seagoing vessels has an impact which goes further than a radius of 10-20 kms. In Europe we see the impact of shipping in the North Sea via acid

rain on the forests in Norway and Sweden. Is this impact taken into account or is there a comprehensive policy to neutralise the impact on the air quality (cold ironing, incentives for low sulphur fuels, alternative fuels (LNG, hydrogen…, electrification of cargo handling equipment…).

5. Is there a traffic study looking at the mobility impact of the extra traffic? (truck, rail, barge)

6. There is not much literature on the effect of lighting. Are mitigation measures proposed in order to reduce a potential problem?

In Europe we have a voluntary cooperation of ports to address the environment. We exchange best practises in all potential domains of the environment (air quality, water quality, waste management, nature preservation, energy savings…). Some of these initiatives are demonstrated at Green Port Conferences, or via working groups within the European Seaports Organisation.

7. Waste is seen as secondary raw material and as such segregation and organised waste disposal is pushed, so that recycling initiatives can collected

Innovation is stimulated via EU and National Funds such as LIFE - EU’s financial instrument supporting environmental and nature conservation projects and, Marco Polo (subsidy program to encourage modal shift or traffic avoidance projects )etc. Subsidies up to 50% of the total cost can be obtained. In most cases the subsidy can only be granted if the beneficiary is willing to set up demonstration programmes in order to spread around the technology.

For more information on this text;

Canada: Mr Richard Charland, President & CEO NSIP3 Inc. www.NSIP3.com Phone: 613-240-1460 [email protected]

Europe: Mr.P.Bresseleers, Partner PortExpertise | Ports and Terminals cvba, www.PortExpertise.com, Phone +32 3 808 4 345, [email protected]

P.Bresseleers, Managing Director

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Cc: Subject: PortExpertise & NSIP3 on RobertsBank terminal environmental assessment Date: November 12, 2013 2:36:53 AM Attachments:

Dear Sirs, following the open invitation by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, regarding a federal environmental assessment for the proposed Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, both PortExpertise and their Canadian partner NSIP3 took the liberty to evaluate the information on the project, as made available on CEAA’s website.

PortExpertise is a company based in the world busiest maritime port region (Antwerp- Rotterdam), and has in-depth experience in port development and the related environmental/ecological issues. The Canadian company NSIP3, our partner and representative in your area, is specialised in the creation of strategic critical infrastructure that supports sustainable economic growth around the world.

The information on the Roberts Bank Terminal project was evaluated against the most recent institutional- and port related policies regarding sustainable development of economic port areas of strategic importance.

For more info or questions you can always contact PortExpertise and NSIP3.

Yours Faithfully,

P.Bresseleers partner

Mobile: +32 497 52 01 02 Office: +32 3 808 4 345 Skype: pbresseleers

Back office: Mrs. Elke Van Sebroeck [email protected] www.PortExpertise.com

PortExpertise is part of Ports and Terminals cvba, a company registered in Belgium with offices in Antwerp, Belgium

DISCLAIMER:

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Re: FW: Terminal 2 Project Date: December 8, 2013 6:05:31 PM

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have e-mailed you before regarding my deep concern over this project’s impact on the environment and the communities both in Delta as well as elsewhere in the Lower Mainland.

I believe that it is of utmost importance that the T2 project be subjected to a full panel review, due to the complexities of the project and to the significant implications that it has on the whole of the Fraser Estuary. It must therefore be given a complete and thorough assessment by a panel that is independent from Port Metro Vancouver. The last major expansion by PMV on Roberts Bank was the addition of a third berth at Delta Port. This assessment was done by a Comprehensive Study and it was deficient in many areas. There remain a number of significant deficiencies in the way the third berth study was carried out and the project implemented – deficiencies that to this day negatively impact the environment on Roberts Bank as well as the surrounding communities. More critically, the most recent project, their so called Container Capacity Improvement Program at Delta Port, was only subject to a screening review. PMV carried out its own assessment and not surprisingly failed to identify any number of negative consequences.

The T2 development is an extremely contentious issue, given the history of port development in Delta in general, and the threat to internationally recognized populations of migratory birds. Roberts Bank, where T2 is to be located, sits in the Fraser Estuary which has now been given a UN Ramsar designation as wetlands of international significance. This world class ecosystem is recognized internationally and any further development that negatively impacts this ecosystem will come under international scrutiny. For all the above reasons it is therefore essential that this project be subjected to the most rigorous level of assessment, being a full and independent panel review.

The EIS should address PMV’s long term failure to respond to a previous (1979 FEARO) panel review that recommended burying the overhead power lines that run along the port causeway. These power lines increase bird mortality in the area. PMV has been less than cooperative thus far in terms of its interactions and consultations with the public. For example PMV has been requested to provide information on the current container volumes handled by the existing Delta Port but they refuse to do so. Without this information it is going to be impossible for the public to assess the overall impacts of adding a second container terminal on Roberts Bank. PMV should not be allowed to hide key data and information that the public needs to assess the worth and impacts of T2. The development of a second container terminal on Roberts Bank has the potential to cause huge and negative impacts on the environment and the health and well-being of many communities. In addition it and related developments, such as the removal of the Massey Tunnel and deepening of the Fraser River, may cause catastrophic reductions in the Fraser river salmon run.

Please acknowledge receipt.

Sincerely,

Maya Bridger Denz

2013/12/8 Sylvia Denz

This is what I sent to ceaa. I took pieces of Roger’s long letter to make it up.

Please, please e-mail something like this to ceaa today which is the deadline.

From: Sylvia Denz [mailto: Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 1:46 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Terminal 2 Project

To: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project,

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency,

410-701 West Georgia Street,

Vancouver, BC, V7Y 1C6

Fax: 604-666-6990

[email protected]

Décembre 8, 2013

Dear Sir/Madam:

I have e-mailed you before regarding my deep concern over this project’s impact on the environment and the communities both in Delta as well as elsewhere in the Lower Mainland.

Please acknowledge receipt.

Yours truly,

Sylvia Denz

The Burke Mountain Naturalists

“Promoting nature awareness in the TriCities and beyond”

December 8, 2013

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 410-701 West Georgia Street Vancouver, BC V7Y 1C6 Submitted via email: [email protected]

Re: Request for Public Comments on Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Expansion Regarding Draft Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment

The Burke Mountain Naturalists are a group of approximately 200 members residing mainly in the Coquitlam and surrounding areas of the lower mainland. For many years, we have been concerned about the growth of Port Metro Vancouver and concomitant intrusions into areas which are vital habitat for migratory birds as well as for fish. This fall, we were dismayed to see the removal of woody debris from the shores of Boundary Bay as part of a habitat compensation project. This woody debris provided critical roosting areas for owls and, in our view, it should not have been removed to “improve fish habitat”. Regarding such projects, it is imperative that all such proposed compensation projects be made subject to public review and input before proceeding as it is clear that the Port authorities have little understanding of the vital role played by large organic woody debris around Boundary Bay.

One aspect that is missing from the draft EIA is a requirement to review all the past projects and summarize previous impacts. It is difficult to develop a full appreciation of potential impacts from this proposed project unless the cumulative impacts of all other previous projects are fully described and discussed. For example, have past impacts been adequately documented and addressed? Have there been any shortcomings or failures? For example, the 2005 Environment Canada submission identified a number of issues with regard to expansion at Roberts Bank at that time. What has been the followup with regard to these concerns? What declines in shorebird and waterfowl populations have taken place since the 1970s? Could impacts to habitat in the Fraser River estuary from the construction and expansion of Roberts Bank have contributed to such losses?

One aspect of particular concern to us is the generation of biofilm. This is now recognized to be an important food source for many shorebirds, especially the Western Sandpiper as they stop and feed in the Fraser River estuary while undertaking long and challenging migrations between South America and the Arctic. What specific impacts would the proposed expansion have upon biofilm production and, if any, how could such losses be avoided?

With regard to concerns that the existing port facilities at Roberts Bank provide an impediment to fish migration, how can the existing facilities be modified to reduce such barriers? The EIA should fully describe

how new proposed facilities could be better designed. Such impacts on fish migration must also be fully documented.

We are also concerned that the area of study is much too small as impacts from port expansion are likely to influence habitat and wildlife activities throughout the Fraser River estuary, Salish Sea and Strait of Juan de Fuca. Therefore, the area of study needs to be much expanded to include all of these areas. There are also likely to be impacts on recreation for people through potential loss of trails and opportunities for wildlife viewing, etc. These should be fully documented and addressed in the EIA.

The EIA also needs to address the loss of vital agricultural land in the Fraser Delta associated with previous and proposed port expansions. In addition, the EIA should summarize all the losses of such land to the construction of a road and rail network to service the expanded Port.

Increases in ship traffic in the Salish Sea and through to the Pacific Ocean are also a huge concern. Given the likelihood that greatly increased oil tanker traffic will take place in association with the proposed construction of the Kinder Morgan pipeline, what is the estimated risk of collisions and spills between such tankers and increased shipping from Roberts Bank? The EIA should document and assess all such potential increases in shipping traffic and include an assessment of associated risks including potential impacts on wildlife as shipping traffic from expanded facilities at Roberts Bank transits through the Salish Sea and Strait of Juan de Fuca. The proposed shipping routes should be identified and as well as any potential impacts on critical habitat for species at risk such as the southern resident orcas.

We are also alarmed that, in the event of an oil spill, there is apparently no legal obligation to capture and treat injured wildlife. This is a serious omission given the greatly increased risk of such spills from additional ship traffic. There needs to be an assessment undertaken to determine if the overall spill response in BC is adequate and what measures are in place to treat oiled wildlife, if required. It also needs to be made very clear who would pay the costs for such collisions, spills and clean-up. The public should not be expected to bear these costs. Rather, the shipping companies should be held entirely liable and be required to carry insurance to cover these costs. What hazardous weather conditions are present in the Salish Sea and Strait of Juan de Fuca throughout the year? How long does fog persist and can large ships safely travel under conditions of heavy fog – or strong winds? The confidence of the public in the ability of large vessels to avoid accidents was severely tested when a large bulk carrier collided with and damaged the coal-loading facilities at Robert Bank in December, 2012 under, apparently, excellent weather conditions.

Other factors which must be considered are impacts on tourism and recreation. What is the present value of wildlife-viewing tourism in the Salish Sea and how much is this expected to grow in the future? For example, whale watching is a growing and popular activity. Will whales be impacted from the increased noise from shipping traffic of ocean-going vessels? What are levels of ship noise should be recommended not to be exceeded in order to avoid impacts on whale habitat and their ability to communicate?

Finally, the potential for some of the increased container traffic to go, instead, to Prince Rupert should be discussed. In addition, any impacts from the increased capacity of the enlarged Panama Canal should also be discussed.

Sincerely, Elaine Golds, Ph.D. Conservation/Education Chair

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: panel review Date: December 7, 2013 9:16:59 PM

Dear sir or madam,

I write to you, again, to implore you to bring the most rigorous review possible to Port Metro Vancouver's plans for T2 at Deltaport.

The stakes are so high, in terms of the environmental impacts of the proposal, that PMV's proposal must be held to the highest scrutiny.

I'm deeply concerned that PMV wishes to try to fob off its own review as adequate enough to qualify as an environmental review. It does not qualify, & I ask that you treat it as such.

I believe that the business case does not make sense: the numbers reported in recent years, coupled with the expansion of the Panama Canal, & the increased pressure from US ports keen to win back business that has come north, all point to a decline in business.

The damage to the biofilm around the foreshore, a vital food-source for the Western Sandpiper, will devastate the bird population.

I implore you to hold a Panel Review.

Many thanks. Cliff Caprani

Ladner, BC

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Cc: Subject: RB Terminal 2 Project Panel Review Date: December 1, 2013 10:07:30 PM

To: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project/Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency I have been informed of the following; "The material that PMV has recently presented is now indicating that they have researched the outcomes for each major environmental issue - suggesting that the work done by PMV and its consultants is sufficient to demonstrate that the impact of T2 on the environment is basically benign and can be managed through monitoring and mitigation. This is an invalid assertion. etc.". This concerns me very much and therefore, I am joining with others to demand that a more responsible and proper panel review be conducted for the T2 Project. Thank you for including my email regarding this issue. CaRoL

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Terminal 2 Expansion Date: November 24, 2013 10:13:05 AM

Hello,

The impact the expansion will cause, warrants an independent review. PMV have a conflict of interest & they have proven in the past that their reviews are slanted to put them in a positive light. When they have an open house, the information is presented in a way, that one would think the expansion has already been approved. The same with their surveys. The questions are posed, so that answer makes it look like you agree with what they want to do.

The following should be considered:

- 1979 FEAR report turned down the expansion exactly where it is planned, due to the disruption to the bay for migratory bird population & the salmon run that swim parallel with Roberts Bank

- 2005 Environment Canada Report must be reviewed. The results of that report are true today

- I have lived around Boundary Bay for thirty-five years & I know that shorebird populations have declined. The flocks that use to congregate no longer exist. Therefore, we have a responsibility to protect the populations that are left. You can't just measure the impact in the immediate area. The birds come to the Fraser Estuary & they use all areas of it during their stay. The biofilm in the bay by the terminal is in a tenuous state now & the expansion would be a disaster. Doubling the causeway is taking away habitat & reinforcing a structure that should have been built over the water to allow the tide to flow.

- the salmon swim along the bank in the water that is around 50' deep. The terminal, already affects their routes & the expansion would make it twice as bad

- I am a sailor & now when crossing the strait, you can see the pollution from the ships, which turns the air brown as the day goes on. The increased freighter traffic, will increase that pollution, as well as negatively affect the orca & other sea animal populations. The orcas seldom swim around Point Roberts now & in the pass, the pods would congregate off of Lily Point

- the farmland is under attack now with the South Fraser Perimeter Road, eating up acres of it. & SFPR which is a government funded project, has been caught violating their own mandate & dumped fill on ALR land with intent. PMV have already said there will be a need to use farmland for the spin off industries for the containers. Robin Silvister has said that industry trumps the farmland.

- global factors are changing. The Panama Canal will allow the super freighters to cross over to the East coast where their markets are located. Shipping containers by truck will decline. PMV's forecast for expansion of trade is not correct & the Emerson Report of 2008, states no further expansion until Prince Rupert port maximizes its capacity.

- the port now is an example of light pollution with no regard for the surrounding community. The lights are visible from the North shore to Mud Bay. They could & should be shielded. In the past months, huge bright white lights have been set up on the river between the Massey Tunnel & pass the Richmond unloading docks. Due to the light waves, these lights are just as bright on the other side of the river in Deas Park. Again PMV has shown their total disrespect of neighbouring areas & any humans, fish, animal or bird populations that want & need a natural dark night.

I trust that the independent review proceeds and back room politics do not determine the future of this important biological area, which is the right of future generations.

Sincerely,

Janice Carruthers (nee Orrell) Ladner

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: independent panel review for environmental assessment of roberts bank terminal expansion Date: November 21, 2013 10:22:06 AM

Re: independent panel review for environmental assessment of roberts bank terminal expansion

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 410-701 West Georgia Street Vancouver, BC V7Y 1C6 Telephone: 604-666-2431 Fax: 604-666-6990 [email protected]

To whom it may concern: As a citizen living in the vicinity of your proposed port expansion, I request that there be due democratic process in the evaluation and assessment for the environmental effects and safety to surrounding communities in all aspects of its impact including to wildlife and natural habitat as well as human health. I ask that there be an independent study with open and transparent discussion involving the communities in question with neutral parties in a proper panel review.

Some of the concerns to our community should include, air quality and pollutants brought in by handling of raw resources, carried by wind and/or water. Noise factor to surrounding residential communities and displacement of traffic on roads and local infrastructures with the true revealed cost to taxpayers for this private industry. True scale of jobs to be added in BC regarding these industries involved revealing both source of resource and destination of goods. Biological marine study of fish and wildlife effected by the proposed facility and its activity.

Thank you for your prompt attention and due consideration. Tired of waiting on trains, lucan charchuk

Just a word about responsible stewardship you may wish to take into account:

“If you are spiritually developing yourself, your family, your friends, community, your whole environment at large is also nourished. When you become spiritually nourished, you become the nourisher.”

Ruth Chitty

Surrey BC

November 18, 2013

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency West Georgia Street Vancouver BC V7Y 1C6

As a citizen with concerns about the impact of the proposed Terminal 2 at Robert’s Bank, I am writing in response to your public invitation for input regarding the CEAA’s draft of environmental assessment for this proposed project.

In reviewing the draft, I find that there are some missing pieces of great significance; I am asking that you consider the following recommendations:

1. Previous relevant environmental reviews should be included:

• 1979 Independent Panel Review (FEAR report) which recommended no further development in the area where Port Metro Vancouver proposes to build Terminal 2 • 2005 Environment Canada submission on Deltaport Third Berth has apparently identified a number of concerns regarding any further expansion on Roberts Bank. • Previous studies on Roberts Bank re biofilm – a critical food source for western sandpipers as well as other bird species. The concern is that the building of T2 will destroy it and potentially wipe out a key feeding area for migratory and other birds. • Federal Government 2008 Emerson Report and recommendations on port expansion should be reviewed. (Report recommended no further port infrastructure be developed in the Lower Mainland until the container port of Prince Rupert had been maximized). 2. Assessment Area is too limited: a full assessment of the whole of the Fraser Estuary is important and should not be limited to the area of Terminal 2. Studies and assessment in a more inclusive way will be critical to disclose impact and ultimately responsible decision -making.

3. Impact on agricultural land as well as marine and river water needs full assessment. The Delta Estuary is both invaluable and irreplaceable; much of its prime agricultural land has been lost and will continue to shrink and be impacted as a result of this project. Having lost so many opportunities to protect and conserve prime agricultural and conservation areas of the Lower Mainland, we need to protect our environment and what is left of our food -producing farmland. We need to stop treating the estuary as an “industrial land bank” and protect what remains of this priceless land. We also need to protect its waters – the Salish Sea and the Fraser as well as fish, fowl and other water and wildlife.

4. Probability of marine accidents should be considered given the site’s exposure to wind; implications need to be explored in the event of extreme winds.

5. Full studies and impact assessment are critical in relation to the health and well- being of community members as well as the natural environment ( air, land, water, wildlife); the impact of the following should be included: a) pollutants including those arising from train diesel particulates and coal dust, b) dangerous goods in the event of train derailments c) noise and vibrations d) trucking activity – present and in the future 6. Paramount to full assessment is an independent review board. Your agency’s role and responsibility is to provide a thorough and responsible assessment; this cannot happen without an independent review board. A looming concern is the power invested by the federal government to Port Metro Vancouver whose interests- both narrow and short –sighted with a single focus on development -has been demonstrated far too many times. Where is our environmental protection when environmental reviews are in the hands of the industrial developers of the estuary? Their practices lacks public interest and will only continue to minimize and diminish environmental concerns in the face of government deregulation and resource cuts to environmental agencies. The establishment of an independent assessment review board is critical to assure well -informed and unbiased assessment.

7. Robert’s Bank is central to the Fraser River Delta Ecosystem of National and International significance. The Fraser River Estuary is also the vital link in a chain of estuary habitats at the mouth of the greatest salmon- river in the World. Living resources, water quality and land all need protection. A full

environment impact assessment with specific studies and reviews regarding cumulative environmental impacts of all past and presently envisioned development in the Fraser Estuary from the Port Mann Bridge into the Salish Sea is critical.

We appreciate the important role of CEAA and urge your agency to seriously consider the issues brought forth by Community. I urge you to carry out your role by further developing a more inclusive and thorough draft for the environmental impact assessment – one which would include an independent review board – critical to ensuring and supporting responsible and sustainable decision- making.

Thank you for providing the opportunity for public input re the draft environmental impact assessment of Robert’s Bank Terminal 2 project.

Sincerely

Ruth Chitty

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Requesting an Independent Review Panel Assessment Date: December 7, 2013 8:54:19 AM

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

410-701 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, BC V7Y 1C6

Telephone: 604-666-2431 Fax: 604-666-6990

December 6, 2013

[email protected]

Re: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 (T2) Project – Registry #80054 Dear Sir/Madam:

Terminal 2 at Roberts Bank requires an Independent Review Panel Environmental Assessment for the following reasons:

· The Fraser River Delta is habitat of global significance for migratory birds of the Pacific Flyway.

· It is a Global Important Bird Area under Birdlife International.

· Roberts Bank is recognized as a Western Hemispheric Shorebird Reserve Network.

· Shorebirds show evidence of serious decline and wetlands are imperiled.

· Roberts Bank is located in the middle of the Fraser River Delta RAMSAR site.

· The T2 Project will Degrade Habitat of Western Sandpipers.

· The T2 Project will Degrade Salmon and other Fish Habitat

· The T2 Project will Degrade Habitat of endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales

· There is no business justification for Terminal 2.

· There are alternatives for the container business.

· A credible cumulative effects assessment is necessary.

· There will be social impacts of noise, light and air pollution.

· There will be social impacts from increase in rail and truck traffic.

All of these reasons are significant reasons and concerns and thus it is critical that an independent review panel assessment is completed. Thank you, Heather Colls

Tsawwassen, BC

From: To: Soebagio,Stephanie [CEAA] Subject: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Proposed project Date: December 12, 2013 1:55:30 PM

Hi Stephanie,

The CNA is recommending this project go to a review panel. Also please find attached our unity agreement for the CNA.

Regards

Helen Reid Referrals Coordinator Cowichan Tribes 5760 Allenby Road Duncan, BC V9L 5J1 250.748.3196 ext 283

Please consider the environment before printing this message.

PRIVILEGE & CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient, it may be unlawful for you to read, copy, disclose or otherwise use the information on this communication. If you received this transmittal in error, please contact the sender and delete the material immediately.

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Date: December 7, 2013 12:04:42 PM Attachments:

For the following reasons I am very strongly opposed to the construction and operation of Terminal

This project requires an Independent Review Panel Assessment: · The Fraser River Delta is habitat of global significance for migratory birds of the Pacific Flyway.

· It is a Global Important Bird Area under Birdlife International.

· Roberts Bank is recognized as a Western Hemispheric Shorebird Reserve Network.

· Shorebirds show evidence of serious decline and wetlands are imperiled.

· Roberts Bank is located in the middle of the Fraser River Delta RAMSAR site.

The T2 Project will Degrade Habitat of Western Sandpipers.

The T2 Project will Degrade Salmon and other Fish Habitat

The T2 Project will Degrade Habitat of endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales

There is no business justification for Terminal 2.

There are alternatives for the container business.

A credible cumulative effects assessment is necessary.

There will be social impacts of noise, light and air pollution.

· There will be social impacts from increase in rail and truck traffic

Yours truly, Nikolas Cuff

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Roberts Bank Container Terminal 2 Project Date: November 28, 2013 9:20:59 PM

Dear Sir or Madame,

Please add my mane to the list of those opposed to this project and who feel that an independent panel review be conducted.

Yours truly, Mark Dalton Surrey

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Roberts Bank Container Terminal 2 Date: December 5, 2013 3:15:01 PM

Dear CEAA, I am a citizen of BC, resident in Victoria, and I often traverse the Georgia Strait to and from Vancouver.

I am concerned that an Assessment based on the furnished EIS will fail to address the spectrum of issues surround the proposed new terminal, including marine, shorebird, noise and light pollution, road and rail impacts, and the transpoprt-related impacts on Vancouver City's commitment to become the greenest city in the world by 2020.

For these reasons, I believe that a full independent panel review is needed, as a minimum to win social license fort the proposed new terminal.

Sincerely, Guy Dauncey

Guy Dauncey www.earthfuture.com

Founder, Communications Director, BC Sustainable Energy Association www.bcsea.org

Building a sustainable, responsible energy future for British Columbia, today. We welcome your membership to make it happen.

Author of City of the Future (forthcoming, 2014) Author of The Climate Challenge: 101 Solutions to Global Warming Author of Cancer: 101 Solutions to a Preventable Epidemic Follow Guy Dauncey on Twitter

The whole future of the Earth seems to depend on the awakening of our faith in the future. - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Date: December 3, 2013 6:25:30 PM

Guidelines for Environmental Impact Statement.

Any EIS must be independent and address Human Health, Business and Environmental issues such as: 1. Health impacts of sub micron particles from dust and especially from diesel exhaust during transport and at the loading/unloading sites. 2. Impact of constant drainage and possible rupture of tailing ponds into Fraser River. 3. Impact of contaminated air from the burning of thermal coal in Asia. 4. Impact on small business along the rail and shipping routes. 5. Effect of noise, vibration and visual impact. 6. Contamination of farm land

There are many other concerns and all studies must be thorough and independent. Regards John & Eileen Davidson --

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Cc: Subject: REFERENCE # 80054 PROPOSED T2 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Date: December 6, 2013 12:22:26 PM

I am a resident of South Delta. As such I am very concerned about the potential negative impacts of the proposed Terminal 2 being planned by Port Metro Vancouver.

As a project of this magnitude would have serious impacts upon marine life, including the Resident Orcas, potential disruption to the Fraser River sockeye salmon, and disruptions to the Pacific Flyway it is crucial that a review panel assessment be conducted.

I strongly urge that this highest level of environmental assessment be conducted.

The public needs to know that a rigorous review will happen.

Yours truly

Anita den Dikken

DELTA, B. C.

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Terminal 2 Project Date: December 8, 2013 1:46:43 PM

To: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 410-701 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, BC, V7Y 1C6 Fax: 604-666-6990 [email protected] Décembre 8, 2013

Dear Sir/Madam:

I have e-mailed you before regarding my deep concern over this project’s impact on the environment and the communities both in Delta as well as elsewhere in the Lower Mainland.

Please acknowledge receipt. Yours truly, Sylvia Denz

From: Dr. Susan Diamond To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Cc: Subject: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Environmental assessment needed. Date: December 5, 2013 10:05:14 AM

I am writing to request that, given the complexity and potential impact of T2 it is essential that a proper panel review is carried out. I feel that the Lower Mainland is suddenly developing a number of long term and impactful projects including Perimeter Road, Terminal 2 and Fraser Surrey Docks proposal without a detailed review and full public awareness of the scope and impacts these will have on the region. Obviously we want a thriving region, but we want sustainability and quality of life too. No modern industrial project should be undertaken without considering the effects to 2100. Sincerely, Dr. Susan Diamond

Delta, BC

November 21, 2013

[email protected]

Dear Sir or Madam,

I have to take pen to paper and protest most fervently against the proposed Roberts Bank Terminal 2 expansion.

You see, it’s not that in a bigger area with well infrastructured roads it would have been a possibility but we are bottle-necked here in Tsawwassen, a small place. That being the very reason we are not in any way shape or form able to contend with the increase in traffic as the road infrastructure, Highway 17, needs about six lanes to accommodate the rush from the direction fo the ferries, Roberts Bank, increasing development in Tsawwassen, Tsawwwassen Springs added, all the new condos, Southlands residential housing development, the First

Nations huge shopping mall and huge residential housing development.

Well seriously, the deduction is easy – not anywhere near enough road space on Highway 17 to accommodate the increased traffic - the Massey Tunnel in strong debate as to whether or not to widen, rebuild or build a bridge crossing.

That will take another few years to figure out, not to mention all of us will likely be paying a toll if it is a bridge. Well, you know we the taxpayers pay for everything! Obviously, this will increase traffic into town – oh dear, nowhere to park! Oh yes, let’s put parking meters up and patrol them so as we are running around trying to do something and at the back of one’s mind is “I have to get out of here and back to my parking spot” before I get fined!

Oh well, I can take a little ride over to Canadian Tire in Richmond and relax and just have a break, that is if I can ever manage to drive my car between four large semi-trucks and the truck congestion and arrive safely where I want to be.

Frankly, It is too busy now, and with Terminal 2’s possible development more severe congestion everywhere – definitely a Tsawwassen resident’s nightmare.

This is not a fictional projection. This is going to be a living fact if not corrected. Please consider these ramifications seriously before making a final decision.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Yours Truly

Sarah Dodds

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Cc: Trudeau, Justin: HOC; Mayor & Council; Metro Vancouver; Findlay, Kerry-Lynne D: HOC; Huntington, Vicki; Honourable Elizabeth May; Honourable Thomas Mulcair Subject: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project"s fear of a panel review . . . Date: December 2, 2013 10:11:42 AM

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 410-701 West Georgia Street Vancouver, BC V7Y 1C6 Telephone: 604-666-2431 Fax: 604-666-6990

Re: Port Metro Vancouver's fear of a panel review suggests that it has something to hide

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency:

Port Metro Vancouver's Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project should be subject to a panel review of its environmental effects on the ecosystem. The Port's desire to avoid proper environmental scrutiny suggests that it has something to hide.

Greg J. Edwards

Delta, B.C.

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Panel Review! Date: December 5, 2013 2:37:25 PM

Please give us a Panel Riview; given the complexity and potential impact of T2 it is essential that a proper panel review is carried out. Thank you in advance for listening! Damon

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Roberts Bank Container Terminal 2 - Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines - Public Comment Period commencing November 8 2013 Date: November 27, 2013 11:15:57 AM Attachments: Importance: High

Delta B.C.

To: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 410-701 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, BC, V7Y 1C6 Fax: 604-666-6990 [email protected]

November 27 2013

Dear Sir/Madam:

Subject: Roberts Bank Container Terminal 2 – Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines – Public Comment Period commencing November 8 2013.

You have asked for comment and input concerning Port Metro Vancouver’s (PMV) plans for their proposed Container Terminal 2 (T2) on Roberts Bank. I am very concerned about this project and the impact that it will have on the environment and the communities both in Delta as well as elsewhere in the Lower Mainland.

I believe that it is essential that the T2 project be subjected to a full panel review, due to the complexities of the project and to the significant implications that it has on the whole of the Fraser Estuary. It must therefore be given a complete and thorough assessment by a panel that is independent from Port Metro Vancouver. The last major expansion by PMV on Roberts Bank was the addition of a third berth at Deltaport. This assessment was done by a Comprehensive Study and it was woefully deficient in many areas. There remain a number of significant deficiencies in the way the third berth study was carried out and the project implemented – deficiencies that to this day negatively impact the environment on Roberts Bank as well as the surrounding communities. Even worse the most recent project, their so called Container Capacity Improvement Program at Deltaport, was only subject to a screening review. In effect PMV carried out its own assessment and not surprisingly failed to identify any number of negative consequences. This cannot be allowed to happen again with their T2 Project.

For all the above reasons it is therefore essential that this project be subjected to the most rigorous level of assessment, being a full and independent panel review. It should also be noted that PMV has failed to address a number of long standing environmental issues from its previous port developments in the Roberts Bank area. For example the 1979 FEARO panel review and associated studies identified the overhead powerlines along the port causeway that run vertically to the bird flyway as a threat to birds flying to and from their feeding grounds. The study indicated that these powerlines should be buried to reduce bird mortality. PMV has consistently prevaricated and dragged its feet on this issue and still the powerlines remain above ground. This is but one of many deficits that needs to be explicit and rectified in the CEAA environmental requirements for T2.

In addition I have a number of comments and concerns with the draft guidelines for the EIS. These include: 1. A detailed study of previous environmental reviews is missing and needs to be an explicit requirement - such as the 1979 Independent Panel Review (FEAR report) that turned down port expansion in the very area of Roberts Bank where PMV now wants to build T2. 2. Missing also is a review of the 2005 Environment Canada submission on Deltaport Third Berth (Environment Canada Technical Comments – April 27 2005) which expressed a number of key concerns in respect of any further expansion on Roberts Bank. This needs to be explicitly referenced as a requirement in the EIS. 3. There also needs to be a thorough review of the Federal Government 2008 Emerson Report (Asia Pacific Gateway and Corridor Initiative – APGCI) containing recommendations on port expansion. Key recommendations contained in that report are thus far being ignored. For example that report recommended that no further port infrastructure be developed in the Lower Mainland until the container port of Prince Rupert had been maximized. The Port of Prince Rupert has plenty of potential expansion capacity and is well placed to satisfy Canada’s trading needs. 4. The planned approach for carrying out a cumulative impact assessment is weak and vague. The needs have to be much more rigorously and explicitly defined. For example this must include a look back at shorebird species abundances on Roberts Bank to at least 1990 and the local population level and species level declines that have occurred. 5. A further cumulative impact that needs explicit attention is the change in tidal flows that have resulted from previous port developments. For example because the port causeway does not have culverts it does not allow the area between that causeway and the BC Ferries causeway – the intercauseway area – to flush. This has resulted in partial eutrophication events in the past and the whole area remains unstable as a result. These coupled with further changes in tidal flows resulting from the T2 man made island all need to be studied and the lack of culverts must be remedied. 6. The cumulative impact assessment must also review the many other related developments, both on Roberts Bank as well as the Fraser River, such as: Ø The planned warehouse and distribution complex on TFN land adjacent to the PMV Roberts Bank port. Ø The 900,000 square feet warehouse at Boundary Bay Airport now under construction that is to contain 156 loading docks and 200 trailer parking spaces and which will be accessed by port trucks. Ø Potential new distribution and industrial complexes that are to be located in the area Ø The BC Ferries Terminal Ø Shipping aviation fuel and coal on the south arm of the Fraser River

7. There has to be a detailed cumulative impact assessment relating to port trucking activities. The EIS needs to ensure that there is a detailed breakdown of all trucking activity in the area, both now as well as forecasted truck traffic volumes in the future. This needs to include: Ø Port trucks traveling to and from PMV terminals

Ø Trucks travelling to and from BC Ferries Ø Truck traffic that will travel to and from the TFN warehouse and distribution complex as well as the Tilbury distribution complexes currently used by port truck traffic. Ø Truck traffic travelling to and from the new Boundary Bay Airport distribution complex In addition there needs to be a breakdown of origins and destinations such that truck traffic flows can be modelled for the present as well as the future. We need to know what the peak truck traffic volumes will be as well as the daily averages that will travel on the South Fraser Perimeter Road and Highway 99. This truck traffic already causes traffic gridlock in the morning and afternoon rush hours. Specifically PMV needs to provide truck traffic forecasts identifying the numbers of trucks that will travel on the SFPR, the numbers to/from Tilbury, the numbers travelling southbound on Highway 99 and the numbers travelling northbound on Highway 99 through the Massey Tunnel or over the bridge if it is built. 8. The assessment needs to look at the potential impacts on the whole Fraser Estuary, not just the immediate area of the T2 location. The potential harm that T2 can do to the lower reaches of the Fraser, to the Fraser Estuary, Roberts Bank and the whole southern area of the Georgia Strait must be looked at in detail. 9. The assessment must include a proper review of the human environment and impacts from developing T2 – for example the visual and other impacts (light, noise, air pollution, vibrations etc.) of those living close to the planned development as well as those using the walking and biking trails such as the ones along Brunswick Point. The EIS is deficient in that it fails to properly address health issues in respect of air pollution from port trucks, ships and rail locomotives. The World Heath Organization released a report on October 17 2013 identifying outdoor air pollution as carcinogenic to humans. Residents living close to the port are exposed to diesel pollution. The South Fraser Perimeter Road and Highway 99, both used extensively by port trucks, pass close to schools and residential neighbourhoods. There needs to be a full and comprehensive health assessment carried out by independent health professionals, not those contracted to do studies for PMV. 10. There needs to be a review of previous studies and new studies commissioned on the ecology of Roberts Bank with special attention to intertidal biofilm. This biofilm is critical as a food source for western sandpipers as well as other bird species. Building T2 will certainly destroy a large swath of biofilm and possibly compromise the productivity of the remaining areas of biofilm. In doing so T2 is a high risk to wipe out a key feeding area for migratory and other birds with unmitigatable population level impacts. 11. Missing is a thorough review of the planned road and rail works on agricultural land and the environmental and socio-community impacts. 12. There needs to be a full risk assessment of the probability of marine accidents, given that the T2 berths are in an exposed location in Georgia Strait and subject to extreme wind events. What are the wind measurements, how strong a wind before the port must stop operating, what then happens if port operations are suspended (such as port truck back-ups) are all questions that must be asked. 13. The PMV business case and their forecast growth levels need to be properly analyzed by an entity totally independent from PMV. The PMV business case is flawed and they know it. It needs to be given a much more rigorous peer review and critique by an independent third party and analyzed against other industry reports that deal with forecast growth in container traffic. 14. A review of alternatives for port expansion needs to include facilities outside the jurisdiction of PMV – such as the potential for Prince Rupert container expansion. 15. As indicated earlier in this submission the EIS should address PMV’s long term failure to respond to a previous (1979 FEARO) panel review that recommended burying the overhead powerlines that run along the port causeway. These powerlines increase bird mortality in the area because they are vertical to the bird flyway. This must be explicitly addressed in the EIS. 16. The whole issue of salmon migration paths is missing from the EIS and must be studied. T2 will negatively impact salmon pathways, particularly those of juvenile salmon.

Because PMV failed to put in culverts when the original port causeway was constructed the salmon must now swim around the current port pod. This will be made much worse if T2 were to be built and has the potential to further damage the Fraser River salmon runs.

PMV has been less than cooperative thus far in terms of its interactions and consultations with the public. For example PMV has been requested to provide information on the current container volumes handled by the existing Deltaport but they refuse to do so. Without this information it is going to be impossible for the public to assess the overall impacts of adding a second container terminal on Roberts Bank. PMV should not be allowed to hide key data and information that the public needs to assess the worth and impacts of T2.

The development of a second container terminal on Roberts Bank has the potential to cause huge and negative impacts on the environment and the health and well-being of many communities. In addition it and related developments, such as the removal of the Massey Tunnel and deepening of the Fraser River, may cause catastrophic reductions in the Fraser river salmon run. Surely we do not need a repeat of the Cod Fishery fiasco on the East Coast.

Please acknowledge receipt.

Yours truly,

Roger Emsley

This email and any attachment(s) may contain confidential and/or proprietary information and is solely for the attention of the intended recipient(s). If an error in its addressing or transmission has misrouted this email, please immediately notify the sender. If you are not the intended recipient you should delete this email and may not save, copy, distribute or in any other way make use of the information that is contained or attached.

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Port Development Date: December 7, 2013 6:19:58 PM

December 7 2013 From: Roger Emsley

Delta BC

To: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

I made a submission to you previously but I have come across some new material put out by Port Metro Vancouver that leaves me very concerned.

Recent material put out by Port Metro Vancouver (PMV), on the findings of their technical advisory group process, paints an overly optimistic picture of the environmental effects of T2 on the Roberts Bank ecosystem, by distorting and minimizing the risks of T2. They seem to be trying to persuade you - the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) - that a panel review of the T2 proposal is not necessary. This despite PMV's previous assertions that they were not permitted to make a recommendation to CEAA, (they stated this at one of the recent consultation sessions).

ANYTHING LESS THAN A PANEL REVIEW WILL NOT PROVIDE THE DEGREE OF SCIENTIFIC SCRUTINY REQUIRED TO SHED LIGHT ON THE VERY REAL AND SIGNIFICANT RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH T2.

The material that PMV has recently presented is now indicating that they have researched the outcomes for each major environmental issue - suggesting that the work done by PMV and its consultants is sufficient to demonstrate that the impact of T2 on the environment is basically benign and can be managed through monitoring and mitigation. This is an invalid assertion.

Here, as I understand it, is what PMV are now saying:

1. Biofilm, Infauna and shorebirds. They are trying to minimize the value of biofilm on Roberts Bank, by suggesting that there are other available food sources. This is untrue and not supported by the science. Several recent studies demonstrate that the biofilm is an essential and central part of the diet for migratory and shorebirds. Take that biofilm away - or damage it -and the western sandpiper species will collapse. The Pacific Flyway will be broken. This cannot be mitigated. We will witness major ecosystem destruction - all for a port development that is not needed and not justified.

2. Southern Resident Killer Whales - the Orcas. Several recent studies have indicated that the Orcas are in trouble, that amongst other things the vessel

noise is changing the communication patterns of all whales in the area. This is brushed off, set aside by PMV.

3. Coastal Geomorphology - ignores the central issues; being the change in tidal flows and resultant scouring effect of a man-made island out in Georgia Strait, which will change the whole Roberts Bank and impact the migration paths of the salmon.

It now appears that Port Metro Vancouver does not want a panel review. It appears that they are trying to convince you that the work it has done is sufficient, so there is no need to waste money on a panel review. Why - because it seems that PMV wants to avoid a credible science-based approach that will require them and their captive consultants to carry out a rigorous review of the many scientific papers and reports. They are trying to avoid as much scrutiny as possible because the more that this project is analyzed the more that it is likely to show that the risks to the environment are too great and that mitigation is simply not possible.. That is why they are desperately trying to avoid a panel review. I would be interested to know if this material -i.e. the Technical Advisory Group work - has been presented already to CEAA. Has it? I am therefore again asking that CEAA come out and state that there will be a full independent panel review. Nothing less will be credible in the eyes of the public. Please confirm receipt and advise.

Roger Emsley

Sent from my iPad

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Date: November 30, 2013 3:35:57 PM

Dear Sir:

The value of the Fraser Estuary is INCALCULABLE. Any number of containers of cheap imports from Asia cannot justify potential harm to this jewel of an area, and to human well-being and that of fish, wildlife, rivers, oceans and marshlands.

Any disruption (or destruction) of the Pacific Flyway, salmon runs and whale populations would be an indelible blot on the reputation of Canada. Most Canadians believe there is more to life than trade at all costs.

In light of the apparent extreme urgency to gain approval for the T2 project (despite many warnings to the contrary from Environment Canada in the past) - would common sense not dictate that a fully arm's length panel review be done? Perhaps the rush is in order to push approval through while we still have muzzled scientists, and while PMV is in complete control of the environmental care of the Fraser Estuary, and before Prince Rupert expands any further.

Add to T2 the cumulative effects of other projects currently being discussed - U.S. coal exports via the Fraser, jet fuel tankers up the Fraser, not to mention the possibility of tankers on our coast exporting oil and LNG, it seems critical that the best possible scientific examination should be applied.

Let us make sure we consider T2 with all due diligence available to us (and in light of the whole picture of all possible projects on our coast). We are responsible for our country and our world and we decide what kind of legacy we leave for future generations.

Please ensure that a full panel environmental review is conducted.

Angela Emsley

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Date: November 28, 2013 12:38:12 PM

Amy-Jo Every

Surrey, BC

Email:

To: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project,

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency,

410-701 West Georgia Street,

Vancouver, BC, V7Y 1C6

Fax: 604-666-6990

[email protected]

November 28, 2013

Dear Sir/Madam:

Subject: Roberts Bank Container Terminal 2 – Draft Environmental Impact

Statement Guidelines – Public Comment Period commencing November 8 2013.

Lower Mainland.

Coal is one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. I do not support putting more of this waste product of our society into our atmosphere. The fate of our civilization, in the not too distant future, depends on our ability to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. We have the technologies to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. It’s time to move onto something else.

Thank you.

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Independent panel review for Roberts Bank coal terminal Date: November 21, 2013 12:51:47 PM

To the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

I am writing to urge you to support an independent panel review of the environmental assessment for the Roberts Bank T2 proposal. That coal trains will have a detrimental effect on humans, animals and property in the lower mainland seems obvious. But from a global standpoint, how can we be promoting the burning of vast amounts of coal to produce mountains of trivial junk that no one needs, just so that people who already have too much money can have more. Does this not seem evil? Stand up for what is right.

Yours truly,

Dale R. Evoy White Rock, BC

From: on behalf of To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Cc: Subject: INDEPENDENT Panel Review of the PROPOSED Roberts Bank Container Terminal 2 ! Date: November 21, 2013 9:49:44 AM

Dear Sirs; Given the complexity and potential impact of T2, We believe that it is essential that a proper panel review be carried out. If knowing that the 1979 Independent Panel Review (FEAR report) that turned down port expansion in the very area of Roberts Bank where PMV now wants to build T2 is now enough, please note that the 2005 Environment Canada submission on Deltaport Third Berth which expressed a number of key concerns in respect of any further expansion on Roberts Bank is also missing. The whole of the Fraser Estuary will be impacted as will be the inhabitants of this area. We already suffer from excess rail traffic and the noise and diesel particulate, not to mention the coal dust which continually covers our neighbourhood here in White Rock. Please demand an INDEPENDENT Panel Review of the proposed Roberts Bank Container Terminal 2. Regards Charles and Pat Fast

White Rock, B.C.

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Independent Review Panel Environmental Assessment Date: December 8, 2013 2:56:55 PM Importance: High

Judy Emily Williams/ Evelyn Feller, Co-Chairs, Fraser River Coalition

December 8, 2013

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 410-701 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, BC V7Y 1C6 Telephone: 604-666-2431 Fax: 604-666-6990

[email protected]

Re: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 (T2) Project – Registry #80054

Terminal 2 at Roberts Bank requires an independent Review Panel Environmental Assessment for the following reasons:

Our Coastal waters particularly within the reach of the Fraser River plume, need more protection against invasive acts which will impact juvenile salmon, resident killer whales, migrating humpback whales, migratory birds and the Tswawwassen resident heronry birds so close to the proposed T2 or Terminal 2 site.

At this point in time or for the foreseeable future, we do not need and must not risk the health of resident and transient, migratory species both in water and air. Herein, I reference two studies that have been studying the Orcas in the area of the T2 proposal. One found that ships plying our coastal and estuarine waters is interfering with orca communications and female pod leaders have been mysteriously dying off. It is thought that the noise of ships is somehow interfering with their communications. The other was in today’s news about Orca’s hunting in silence so they can better hear their prey which will also not happen if too many ships are operating in the area.

There are so many issues and reasons that the port expansion should not happen which we are sure an independent review panel environmental assessment will make public. For example, why does this government persist in encouraging the transport and accommodation of throwaway goods and dirty fuels such as coal in a time when lack of petroleum is going to radically change our ability to import everything from food to automobiles? We must save our precious Delta farmlands not only for migratory wildlife, but also for feeding ourselves when the day arrives which will make the importing of foods cost prohibitive!

Most sincerely yours,

Judy Williams, Co-Chair, Fraser River Coalition Evelyn Feller, Co-Chair, Fraser River Coalition

December 7, 2013

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Canadian Environmenal Assessment Agency 410-701 West Georgia Street Vancouver, BC V7Y 1C6

Dear Sirs, Re: Port Metro Vancouver’s Roberts Bank Container Terminal 2 Project

Following my research on the website, www.ceaa-acee.c.ca, other literature and meetings,I am concerned about the impact of the proposed Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project on myself, my family and community. I live on the delta and am still concerned.

I am not satisfied that the currently proposed environmental assessment will be in the best interest of human life and air quality, and also on marine life and estuary health – my community area

Given the nature of the project and required environmental assessment into the complexities and potential impact of T2, I believe it is essential that a proper independent panel review be established and carried out.

I would appreciate an acknowledgement and response to my email.

Thank you,

Christine Gangnon

From: michael gildersleeve To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Re. Roberts Bank Terminal 2 (T2) Project, Registry #80054 Date: December 8, 2013 11:57:21 PM

My address:

The following are a list of my concerns about this project and also my request for an Independent Review Panel Assessment.

I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Robets Bank Terminal 2 Project.

This level of industrial expansion in a significantly environmentally sensitive area is wrong. Roberts Bank is recognized as a Western Hemispheric shorebird Reserve Network. The Fraser River Delta is habitat of global significance for migratory birds of the Pacific Flyway. Roberts Bank is located in the middle of the Fraser River Delta RAMSAR site. This area is Glabal Importan Bird Area under Birdlife International. The T2 project will degrade salmon and other fish habitat. This project will degrade habitat of endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales. The T2 project will degrade the habitat of Western Sandpipers. I believe that a credible cumulative effects assessment is necessary. There is no business justification for Terminal 2. There will be socal impacts of noise, light and air pollution. There will be social impacts from increase in rail and truck traffic. I am totally opposed to any further loss of prime agricultural land from road or port expansion or container storage facilities. I am opposed to Port Metro Vancouver building a second container terminal at Delta port with three new berths - effectively doubling the current container facility. Please ensure that there is a full Independent Review Panel Assessment. Sincerely, Mike Gildersleeve Mission, BC

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: DeltaPort Terminal @ project commentary Date: December 6, 2013 11:32:32 AM

Commentary on Roberts Bank Terminal 2 proposal By Wilma Haig

Delta BC

December 6th, 2013 I am completely opposed to any further expansion of Deltaport in this location. It has been made clear to me that no believable business case has been made for such a proposal. Container traffic is not growing at the rate Port Metro Vancouver claims it is, making this expansion unnecessary now and in the foreseeable future. Roberts Bank is a vital part of one of the most important ecosystems on the West Coast. As was noted by Environment Canada in the assessment of Terminal 1, Third Berth, there is a very real possibility that the Pacific flyway for migratory birds will be broken at this vital link in its chain. This would be a major embarrassment to Canada in the world community. Expansion of an inner Vancouver Harbour terminal would be preferable but PMV refuses to do so. This port is in the estuary of a major salmon river and is a vital link in the Pacific flyway, as previously mentioned. As such, its agricultural land needs to be protected for present and future generations. We are currently growing less than half of the food we eat and global warming demands that we make sure future generations can feed themselves. PMV’s CEO seems to believe we should import that food through Deltaport. This is foolish in the extreme, given the current world food crisis. We have a responsibility to feed ourselves so other countries can too. There is simply no good reason for insisting on further destruction of Roberts Bank. Please reject this project.

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Date: December 7, 2013 9:51:38 AM

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

410-701 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, BC V7Y 1C6

Telephone: 604-666-2431 Fax: 604-666-6990

December 6, 2013

[email protected]

Re: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 (T2) Project – Registry #80054

Terminal 2 at Robert Bank requires an Independent Review Panel Environmental Assessment for the following reasons:

· The Fraser River Delta is habitat of global significance for migratory birds of the Pacific Flyway.

· It is a Global Important Bird Area under Birdlife International.

· Roberts Bank is recognized as a Western Hemispheric Shorebird Reserve Network.

· Shorebirds show evidence of serious decline and wetlands are imperiled.

· Roberts Bank is located in the middle of the Fraser River Delta RAMSAR site.

· The T2 Project will Degrade Habitat of Western Sandpipers.

· The T2 Project will Degrade Salmon and other Fish Habitat

· The T2 Project will Degrade Habitat of endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales

· There is no business justification for Terminal 2.

· There are alternatives for the container business.

· A credible cumulative effects assessment is necessary.

· There will be social impacts of noise, light and air pollution.

· There will be social impacts from increase in rail and truck traffic.

Kind regards, Frank Harris

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Roberts bank terminal2 project opposition submission Date: November 21, 2013 6:29:24 PM

I am totally opposed to the Robert’s bank terminal 2 project. A lot of my concerns are based on the inefficient & poor existing operation of the coal port and coal trains. Our family have been residents of Ladner since the early 1960’s .I have complained many times regarding the unprotected coal dust that lands on our property and have been totally ignored! ; The house has to be scrubbed annually since the coal port was established and the excess of coal dust particles are airborne and land onto our residence , it also has to be painted more frequently from all the coal dust particles. Our farm property is in the agriculture land reserve and we have animals that are being affected health wise I think the coal dust is affecting our families health as well ; I would gladly discuss this aspect with you. The coal dust lands on our crops and definitely has adversely affected the production . I believe that an oak tree in our front field is dying from the coal dust! Can management not put covers on the trains like they do in other countries to alleviate the dust? Or do they really care? The ground surrounding our house & barn actually shakes at times( but not always), from some of the trains that speed in middle of the night ;this affect our sleep patterns and I am sure our health because of interrupted sleep. I would be pleased to show any person( other than an unbiased representative of Roberts bank)around our property. The road patterns have greatly affected the quality of life on the whole of 34B ave in Ladner especially in front of our house on the curve, also the closure of 57b ave that has forced the truck traffic and rat running vehicles on our quiet country road which incidentally is only 30 feet wide and should never be used as it now is! If you measured the road and observed the conditions I am certain you or any person on your committee would agree. I would hope that there will be an INDEPENDENT UNBIASED panel with public input APPOINTED VERY SOON. If the present operation is used as an example of how a port is operated or how coal is transported.... what a dismal future! And dismal failure! I hope to see terminal2 stopped immediately! Thank you Walter Hayward

Delta, B.C.

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: RE: Terminal 2 Project Delta, BC Date: December 1, 2013 12:46:45 PM

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

Given the complexity of the T2 development, the risk to the environment, the potential to break the chain of the Pacific Flyway as well as the associated negative socio-community impacts this must be the highest level of environmental assessment possible - an independent panel review. My understanding is the Delta municipality is also calling for an independent review.

Anything less than independent environmental panel review will not provide the degree of scientific scrutiny required to shed light on the very real and significant risks associated with Terminal 2

I understand that Port Metro Vancouver has spent in the order of $200 million on their own biased research. This was short sighted, though understandable given the desire for Port Metro Vancouver's desire to have T2. Given that Port Metro Vancouver is facing the most educated public in the world's history (the last few generations have been university educated and that we currently live in the age of information), this biased assessment is not acceptable. Given the fact, that the Canadian pacific West coast public has a history of environmental activism this biased assessment is not acceptable. Given that the public and honest, ecological scientists are aware that the world is experiencing human induced climate change that is resulting in the unprecedented plant, insect, and animal extinction and the collapsing of these populations that we , humans and our food supply depend on, this biased assessment is not acceptable. Therefore I reject the port's biased assessment and can only accept an independent , environmental assessment done by honest, credible, environmental scientists to give an honest conclusion about the environmental impact that the proposed Terminal 2 will have on the Pacific Fly Way and Roberts bank and the human, animal, insect etc populations within the area of proposed T2 .

Additionally, before T2 is going to be considered , I as a citizen want to know what is going to be shipped in and out of T2 on truck, train and ship. I wanted to know about what toxic materials will be shipped and I want to know what materials are not environmentally sustainable as well because of the plant, insect, human, and animal populations etc.that are located near the proposed terminal as well as those more distant as wind carries particulates. As a person living near T1 , I am already experiencing impacts from the coal in T1 in terms of a serious allergy. As a result I am not impressed. Thank you, Gladys Heggart,

, Delta , BC,

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Comments on Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Date: December 8, 2013 10:31:25 PM

To whom it may concern; I was just recently made aware that the CEAA Draft Guidelines for the preparation of an EIS for the Port of Metro Vancouver Terminal Expansion are due today, and I am concerned that the issues of 1) underwater noise and 2) increased physical disturbance associated with increased vessel traffic are not fully addressed in the current guidelines. As best as I can tell from a quick review, there is no specific mention of the issue of underwater noise and how it will increase in the face of increased shipping associated with the port [1] development. Underwater noise can have significant impacts on marine animals , as can increased physical disturbance, both of which are likely to be a concern given the increased levels of vessel traffic associated with the project. This issue is particularly compelling given that the expansion will take place in Critical Habitat for SARA listed Southern Resident Killer Whales.

In Section 5.6 Project Components, there is mention of the need to describe marine traffic (including number, type, size, weight and capacity of vessels including approximate timing of arrivals and departures at the marine terminal and tug basin). However, there is no mention of quantifying underwater noise levels at source, nor of the additive impacts of increased vessels transiting the area. Section 5.7 on Project Activities does not specifically address vessel traffic, or the incremental increase in traffic that will result from the development. Again, increased vessel traffic can dramatically increase underwater noise levels in the soundscape and will also increase the likelihood of physical disturbance for marine mammals such as killer whales. Section 6 on the Scope of the Project does not specifically identify the approach channel for both the marine terminal and tug basin is, and this is a concern given that the area is within Southern Resident Killer Whale Critical Habitat. Section 9.1.4 on marine water quality fails to mention underwater noise, and omits an emerging environmental threat that has been identified in other areas. For example, the European Union Marine Strategy Framework Descriptor 11 on underwater noise states that it is a component of marine environmental quality (Good Environmental Status), and has identified target levels for sound exposure levels to be attained by 2020. This is a binding regulation that specifically mentions noise and is a major effort in addressing underwater noise at a large scale. While it is worthwhile to note that baseline ambient in-air noise levels appear to be a focus of the EIS, the need to establish baseline underwater noise levels is not specifically mentioned, although this data is currently being collected by the port. More importantly is the need to mitigate underwater noise associated with increased vessel traffic should the port expansion take place. I hope that you will consider these comments as you redraft the guidelines for the EIS. Sincerely, Kathy Heise

1 For example, Hawkins, A.D., A.N. Popper, and M. Wahlberg 2008. International Conference on the Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life. (Editors). Bioacoustics 17: 350 pp.

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: T2 INDEPENDANT PANEL REVIEW Date: December 8, 2013 6:17:40 PM

Dear CEAA,

Recent material put out by Port Metro Vancouver on the findings of their technical advisory group process, paints an overly optimistic picture of the environmental effects of T2 on the Roberts Bank ecosystem, by minimizing the risks of T2. A panel review of the T2 proposal is necessary.

ANYTHING LESS THAN AN INDEPENDANT PANEL REVIEW WILL NOT PROVIDE THE DEGREE OF SCIENTIFIC SCRUTINY REQUIRED TO SHED LIGHT ON THE VERY REAL AND SIGNIFICANT RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH T2.

Further review and investigation is needed for the following reasons.

1. Biofilm, Infauna and Shorebirds.

Several recent studies demonstrate that the biofilm is an essential and central part of the diet for migratory and shorebirds. Take that biofilm away - or damage it -and the western sandpiper species will collapse. The Pacific Flyway will be broken. This cannot be mitigated. We will witness major ecosystem destruction - all for a port development.

2. Southern Resident Killer Whales - the Orcas.

Several recent studies have indicated that the Orcas are in trouble, that amongst other things the vessel noise is changing the communication patterns of all whales in the area. We cannot afford to reduce our whale population any further.

3. Coastal Geomorphology.

The change in tidal flows and resultant scouring effect of a man-made island out in Georgia Strait, will change the whole Roberts Bank and impact the migration paths of the salmon.

We must aim to preserve the magnificent environment that exists in this area.

Please consider the adverse and irreversible effects that T2 will have if it goes ahead without further review of the environmental impacts.

A detailed independent panel review is urgently required.

Sincerely

Julie Hobart

for Terminal 2.

· There are viable alternatives for the container business.

· A credible cumulative effects assessment is necessary and mandatory.

· There will be negative social and health impacts of noise, light and air pollution.

· There will be negative social and health impacts from increase in rail and truck traffic.

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Date: December 3, 2013 10:07:15 PM

Canadian Environmental Assessment Authority.

I am urging a full panel review of the Roberts Bank terminal 2 project. Given available research, I do no abide by Port Metro's assertion that there will be minimal or mitigatable effects on the environment from the proposed expansion. I am very concerned about the international Pacific Flyway at the delta and believe that preserving this fragile ecosystem is an international obligation. For economic as well as environmental reasons I am concerned about any risk to the habitat and/or migration of BC Salmon emerging from or returning to the River. I am very concerned about the increase in carbon load that the proposed terminal will dump into the atmosphere through its use. There is a limit to the amount of carbon dioxide that human activities can 'safely' produce and according to the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that limit will be reached within 30 years at our current rate of fossil fuel consumption. This issue will not go away. In 30 years we presumably will have either a greener economy or a climactic crises. Either outcome would likely render the proposed port useless. I am concerned about quality of air issues surrounding the cargo coming to and from the terminal and from an increase in truck, train and shipping traffic coming to and from the area. I am also concerned about the environmental, health and safety risks associated with the inevitable accidents that will occur during the transport of goods to and from the port. These issues have not been adequately addressed by the technical advisory group for Port Metro Vancouver who it must be acknowledged do NOT have a vested interest in a thorough and comprehensive assessment. An independent Panel Review is necessary to provide the scientific scrutiny that this ecologically rich and sensitive area deserves. The CEAA is the body that has been entrusted with that responsibility.

Sincerely, Shirley Ireland

December 6, 2013 File No.: 5450-30

via e-mail: [email protected]

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 410-701 West Georgia Street Vancouver BC V7Y 1C6

To Whom It May Concern:

Re: Feedback on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project

I understand that the public and stakeholders have been invited to review and provide comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project.

On December 5, 2013 the Islands Trust Council passed the following resolution:

That the Islands Trust Council request the Chair to write to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency requesting that Port Metro Vancouver be required to study how the increased marine traffic that would result from the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project would impact the ecosystems, species, and communities of the Salish Sea, including an oil spill risk assessment.

As this project will create capacity for additional shipping traffic in the waterways of the Salish Sea, we are requesting that the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement be broadened. The studies should consider the potential impacts of increased container vessel traffic on the waterways and communities of the Salish Sea and possible strategies to mitigate these impacts. These issues should be considered in environmental assessments of all Gateway Infrastructure projects that enable increased shipping traffic.

The extra effort required to assess the marine traffic impacts of the project is justified in light of the Tanker Safety Expert Panel’s December 2013 report which stated that a recent risk assessment completed for Transport Canada by GENIVAR indicated that the waters around the southern tip of Vancouver Island were one of four areas in Canada with the highest probability of a large spill. The report also stated that the southern coast of British Columbia, including Vancouver Island, was one of two areas in Canada with the highest potential impact from a spill. We request that the studies incorporate topics such as:

• Salish Sea vessel traffic risk assessment. • Risk mitigation options such as a standby rescue tugboat. • Noise and light impacts of increased use of Gulf Island anchorages. • Socio-economic impacts of an oil spill resulting from increased container vessel traffic.

…/2

Bowen Denman Hornby Gabriola Galiano Gambier Lasqueti Mayne North Pender Salt Spring Saturna South Pender Thetis

December 6, 2013 Canadian Environment Assessment Agency Page 2

Overview of Islands Trust

The Islands Trust is a federation of independent local governments that represents 25,000 people living within the Islands Trust Area. The area covers the islands and waters between the British Columbia mainland and southern Vancouver Island. It includes 13 major and more than 450 smaller islands covering 5,200 square kilometres. The Islands Trust has legislated responsibility, through the Islands Trust Act, to cooperate with others to preserve and protect the unique environment and amenities of the Islands Trust Area, for the benefit of all British Columbians.

Under our legislated mandate, the Islands Trust Council has had an interest in marine health and oil spill issues since 1979. The Islands Trust’s concerns about marine protection naturally extend to oil spill prevention and preparedness, and this term Islands Trust Council expressed its deep concern that oil spills could irrevocably damage coastal environments, economies, and communities.

Policy 3.1.9 of the Islands Trust Policy Statement, approved by the British Columbia Minister of Municipal Affairs in 1994, states:

Trust Council encourages actions and programs of other government agencies which: • place priority on the side of protection for Trust Area ecosystems when judgment must be exercised, • protect the diversity of native species and habitats in the Trust Area, and • prevent pollution of the air, land and fresh and marine waters of the Trust Area.

Thank you for your attention to this request. We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Sheila Malcolmson Chair, Islands Trust Council

cc: Islands Trust Area First Nations The Honourable Leona Aglukkaq, Federal Minister of the Environment The Honourable Lisa Raitt, Federal Minister of Transport The Honourable Todd Stone, BC Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure The Honourable Mary Polak, BC Minister of Environment Robin Silvester, President and CEO, Port Metro Vancouver AVICC members Greater Vancouver Regional District Board Bowen Island Municipal Council The Corporation of Delta Council Trevor Jones, BC Nature San Juan County Council Islands Trust Council Islands Trust website

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Port expansion of terminal 2 Date: November 29, 2013 7:50:38 PM

Dear Madam/Sir,

I am writing because I am concerned about the expansion of the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 port. It will have long term and deleterious effects on the environment which includes the health and well being of the human population living in the area. To view the expansion simply as an economic or political issue is short-sighted and reductionistic. You must carry out a thorough and fair review that takes all aspects of the project into account.

Regards,

Moira Izatt

From: on behalf of To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Independent Panel Review for T2 a MUST Date: November 30, 2013 3:37:48 PM

I am writing to urgently request that a Full Independent Panel Review is done regarding T2 at Roberts Bank. I have written to the port many times my concerns about this very precious habitat area which is located in such an important part of the Fraser Delta, also home to the resident and transient Orcas and other migratory whales, salmon, herring, as well as the huge importance of the biofilm located on the foreshore area for all the migratory birds.

The question of the PMV requiring more port space in the lower mainland has been answered by a resounding NO for various reasons due to other terminals expansion in Prince Rupert and the fact that the Panama Canal is being widened as we write has negated any possible question of a need to build another terminal here. The lack of efficiencies is overwhelming on the existing ports (I worked for one of the terminal operators for ten years so have seen it over and over first hand), and to just add more space without the business case is just something that we cannot afford to do ecologically.

Please ensure that this is fully, independently reviewed as it is too important to rely on anything coming from PMV. They are there to promote only one thing and that is the PMV.

Thank you for taking the time to consider our letter.

Sincerely,

Teresa & Rich Jones

Delta, BC

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Roberts Bank Container Terminal 2 Date: December 5, 2013 11:24:17 PM

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Dear Sir/Madam:

While I am pleased that CEAA is requiring an environmental assessment of the proposed Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project, I would urge you to additionally require a full and independent panel review.

Port Metro Vancouver has repeatedly shown its inability or unwillingness to consider anything but the narrowest of environmental and health concerns arising from its projects. Given the location of Roberts Bank -- immediately adjacent to a Ramsar wetland of international significance to Fraser River salmon and migratory birds -- the Terminal 2 Project should be measured against the highest and broadest possible environmental standards.

This project has the potential to create negative and even catastrophic cumulative effects on the salmon fishery and on already-declining populations of many migratory birds. We can't afford to get this wrong.

Yours sincerely,

Deborah Jones Rain Gardens Coordinator Cougar Creek Streamkeepers (North Delta/Surrey BC)

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project - registry reference number 80054 Date: December 6, 2013 11:05:54 PM Attachments: image001.png

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 410-701 West Georgia Street Vancouver, BC V7Y 1C6 Fax: 604-666-6990

December 7, 2013

Subject: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 (T2) Project – Registry Reference 80054

Dear Sir:

I understand that you are seeking public comment concerning the Environmental Assessment that should take place regarding the Terminal 2 Project at Roberts Bank.

I feel very strongly that this Project must be given the highest level of environmental assessment possible –a Review Panel - for the following reasons:

1) Pacific Flyway and the Fraser Estuary

Roberts Bank is a critically important ecosystem and one of the most important areas on the West Coast of North America. It is identified by Bird Life International as one of the top sites under the Global Important Bird Area designation. It is recognized under the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, (WHSRN). May I quote:

“Several million shorebirds pass over the Fraser estuary each year in migration and tens of thousands remain in the winter. The mudflats on Roberts Bank in the centre of the estuary harbor the greatest number of shorebirds. Over 500,000 western sandpipers have been estimated to use the mudflat on a single day in spring migration. The mudflats are many kilometers wide during low tide. The mud teams with tiny invertebrates – in some places over 1000 invertebrates have been tallied in a 10 cm diameter core of mud”.

The central position of Roberts Bank within the Fraser River Estuary can be clearly seen on the following map, courtesy of WHSRN):

The WHSRN also puts this area and the importance of shorebirds into global perspective: “… As "messengers of the skies," their vast migrations teach us the importance of community and environmental stewardship on a hemispheric scale”.

However, all is not well in paradise: ”But over half of all shorebird species show evidence of serious decline, and wetland habitats are imperiled.”

Certainly the wetlands are imperiled at Roberts Bank: What could be worse than a massive Container Port built over top of it, and alienating thousands of acres of waterlot?

Thus Roberts Bank is front and centre of just about the most important ecological system on the whole of the West Coast, and any industrial development impacts it severely. Already, the existing Port with its huge Coal terminal and Container Port (Terminal 1) has severely damaged the ecology of this incredibly important area. To further damage it with another massive Terminal is asking for trouble.

Do we take our responsibility to this marvelous ecosystem seriously, or are we just going to continue to trash it?

And please don’t give us the old Mitigation rubbish: If the wetlands are further compromised by Terminal 2, there is no mitigation possible……if the birds were able to use another piece of wetland they would have done so long ago.

Unfortunately, nature has only endowed this corner of the planet with a tiny slice of the overall coast, as suitable wetlands, and yet we want to industrialize it?

Environment Canada recognized this danger in 2005 during the Third Berth process, which expanded the Terminal by 50%: ”We are concerned that the chain of the Pacific Flyway could be broken for shorebirds at some point given the ongoing economic development in the Delta. This constitutes a major risk for Canada’s environmental reputation and the economic and social benefits derived from wildlife.

Can this made any clearer?

2) Fish and the Fraser River

It is not only the shorebirds which are so dependent on the estuary of the river; of course the Fraser River is the greatest salmon river in the world.

Estuaries are the most productive ecosystems, estimated to produce 12 – 25 tonnes biomass/hectare, compared to say Coastal areas (2.5 – 3.75) or open ocean (0.75).

The Fraser River estuary is the largest on the whole West Coast of North America, at 21,000 hectares; a significant part of this has been alienated already by the port on Roberts Bank.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans have stated that port expansion in this very area would cause irreparable impacts to critical fish habitat of the Fraser River estuary. The estuary is a critical habitat because juvenile salmon need exactly that type of environment to survive and grow. Much damage has already been done by the existing port, and numerous other industrial developments nearby in the river estuary.

Let us not compound the problem

3) Absolutely no need for a bigger Container Port

Port Metro Vancouver makes outrageous claims for future growth in container traffic, to justify the building of this Terminal 2

Historically they have under-estimated existing container terminal capacities whilst over- estimating growth forecasts. To illustrate this, we can look back at the history of the Third Berth Project (of Terminal 1):

- Under-Estimating existing capacity: At the time it was proposed, the existing 2

Berths were claimed (by PMV) to be at capacity, 900,000 TEU, whereas the actual figures provided by the operator, TSI, showed it handling 1,100,000 TEU. Similarly, after the Third Berth was built, supposedly to give a capacity of 1,350,000 TEU, it actually now handles 2,100,000 TEU. - - Over-Estimating Growth forecasts: The current compound annual growth rate for PMV’s container terminals is no more than 3 percent. It is unlikely that PMV’s growth will exceed 3 percent in the next years. Canada’s GDP is hovering around 2 percent and there is a strong correlation between container growth and GDP.

About 20 – 30 years ago, there was a sea change in our own manufacturing industry and also in our trading patterns with other nations; we began to import manufactured goods from Asia and other overseas ports in a big way. Thus for a few years, the container business in Canada experienced stratospheric growth, in terms of % growth per year. The port still uses data from this early growth period to justify continued expansions now, when it is now in a mature phase, with much more sedate growth, i.e. about 2% per year, (last five years).

Almost all of our manufactured goods that we use now, come in from overseas, i.e. in Containers. While this has underpinned the container port in the past, the massive growth they saw a few years ago, when this change in global trade got underway, is not going to continue.

Unless each and every one of us decides to buy twice or three times as many television sets, cars, etc. (every year), as we do now, there is no way, the import growth rate can seriously deviate from the overall GDP growth in Canada.

Imports are likely to lessen as more and more manufacturing facilities move away from Asia and back to North America – a trend that is already underway. Asian economies are slowing and there is increasing competition from US ports. Port Metro Vancouver states that “West Coast container traffic is expected to double over the next 10 to 15 years and triple by 2030” They would need to be expanding at a rate of 7 percent per annum to achieve this. Not likely to happen. Even if Port Metro Vancouver expanded container volumes at 4 percent per year there would still be spare capacity on the West Coast to at least 2030. -

4) Traffic Congestion

The existing Container Terminal has had a massive negative effect on the quality of life of all the people in South Delta. Several thousand monster trucks moving along our roads every day, have made for an awful traffic jam each and every day the port is operating.

To double the number of these monster vehicles, which should not even be on public roads, is insane.

Conclusion

I urge you to give this Project the highest possible level of Environmental Assessment, i.e. a full panel review

Thank you

David Jones

Delta, B.C.

Susan Jones Delta, B.C. V4M 2X8

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 410-701 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, BC V7Y 1C6 Telephone: 604-666-2431 Fax: 604-666-6990 [email protected]

December 6, 2013

Re: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 (T2) Project – Registry #80054

Globally-significant Habitat Requires Independent Review Panel – Valued Components at Risk

As Roberts Bank, B.C. is located at the mouth of the Fraser River, world-renowned for salmon, the international significance of this habitat requires the highest level of environmental assessment which is an independent Review Panel. Not only is the Fraser River significant for salmon but it is also one of the three Most Important Bird Areas in Canada and a Global Important Bird Area under Birdlife International. The area is recognized as a Western Hemispheric Shorebird Reserve Network and scientists, working together to recognize and protect these sites, warn that over half of all shorebird species show evidence of serious decline and that wetlands are imperiled. As Roberts Bank is vital to maintaining healthy populations of shorebirds on the western coasts of the Americas, loss of habitat will degrade the ecological integrity of this region.

Roberts Bank is located in the middle of the Fraser River Delta RAMSAR site which was recognized and declared in 2012. The specific location of the Roberts Bank Terminal was deliberately omitted from the Ramsar declaration leaving a gap in the stretch of the Ramsar habitat stretching from Boundary Bay north across the Serpentine Fen, Burns Bog and the South Arm Marshes to Sturgeon Bank.

It is ironic that a political decision was made to omit the mouth of the Fraser River which is the nucleus of the Ramsar site. The purpose of the omission was to allow Port Metro Vancouver to come forward with plans to dredge and fill the estuary for this Terminal 2 Project.

The Fraser estuary is Canada’s major stopover of the Pacific Flyway where millions of birds rest, feed, and roost traveling between 3 continents including 20 different countries. The Canadian stopover is vital to many species of shorebirds and waterfowl.

T2 Project will Degrade Habitat of Western Sandpipers

As the Fraser River empties into the Strait of Georgia a biofilm is created which is the main source of nourishment for millions of Western Sandpipers. A study published by the Royal Society in May, 2004, discusses two main feeding sites for the Western Sandpipers:

“Two large tidal flats (Boundary Bay and Robert’s Bank; both more than 5000 ha) located 10 km apart on the delta of the Fraser River are known collectively as the ‘Fraser estuary’ stopover site.” 1

“Nearly the entire world’s population of Western Sandpipers migrate along the coast of British Columbia during the spring and autumn movements. During these periods most of the population congregates on the rich tidal mudflats of the Fraser River estuary the last known major stop before south central Alaska… Single flocks of 100,000 Western Sandpipers have been reported to concentrate for a day at Roberts Bank and Iona Island during peak migration.” (The Birds of British Columbia, Volume 2)

According to Audubon:

“Due to a variety of potential threats, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service consider the Western Sandpiper a Species of high concern. The Canadian Wildlife Service classifies it as a species of moderate concern.”

Western Hemispheric Shorebird Reserve Network– Western Sandpiper Conservation Plan, February 2010 v1.1

“CONSERVATION THREATS Western Sandpiper conservation is an issue of concern because, like other shorebird species, a number of features of their ecology make them vulnerable to degradation or loss of the resources on which they depend to accomplish their migrations (Myers et al. 1987). These features include: (1) a tendency to aggregate in a limited number of locations during migration and on the wintering grounds, so that deleterious changes can affect a large proportion of the population at once (Engilis et al. 1998, Butler and Lemon 2001, Bishop et al. 2004); …

HABITAT LOSS AND DEGRADATION Habitat loss and degradation may be the most important threat to Western Sandpipers. A variety of factors result in the loss or degradation of habitats important to shorebirds (Bildstein et al.)

This confirms the importance of Roberts Bank to the survival of the Western Sandpipers. It would be catastrophic to degrade this area.

T2 Project will Degrade Salmon and other Fish Habitat

The estuary provides important links between upland habitats and the Fraser River with waterways, wetlands and vegetation that are vital to the survival of the world-famous salmon runs.

Information from “Aquatic Values and Concerns Regarding Habitat in the Fraser River Estuary Associated with Human Activity and Development” by Marvin Rosenau, 2012:

• More than two billion juvenile salmon spend days, weeks or months in the estuary before going to the ocean—most of any river in the world

• The Fraser River is the largest salmon-producing river along the Pacific Coast

• Sturgeon and eulachon are also high-profile parts of the fish production

• A key feature for the Fraser is that there are about 17 million tonnes of nutrient-rich sediment that pass through and deposit on the delta and into the Strait of Georgia each year (McLean and Tassone 1991). This is in addition to 2-3 million cubic meters of coarser sand.

• Key to the productivity of salmon utilizing the Fraser estuary is the large, shallow tidal flats that are abundant here—fish production is reduced when the young salmon are partially or completely restricted from these rich feeding grounds.

• Large-scale dredging negatively affects the estuary. This does not meet the intention of the Canada Fisheries Act and its no-net-loss policies. Dredging in the Fraser River estuary constitutes a large-scale Canada Fisheries Act Section 35 HADD (Harmful Alteration, Destruction or Disruption of Habitat) and Fisheries and Oceans Canada is failing to meet its statutory mandate in respect to this issue

• Due to the flawed design of Roberts Bank Terminal 1, there is loss of easy access to near-shore feeding habitats for juvenile salmon. This problem will be exacerbated by the Terminal 2 project at Roberts Bank. The project will increase the loss of shallow-water areas for feeding of juvenile salmon and further block access of fish to feeding grounds. Terminal 2 will be, effectively, a dam across the estuary.

T2 Project will Degrade Habitat of endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales

The Southern Resident Killer Whales are a listed species. There is a National Recovery Strategy for the endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcas). Members of this Orca community feed on salmon on Roberts Bank, often between the port and ferry terminals, at least once a week from April to certainly to November, and J Pod potentially all year round; this is not made clear in the VPA’s EAA.

All three Pods (J, K and L) of the Southern Resident Orcas spend the late spring, summer, fall and early winter in Juan de Fuca Strait, Haro Strait, Boundary Pass and southern Georgia Strait. It has been acknowledged by both the American and Canadian governments as well as many Non-Government Organizations in both countries that this area, often called “Orca Pass”, is “critical habitat” for this endangered group of Orcas. Recent studies indicate that vessel noise is negatively impacting communication patterns of whales in Orca Pass.

No Business Justification for Terminal 2

Port Metro Vancouver is using highly inflated projections of container business to move forward on the Terminal 2 Project. There has never been a credible Feasibility Study or Business Case presented to the public. It was never done for the Third Berth Project. Additionally, Port Metro Vancouver refuses to provide specific statistics for Deltaport so there is no transparency of actual container business at Deltaport.

During the Third Berth process, project justification was made on business projections. The lowest case projections for the Deltaport Third Berth have not been realized. PMV forecast 2.8 million TEUs by 2010. This was not achieved then or even in 2012.

Deltaport Third Berth Project Comprehensive Study Report, July 2006, page 37: The following forecasts, in TEUs, for the Vancouver Port Area, are set out in Table 6:.

Year Basis Low Base High

2003 Actual 1.8 1.8 1.8 2005 Projected 2.0 2.1 2.2 2010 “ 2.8 3.1 3.5 2015 “ 3.6 4.3 5.1 2020 “ 4.7 5.3 6.6

These figures do not include Prince Rupert. In 2010 and 2011 PMV handled 2.5 million TEUs, well below the lowest cast forecast of 2.8 million TEUs. In fact, PMV handled 2.5 million TEUs annually from 2007 until 2011 (with a drop to 2.1 in 2009).

There appears to be another agenda at work. As there is no business case, it is rumoured that the new Terminal will be used for another product, maybe coal or oil?

Alternative Means of Carrying out the Project

As there is no business case, there are plenty of options for Port Metro Vancouver to handle growth in the container business. Vanterm and Centerm would like expansions but are being curtailed by Port Metro Vancouver. After spending federal money to upgrade container business at the Surrey docks, Port Metro Vancouver refused to consider that alternative. With a small investment, Surrey Docks can handle 1 million TEUs. Prince Rupert has required infrastructure and could handle increased container business. So trashing the mouth of the Fraser River to build an artificial island for containers, or anything else, makes no sense. Is Port Metro Vancouver just “empire building”? Also, a new container business at Deltaport threatens the existing Terminal One. The terminals will be competitors with a new terminal stealing business from the current operations.

Credibility Issues - Fox in the Henhouse

It is inappropriate to permit a Crown Corporation to do an in-house environmental assessment. There is no public trust with Port Metro Vancouver because there are no checks and balances on its plans and operations. The public is expected to forfeit assets and public funding of related infrastructure to a crown corporation that has no accountability to the public.

The Ministry of Transport claims to have no power and claims that Port Metro Vancouver has to finance its own operations. This is double-speak as public assets are used and the government has provided millions in infrastructure.

2,852 acres of protected provincial waterlot was transferred to the federal government for Port Metro Vancouver in 2004. This was not revealed in the Deltaport Third Berth Environmental Assessment. A Memorandum of Agreement was signed on November 5, 2004, for the B.C. Government to transfer Parcel A, 2,852 acres (1154 ha) to the Government of Canada to be managed by the Vancouver Port Authority. Apparently, in 1999, the land was transferred to the B.C Transportation Financing Authority for port purposes even though there was an Order-In-Council and a Notation of Interest for conservation and plans were underway for the Roberts Bank Wildlife Management Area.

In 1961, this area was protected by a provincial Order-In-Council Reserve 2374. In 1977, the provincial government moved further to protect the Fraser River Estuary including Roberts Bank with Order-In-Council 908.

On August 24, 2004, the VPA made a presentation at a Deltaport Expansion meeting to a group including EC, CEAA, and Transport Canada. The VPA identified, “Critical Requirements for Deltaport Third Berth.” One of these was, “Property Acquisition from B.C. Government.”

These are all public assets – protected habitat that was transferred to Port Metro Vancouver without disclosure.

Bulk Shippers rightfully complain that too much federal money and time is spent on infrastructure for the container business which is only a fraction of B.C.s shipping business. More time and money should be allocated to bulk shipping. There is no balance of federal funding due to political reasons, not business sense.

Scope and Cumulative Effects Assessment

The environmental assessment should be a Review Panel with a very broad scope and an appropriate cumulative effects assessment. The Lower Mainland Gateway Program was outlined by the Gateway Council beginning in 1994. In all, 34 projects have been identified yet these projects have not all been assessed together as was required by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Project Splitting has prevented a proper cumulative effects assessment.

As a number of future interconnected projects are under discussion, they should all be included in the assessment – coal, oil, new bridge and any other secret plans in the works. Scoping of the assessment is important. Port Metro Vancouver always claims the assessment can only cover the area of the Project. As the Project will affect adjacent land and infrastructure, the Scope should include responsibility beyond the waterlots to impacts on Delta, Richmond, Surrey and Langley. The Scope should include other interconnected projects. It should include impact on air quality adjacent to the project and up the Fraser Valley.

The Deltaport Third Berth should have been a Review Panel. Internal emails revealed that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Office advised that the Project warranted a Review Panel because Port Metro Vancouver had shown intent to build Terminal Two. Lawyers from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans intervened to prevent a Review Panel and advised Port Metro Vancouver how to avoid a Review Panel. This type of political interference is shocking:

----OriginaI Message----- From: LaRusc,Adam [PYR) Sent: October 18, 2004 2:18 PM To: Walls,Lisa [PYRI Subject: Deltaport - T2 and Cumulative Effects Hi Lisa, I got a phone message from Georgina this morning who sat in on the call between VPA and DFO on the issue of T2 and the cumulative effects assessment. According to Georgina, the outcome is that VPA will be drafting a letter for review by DFO legal and EC on the issue. More on this after I speak with Georgina in person tomorrow. 5

Cheers Adam Adam La Rusic, PEng Sr Environmental Assessment Engineer Environmental Protection Branch Environment Canada

From: Walls,Lisa [PYR) Sent: October 18, 2004 3:01 PM To: LaRusic,Adam [PYR] Subject: RE: Deltaport - T2 and Cumulative Effects I just spoke with Darrell. He confirmed that we will receive a copy of the draft letter for review. Apparently VPA was presented with 3 options: (i) leave T2 in the CE assessment and recommend referral to Panel; (ii) remove T2 from CE I assessment and go back out for consultation: (iii) letter from VPA explaining uncertainty with respect to T2 and continuation as Comp Study wihout T2 but no need to consult on the change. I said this was a bit more definitive than what we had discussed on Friday. Lisa

Responsible Authorities

It is important that there be a number of Responsible Authorities under an Environmental Assessment. The Environmental Assessment of the South Fraser Perimeter Road failed to appoint Environment Canada as a Responsible Authority even though Species at Risk were impacted by the Project. The assessment also failed to disclose that federal port lands were included in the Project.

As Terminal 2 will have major impacts on Fish Habitat, Migratory Birds and Endangered Species, both Environment Canada and the Department of Fisheries should be Responsible Authorities. As the project will impact the public with noise, light and air pollution, Health Canada should also be a Responsible Authority.

Mitigation, Monitoring and Compensation

There is no monitoring, mitigation or compensation that can justify the major damage that will be done by building a man-made island at the mouth of the Fraser River for shipping purposes. The destruction and pollution will be severe. Digging channels elsewhere and removing logs are meaningless, unscientific measures that cannot justify willful loss of internationally-significant habitat. In the case of the Third Berth, no credible science was ever provided to the public to prove that compensation and mitigation measures were effective. The money went to government-friendly organizations that appear to work in tandem with the federal and provincial governments to present a veneer to the public. The same groups appear on many government-related projects. The whole issue of mitigation and compensation lacks credible science.

It appears that Port Metro Vancouver is already “Banking Habitat Compensation”. Log removal at Boundary Bay was done in a Wildlife Management Area. Hiding places for small mammals and Snowy Owls were lost. Now people are invading the cleared space with mountain bikes, dogs and even drones - so much for Habitat Banking. It was actually Habitat Destruction.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency should not be hoodwinked by these measures. They were done without public consultation and without scientific information. Similarly, Port Metro Vancouver is making a big public show of so-called scientific studies in hopes that CEAA will think the science is already in place to justify major habitat destruction. Unfortunately, Port Metro 6

Vancouver works mainly with one company to do all the studies so there is no independent studying going on. An environmental company and a university program cannot afford to “bite the hand that feeds them.” The scientific studies should be independent. Otherwise they lack credibility.

Review Panel is the only way to go

There are so many issues related to building a man-made island at the mouth of the Fraser River. It is difficult to understand why we are even looking at this when one considers historic warnings about potential adverse environmental impacts that cannot be reversed, cannot be mitigated and cannot be compensated. There isn’t even a business case for this Project. Past warnings by experts should not be ignored. If the Terminal 2 Project proceeds, there will be significant adverse environmental consequences and the Fraser Delta ecosystems will be severely degraded.

Yours sincerely,

Susan Jones

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Roberts bank port expansion Date: December 1, 2013 4:42:24 PM

There should most definitely be an full environmental assessment of this proposal. The original coal port has dramatically changed the area already, and expanding out to create another plot of land out in the Straight will further change the way the currents work in the area, not to mention the higher ship traffic. We live in sight and sound of the coal port and every year there is more dust on and in our houses, more continuous night time noise from trains and generators. If it bothers us, it most certainly is having an effect on the birds, sea life and whales. We are opposed to the port expansion. Susan Kam Tsawwassen Beach

Sent from my iPad

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 (T2) Project - Registry #80054 Date: December 7, 2013 11:49:49 PM

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 410-701 W. Georgia St. Vancouver B.C. V7Y 1C6 Telephone: 604-666-2431 Fax: 604-666-6990

Dec.6, 2013

Terminal 2 at Roberts Bank requires an Independent Review Panel Assessment for the following reasons:

The Fraser River Delta is habitat of global significance for migratory birds on the Pacific Flyway. It is an Important Bird Area under Birdlife International. T2 Project would damage habitat for Western Sandpipers, salmon and the endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales. There is no business justification for Terminal 2 and there are alternatives if necessary. There would be social impacts of noise, light and air pollution. There would be social impacts from increase in rail and truck traffic.

Marilynn King

Delta B.C.

Dear Mr./Ms. CEAA Assessor: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Proposal Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Vancouver, BC.

Re: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Proposal - Comments on Draft Nov. 2013 Guidelines for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement ( EIS).

I have a number of major concerns related to this proposed massive project in one of our most sensitive and productive habitats in Canada and offer the following comments on the CEAA draft guidelines issued for PMV to do an environmental impact statement related to this project in the Fraser River Estuary. They are as follows:

A. Improved Public Consultation: I discovered your above document and opportunity for comment from other sources i.e. other than from CEAA. I would like to believe that if one has taken the time to present a significant written comment to CEAA on this issue in the recent past, CEAA could at least develop a list of concerned entities and at least contact them directly that a new report is available for reviews and there is a deadline for comments. Although I have put in considerable effort into providing comments to PMV and CEAA, I received no such notice from CEAA. That is most unfortunate in that most of us should not have to monitor your websites to see what is CEAA doing next. It is recommended that CEAA develop a better public consultation communications list in that many have shown a great interest in this project and need to be communicated with on a more direct and efficient basis.

B. Level of Review: This opportunity to review your draft guidelines for the preparation of the RB T2 EIS made no mention of what type of review is required or will be followed. It would be good toknow that when one reviews the document. Should that now have been established in that the degree of impact and the public interest is well known and PMV has jumped the gun and is doing a great deal of work to possibly diminish the need for more comprehensive review and the highest level assessment. They have indeed assumed an approval is in order in that they have been been developing side agreements with DFO on compensation without public review and aggressively 'building' replacement habitat (ie cleanup of log debris in Boundary Bay) when many of us and many experts feel no compensation is possible. Also the type of replacement habitat they are now developing to accumulate habitat credits is rather

invalid and not applicable to this proposed giant fill project in the middle of the Fraser River Estuary.

A Public Panel Review should have been announced by now so as to properly drive the TofR for any work and avoid just giving what appears to be guidance to PMV. It simply is not rocket science to determine the massive impacts this project will have and a full and properly established Public Panel review is essential and must be established as soon as possible. In fact the impacts will be of such a great magnitude this guideline should insist on a rationale why the Canadian public should accept a project of this sort in such a key habitat area in one of our most valuabe fish and wildlife areas in Canada if environmental protection is to mean anything in Canada.

C . History of Reviews: I was first involved in Roberts Bank 1 in 1969 when with the Fisheries Research Board of Canada sampled the sediments around the initial fill site for baseline sediment data. No proper EIA was done for that initial massive fill project and impact on the estuary. Since then some 45 years have passed and I have been involved to some degree with each development at Roberts Bank whether its was for additional fill, causeway work or container port development and expansion. Most of these works after the initial coal port was developed with many studies, public meetings, hearings and years of monitoring and ongoing attempts to mitigate impacts and develop compensation works. Why would all of this not be properly summarized.

Should we not know what did or did not work and where do we sit after 45 years of anthropogenic impacts to Roberts Bank? As part of that each project expansion must be outlined in some detail and then the impact reviews summarized and the success of PMV in addressing those impacts to this very day eg. the impact of birds hitting above ground power lines and the port/causeway blocking water and fish movement. PMV has been known for claiming that certain past impacts will be addressed in any new development. Past impacts and mitigation of those impacts have to be added to the new impacts and feasible mitigation works.

D. Cumulative Impacts and Strength of the Review: In meetings with PMV, their staff have clearly stated that in any expansion they would address the need for complete cumulative impact analyses. This relates to Point C and I find this requirement to be central to CEA Act intentions and I see that as a definite weakness in your Draft EIS Guidelines for doing a proper and full EIS. In some of the CEAA language the draft guidelines are weak. It is often stated that the proponent "should" do this or "should" address that. This is not good enough. The wording in this document must be 'must' or a 'shall'.

The impacts of this proposal are massive and the impacts of the past filling in this key and essential estuarine habitat area has yet to be understood. It affects the salmon for the entire Fraser River system and the impacts will affect birds of an international flyway. The cumulative impacts must accordingly address that type of 'global' concern. Just trying to look at biofilm on a certain area of the mudflat and pretend that it is being protected and therefore the impact is minimal is totally minimalistic in thinking and totally unacceptable. Also in that the Fraser River Estuary has been greatly impacted

by a hundreds of different environmentally harmful developments since the 1860s, this has to all be put into the temporal and spatial perspective. I do not see that intent or need described in this guideline for an EIS.

In terms of the spatial factors (section 7.2) it is noted that "the EIS will establish the boundaries of the EIA". Further to the above, I strongly feel that is the role of CEAA. PMV will of course develop a narrow temporal and spatial boundary for their work. That is not to be left to their judgement or imagination. Why would the final review panel have to deal with an inadequate EIS? A greater degree of leadership must be shown by the agencies and CEAA and not let PMV set the boundaries after 'consultation' with the public. Where is the accountability in this near voluntary approach?

Cumulative impacts must examine (along with American authorities) the maximum overall risk and noise / traffic that can be allowed in the Gulf of Georgia and Juan de Fuca so as to at least protect marine life (eg. whales) to a minimum pre - determined level.

F. Public Values and Concerns: Why in all of your colour coded tables/graphics do you always leave the Public Concern box for Baseline Conditions blank? This diminishes the public role and concerns in this assessment. Do the public not have baseline concerns as stated more strongly in the past than by any other group relative to this project? Do the public not stand for certain values that seem to be ignored? Do the public and the many stewardship groups DFO and EC helped establish to do the job (that government no longer does) not be acknowledged in such graphic representations?

G. Government Responsibility: Again CEAA advertised the government agenda by repeating the daft phase about better protection, better enforcement etc. This greatly diminishes your role in that this is politics and not science. Your overview guideline paper should also outline how the greatly diminished role of government will relate to this process and if approved its implementation in that Environment Canada and DFO is not what it was a few years ago. In the past DFO and CWS could be relied upon to do massive amounts of work to address such high risks as expected from projects as RB T2. Is this guideline and whatever expectations you have for PMV and their hired consultants to now replace what was a great pool of government expertise in science, fisheries and wildlife issues? How will government respond to this draft guideline and the overall process? That is a key issue that CEAA must address if this public concern is to be addressed in this project proposal. Finally who will do the review of what statute requirement do we still have in place after the so called new Fisheries Act and associated legislatation was changed in 2012. That is key to this review to set it tone and expectations. Simply asking PMV to list all the relevant legislation, policy etc will not do the job.

H. Cargo Identification as Related to Risk: I find it ironic that CEAA feels PMN has to review what cargo (P 11 Scope of Project) will be handled in this container port proposal. To date PMV has made it very clear (in the Vancouver Airport Fuel Delivery Project - jet fuel tankers in the Fraser River - a high risk project that CEAA determined was not a significant project to be reviewed) that they had no business reviewing what was in in ship. Their only role was to assure ship safety. Do you now expect PMV to do a flip flop and study what are relative safe cargoes and ignore highly flammable and toxic material in tankers in this same estuary? You may not want to relate to this point but this indicates a real problem in addressing environmental risk and an extreme weakness in the CEAA process.

I. Fish Migration and Use of Roberts Bank: I feel that the fish issues are not adequately high lighted in this guideline for an EIS. What PMV has proposed will greatly aggravate what they have done in the past and I see them proposing nothing to reverse past impacts but to add to them. This again is not properly reflected in the real cumulative impact study needs in this EIS guide. What PMV has proposed is a massive fence to prevent fish from moving south and as far as I can see PMV has to some degree pre - empted the EIA and EIS process by already developing compensation habitat in Boundary Bay - a site their proposal will obstruct fish from finding. Also they are now developing habitat credits for marsh clean-up to probably replace sub tidal water mudflat loss. This replacement of unlike for unlike at an off site location which their project will obstruct juvenile salmon from migrating to is without merit and has to be now addressed in this CEAA review. PMV has jumped the gun to predetermine what should be done while CEAA is following in distant second place and that is not in the public interest.

In that the various fisheries use this area for salmon, crab etc. harvest, I do not see where and how that impact will be addressed and the type of compensation that must be offered to those that are impacted by the loss of fishing opportunities and income.

J. Level of Impact (and Review needs) The nature of the massive impact of this project and this EIA directive document is not adequately addressed in this draft statement. This draft EIS terms of reference needs appears to treat this review as it would any other in terms of it's magnitude of impact. Nowhere in the past 100 years will we see such a massive impact on the Fraser River Estuary and associated ecosystem areas other than from the original Roberts Bank port development( of some 45 years ago) and the massive dyking system that has cut of much of the estuary from its original

wetlands. This should beS guidelines reflected in the tone of the importance of this EIA and EIS and the type of Public Panel Review it needs?

Conclusion: The EIS guideline and EA review can only be reviewed with significant suspicion in that CEAA has a requirement (as noted in this EIS guideline) that PMV must "demonstrate that all aspects of the project have been examined and planned in a careful and precautionary manner in order to ensure that they would not cause serious or irreversible damage to the environment" . Anyone with a brief education in fish, wildlife and estuary biology or in sediment and water movement etc. knows that this cannot and will never be done at this location! This EIS guideline seems to pretend that this reality can be ignored and to assume that any damage and permanent destruction of habitat can be mitigated and compensated for. This amounts to a cruel public hoax. This issue has to be now addressed or this review will be a charade. There is no science solution to this challenge as based on what is "feasible and economical".

Sincerely yours

Otto E. Langer Aquatic and Fisheries Biologist

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA]; EAO-INFO Subject: Roberts Bank Terminal Expansion Threatens Wildlife Habitats Date: December 4, 2013 12:30:33 PM

December 4, 2013

To: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency ([email protected]), BC Environment Assessment Office([email protected]) From: Peter Hamilton, Lifeforce Foundation Re: Environmental Assessment of Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project

On behalf of the Vancouver based ecology organization, Lifeforce, we are pleased that CEAA announced on November 8th “The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has determined that a federal environmental assessment is required for the proposed Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. And “Guidelines for the proposed Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project are being issued for a 30-day public comment period.”

In 2005, the BC government agreed: Dear Peter Hamilton: I refer to my earlier email today. After having consulted with federal review agencies, I accept your original comments by fax of 12 December 2005 as valid review comments, as they are perceived to have relevance to the cumulative effects assessment and the amended Application chapter 23. I have therefore forwarded your comments to the proponent. Thank you for your interest in this project review.

Jan E. Hagen Project Assessment Director Environmental Assessment Office

Lifeforce has contacted Provincial and Federal Governments to support thorough environmental studies. On behalf of the Lifeforce Foundation I support a full environment impact assessment based on:

1. Previously the Environment Canada’s response to the Canadian Environmental Assessment process criticize the expansion at Delta Port marine container facility. The report stated: “EC has adopted the position that the risk of eutrophication within the intercauseway cannot be dismissed. If it does occur, the state of eutrophication is predicted to result in such massive environmental change between the causeways that there would be public outrage as well as agency embarrassment at an international scale, not to mention the loss of productive habitat for a very large and diverse assemblage of biota.”

2. The proposed expansions of the Vancouver Port Authority facility at Roberts Bank will result in the loss of precious marine habitat, essential for a diversity of animals, birds and fish. Increased vehicle and ship traffic will also have many negative effects on this sensitive ecosystem.

3. For over a decade Lifeforce has studied the behaviour and travel patterns of the Southern Orca Community. Some of these studies were conducted under a DFO research permit. These orcas have been designated as an endangered species. The area where Deltaport is located is a very important habitat for them and must be protected for their survival. During most of the year J pod travels in these waters. From approximately May to October, J pod is joined by K pod and L pod. Other threatened populations of orca and marine mammals are also found in this area.

The negative impacts on endangered orcas include: lack of education of ship operators when orcas are present that can result in stress, ship strike and possible injury/death; construction noise that would interrupt their lifestyles and could cause fatal injuries (such as hearing trauma); release of contaminants during construction affecting their health; increase of ship traffic resulting in noise and water pollution that can lead to poor health/death; and long term impacts that can affect food availability and the orcas' historic use of this habitat.

Ship pollution problems sent to Delta Port and Westshore from Lifeforce have not been fully answered. The cumulative impact of these two industries and the ferry terminal all in the same fragile ecosystem must be addressed.

Example of ship pollution issues at Delta Container Port and Westshore Terminals:

From: Lifeforce [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 1:20 PM To: David Crook Subject: Coal Vessels

Hi David Crook:

I thought you had advise me that coal ships can only run 5 out of every 30 minutes. On Aug 10th the Global Partnership started at approx. 10 AM and was still running when I had to go at 10:45. I would appreciate you feedback. The ship appeared to be on excessively for the 10th and 11th with mainly black emissions.

I look forward to your response.

From: David Crook Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:26 PM To: Lifeforce Subject: RE: Westshore Terminals Hi Peter,

Both pictures relate to vessels making smoke. The first is fairly obvious, the second not so much so. In the second picture, the smoke emanated from the orange smoke-stack at the top of the white bridge structure of a ship at the container berth.

The release of smoke by ships is under regulations issued by Transport Canada which among other things does allow for some release of smoke for four minutes in every thirty minutes.

Regards David Crook, P.Eng. Manager, Engineering and Environmental Services, Westshore Terminals LP

4. Since many endangered species would be harmed the Species at Risk Act must protect them. There are a diversity of cetaceans (such as Humpbacks, Minkes, Harbour porpoises, and more), sea lions, seals, and marine/terrestrial birds.

For example, the following species of concern were listed for recent pile driving at nearby Point Roberts:

Re: Endangered Species Act Section 7 Informal Consultation and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for Whatcom County Parks and Recreation Boat Launch and Dock Replacement at Point Roberts NWS- 2012-453 (6th Field HUC 171100020101 – Point Roberts-Frontal Strait of Georgia) August 2, 2012, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) submitted a Memorandum for the Services (MFS) and Biological Evaluation (BE) for the above referenced project. The COE requested NMFS’ concurrence with the “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” determination for the species and habitat listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of Findings for ESA Listed Species Common Name Scientific Name ESA Status Effects Determination Puget Sound (PS) Chinook Salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Threatened 70 FR 37160 May affect, not likely to adversely affect PS Chinook Critical Habitat Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Designated 70 FR 52630 May affect, not likely to adversely affect PS Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss Threatened

72 FR 26722 May affect, not likely to adversely affect Bocaccio Sebastes paucispinis Endangered 75 FR 22276 May affect, not likely to adversely affect Canary Rockfish Sebastes pinniger Threatened 75 FR 22276 May affect, not likely to adversely affect Yelloweye Rockfish Sebastes ruberrimus Threatened 75 FR 22276 May affect, not likely to adversely affect Southern Resident (SR) killer whale Orcinus orca Endangered 11/18/2005 70 FR 69903 Reaffirmed 3/8/11 May affect, not likely to adversely affect SR killer whale Critical Habitat Orcinus orca 11/29/2006 71 FR 69054 May affect, not likely to adversely affect. The COE also determined that the proposed project would not adversely affect EFH for three species of Pacific salmon, and multiple species of groundfish and coastal pelagic fishes. A complete record of this consultation is on file at the NMFS’s Washington State Habitat Office in Lacey, Washington.

5. In addition, the Southern Resident Orca Community is a transboundary species and also designated as endangered in the US. Both the Canadian and US governments are developing Orca Recovery Plans. The US government should be advised and allowed to participate in the review in order to protect endangered orcas and other species at risk.

6. In regards to Port Metro Vancouver field studies in November/December 2013 the Southern Residents are not commonly found at this time of the year. Their peak times have historically been from May to September. However, this was not the case in 2013. Will the orca and other marine mammal field studies continue throughout the following year? I would hope that other field studies be conducted to take into consideration the presence of all the marine life affected.

If the Phase Two is built when would it start and how long would it take to complete? In regards to mitigation policies, land based monitors would not be able to accurately see approaching orcas and others in time to shut down noise, stop sediment disturbances (note there are massive coal sediments), and other harmful impacts.

Lifeforce has previously developed a more comprehensive plan with the US Geological Survey that was conducting seismic studies. This included tracking the Southern Resident Killer Whales (SRKW) throughout the test period. In this case it would be any construction period.

Conclusion The Fraser River Estuary and habitats nearby the proposed massive development are part of a precious, fragile ecosystem for a diversity of fauna and flora. The construction in this location would result in irreversible destruction of wildlife and habitat. The increased ship traffic would have a negative impact on endangered orcas and other marine mammals. The pollution from the ships and other traffic will increase the present health risks to people and animals.

We do not support this massive expansion and recommend that if an expansion is truly needed then an industrial development site be located. This Fraser River Estuary ecosystem is already heavily burdened with industrial activity. Present industrial land may provide an alternative if all of the negative environmental impacts can be eliminated at that type of location.

Please include this email in your consultation process, public records, and reports.

Thank you. Peter Hamilton Lifeforce Founding Director [email protected] www.lifeforcefoundation.org

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Terminal 2 Project Date: November 22, 2013 1:05:16 PM

The guidelines for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement and the environmental assessment must be prepared by a completely independent panel in order for the people of B.C. to have any faith in the result . The Port was ill advised and any expansion will compound the folly. A proper environmental process will ensure the expansion does not proceed.

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: T2 project. Date: November 30, 2013 1:31:28 PM

The environmental assessment of the terminal 2 project must be an independent panel review in order to ensure a manifestly unbiased conclusion that addresses all of many issues involved. This is an area of international significance that cannot be further degraded.

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Date: November 21, 2013 3:05:37 PM

To whom it may concern: My name is Douglas George Massey and I have lived in Delta for close to 80 years and reside at , Delta, B.C. . Graduated from Delta High School. Married for 60 years and we have 5 children and 9 grandchildren, worked in my father George Massey’s Shipyard that he established in 1936 in Ladner. We serviced the marine industry on the Fraser River for some 60 years. I served as a Councillor on Delta’s Municipal Council for 10 years 1967-77, and I am active in the community. As you know my father George Massey after which the tunnel was named was also active in community affairs, along with the tunnel he was a strong proponent in the establishment of the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal in it’s present location and the establishment of a port at Roberts Bank. But in advocating these projects at Roberts Banks he insisted that they construct these facilities in such a way that they did not disturb the natural flow of the tides and currents through this area. Despite the protest from the scientific branch of the Department of Fisheries & Oceans at the time and a further report in March of 1979 the governments failed to comply. As a result they have done irreparable harm to the estuarine life that once existed there and created a impediment for migrating salmon. To construct this properly they should have bridged the causeways and placed the terminal docks on cement pilings that would have allowed for the estuarine values to remain the same. Any further construction if allowed at all should be constructed in this manner and works should be done to the existing causeways that would allow this to happen. This should have been the practice when invading and delicate ecosystem of the Fraser River Basin and Lower Estuary.

Further I find it incredulous that the Terminal 2 Project is being reviewed in isolation of the total Fraser River Basin. A Basin that begins some 1,400 km 868 miles) at Mt. Robson Provincial Park at an elevation of 2,500 meters (8,200 feet), draining 234,000 sq. km (91,260 sq. miles) from 4 rivers being the Athabasca, Columbia, Thompson and the Fraser Rivers. The Fraser Basin generates 80% of

B.C.’s economy and 10% of Canada’s gross domestic product. In addition to salmon it supports 41 species of non-salmonid fish and another 46 species that are distinct to slow moving current in the Lower Fraser River Estuary. The Lower Fraser River Estuary was created over 8,000 years ago and once consisted of over 100,00 acres of marshlands and wetlands. In the late 1800’s more than 80% of it was diked and drained for agricultural purposes. creating South Surrey, Westminster, Surrey and Delta. The remaining Estuary has been under constant pressure to be developed for other purposes with little regard for its value as a Wetland of International Significance and Estuarine value.

An Estuary that has been identified by the United Nations Ramsar Convention on September 22, 2012 as a Wetland of International Significance and Estuarine value. I quote from an article posted at that time at the Ramsar Convention “Business as usual is no longer an option....if we continue to undervalue wetlands in our decisions for economic growth, we do so at increasing peril for peoples livelihoods and world’s economies” end Quote.

Included in this proposal is the removal of the George Massey Tunnel to allow for the deepening of the Fraser River to accommodate the Fraser Surrey Dock container expansion and coal handling. I will be forwarding you by e-mail an article i prepared questioning the economic viability and environmental consequences of removing the tunnel, deepening the river and elevating the bridge to achieve this.

I cannot emphasize enough that the Fraser River Estuary is the largest producer of salmon on the entire Pacific Coast of North America. Annually millions of adult salmon migrate upstream to spawn and millions of fingerlings then migrate downstream to the estuarine marshes, mudflats, floodplains, sloughs and river channels that are all critical feeding and rearing areas for them and other fish curing their transition from the river to their ocean habitats and Roberts Bank is part of that.

Must we destroy the ecology of the Fraser River Basin and Estuary to achieve so little in economic gain? This is a living, productive river system and it needs to recognized as such when you invade it for other purposes. This has not been done to date. It is absolute requirement before anymore new projects such as Terminal 2 and Fraser Surrey Docks are approved in the area that encompasses the whole Fraser River Basin and the Lower Fraser River Estuary, that an Independent Panel Review be undertaken, that will allow the evidence of scientists in fisheries and the environment to participate, and that their findings be part of the evidence and decision produced for these proposals.

Submitted by; Douglas George Massey, , Delta, B.C.

7. Will dredging still be subject the Department of Fishery Dredging Guidelines, that prohibit dredging during salmon migration? 8. What affects will this have on the wetlands so important to the Pacific Flyway and the ecosystem so important to the migration of salmon? 9. What affects will this have on the flow of water and silting of the other braches of the Fraser River? 10. What affects will the deepening have on the stability of the dikes protecting both Richmond and Delta and who will pay for any additional works required to reinforce them? 11. How much more will it cost to elevate the proposed bridge to accommodate the larger ships proposed? And who will pay for this? 12. Whatever the cost, why are we using taxpayers money to accommodate a private company like the Fraser Surrey Docks? 13. Why are we proposing to deepen the Fraser River when Port Metro Vancouver is spending 2 billion dollars of taxpayers money to build the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Container Project? 14. Is the only reason for deepening the Fraser River to accommodate coal and oil bearing ships to the Fraser Surrey Docks? Answers to the above questions must be given with justification and proof that deepening the Fraser River is both economical and environmentally sound. Build a new bridge, but build it to accommodate people and rapid transit, not the Fraser Surrey Docks. Submitted by: Douglas George Massey, , Delta, B.C.

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: T-2 request for panel review Date: December 7, 2013 9:23:09 AM

As the recently retired Logistics Manager for one of the largest corporations in Canada I can attest to the fact that the statistics presented by Port Metro are unrealistic. I have attended all the Port sponsored workgroups and in every one over 95% of the participants questioned their straight line graphs only to be ignored by Port Metro. Port Metro found "facts" to support their argument but would not defend them. The Fraser estuary is under attack and the fragile eco system must be saved for future generations. Salmon runs are teetering on extinction and must be saved. Currently the existing container facilities in the Lower Mainland are operating at only 60% of capacity and that does not take into account prince Rupert which is 2 days closer to The Far East and has a direct rail service to Chicago. Port Metro does not want to hear about Prince Rupert because they are in direct completion with them. Please have a full panel review and question everything. Thank-you

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: DRAFT EIS guidelines Date: November 11, 2013 11:35:30 PM

Thank you for inviting responses from the public regarding this environmental review.

I have 3 questions:

1. The report indicates that the environmental review will use "existing environment" as baseline conditions. This does not seem reasonable. Baseline conditions should be those which existed prior to the current terminal being built. Nature has already been abundantly disturbed, and an environmental review should begin with a baseline of undisturbed nature. Why has this decision been made?

2. The section on Geomorphology indicates that there will be a review of the proposed terminal on the coast of Roberts Bank. My question - what impact has the existing terminal had on the coast of Roberts Bank?

3. Environmental mitigation - all the mitigation measures which I have been able to discover refer to areas away from Roberts Bank / Tsawwassen Beach. Yet, Roberts Bank / Tsawwassen Beach are the areas which the port is environmentally damaging, so this does not make sense to me. What measures does the port intend to take to mitigate / repair the damages to Roberts Bank / Tsawwassen Beach?

Sincerely, Margaret Meggy, Delta, BC

December 8, 2013

Lisa Walls, Regional Director Pacific and Yukon Region Canadian Environmental assessment Agency 701 West Georgia Street Suite 410 Vancouver, BC, V7Y 1C6 [email protected]

Dear Ms. Walls,

Subject: Métis Nation British Columbia’s review and comment on the draft Environmental Impact Statement guidelines for the Roberts Banks Terminal 2 project

Métis Nation of British Columbia (MNBC) would like to thank the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) for inviting comments and explaining the Environmental Assessment (EA) process. MNBC would like to comment on the engagement process at this stage and CEAAs current consultation. The feedback provided in this report will cover CEAA’s explanation of the 2012 CEAA process, Aboriginal Consultation with CEAA, and comments on the Roberts Banks Terminal 2 project.

Introduction

Métis Nation British Columbia (MNBC) currently represents over 9000 Powley compliant Citizens (1000+ more/year) in British Columbia. There are over 2100 MNBC citizens in the Lower Mainland Region. All of the six (Fraser Valley Métis Association, Golden Ears Métis Society, Chilliwack Métis Association, Waceya Métis Society, North Fraser Métis Society, Nova Métis Heritage Association) Métis Chartered Communities within this region could be impacted by the construction, operation, and closure of proposed of the project. Both the North Fraser Métis Society based in Richmond and Nova Métis Heritage based in Surrey, are communities within the Robert’s Bank Terminal project area. As an Aboriginal rights holding group identified by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) and therefore the federal crown, and affirmed by s. 35 (2) of The Constitution Act 1982, MNBC would like to bring forth the following written submission. The Métis have had an established community along the BC Coast for more than 200 years and still use the land and resources for traditional purposes. MNBC is the only governing body recognized by the Federal government, Provincial government, and by the Métis Council. MNBC is also recognized by the National Energy Board (NEB).

Utilizing the MNBC Traditional Harvesting Database and preliminary Métis Traditional Knowledge (MTK) research confirms that Métis Nation BC citizens, from adjacent Chartered Communities and

The Métis Nation British Columbia, first incorporated under the Society’s Act on October 23, 1996, is recognized by the provincial and federal government and the Métis National Council as the official governing organization in the province of British Columbia, representing over 8,000 provincially registered Métis citizens and a population of nearly 70,000 self-identified Métis people.

nearby smaller communities, are exercising their Aboriginal right to harvest (hunt, fish, trap, gather plants) within the proposed Project’s footprint. The construction and operation of the proposed Roberts Banks Terminal 2 project could put local Métis Aboriginal rights and traditional land-uses at risk. Métis harvesters who rely on the direct and surrounding area for sustenance, social and ceremonial purposes could see negative impacts from the construction and operation of the proposed Roberts Banks Terminal 2 project. As there is current traditional harvesting occurring in the proposed project area, there is Métis traditional knowledge and land-use information activities that could be negatively impacted.

Métis citizens of British Columbia desire sustainable use of their natural resources which includes: managing natural resources to meet present needs without compromising the needs of future generations; providing stewardship of natural resources based on an ethic of respect for the land; balancing economic, productive, spiritual, ecological and traditional values of natural resources to meet the economic, social and cultural needs of the Métis peoples and other aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities; conserving biological diversity, soil, water, fish, wildlife, scenic diversity, and other natural resources; and restoring damaged ecologies. All of these may be significantly impacted by the proposed project. MNBC’s interests in this environmental assessment are to protect the sustenance and cultural needs of Métis citizens and ensure adequate consultation has been undertaken. Further, that Métis Rights and Traditional Land Uses are taken into consideration, that where possible the impacts to these rights and uses are minimized and where not possible, mitigation measures are employed.

Aboriginal Consultation with CEAA

MNBC believes that CEAA should seek meaningful feedback from Aboriginal groups to include in the EIS guidelines. MNBC should be consulted on the guidelines and engaged throughout the entire EA process. Early inclusion and support would build capacity early and set the stage for a more inclusive and smooth EA process. Support through funds that develop capacity would enable MNBC to engage more effectively and provide feedback that is more meaningful. It is beneficial for Government and industry for Aboriginal organizations to have functioning institutions, political structures and legislative frameworks, as well as designated professional representatives that can lead the consultation process and who have a database of evidence, and connections to the community already in place prior to the consultation process.

MNBC has worked hard to develop a government structure with regional and local community. MNBC leadership has implemented a number of institutions of governance such as the Senate, Métis Nation Governing Assembly, Youth representation, Women’s representation, an Electoral Act, and an objectively verifiable citizenship process. MNBC represents thirty-five (35) Métis Chartered Communities in British Columbia and is mandated to develop and enhance opportunities for Métis communities by implementing culturally relevant social and economic programs and services. MNBC has developed acts, policies and guidelines. The objective of the Consultation Guidelines is to produce better communication, stronger relationships and a Métis specific approach for government, industry and MNBC relations. MNBC has in

place professionals within each of its ministries to deliver programs, consult its citizens and engage with government and industry. The purpose of all this is to work with other institutions and businesses to support and develop community programs that meet community priorities and needs, while also protecting Aboriginal rights. Community needs those Aboriginal organizations to have in place the capacity to reach goals and meet the needs required. Programs such as natural resource consultation, employment and training, health, children and families as well as business development are all Ministries that MNBC has developed to meet the needs of its communities.

The Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, 2011, Aboriginal Consultation and Accommodation Guidelines speaks of geographical considerations. “Differences in history, geography, demographics, governance, relationships and other circumstances of Aboriginal communities and organizations in Canada are relevant when considering how to address any consultation obligations that may arise (AAND, p. 8, 2011). Geography needs consideration in regards to MNBC. Métis in BC do not share the same geographic concerns as First Nations groups. The geographic situation for MNBC operating in a Province that does not recognize Métis rights needs acknowledgment. Geography presents unique challenges with the large Métis population spread though out such a large province and the difficulty this presents in consulting with that community of smaller communities within regions. The geography of having a community of people spread throughout province presents challenges of having multiple organizations such as elders groups or groups that are not officially recognized that attempt to represent the Métis people in BC. There are risks to industry and government that engage with the wrong groups or with persons who do not have authority to speak on behalf of the relevant Aboriginal group or community. Government and industry can help avoid many of these problems if they meaningfully engage with the community at the outset.

MNBC questions why the guidelines suggest early engagement yet funding may only be available during later stages of the EA process?

Comments on the Blackwater EIS guidelines As mentioned in the last two sections, MNBC would like to be involved and have input in the continued development and evolution of the EA process. The sections of the Roberts Banks Terminal 2 project draft EIS guidelines that MNBC would like to make comments on at this time are those relating to Aboriginal issues.

2.3 Aboriginal Consultation Information that informs the Crown’s understanding of Aboriginal interests should be gathered through the EA process but be provided by the Aboriginal peoples themselves.

3.4.2 Aboriginal Knowledge MNBC Ministry of Natural Resources Consultation Guidelines and Métis Traditional Knowledge Policy define Métis Traditional Knowledge (MTK) as, “the body of information, values, beliefs and practices that is passed from one generation to another by oral means or through land-based experience that pertains to the identity, culture and heritage of the Métis people and their respect for the land and its resources.” Developing definitions such as this are part of the capacity that needs to be created to guide relationships with government and industry. By using definitions set by Aboriginal people themselves; the proponent will gain a better understanding of concepts such as spiritual connections and traditional land use.

3.4.4. Confidential Information MNBC appreciates the fact that CEAA is committed to promoting public participation and providing the access to the information on which the EA is based, however MNBC feels that there needs to be some rules enforced when dealing with confidential information. A lot of Aboriginal knowledge is sacred and there may even be concerns regarding intellectual property rights (especially about spiritual areas and medicine plants). If an Aboriginal community, or individual, does not feel comfortable that their information will be kept confidential they may withhold valuable knowledge. This could have a negative impact on relationships between Aboriginal communities, industry and government and proper and meaningful consultation may not occur.

7.1.1 Valued component Valued components guide the concerns throughout the EIS. It is important that Métis concerns are recognized in the development of VC’s. Not only for ecosystem values but for the cultural values Métis have and other Aboriginal groups have placed on various components and concerns.

7.2.1 Spatial Boundaries The proponent would have to collect Aboriginal use data before spatial boundaries could be determined.

9.1.1 Methodology Baseline data includes the existing environment and current processes. This baseline would include all the other industry and environmental degradation that had previously occured. MNBC always encourages CEAA to adopt a pre-industrial baseline approach.

9.1.8 Existing Environment Aboriginal groups should be the ones defining and describing their cultural heritage and sites, as well as their current land and resource use.

9.1.4 Aquatic Environment The report by the Cohen Commission needs to be considered in relation to fish population uncertainly and the loss of fish habitat.

9.2 Potential or established Aboriginal and Related Interests MNBC fells Métis tend to be treated as a second tier level of consultation as they are defined in the guidelines as a group expected to be less affected. The true extent that MNBC citizens will be affected will not be known until information on land use and rights has been collected. MNBC suggests all Aboriginal groups be treated equally and judged alike on the information they provide to the Proponent and CEAA.

Aboriginal groups should be allowed to define and describe themselves. The draft guidelines suggest that Aboriginal groups should be defined and filtered through the proponent. MNBC suggests that they be consulted earlier and allowed to define their local, regional and provincial citizenship and communities. MNBC appreciates that CEAA states that the proponent will ensure that Aboriginal communities have access to timely and relevant information. How is this achieved? It is important for the proponent and CEAA to understand that each Aboriginal community is unique and have separate needs and demands. Some communities may benefit from website postings and e-mails, while others prefer letters or meetings. There may also be language barriers to address, as not all Aboriginal people may be able to read and write in English. In order to ensure proper consultation and meaningful relationship building the proponent will need to be flexible in the ways that they interact with and provide information to each community. MNBC would like to know if this has been considered and how it will be achieved.

10.2 Adverse Impacts on Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Related Interests MNBC is concerned about its categorization as a group expected to be less affected. MNBC is treated as a second tier level of consultation in the guidelines. Aboriginal groups should be allowed to define and describe their perceived adverse impacts, concerns, issues and most importantly their valued components. MNBC would like to know how CEAA will determine if further research and/or consultation effort is required? MNBC suggests that feedback from Aboriginal groups would be the best method of determining if their level of consultation was adequate. This is particularly important if the Proponent then describes the mitigation measures from its perspective.

11.2 Measures to address impacts on Aboriginal rights Mistake on page 28 should refer to section 9.2 not 9.1.2 for Aboriginal rights.

11.4 Follow-up Program MNBC feels Aboriginal groups should be consulted in the follow-up section of the EA process. Both CEAA and the proponent should consult with Aboriginal groups to determine the effectiveness of mitigation measures and fairness of other agreements.

12.1.2 Cumulative Environmental Effects “Present-day environmental conditions reflect the cumulative environmental effects of many past and ongoing physical activities” (Agency’s Operational Policy Statement Addressing Cumulative Effects).

Past effects are rarely considered as cumulative. It will be interesting to see what past and present physical activities will be considered in the lower mainland as being cumulative. The policy statement has a loophole in the use of temporal boundaries for assessing cumulative effects on VC’s. The fixed temporal boundary of pre-industry should be adopted.

12.2 Outstanding Aboriginal Issues Why are aboriginal issues described from the proponent’s perspective?

13.1.2 Summary of Environmental Effects The Act states that with respect to Aboriginal peoples, any effects caused to the environment on socio- economic conditions, use of resources and cultural heritage needs to be considered.

14 Summary Tables Comments from Aboriginal groups and individuals are often “watered down” or taken out of context when summarized in a table. An easily accessible link to the actual transcribed concern should be available.

16 Monitoring Program and Environmental Management Plans MNBC would like to be involved in consultation and provide input into the development of detailed monitoring programs.

MNBC will work cooperatively to ensure that its Citizen’s Aboriginal rights are respected and appropriately addressed. MNBC will work diligently and in good faith to protect all the natural resources that Métis people have and continue to rely on as a way of life and cultural connection. MNBC’s vision is to build a proud, self-governing, sustainable Nation in recognition of the inherent Rights of our Métis Citizens. MNBC’s mandate is to develop and enhance opportunities for our Métis communities by implementing culturally relevant social and economic programs and services through Teamwork, Respect, Dedication, Accountability, Integrity and Professionalism.

Christopher Gall,

Acting Director of Natural Resources Métis Nation British Columbia 1-604-557-5851 [email protected]

Planning, Policy and Environment Tel. 604 456-8835 Fox 604 436-6701

December 6, 2013

VIAEMAIL File: CP-07-01-01

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 410-701 West Georgia Street Vancouver, BC V7Y1C6 Roberts Bank@ceaa-acee .gc.ca

To Whom It May Concern:

Re: Draft Guidelines for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement — Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project

Metro Vancouver appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft Guidelines for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project. In 1971, the Pollution Control Act and the GVRD Letters Patent established the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD, also known as Metro Vancouver) as the single agency under which all provincial and municipal air pollution control activities in the Greater Vancouver urban area would be recognized. Section 31 of the Provincial Environmental Management Act gives the GVRDthe authority to “provide the service of air pollution control and air quality management”.

The Proposed Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project is located in Metro Vancouver (MV), which is situated within the Lower Fraser Valley airshed — an international airshed shared with the Fraser Valley Regional District and Whatcom County in the State of Washington. Air quality and greenhouse gas management in Metro Vancouver requires close coordination between all levels of government, businesses, institutions and residents. Metro Vancouver works with air quality, health, climate change, energy, transportation and other authorities at the municipal, regional, provincial, federal and international levels to collaboratively plan and implement initiatives to improve air quality and address climate change.

In anticipation of preparing the Environment Impact Statement, Port Metro Vancouver (PMV) has held a number of air quality scoping sessions with Metro Vancouver and other regulatory agencies on the approach it proposes to use for the Air Quality Assessment for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project. Under Section 52, Regulatory Framework and the Role of Government of the Draft Guidelines for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project, Metro Vancouver has a key role to play, with respect to the potential air quality impacts of this proposed project on the region. Through the scoping sessions with PMV, we have not been able to reach agreement on the following key issues: Roberts BankTerminal 2 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Draft Guidelines for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement — Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Page 2 of 3

1. Model plan We would like to highlight the importance of developing and agreeing on a detailed air quality dispersion model plan before conducting air quality assessments. The British Columbia Ministry of Environment has developed a document titled: Guidelines for Air Quality Dispersion Modelling in British Columbia (March, 2008)’. This document contains guidance on “Good Modelling Practice” in which it outlines the practice of the regulator and proponent agreeing to the technical details of the proposed modelling methodology through a detailed model plan. We request that a detailed model plan be developed and agreed to by regulatory agencies such as BCMinistry of Environment and Metro Vancouver, prior to any dispersion modelling being conducted.

2. Expand study domains In our discussions with Port Metro Vancouver, they have proposed a smaller Local and Regional Study Area than we would expect in a densely populated airshed. Metro Vancouver’s preference would be to have an expanded Local Study Area of 30 km by 30 km. Metro Vancouver is willing to accept PMV’s proposal of a smaller study area provided that the predicted impacts do not extend beyond the boundaries of the model domain. We would stipulate that if concentrations greater than 10% of the relevant ambient air quality objective for any contaminant modelled are predicted to extend beyond the model domain (i.e., if the 10% isopleths are not “closed”), the domain boundary should be extended such that the full extent of the 10% isopleths are resolved in the domain.

We also believe that the Regional Study Area proposed in our discussions with PMV is much too small to adequately address regional issues. The regional study area should include the entire airshed which is bound by the North Shore Mountains, the entire Lower Fraser Valley extending to Hope, just south of the US border, and shipping channels to the west. Within the Regional Study Area an assessment of ground-level ozone, secondary PM, and ship emissions should be performed in a qualitative and/or semi-qualitative way.

3. CALMETinputs We question the technical validity of using only prognostic meteorological data to drive the dispersion model as is being proposed by PMV for this project. As outlined in Guidelines for Air Quality Dispersion Modelling in ,2BC the use of only prognostic data in CALMETis a last resort when there are no surface stations present or coverage from surface stations across the model domain is poor. Given the good spatial coverage of meteorological surface stations (e.g., Metro Vancouver’s ambient monitoring network and Environment Canada stations) near the project it is more appropriate to use these as inputs to CALMET. The CALMETmodel should make use of available surface stations and over water stations available near or within the study area and use prognostic data to initialize the model and be used for upper air.

The Weather Research Forecast model (WRF) is known to over-estimate wind speeds and not appropriately represent calm wind conditions. As a result of only using prognostic data, air dispersion could be over-estimated in the model resulting in an under-estimation of predicted concentrations.

I http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/bcairquality/reports/pdfs/airdispmodel_08.pdf

8294234 Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Draft Guidelines for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement — Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Page 3 of 3 Furthermore, we request that the WRF model be run using 1-km spacing rather than 2-km spacing to be consistent with modelling currently being conducted for other projects in the region.

4. Visibility This project should at least include a qualitative discussion about such regional issues.

5. Cumulative Impacts Assessment At one of PMV’s scoping sessions, regulatory agencies were advised that a list of “Reasonably foreseeable future projects” would be developed through the Environmental Assessment Process. Metro Vancouver requests to be included in the process to identify foreseeable projects.

The Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project could potentially have a significant impact on regional air quality in Metro Vancouver. To that end, the region would be well served by an air quality assessment that is fully supported by all levels of regulatory agencies in the region. Please feel free to contact Shelina Sidi, Senior Project Engineer at (604) 436-6750 or [email protected] should you require clarification on any of the comments provided.

Roger Quan, P.Eng. Director, Air Quality and Environment

ROJsms/ll

8294234

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Concern about Impact of T2 - it is ESSENTIAL that there be an independent panel review of T2 Date: November 20, 2013 9:49:19 PM

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 410-701 West Georgia Street Vancouver, BC V7Y 1C6

Dear Sirs,

I am writing about the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Proposed Project. I have lived with my family in Tsawwassen since 2001 and feel very strongly that a port has no place at the entry of a major estuary such as the Fraser River. I feel that the proximity to a major flyover for important birdlife is not being taken into consideration at all.

Major infrastructure and development (highways, bridges, overpasses) have been built to support the port and I feel that if the port were expanded beyond what is there now will just turn this environmentally sensitive area into 100% industrial zone.

I felt that port expansion in Prince Rupert would have been a much better solution as they already had infrastructure in place, the route to China was shorter, and there was room to expand in all directions with less negative impact on habitat. Here in Delta (named because it IS a delta), there is a specific habitat for many migrating birds and a specific environment for crab, salmon, local dolphins, seabirds, and whales. Isn't protecting this environment - the air that we breathe, a valuable bird habitat, and safe and pollution-free oceans the number one concern of Canada Environment Agency?

I am concerned that many years ago, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans did not oppose the building of Terminal 1. They made recommendations and talked about "mitigation". The process of planting more eel grass was a pathetic attempt, in my opinion, to counteract the damage caused by the pollution of hundreds of huge ships which burn the worst kind of fuel while "parked" at the terminal and are unable to "plug into electricity" as an alternative to keeping their engines running.

Because of the multitude of issues, the complexity of the eco-systems, and the potentially damaging impact of T2, I sincerely hope that the Canadian Environmental Assessment REQUIRES that a proper panel review is conducted. The Super Natural environment of British Columbia is what is promoted throughout the Vancouver International Airport. Tourism produces huge revenue, and has a positive impact on many people's quality of life and income. I sincerely hope we put our money where our mouth is and keep on being able to promote the wonderful Super Natural side of B.C. - clean air, abundant wildlife, clean oceans, salmon, clean rivers, healthy whales.

Sincerely,

Mary-Ellen Meyers

Delta, B.C.

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: T2 Project for Roberts Bank Date: November 21, 2013 10:17:16 AM

Attn: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency,

After reading the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Guidelines, and reflecting the serious concerns I have as a British Columbian resident and taxpayer, I offer the following input to the establishment of a sufficiently rigorous environmental impact assessment for the proposed Terminal 2 expansion at Roberts Bank.

1. A detailed study of critically important previous environmental reviews is missing –such as the 1979 Independent Panel Review (FEAR report) that turned down port expansion in the very area of Roberts Bank where PMV now wants to build T2.

2. Missing also is a review of the 2005 Environment Canada submission on Deltaport Third Berth which expressed a number of key concerns in respect of any further expansion on Roberts Bank.

3. The planned approach for carrying out a cumulative impact assessment is weak and needs to be much more rigorous. For example this must include a look back at shorebird populations on Roberts Bank to at least 1990 and the population declines that have occurred.

4. The assessment needs to look at the potential impacts on the whole Fraser Estuary, not just the immediate area of the T2 location.

For these reasons, I believe it critical that an independent panel review be mandatory for this project.

Thank you for your consideration,

Alan Morgan

Powell River, BC

J.F. Morrison

Delta, B.C. December 8, 2013

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 410-701 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, BC V7Y 1C6 Telephone: 604-666-2431 Fax: 604-666-6990

Dear Sirs/Madams:

Re: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 (T2) Project – Registry #80054

I am writing to say that the proposed Terminal 2 at Roberts Bank requires a comprehensive, cumulative and independent Review Panel Environmental Assessment. Given the complexity of the issues and the values attached to this Fraser River Estuary, it is essential that the CEAA address this proposal fully and in so doing gain the confidence of the public in the examination of this proposed project.

It is well known that the Fraser River Delta is habitat of global significance for migratory birds of the Pacific Flyway and as such has been designated IBA (Important Bird Area) by Birdlife International. This area has also been designated a RAMSAR site. Over the last 20 years, the Western Sandpiper population in the delta has declined from 3.5million to 700,000 on the migration through the Flyway. More degradation of the habitat could lead to a total decimation of the International Flyway.

The salmon fishery is already in decline. The health of salmon is significant as a source of food as well as an important symbol for a healthy society. Further degradation of the habitat wetlands and coastal features that will negatively impact on feeding patterns and survival rates is fully unacceptable. The recently completed Royal Commission makes recommendations to address these elements and strengthen the health of the salmon species.

When one considers the alternatives for the container shipping within existing capacity in Vancouver harbour and Prince Rupert, it makes no sense to expand the Robert Bank facilities.

Of course, a port facility will require land based business activity and create further pressure for the use of agricultural land. At a time of rising world food prices and shortages of high quality food growing land such as the Fraser delta, it makes no sense to lose this capacity and threaten the long-term food security of the population. Local production and consumption of food is a growing requirement trend and our capacity needs to be preserved. If gone to industrial activity, it is forever.

I reiterate the need to conduct a public review panel under the full authority of CEAA. Thank you.

Yours truly,

J. F. Morrison

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: No T 2 Date: November 19, 2013 7:46:35 PM

I am opposed to the T2 terminal.

The air quality will deteriorate even more from coal transportation plus truck and rail traffic pollution.

Keith Munro Delta, BC

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: T2 Expansion Date: December 5, 2013 10:12:57 AM

I'm writing to add my voice to those calling for an independent environmental assessment for the Roberts Bank T2 container expansion. There are many concerns around this expansion including damage to migratory bird habitat, loss of valuable farmland, and pollution of the surrounding waters affecting marine animals and fish. It is clear if PMV is allowed to manage this process we will get a highly biased and restrictive assessment similar to the one done by SNC Lavalin on coal expansion. Independent and unbiased is what is called for and I hope you will ensure this happens.

Regards, Andrew Murray

New West, BC Nature Vancouver Vancouver Natural History Society

December 8, 2013

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 410-701 West Georgia Street Vancouver, BC V7Y 1C6 By e-mail to: [email protected] To whom it may concern Re: Draft Guidelines - Environmental Impact Statement for Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project We are writing to provide Nature Vancouver's comments on the Draft Guidelines referred to above. By way of introduction please note that Nature Vancouver, a naturalist club, is one of the leading stewards of the Fraser Estuary Important Bird Area (IBA). IBAs are designated by Bird Studies Canada in conjunction with Nature Canada, both of which are the Canadian representatives of Bird Life International. It should also be noted that the Fraser River Estuary IBA is considered one of the most valuable IBAs in Canada based on the regular visits of bird species of global, continental, and national significance. The Fraser Estuary has also been designated as a Hemisphere Reserve in the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. A panel review is essential Given the above background and facts, it is not surprising that Nature Vancouver is extremely concerned that Port Metro Vancouver (PMV) is planning to create a 117 hectare island on Roberts Bank in the immediate vicinity of this IBA and construct a new container port on that island. Due to the magnitude of this project and the massive impact it will have on fish and wildlife habitat of all kinds on and adjacent to Roberts Bank, this project should be subjected to the highest level of environmental assessment, which we understand to be a panel review. The business case for additional container facilities at Deltaport is not sound With respect to the Guidelines, we urge CEAA to require PMV to discuss the business and economic case for adding new container facilities at Deltaport in extensive detail. We note that the Draft Guidelines require the proponent to explain what alternative means there might be to undertake the project. We submit that prior to doing that PMV should be required to justify the actual need for the project in the first place. In addition to general economic trends there are several factors which are likely to impact container traffic on Canada's west coast in the near future and which need to be thoroughly examined. These include the expansion of the Panama Canal, container expansion at Prince Rupert and the potential for expansion of container terminals in Vancouver's inner harbour. Disturbance to habitat Our greatest concern about the project itself is the massive disturbance it will cause to fish and wildlife habitat in the vicinity of Roberts Bank which will, according to the Project Description, last for about five years. We recommend that the Guidelines require the question of disturbance to be fully addressed. Cumulative effects The previous review of the Third Container Berth at Deltaport failed to take into consideration all cumulative effects of related projects which were virtually certain to move ahead at the time that project was planned. Terminal 2 was planned at that time yet its impact was omitted from the review. This review of Terminal 2 must not make the same mistake and must take into account the planned future expansion of current facilities and the development of any additional facilities which are contemplated at this time.

In closing we wish to state that members of our Society have little or no confidence in the capacity of current environmental assessment practices to protect the precious habitats of the Fraser Estuary. We very much hope that we will be proved wrong by the environmental assessment of Deltaport Terminal 2 on Roberts Bank. Yours truly

(signed)

Jeremy McCall Conservation Chair

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Proposed Expansion of Fraser Surrey Docks Date: November 22, 2013 8:25:43 AM

To WHOM IT MAY CONCERN,

As Crescent Beach residents, we are totally opposed to the proposed expansion of Fraser Surrey Docks. We are concerned re:

· Increased train noise and lengths · Increased house vibration · Increased coal dust and diesel exhaust pollution · Blocked emergency access · Increase in train traffic related health issues · Derailments and spillage of toxic chemicals · Obstruction of access and exit to Crescent Beach · Potential property value decline

We have already seen an incredible increase over the last few years in train traffic, train noise, and inconvenience re access to our area, as well as a lowering of the quality of life, which includes loss of sleep, due to these issues. The proposed expansion would only increase these problems as well as create more. We do not feel that our lives and those of other residents in our area and along the train transportation corridor should be allowed to be impacted in such a negative fashion.

If approved, this expansion will forever change the quality of life throughout its transportation corridor and beyond. Any positive business aspects some may argue could occur are far outweighed by the widespread negative impact that would be set in motion. The few jobs that could be generated are not worth the health risks that will be created, caused by both air and noise pollution.

Please, stop this expansion.

Yours truly,

Mary and Ewart Nordby , Surrey

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Roberts Bank Date: November 25, 2013 5:02:22 PM

Margareta Nystrom

Tsawwassen BC

2013.11.25

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project,

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency,

410-701 West Georgia Street,

Vancouver BC V7Y 1C6

Dear Sir/Madam:

Re: November 8 draft guidelines for the Environmental Impact Statement (ElS) for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project proposed by Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, a.k.a. Port Metro Vancouver (PMV).

On November 8 you opened a public participation period for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 (T2) Project. I hereby submit the following comments and concerns for your consideration:

1. This project should be subject to a full and detailed assessment by an independent panel review, given its complexity and the potential impacts that it will have on the environment, surrounding communities and the region as a whole.

2. This assessment must focus not just on the immediate area of the development on Roberts Bank, but on the Fraser Estuary as a whole as well as the adjacent agricultural lands. The potential harm that T2 can do to the lower reaches of the Fraser, to the Fraser Estuary, Roberts Bank and the whole southern area of the Georgia Strait must be looked at in detail, and that work has to be carried out by a panel, independent from Port Metro Vancouver.

The development of a second container terminal on Roberts Bank has huge implications, with potential for significant negative impacts to the environment and the health and well-being of many communities. It must therefore be given a thorough and complete assessment and the only way to ensure this is done is for it to be subjected to a comprehensive panel review.

Please acknowledge receipt.

Sincerely Yours,

Margareta Nystrom

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Independent panel please! Date: November 21, 2013 8:08:55 AM

Dear CEAA,

For the upcoming environmental assessment of PMV's T2 project to be valid an independent panel review must be put in place.

Thank you,

Sincerely,

Fiona Old White Rock,BC

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Terminal 2 Expansion at Roberts Bank Date: November 21, 2013 11:46:18 AM

Please ensure that an independent review of the proposed Roberts Bank Terminal 2 and subsequent environmental impact. I am deeply concerned that additional roads and rail infrastructure will by their very nature will diminish the precious agricultural land in the surrounding areas of Delta. This land is the most productive in the province, and once it has been designated as anything other than agricultural, it will be impossible to reverse this decision. This has consequences for generation after generation. In addition, the Fraser River estuary is of global significance as haven for migrating birds, let alone the myriad species that make this unique environment their home. Only and independent review can ensure that these concerns are thoroughly and objectively addressed. Thank you for your consideration.

Deems O'Neal

Surrey, B.C.

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Guidelines, Date: November 12, 2013 6:26:52 AM

Hello,

Thanks you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Guidelines. As a resident of the City of Langley, where the main rail line that will service the proposed Terminal II runs through, my concern is about the human and environmental effects that increased rail traffic that services the port will have in my community.

I believe the EIS should considered rail transportation outside of the Port’s jurisdiction, but solely serving the port. As railways are federally regulated, this should fall within the scope of a federal environmental assessment. If this is not considered, a large portion of the impacts the Port will have on the region due to the proposed terminal expansion will be exempt from review.

Thanks you for reviewing my comments,

Nathan Pachal

------The South Fraser Blog transportation, urban planning, environment

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Roberts BankTerminal 2 Date: December 4, 2013 3:18:56 PM

To whom it may concern:

Please be informed that due to the enormous environmental footprint the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project will make, it is imperative that it be subject to an independent panel review.

Sincerely,

Andrew Phillips

New Westminster,

RBT2 Draft EISG ‐ PMV Comments EISG Ref. # Page Section Original EISG text PMV Proposed Amendment or Note Justification "whether a request will be made to Note: PMV has contacted Transport Canada's Marine Safety Transport Canada and 1 9 5.2 Not applicable Directorate to undertake the confirmed a TERMPOL will TERMPOL review process" not be required.

PMV understands the term 'harbour basin' 2 10 5.6 "Harbour basin" refers to the tug basin and berth pocket.

Parameters identified will "road and rail traffic (including PMV suggests this bullet to read: "road and rail be discussed for the Project number, type, size, weight and traffic in the Project area (including number, area, though weight data is 3 11 5.6 capacity of trucks and trains type, size, weight and capacity of trucks and too variable by commodity including approximate timing of trains including approximate timing of arrivals to be a useful indicator in arrivals and departures); and" and departures); and" an effects assessment.

No pile dredging is PMV suggests the term pile dredging be anticipated, though pile 4 11 5.7 "Pile dredging" replaced with "pile driving and dredging". driving and dredging is expected. RBT2 will only require PMV suggests amended language here to read: "construction methods and anchorage during "construction methods and dimensions for dimensions for anchorage areas at construction phase in the 5 12 5.7 construction anchorage areas at the main the main terminal and in the Project area. There is no terminal and in the navigation channel will be navigation channel, if any;" designated navigation identified." channel at Roberts Bank.

RBT2 Draft EISG ‐ PMV Comments EISG Ref. # Page Section Original EISG text PMV Proposed Amendment or Note Justification PMV anticipates the RBT2 PMV suggests amended language here to read: EIS will be based on DFO "fish habitat compensation plan 6 12 5.7 "fish mitigation measures (as defined by CEAA policy/Fisheries Act and associated works (if any); and" 2012) (if any); and" language as amended, effective Nov. 25, 2013.

"Based on information received in PMV suggests amended language here to read: the project description from the "Based on information received in the project proponent, the Agency defines the description from the proponent, the Agency RBT2 has no 7126scope of project to be assessed as defines the scope of project to be assessed as decommissioning phase. the construction, operation and the construction and operations and decommissioning of the following decommissioning of the following project project components:" components:"

PMV suggests amended language here to read: "approach channel for both the There is no new approach 8126 "approach channel for both the marine marine terminal and tug basin" channel for the tug basin. terminal and tug basin" 9 12 6 "Harbour basin" see #2

RBT2 Draft EISG ‐ PMV Comments EISG Ref. # Page Section Original EISG text PMV Proposed Amendment or Note Justification

"Finally, it is understood that some elements of the project must still be defined and that it will be necessary to include in the scope of the project, among other things, Elements or components of the environmental mitigation and PMV suggests amended language here to read: the project are defined in compensation measures that would "Finally, it is understood that some ancillary the Project Description. The 10 13 6 require the construction and works may still be defined and that they will be EIS will account for management of works that may considered in the EIS (e.g. mitigation potential effects associated cause effects (e.g. sills, spits, measures: as defined by CEAA 2012)." with mitigation measures. upstream and downstream migration works for fish, temperature control structures, minimum flow control structures and management)."

"The proponent will list and identify PMV suggests amended language here to read: probability of potential accidents The term "worst case" "The proponent will list and identify probability and malfunctions related to the could be misinterpreted to of potential accidents and malfunctions related project, including an explanation of mean events that are highly to the project, including an explanation of how 11 14 7.1.2 how those events were identified, unlikely. The scenarios those events were identified, potential potential consequences (including assessed will be realistic, consequences (including the environmental the environmental effects), the considering both probability effects), and plausible worst case scenarios plausible worst case scenarios and and consequence. and the effects of these scenarios." the effects of these scenarios."

RBT2 Draft EISG ‐ PMV Comments EISG Ref. # Page Section Original EISG text PMV Proposed Amendment or Note Justification PMV suggests amended language here to read: "Longer‐term effects of climate "Longer ‐term effects of climate change will change will also be discussed up to also be discussed up to the projected post‐ the projected post‐closure phase of RBT2 has no post‐closure 12 14 7.1.3 closure phase of the project. This discussion the project. This discussion will phase. will, including a description of climate data include a description of climate used." data used."

PMV suggests amended language here to read: "configuration and construction of The project area is "configuration and construction of the 13 15 8 the causeway and the road and rail described in the Project causeway and the road and rail corridors corridors" Description. infrastructure in the Project area;" "Section 0" in final paragraph of 14 17 9.1.1 PMV suggests: Section 0 should be Section 6 section 9.1.1

Final 3 bullets of section 9.1.4: "− a delineaon and characterization of groundwater areas/sources including the The interactions with locations of groundwater discharge project components and and recharge areas; PMV suggests the final 3 bullets of 9.1.4 are activities are limited to a − a descripon of groundwater ﬂow suggested to be replaced with: "A description 15 19 9.1.4 discrete location at the rail patterns and rates, including of hydrology and hydrogeology proximal to the tie‐in. The project will not seasonal changes in groundwater Project area, as appropriate" interact with regional flow; and ground water. − a descripon of local and regional potable groundwater sources including their current use and potential for future use;

RBT2 Draft EISG ‐ PMV Comments EISG Ref. # Page Section Original EISG text PMV Proposed Amendment or Note Justification PMV anticipates the RBT2 PMV suggests this sentence read: "Fish habitat EIS will be based on DFO "Habitat is defined in Section 34(1) is as defined in Section 34(1) of the Fisheries 16 19 9.1.5 policy/Fisheries Act of the Fisheries Act and includes:" Act (as amended, effective Nov. 25, 2013) and language, as amended, includes:" effective Nov. 25, 2013.

"a description and location of PMV suggests this bullet read: "a description species at risk (e.g. Southern and location of species at risk (e.g. Southern Resident Killer Whale) that appear 17 20 9.1.5 Resident Killer Whale) that appear on federal on federal and provincial lists and and provincial lists and that are likely to be that are likely to be effected by the effected affected by the project," project,"

PMV suggests the final bullet reads: "a "a characterisation of the characterisation (literature or field, as contaminant loading in fish species required) of the contaminant loading in fish and species at risk and the For species at risk, such as species and related potential effects on species pathways of bio‐accumulation, for SRKW, PMV will utilize 18 20 9.1.5 at risk and the pathways of bio‐accumulation, those species whose contaminant literature‐based studies to for those species whose contaminant loadings loadings may be affected by the provide a baseline. may be affected by the project. The results of project. The results of baseline baseline surveys should be included, where surveys should be included." relevant."

"a description of the contaminant PMV suggests the final bullet reads: "if 20* (there loading in migratory bird species relevant, a literature description of the For species at risk and are two and species at risk and the contaminated loading in migratory bird species migratory birds PMV will 19 page 20s; 9.1.6 pathways of bio‐accumulation, for and species at risk and the pathways of bio‐ utilize literature‐based this should those species whose contaminant accumulation, for those species whose studies to provide a be page 21) loadings may be affected by the contaminant loadings may be affected by the baseline. project" project."

RBT2 Draft EISG ‐ PMV Comments EISG Ref. # Page Section Original EISG text PMV Proposed Amendment or Note Justification 25* (page PMV suggests: Section 0 reference should 20 10.1.2 Section 0 reference in 10.1.2 26) reference Section 6

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Environmental Review Date: November 30, 2013 3:47:07 PM

Dear Sir or Madam My husband and I are residents of South Delta and between the two of us, have lived between Tsawwassen and Ladner since 1985. Most recently, we have lived on the very banks of the Fraser River at Canoe Pass. We moved to this location for the peace and quiet and to enjoy the wonderful natural surroundings that make up this area and all that between Ladner and Tsawwassen. In the last eight years, we have seen the slow degradation and removal of wonderful natural habitat for birds, animals and flora and fauna. All sorts of rural wild land and small farms and ranches have been bought out and replaced with roads, pavement for upcoming Port activities and industrial expansion. The immense growth of Roberts Bank Superport is a visual mess, as well as being noisy and polluting. Those ships do not hook up to electric shore power and rumble all night long. The degredation of our natural environment is getting obscene. I understand the need for commercial growth, but not in such a pristine, natural, sensitive environment. The killer whale population is declining and is surely affected by the constant loud noise of these massive ships. The constant thundering noise of trucks up and down Deltaport Hwy is surely affecting the natural wildlife inhabitants. They are slowly running out of places to live. We are adamant that there needs to be a separate environmental review and this must take place by and independent review panel, not one that has been paid for by those who have a direct interest in the results. If they are so sure of the minimal impacts they are suggesting, then they should have no objections for an independent review ot T2. Please ensure that a thorough and complete independent review is conducted so we don't lose or further destroy what is left of this beautiful, unique part of the world.

Geramy and Ron Powell

Delta, BC

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Date: November 21, 2013 8:14:00 AM

It is essential that an independent panel review of Roberts Bank Container Terminal 2 is done...L. Prest

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Boundary Bay Log Removal Date: December 8, 2013 11:09:04 PM

Dec. 08, 2013

Ken Pugh

Chilliwack, B.C.

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, 410-701 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, BC, V7Y 1C6 Fax: 604-666-6990 [email protected]

Sear Sir/ Madam

Re: Log Removal at Boundary Bay, 2013

This letter is intended to express my concerns re: the log removal at Boundary Bay, September, 2013. I read that the removal was part of a ‘Banking’ project involving Port Metro Vancouver at their Point Roberts Terminal 2 project.

My concerns and comments are restricted to the suggestion of ‘Habitat Improvement’ in Boundary Bay and not the concept of the Terminal 2 Project itself. I will leave that to others. As for ‘Habitat Banking’, I am in favour of the concept as long as the stated objective of improving habitat in one area in compensation for habitat destroyed in another does just that - the habitat is actually improved.

The habitat improvement as stated in the various reports and interviews I have conducted with Port Metro Vancouver (PM), Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DO), and the BC Ministry of Forests and Natural Resources (MFN) is the salt water marsh at Boundary Bay affecting marsh plant species, small mammals, birds and fish. The stated goals approved by these agencies, and others involved such as the BC Nature Trust, was to improve the flora and fauna just mentioned.

After a number of interviews with the agencies and their reports submitted to me, I have the following concerns.

1. Flora. A number of marsh plants were cited in the literature by species, which would benefit from the removal of logs that were hindering their growth and development. The logs tended to compact the soil. None of these plants were cited as being endangered., and it was stated that their increased development would assist in combating ‘green house gases.

I find that the marsh plants involved are highly adaptable, and would quickly regenerate without human assistance whenever a natural opportunity arose. The volume of log debris hindering plant regeneration is mathematically insignificant compared to the volume of flora put under concrete and asphalt in the Terminal 2 expansion and road and rail infrastructure being planned. In summary, I find the case for marsh plant restoration while somewhat valid, has been grossly overstated.

2. Fauna - Fish That is the word used to describe the marine fauna using the salt marsh. The removal of the logs would improve fish habitat. Not one species of fish, whose habitat was to be improved was mentioned in the reports I was allowed to view.

According to Dr. Marvin Rosneau, a noted fisheries expert, a number of fish species use the salt water marsh at some early point in their life. Some of these species of fry enter the open ocean early, and are not affected by log removal. Two species not mentioned in any of the environmental impact studies I have seen, Coho and Chinook Salmon, linger in the salt marsh for a longer period and benefit from logs and log debris during that time.

I am astonished that PM, the MFN and DO did not mention this potential negative impact on two fish species that our commercial fisheries depend upon.

3. Fauna - Townsend Voles Before any development of this nature, a scientific study must be conducted on the primary food source in the affected area for other species. This food source in Boundary Bay is the Townsend Vole that provided food for Short and Long-eared Owls, Snowy Owls, Barn Owls, Northern Harrier Hawks, Sharp- shined Hawks and Great Blue Herons. All of these birds feed upon the voles, and a decrease in vole population caused by log removal affects the ability of all of these species to survive the winter.

Any claim that ‘habitat is being improved’ must be accompanied by statistical data. A survey of the vole population density in the logs, near the logs, and far away from the logs is basic ecological science. One must know the actual pre-development population of a food source before one can state it has increased, remained the same, or has decreased. No study of this nature was conducted, and no explanation was given to this writer. Yet, claims of ‘habitat improvement’ are contentiously being made with no scientific evidence to back them up.

A Meadow Vole study conducted in Spruce Woods Provincial Park, July-August, 1970 by the University of Manitoba found that the vole population was highest in and near dead fall. It was determined that the voles used the dead fall as protective cover for their nests. I would presume the log debris at Boundary Bay serves the same function. The logs are critical to vole population which is critical to bird habitat.

4. Fauna - Owls, Hawks and Herons. Aside from the Snowy Owl, none of these bird species were mentioned by name in any of the reports I have read. All are protected species under federal and provincial wildlife regulations as well as International migratory bird conventions (Migratory Bird Treaty Act). For most of the species listed previously, their habitat is at risk for two reasons. A) A reduction in vole population affects their ability to survive the winter at Boundary Bay, and B) The Short-eared Owls in particular, use the log debris to cache their food away from the hawks. Whenever an owl catches a vole, it is attacked by the closest hawk and usually loses its meal to the hawk. The owls have learned to hunt near the dike where there are people and stash their voles under the logs close to the dike. The hawks do not come as close to the dikes as they prefer not to be as close to people.

This behavioral adaptation by the owls at Boundary Bay was not known to the PMV and Delta consultants. Owls require the logs as an integral component of their habitat.

My recommendation is to insure the survival of the Short and Long-eared Owls and Snowy Owls by replacing some of the logs at Site 3.5, 64th to 72nd street and beyond 100m to the east.

I am not in opposition to the majority of logs that were removed, nor any of the creosote logs nor logs used bt the Tsawwassen First Nations for cultural purposes. I do suggest reestablishing a log corridor, 5-6 logs deep in this area to actually ‘improve the habitat’ as stated in the PMV Banking literature.

Thank you,

Ken Pugh

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: panel review for the T2 project Date: December 1, 2013 10:06:03 PM

Dear CEAA, I am writing to ask for a panel review for the T2 project. I do not believe that PMV's assertion that the impact of T2 on the environment can be managed through monitoring and mitigation.

Vessel noise can affect Orcas's communication patterns, salmon migration and the food of birds .

Deneanne Quamme

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Independent Review required for Roberts Bank Terminal Expansion Proposal Date: November 26, 2013 8:52:48 PM

I am writing with very serious concerns regarding the proposal for expansion of the Roberts Bank Terminal and the plans for increased export volumes via this Port Metro Vancouver facility, and the scope of the current Environmental Assessment related to the proposals.

I have lived in the South Surrey/Crescent Beach area for many years and have noted the increased rail activity to the port in this time as the noise of their operations increasingly and frequently disturbs my sleep....even though I live several miles east of the rail lines. In addition to the diminished quality of life, general health, and ability to function safely and well in our work and daily lives that this noise disturbance causes, new studies are showing that long term interrupted sleep patterns can contribute to the development of dementias. Aside from this single human impact of disturbed sleep, further expansion of activity for the rail lines or the Roberts Bank terminal would have huge negative impact on the health of thousands in the nearby communities. Some of the 500 pounds of coal dust which is lost from each rail car of coal in transit through this area will either be inhaled by us or contaminate the soils and groundwaters of farms through which they travel in this region. Additional contaminants from thermal coal dust include mercury, arsenic, and even uranium . Human bodies and the soil cannot be remediated from this type of contamination. Thus, we become diseased, our local food becomes poison, and food becomes scarcer and more expensive in this region. And beyond this, any attempts to spray down the coal in the cars just creates further contaminated material to have to deal with, increasing risk of contamination to the environment....and all the myriad components of the various ecosystems which are integrated with each other around this region, including humans.

Already in this past year, an accident occurred at the terminal when part of its infrastructure was damaged by a ship colliding with it. As reported in the local newspapers, the conveyor system which carries coal to ships was severed, causing coal to be spilled into the surrounding ocean. This was evident in aerial photographs published to accompany this news item. Coal is toxic to eelgrass. Healthy eelgrass is fundamental to the functioning of these shoreline and intertidal ecosystems. Where will we get our seafood if the oceans are poisoned with coal? How can these ecosystems survive, let alone thrive to support the rest of the interconnected web of life on this planet (including humans), if they are dredged up or covered up with the enlarged "footprint" of the proposed Roberts Bank port facility, whether it be for more coal or container shipping facilities? As Gaylord Nelson, former U.S. senator, said, "The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment, not the other way around."

The phase of resource development which entails transportation of the commodity to market or port of export is not specified as part of the Federal jurisdiction for Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (2012) . Nor are the direct or cumulative impacts to human health, as a result of the processing and transport of commodities to market/port of export, specifically included in the CEAA 2012 . This is a gross betrayal of the responsibility of the federal government of Canada to safeguard its own citizens and taxpayers. Without consideration of the people who live in the communities, which bear the burden of the commodity transit through their neighbourhoods, and areas which support and produce their food, any environmental assessment of the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 expansion proposal is indeed an incomplete and flawed assessment. Human beings are part of the environment. The parameters set out for the CEAA are insufficient. Therefore, it is imperative to carry out, by an independent review panel, the highest level of environmental and human health impacts assessment of any proposed expansion of this terminal.

Thank you for your attention to this most important matter.

Sincerely, Patricia Randall

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Port expansion Date: November 21, 2013 9:04:11 PM

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 410-701 West Georgia Street Vancouver, BC V7Y 1C

Dear Assessors:

I am very concerned about the impacts of Terminal 2 on the Fraser Estuary. Here we have the great Fraser being impacted again by more large ships, more dredging, more damage to the fish and bird habitat. This river used to be the home of many fish species and still is home to so many salmon. Yet the estuary where the young fry spend time before they head out into the larger ocean is being overwhelmed with the port. I am ashamed to see our pristine coast line being so abused for the shipment of coal and the bringing in of all the goods from Asia. I used to enjoy shopping until everything in the stores is made in China. Who needs this stuff? Theres no quality in the products anymore.

As born and bred B.C.ers, my husband and I would ask that you look at all aspects of this application to enlarge the Port. Please take into account past reviews going back to the 1979 Independent Panel Review and the 2005 Environment Canada submission on Deltaport Third Berth. There have been so many studies done on the environmental impacts of the present port and they should be taken into account.

There has to be a better way of doing things to improve our economy without ruining our environment. Once destroyed, we will never get it back.

Sincerely, Ron & Judy Rithaler

Delta, BC

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Please ALLOW for Panel Review, Date: December 1, 2013 2:02:47 PM

To Whom It May Concern: If the mitigation work that PMV did on the once lush and beautiful Boundary Bay area to enhance the area for fish and wildlife is any indication of your focus future plans for the Port Expansion, then I have lost all faith in this process. You removed the only Snowy Owl perching sites among the beautiful aged driftwood and replaced them with a few posts. I took seniors groups out there all the time. I guess we will find out when the Snowy Owls come (or don’t come) to this essential habitat area and whether or not they can find food, since all the raised areas for them to perch are gone and since the voles have been squished by your backhoes. Profoundly tragic.

You MUST allow for an independent panel review on this project. It will have long lasting negative impacts on the wildlife that we hold so dear.

Elise Roberts North Vancouver

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Delta Port Environmental Review Date: December 3, 2013 12:53:08 PM

Dear Sirs/Mesdames,

I write to support the undertaking of a full Environmental Review of Delta Port on the occasion of its proposal to double its capacity by adding what it calls “Terminal 2”

The proposal does not fit within our normal/standard municipal and provincial boundaries as the activity is a federally mandated over-riding authority. Consequently it may do ‘as it pleases’ despite concern and/or protests from its neighbours and those who will live with the impacts. Given this, there needs to be a clear, detailed statements to the citizens of the effects of this proposal made by independent competent professionals who are free to state the truth.

The original port was put in place without extensive baseline monitoring and even today much of what might be used as “what was once” as baseline data is missing. Instead we are being told ‘this or that plan’ are only small, incremental steps of pollution/degradation of the environment. Standards being used are the ‘maximum allowable’ amounts and concentrations, not what was once, before. Included are simplistic statements by the Port of the effects of some newer considerations on the environment (such as whales). Many of these statements are about phenomenon about which little is known or where incomplete data exits. If their predictions are wrong and adverse effects take place, there are no remedies being suggested – even if possible.

I ask that a federal environmental review be ordered.

Yours sincerely, Ian D Robertson

Delta, BC

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA]; Subject: Demand for an independent review and total assessment. Will you please listen now and not later? CEAA is hereby asked to implement "verdict" and standard for this essential issue debated that there should be an independent panel review. this port expansion. Date: November 28, 2013 1:52:59 PM

CEAA is hereby asked to implement 'verdict' and standard for this essential issue debated that there should be an independent panel review manned by relevant professionals that will independently weigh-in on this port expansion.

I arrived and came to this country to live in what I was told held the banner saying "Welcome to Super Natural British Columbia" The year was 1988 and I am Canadian citizen by choice of this beautiful country and still pristine part [British Columbia] of Canada.

I may not sound progressive or catering to resource based commercialism and alert when it comes to 'the nature of things' but I certainly ask you in CEAA, Port Authorities and Governments and BNSF to 'Not Screw Up My Lifestyle', Life and Wellness [health] my 'peace and quiet' per se, by allowing this proposed expansion to pass and become a fact and a reality for the future for all of us concerned, neighbours and tourists;

Do Not make this part of our coastal land mass to become the seat of the possibly largest industrial coal transfer port in North America. Support nature..listen to the people and adjunct professionals and skip greed!

The consequences will be dear if you dare insist on seriously applying and imposing more pressure for the proposal on the table. "Keep Canada Clean & Natural" is my slogan for you and yours to keep in mind!

Respectfully asking you for a receipt confirming you have received this missive in your organisation CEAA or delegate entity.

Sincerely

28 November 2013 White Rock BC Johan Sandstrom, BComm.

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Roberts Bank Terminal Two Project Date: December 7, 2013 10:28:42 PM

To the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA)

Re: ROBERTS BANK TERMINAL TWO PROJECT

Given the complexities of the Terminal 2 project and the significant potential impact on the Fraser Estuary and the greater surrounding natural environment, I believe that it is essential that the project be subjected to a proper review.

That review must be a complete and thorough assessment by a full public panel, independent from Port Metro Vancouver, and must include all planned development at Roberts Bank Port to address perceived needs up to 2030.

Thank you for your consideration,

Al Schulze Ph.D. or

Callison & Hanna Barristers & Solicitors

Cynthia Callison Darwin Hanna Chaslynn Gillanders Michael Segelken Adam Munnings

December 17, 2013

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency PO Box 10114 701 West Georgia Street Suite 410 Vancouver, BC V7Y 1C6

Attention: Lisa Wells, Regional Director, Pacific and Yukon Region

Dear Ms. Wells:

Re: Semiahmoo First Nation – Notification that an Environmental Assessment is Required for the Proposed Roberts Band Terminal 2 Project, Located 35 Kilometers South of Vancouver, British Columbia

Our client, Semiahmoo First Nation (the “First Nation”) has asked that we write to you on their behalf in respect to your request in your letter dated November 8, 2013, for comments on the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project (the “Project”), within their traditional territory for which the First Nation has Aboriginal title and rights to the area and resources that may be affected by any future planning and projects.

The Firs Nation opposes any development in their traditional territory that will alienate Crown land, affect or involve marine traffic, or increase rail traffic on their reserve lands. This position is based on the extensive development and sale of Crown lands within the First Nation’s traditional territory, the cumulative impact of development on their Aboriginal title and rights, their loss of tradition and culture from the cumulative impacts. Our client requires accommodation or benefit agreements for any future projects. In addition, our client was not fully consulted in respect to the Roberts Bank Terminal 1 Project and will require compensation as accommodation for the Crown failing to fulfill their duty to consult.

Main Office Head Office 2784 Alamein Ave 6493 Salish Drive Vancouver, BC V6L 1S2 Vancouver, BC V6N 4C5

Telephone: (604) 222-2374 Fax: (604) 222-2974 Email: [email protected]

– 2 – December 17, 2013

This letter sets out the preliminary position of the First Nation regarding the Project. The Project is within the traditional territory of the First Nation for which the First Nation has Aboriginal title and rights to the area and resources that may be affected by the Project. We have attached a copy of their traditional territory map for your review.

The First Nation does not have sufficient resources to fully consider implications of the Project on their Aboriginal title and rights without capacity funding and wish to enter into a Protocol and Funding Agreement with the Port of Vancouver for the Project and any future projects.

The First Nation has the following initial concerns with the proposed project:  The First Nation has not been provided full information regarding the Project.  The First Nation will be impacted by coal dust, increased rail traffic and increased ship traffic in their traditional territory;  The First Nation is concerned about the potential adverse affect the Project will have on the interests of the First Nation e.g. cultural and spiritual practices, hunting, fishing and harvesting, aboriginal title;  Increased rail traffic on the First Nation’s reserve lands where Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company is in trespass and does not have any rights to their bridge and causeway across the reserve;  The cumulative affect of projects within their territory; and  The First Nation does not have any financial means to independently assess the Project.

Through meaningful consultation the First Nation will be better able to determine the scope and implications of potential impacts.

The First Nation requests that you provide them with all information that you have on the Project. Based on the First Nations preliminary assessment of the Project, it is their assessment that the proposed project will infringe on the First Nation Aboriginal title and rights.

As the First Nation does not have full information about the Project, they are not in a position to give a full accounting of the potential impacts. Meaningful and good faith consultation is required to enable the First Nation to identify all possible impacts of the Project and the ways in which it will impact the environment they rely upon, their ability to exercise their rights, and their ability to sustain their culture, communities and economy into the future.

We advise you that the First Nation does not have the capacity to properly and fully consider the impacts of the Project They will require financial assistance to:

 research issues;  attend meetings;  review material;  administrate consultation;

– 3 – December 17, 2013

 retain legal advice; and  engage other professionals.

Of course the First Nation is open to negotiating accommodation measures, including an impact benefit agreement, if the project has little impact on their way of life.

The First Nation will not be able to adequately assess the impact of the Project on their lands and on their members or communicate with their members regarding the Project and elicit their views and input, and communicate with your company until the First Nation receives financial assistance.

Please confirm your availability to meet with the First Nation to discuss these issues. Our client has asked that you provide future correspondence to our office in respect to consultation with the First Nation.

Please advise if you have any questions and we look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Adam Munnings

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Cc: Subject: predesign feedback fo rRoberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Date: November 8, 2013 9:36:07 PM

Yes—you’re dealing with container shipping and dry bulk cargoes primarily ,so far----yet some of the biggest shipments in our port ‘CONTAIN’ some very large volumes of bitumen oil—now planned for major increased volumes in Burrard Inlet—I see that as an unfortunate situation ..where we’ll take the greater chance of a bitumen spill in busy Burrard Inlet ,and the very narrow second Narrows Rail Bridge -- as opposed to the more open (safer?) area at Roberts Bank ? ? Is there any chance that in the near future these mega bitumen tankers will be finding a new home at Roberts Bank—and , please offer a suggestion about why your planners think Burrard Inlet is a better location for these mega bitumen oil carriers Thank you.

Carl Shalansky, P.Eng.(retired)

North Vancouver, B.C.,

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Re: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 (T2) Project – Registry #80054 Date: December 7, 2013 1:25:24 PM

Dear Port Metro Vancouver,

Before you build a second container terminal at Deltaport with three new berths – doubling the current container facility, I am requesting that you perform an Independent Review Panel Assessment for the following reasons:

· The Fraser River Delta is habitat of global significance for migratory birds of the Pacific Flyway.

· It is a Global Important Bird Area under Birdlife International.

· Roberts Bank is recognized as a Western Hemispheric Shorebird Reserve Network.

· Shorebirds show evidence of serious decline and wetlands are imperiled.

· Roberts Bank is located in the middle of the Fraser River Delta RAMSAR site.

· The T2 Project will Degrade Habitat of Western Sandpipers.

· The T2 Project will Degrade Salmon and other Fish Habitat

· The T2 Project will Degrade Habitat of endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales

· There is no business justification for Terminal 2.

· There are alternatives for the container business.

· A credible cumulative effects assessment is necessary.

· There will be social impacts of noise, light and air pollution.

· There will be social impacts from increase in rail and truck traffic.

Sincerely,

Christina Shyong

Delta BC

Sent from Windows Mail

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Re:Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project, Registry #80054 Date: December 8, 2013 10:23:26 PM Attachments: n-SHANGHAI-large570.jpg ATT2255786.txt

From: Andy Sinats

Victoria, BC,

December 8, 2013

To: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 410-701 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, BC V7Y 1C6

Re: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 (T2) Project – Registry #80054

To Whom It May Concern:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed expansion at Port Metro Vancouver.

For the sake of migratory birds and the wetlands that would be impacted I urge you not to build another container terminal at Deltaport, nor the proposed three new berths.

Migratory birds have no other options, the Roberts Bank and Fraser River Delta are vital for the survival of shorebirds, fish, and migratory birds.

China has quite enough coal, and doesn't need any more from North America. It may take a while to develop enough clean energy to replace fossil fuels, but every dollar spent for Terminal expansion is lost opportunity to make the changes necessary for human survival on our interconnected planet.

A lot of mainland China and Shanghai looks like this (Dec. 4, 2013) and people literally can't breathe and have to stay indoors, due to air-pollution from burning Coal and driving cars:

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: INDEPENDENT Panel Review of Roberts Bank Container Terminal 2 Date: November 21, 2013 3:03:01 PM

TO: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 410-701 West Georgia Street Vancouver, BC V7Y 1C6

We must have an INDEPENDENT Panel Review of Roberts Bank Container Terminal 2

Concerning the T2 draft EIS - it has a number of critical shortcomings, including:

1.A detailed study of previous environmental reviews is missing –such as the 1979 Independent Panel Review (FEAR report) that turned down port expansion in the very area of Roberts Bank where PMV now wants to build T2.

2.Missing also is a review of the 2005 Environment Canada submission on Deltaport Third Berth which expressed a number of key concerns in respect of any further expansion on Roberts Bank.

3.The planned approach for carrying out a cumulative impact assessment is weak and needs to be much more rigorous. For example this must include a look back at shorebird populations on Roberts Bank to at least 1990 and the population declines that have occurred.

4.The assessment needs to look at the potential impacts on the whole Fraser Estuary, not just the immediate area of the T2 location.

5.The assessment must include a proper review of the human environment and impacts from developing T2 – for example the visual and other impacts (light, noise, air pollution, vibrations etc.) of those living close to the planned development as well as those using the walking and biking trails such as the ones along Brunswick Point.

6.There needs to be a review of specific studies that have been done previously on the Roberts Bank environment such as the studies done by independent experts on the biofilm that is present on Roberts Bank. This biofilm is critical as a food source for western sandpipers as well as other bird species. Building T2 will destroy it and thus potentially wipe out a key feeding area for migratory and other birds.

7.There needs to be a thorough review of the Federal Government 2008

Emerson Report and recommendations on port expansion. Key recommendations contained in that report are thus far being ignored. For example that report recommended that no further port infrastructure be developed in the Lower Mainland until the container port of Prince Rupert had been maximized.

8.Missing is a thorough review of the planned road and rail works on agricultural land and the environmental and socio-community impacts.

9.There needs to be a full risk assessment of the probability of marine accidents, given that the T2 berths are in an exposed location in Georgia Strait and subject to extreme wind events. What are the wind measurements, how strong a wind before the port must stop operating, what then happens if port operations are suspended (such as port truck back-ups) are all questions that must be asked.

10. The PMV business case and their forecast growth levels need to be properly analyzed by somebody other than PMV. The PMV business case is flawed and they know it. It needs to be given a much more rigorous peer review and critique by an independent third party and analyzed against other industry reports that deal with forecast growth in container traffic.

11. A review of alternatives for port expansion needs to include facilities outside the jurisdiction of PMV – such as the potential for Prince Rupert container expansion.

Yours sincerely,

Yvonne Sol

Surrey, BC

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Roberts Bank EIA Date: November 29, 2013 7:42:49 AM

With the knowledge that the world is shrinking,

Populations are growing

, Environmental challenges are arising right, left and centre

Global warming is knocking at our door(still picking raspberries in late November) -

Wouldn't it be more sensible to have the best Environmental Impact Assessment for the Roberts Bank proposal?,

EIA's should be welcomed for all such projects as safeguard against the foreseeable and unsuspected disasters . That would give the project a guide to how to prevent problems.

Better Safe than Sorry

Thank You Sally Stewart

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Cc: Subject: Re Draft Environmental Impact Study Date: December 1, 2013 3:53:21 PM

Dear Sirs,

You have a very difficult task in front of you. No one wants to block progress, however, the progress you are considering is reverse progress. A move back to the 18 and 1900's. I'm guessing that at some time or another your mother might have warned you as a child that if you were naughty, Santa would bring you a lump of coal. Coal has always been a dirty form of energy. Necessary then but not now when we have alternatives.

As you obviously know, we Canadian's are being pushed into being the back door for Montana coal exports to China. Why, because no one else wants to deal with it. Our neighbours in Washington and Oregon are fighting tooth and nail to block these coal trains and ports. Any benefit to Canada is hard to see other than a handful of jobs. The cost of the infrastructure necessary to facilitate the movement of coal is hardly worthwhile.

If you value your children's future and your current lifestyle, please take into consideration in your draft environmental impact study, the many people whose lives and health will be negatively impacted. The limitations of this study make it irrelevant at best.

I live in Surrey, near Crescent Beach. We have raised our children within blocks of the Burlington Northern Tracks. Our dog was killed by one of the trains, and nearly my wife and two children. They were crossing the tracks to leave the beach. When you think about it, having to cross the tracks to get to the beach, something that is completely crazy. A train came barreling around the corner. My wife had the choice of the kids or the dog. She watched in horror as the dog ran around under the train, finally jumping out, and being cut in two. The kids remembered the conductor in the caboose, (they had them at this time) waving as the train clattered away. My resistance to increased train traffic is a little bit simpler than coal alone. Trains have always been a positive thing in children's books and every boy has wanted to be an engineer. Toot, toot! Today they are proving to be a menace.

Nowadays the trains are carrying some really dangerous goods. I was standing by the crossing in Crescent Beach the other day waiting for a train to pass. It was so long you couldn't see the end of it. Lots of automobiles idling, waiting 15 to 20 minutes for it to pass. There were dozens of big black tankers carrying Liquified Petroleum Gas (propane) along with countless other tankers with who knows what. And of course coal. I wondered what would happen if there was an accident, in this small community, cut off completely by the tracks. Lac Megantic comes to mind. Do you want an accident like this on your conscience?

Recently my wife and I were stopped at the lights across from the Boathouse restaurant in White Rock. We were probably 75 yards from the tracks, as a full coal train went by. We were shocked to find our car bouncing up and down as the coal cars passed. This kind of heavy traffic will destabilize the banks along the tracks and a spill is inevitable.

The coal trains bring a fast track to the end of life as we know it. When it is burned, it will come back to us in spades. Our children will curse us. Please do the right thing. Put this abomination down. Politically, I guarantee there will be consequences to anyone involved. This issue is bringing ordinary citizens together.

Yours sincerely, Ian Sutor

Surrey BC

From To Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Date: December 6, 2013 7:00:35 PM

As you are seeking public comment I wish to add my name to the list of people asking for an independent panel review of this project. I find it most alarming that this "business as usual" development is continuing in the center of the most important environmental area on the west coast of this country. As a life long helicopter pilot I have seen most of coastal BC and I can tell you, it doesn't look like Roberts Bank.

I have worked on many projects in the arctic including snow geese banding projects in the Queen Maude bird sanctuary. It's essential that these last few points on the migration routes which are VITAL for so many different birds are retained in their natural state. These areas are are extremely rare in that they generally not subject to regular application of agricultural pesticides and fertilizers. I am very concerned that air born coal dust, http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/12/03/study-finds -coal -ash -killing- or- deforming-millions-fish-just-one-nc -lake -152553 diesel particulates, tidal interference, water pollution, sediment deposits, disrupting marine ecosystems, light pollution, hunting, failure to add the RBWMA to the Ramsar area designation for the mouth of the Fraser River.

I am concerned about the hunting on the Roberts Bank and it's associated harassment of many other birds. Can you still shoot 20 snipe a day there. I believe that was just fine last tie I checked. As an avid bird watcher in that area I can say you are lucky to see one. I am concerned about the population of American Bitterns that reside in the marshes of Roberts Bank. I am concerned about the crashing numbers of swallows and other insect eating birds that depend on areas where pesticide application is not a regular routine. I am concerned about the night flights of Great Blue herons that fly out to the Roberts bank foreshore just before dark to seek food.

I am concerned for shore birds eating biofilm mixed with coal dust during wind storms. I am concerned for salmon, aquatic vertebrates, whales and the inevitable collisions with ships. I am concerned for clams and mollusks that used to thrive in that area and were a major source of food for local Indians years ago. The reasons why these developments were rejected in the past hold even more truth today than they did back then. People realised their will be nothing left in the future if conservation measures of any substance continue to be swept under the rug for the sake of short term profits. Imagine the lower mainland 200 years ago. A few huts around Stanley Park. Since then we have developed almost everything. How do you see things in the next 200 years if we continue to show such disrespect for the environment and land use in the future ?

It's me view that the Roberts Bank T2 Project should not be allowed to proceed in this location AT ALL and I can only hope that any forward thinking independent review panel will see this with even greater clarity and urgency than they did the last time. Tor Svanoe Ladner, B.C.

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project, Registry #80054 Date: December 7, 2013 10:49:46 PM Attachments:

Dec. 7th 2013.

Richard Swanston

Delta , B.C.

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

410-701 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, BC V7Y 1C6

Telephone: 604-666-2431 Fax: 604- 666-6990

Re: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 (T2) Project – Registry #80054

Terminal 2 at Roberts Bank requires an Independent Review Panel Environmental Assessment for the following reasons:

· The Fraser River Delta is habitat of global significance for migratory birds of the Pacific Flyway.

· It is a Global Important Bird Area under Birdlife International.

· Roberts Bank is recognized as a Western Hemispheric Shorebird Reserve Network.

· Shorebirds show evidence of serious decline and wetlands are imperiled.

· Roberts Bank is located in the middle of the Fraser River Delta RAMSAR site.

The T2 Project will Degrade Habitat of Western Sandpipers.

The T2 Project will Degrade Salmon and

other Fish Habitat

The T2 Project will Degrade Habitat of endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales

There is no business justification for Terminal 2.

There are alternatives for the container business.

A credible cumulative effects assessment is necessary.

There will be social impacts of noise, light and air pollution.

There will be social impacts from increase in rail and truck traffic.

etro Ports Vancouver has a History of minimizing there projects . Then shortly after or prior to conclusion adding items to the project that Impact the ecology of are area . Example being the Re Fueling Of Locomotives . Which on the Preliminary Documents stated would only take place in rare cases . In very short order contrary to their undertakings to this community . Daily Bulk Deliveries of Tandem Semi Trailer Tanker loads of fuel were delivered to the Causeway area and transferred to locomotives in this environmentally sensitive area.. They failed to take even rudimentary Oil Sill precautions until after a loud and persistent series of complaints from various sources. ven then they stated that they would NOT restrict refueling of locomotives on the causeway to areas that had ready access to spill response equipment that they eventually put on sight after pressure . Indeed they have been witnessed to refuel locomotives in areas that would make ready and expedient containment of spilled product nearly impossible . I've seen then not even using the rudimentary drip and small spill containment vessels [ What appears to be a Childs plastic back yard swimming pool the cheap Wal Mart version ] A caviler devil may care

attitude in a most important environmentally sensitive area . ditions were made on the grounds of worker safety ! They added a group of over head electrical wires and additional lighting and poles in a very sensitive area of the causeways . After the completion of then most resent expansion. In spite of the long running g problem relating to the present Over Head Electrical Lines that run the length of the causeway that have been implicated in the killing of Migratory Birds. There was probably alternative ways to incorporate safe lighting for workers in this area But it was much cheaper to install the over head wires and lighting that may impact migratory birds on this Northern High tide routing area used extensively by Migratory birds . But the environmental considerations of area play second fiddle to the Cheap and Normal practices of Rail Operations is bring to mind the real need for a comprehensive Environmental Review of this project. When are the externalities of this project going to be taken into consideration . The expanded Rail Yards, Warehouses, support structures / maintenance , offices,employee parking and transportation facilities and many other developments auxiliary to the Ports operations . That WILL expand onto the adjoining open field agricultural areas that are integral to the continued use of this area by Migratory Birds . Which use upland areas during periods of High Tide and storm activities m also concerned about the location of the Three Berths . They are not sheltered like the Berths at Delta Port as we have already seen with the Cape Apricot Which smashed the dock structure . JUST luck the right tidal and wind conditions prevented a Major Pollution incident . Very soon after the accident . A Large barge broke it's moorings and drifted ashore on the Causeway .The Third Barge to go aground in the inter causeways area in the last six years * ! The Squamish estuary was not as lucky The M.V. Westwood Annette Made a Hard Landing spoiling that estuary with

Fuel Oil . Hitting docks and causing damage is a COMMON OCCURRENCE Even in sheltered Waters the Three proposed Berths are fully exposed to the Currents and the Winds No Amount of Tug Horsepower could forestall some of these events. The Cape Apricot graphically demonstrates this

*One overlooked feature to the development of these three berths . Is that while during the construction phase there may well be [ I doubt it very much ] Proper oversight of safety procedures and practices . What will become of the On Going and Maintenance and repair of this facility . As mentioned previously several large utility barges involved in the construction and the repair of the present berths have gone drift . Breaking free in storm events and running aground in the SHELTERED Portion on the intercauseway area . One carried a substantial amount of Lubrication oil , numerous oxyacetylene tanks a large diesel tank and a huge back hoe with generators and portable lighting equipment . If such a barge were to run aground in similar weather conditions on the Western or exposed side of the Causeway It might never be recovered . This is an On Going threat to this sensitive environment area as repairs and maintenance are an on going issues over the Year of operations he exposed nature of the Berths and the ships with little or no access would also present a problem accessing the ships in the case of On Board Fires Or explosions Dangerous cargoes are a common item carried on Container Vessels Fires have caused several ship casualties . What provisions have been made for ship board fire fighting calibilties in the proposed large Port Facilities ! It is inevitable that with the increase in ships using the Delta Port

there WILL be an on board fire . Fighting such a fire in the weather conditions that would be common in the exposed area of the new berths [high wind driven ] Would be impossible from the Berth roadway only a seaward large capability firefighting floating platform would have the capability and it would have to be immediately available ! As would the Oil Response capability ! Although the current,tidal and wind and other conditions in this area would make Oil Response here a TOKEN PR Gesture to placate the Politicians. The contention that there could be Oil spill recovery in the estuary would be a sick JOKE Even in Ideal conditions ! By the time that Man power and vessels were assembled the oil would have spread through out the estuary and Georgia Straights Any one that states that any sort of recovery or even containment can be mustered in this area in time is being disingenuous . Much less chance even if the spill involved a Dangerous Goods What provisions have been made for the study of storm surge affects on the Dikes adjoining the new berth construction. Has the worst case scenario of a extreme tide in the Spring freshet and a low pressure wind event been even considered . As the New facility will form a IMPOUND of Fresh Water outflow from the River and the falling tidal current

The Last berth construction project in PROTECTED Shallow Waters of the inter causeways area saw that at least 6 of the Huge Pre Fabricated Concrete Cessions Towed Into the PROTECTED area SANK ! I'm assuming that they were designed to the Highest engineering Standards Was this Intentional ? Or was this a mistake ? Can we accept they risks of this or other blunders occurring on the STORM THREATENED EXPOSED SIDE OF THE CAUSEWAY With the strong currents AND extreme tides and shallow waters of the Estuary Metro Ports and it's stake holders have at No Time entertained the relief of the Tortured highways system in the Lower Mainland . The Chaos that contributes to the Air Pollution Daily in are region .

That is destroying the livability of are region choking are transportation routes with Single Unit Semi Trailers of Low Standard and poor maintenance . Junk that breaks down congesting highways and bridges on a daily basis . By even considering the implementation of Short Sea Shipping . Instead the Tax Payer and the People of this region are paying the price for the Poorly regulated and derelict trucks that litter are highways . Destroy the roadways with there weight and wear

Roadside inspoection of comercial Vechicles have shown that lower mainland trucks have the poorest safety inspection results in North America Yet the Port talks about some sort of phoney truck safety program the result speak for themselves

PD issues 374 tickets in commercial vehicle blitz

e Delta Police conducted an inspection of all commercial vehicles passing through the Delta area last week, finding close to 200 safety violations.

ring a three-day inspection beginning on June 18, police surveyed over 400 vehicles and found nearly 50 per cent were in violation of basic vehicle or driver adequacy tests.

e inspection, dubbed the Commercial Vehicle Safety Initiative, focused on business vehicles that the police believed could threaten other drivers on the road.

cording to the police, Delta has one of the highest ratios in B.C. of trucks, buses, and taxis transiting its roads on a daily basis, raising the risk of accidents caused by poorly operated vehicles.

lice and their support staff stopped vehicles throughout Delta to conduct checks on brakes, tires, lights, steering, load security, driver licensing and

general alertness.

total, police issued 374 violation tickets, impounded three vehicles, and issued one indefinite license suspension.

e inspection was one of the largest initiatives of its kind in the province, utilizing staff and resources from police departments in Delta, Vancouver, New Westminster, as well as WorkSafe BC, the Canadian Pacific Police, and the Ministry of Finance.

e police believe the initiative will encourage local shipping and transit businesses to keep track of vehicle maintenance and driver records in order to help promote safer driving throughout Delta.

video of the inspection is available at:

YET are direct competition has made drastic regulations governing the AGE of trucks to control emissions Some how the Health and safety of the People surrounding the Port of Los Angeles is MORE important then the People of the Vancouver Region . I BET that some of the WRECKS traveling the roadways of Delta are REJECTS turfed from the Port of Los Angles'

he Port of Los Angeles is also controlling the use of High Sulphur fuels The use of the worst form of fuel Bunker fuel Heavy tar is and has been prohibited there

We still permit it here EVEN the use of this poison to produce electrical power when ships sitting idle in the berths The Health and welfare of Canadians has taken a Back Step here for the Profits of the Ship Owners . And all the studies show that the High rate of diesel and Heavy Fuel emissions will increase are health care costs and affect are children well into the Future The Port and the industries pushing for these new berths refuse to take responsibility for the results of there practices . Canadians

Health and welfare are somehow cheaper and insignificant Then an American

he concept that the Port is going to DESTROY the intertidal area of the Western Causeway is UNTENABLE The widening of the Causeway and the covering or this habitat that supports Tens Of Thousands of Waterfowl Geese and shorebirds Covering it with roadways and more rail lines is a travesty in the highest order ! There is NO COMPENSATION that could replace this once tortured habitat that has recovered and become so valuable ! There is a more suitable place for this Port Capacity IF it is required at all, the Port Of Prince Rupert Years ago we had a Comprehensive review on a smaller project a single berth being put into this same area . It was turned down WHY are we even considering this larger project in the Same Area Have there been dramatic changes to the ecology of this area that have caused a horrible change in the Habitat and the Wildlife and Fisheries use of this area Please answer this question at least

Yours Richard Swanston Delta B.C.

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Comments on RB T2 EIS guidelines and Need for Public Panel Review. Date: December 8, 2013 9:44:02 PM

Sunday DEC. 8TH,2013.

Dear Mr./Ms. CEAA Assessor: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Proposal Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Vancouver, BC.

From Richard Swanston

Delta B.C.

I'm proud to echo the eminent comments put before you by Mr. Otto Langer . If any project in Canada requires the most comprehensive review and study. It is this project that could have grave consequences to the most important Salmon Estuary in Canada , Canada's most important Wintering and Migratory Bird Habitat . The fact that previously proposed smaller projects, with less impact on the habitat have been extensively studied and Turned Down . Makes the careful and comprehensive review of this project and it's externalities throughout are community more important ! Richard

Mr. Otto Langers coments

Re: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Proposal - Comments on Draft Nov. 2013 Guidelines for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement ( EIS).

B. Level of Review:

This opportunity to review your draft guidelines for the preparation of the RB T2 EIS made no mention of what type of review is required or will be followed. It would be good toknow that when one reviews the document. Should that now have been established in that the degree of impact and the public interest is well known and PMV has jumped the gun and is doing a great deal of work to possibly diminish the need for more comprehensive review and the highest level assessment. They have indeed assumed an approval is in order in that they have been been developing side agreements with DFO on compensation without public review and aggressively 'building' replacement habitat (ie cleanup of log debris in Boundary Bay) when many of us and many experts feel no compensation is possible. Also the type of replacement habitat they are now developing to accumulate habitat credits is rather invalid and not applicable to this proposed giant fill project in the middle of the Fraser River Estuary.

E. Alternative Options and Project Rationale: The guideline is extremely weak in its alternative options in that it appears to just ask PMN to look at alternative ways of building T2 in maybe different configurations i.e. probably the ones we saw in 2012 - all unacceptable options. If the Fraser River and estuary is to have a biologically sustainable future it does not mean that almost any project can be proposed in it and we just have to move it around a bit to make it acceptable. A West Coast perspective must be presented in terms of container port needs. This has been done in the past and with the great economic growth agenda of our governments why do we not have a proper coastal BC port review i.e. the examination of real options that can mitigate environmental impacts. PMV will just rationalize what they must have more expansion for more business at this site. The port responsibility is to provide for national water based goods shipment. That look should examine all options and not just the option PMV is keen to promote often at the expense of other ports. Inter - port competition should not occur at the expense of the environment. F. Public Values and Concerns: Why in all of your colour coded tables/graphics do you always leave the Public Concern box for Baseline Conditions blank? This diminishes the public role and concerns in this assessment. Do the public not have baseline concerns as stated more strongly in the past than by any other group relative to this project? Do the public not stand for certain values that seem to be ignored? Do the public and the many stewardship groups DFO and EC helped establish to do the job (that government no longer does) not be acknowledged in such graphic representations?

Nowhere in the past 100 years will we see such a massive impact on the Fraser River Estuary and associated ecosystem areas other than from the original Roberts Bank port development( of some 45 years ago) and the massive dyking system that has cut of much of the estuary from its original wetlands. This should beS guidelines reflected in the tone of the importance of this EIA and EIS and the type of Public Panel Review it needs?

Sincerely yours

Otto E. Langer Aquatic and Fisheries Biologist

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 410-701 West Georgia Street Vancouver, BC V7Y 1C6 [email protected]

Ladner, BC

7 December 2013 Dear Sir/Madam :

RE: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project (Registry #80054)

Dear Sir/Madam :

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) must insist that the Terminal 2 proposal by Port Metro Vancouver (PMV) is reviewed at the highest level possible by an Independent Public Review Panel of the best experts in all relevant disciplines.

For example, independent, expert economists must evaluate PMV’s forcasts of the need for increased port capacity. For example, independent, environmental scientists must address PMV’s accountability for specific, outstanding mitigation projects and the agencies’ decades old requests for a full, comprehensive, cumulative impact assessment of all past port developments on Roberts Bank.

Roberts Bank Environment

Roberts Bank is front and center of the Fraser River Estuary in British Columbia, Canada. It is the vital link in a chain of globally significant, estuary habitats at the mouth of the greatest salmon river in the world, the Fraser River. The adjoining delta has some of the last tracts of farmland in the Lower Fraser valley. The remaining wetland habitats in this priceless estuary ecosystem:

• have international significance as a major stopover on the Pacific Flyway for up to five million migrant birds from at least twenty countries • nationally constitute the most important wintering area in Canada for waterfowl, shorebirds and birds of prey that use the mosaic of habitats from the foreshore to upland farmland • host the endangered population of Southern Resident Orcas that feed off Roberts Bank in the Georgia Strait and which spend at least half the year in Orca Pass between the Canadian Gulf Islands and the American San Juan Islands in centre of the shipping route to and from Roberts Bank ports.

As a consequence of these globally significant values Canada, its wildlife agencies and citizens have combined efforts to protect the Fraser River Estuary wetlands over the last 50 years (see Table 1).

Table 1. A Summary of Protection and Designation of Roberts Bank since 1961.

Protection Date Area Purpose Authority 2012 20,682 hectares but A wetland of international Ramsar Ramsar Site for Fraser it excluded Roberts significance River Delta Bank

2011 8,704 hectares but To conserve the ecological Crown Wildlife Management excludes port areas integrity of Roberts Bank in (Provincial) Area after a 15 year delay perpetuity in designation 2004 Fraser Estuary: Roberts Bank is the central WHSRN Hemispheric Site in Boundary Bay, link of the chain of the Program Western Hemisphere Roberts Bank and shorebird sites in the Fraser Shorebird Reserve Sturgeon Bank Estuary. Network

2001 Fraser Estuary: Roberts Bank is front and BirdLife Globally Significant Boundary Bay, center of the chain of Fraser International Important Bird Area Roberts Bank and Estuary habitats the most designation Sturgeon Bank important IBA out of 597 sites in Canada 1977 24,580 ha all of Its natural environmental Crown Order-in-Council 908 Roberts Bank and significance to British (Provincial) No. 2405647 south to the Columbians Environmental Impact USA/Canada border Assessment

1961 9545.6 ha of land, Reserved for game Crown Provincial Reserve No. foreshore, and land management purposes under (Provincial) 0228783 covered by water Section 11 OIC 2374/1961

Port Metro Vancouver has blocked and attempted to derail these environmental designations and initiatives for more than a decade. For example, they delayed by 15 years the Wildlife Management Area (WMA) designation for Roberts Bank even though the WMA Plan was signed off in 1996. Further, the WMA was finally declared in 2011 but we discover that it now has large holes allowing for Port expansion; in a marine, intertidal environment this is ecological nonsense.

In 2012, the Fraser River Delta was declared a Ramsar Site but Port Metro Vancouver has managed to keep Roberts Bank excluded. From the outset of the Ramsar process, Roberts Bank was included (the WMAs “Boundary Bay, Sturgeon Bank, South Arm Marshes and the future Roberts Bank WMA”) but between application and designation this key site in the middle of the Fraser River Delta ecosystem, was deleted.

Need for Port Expansion

Before Terminal 2 is considered for Roberts Bank, the need for port expansion must be established and the least environmentally damaging alternatives must be evaluated. Port Metro Vancouver (PMV) claims an increase of 8% in the number of TEUs (20-foot equivalent units) handled in 2012 over 2011. But from 2008 to 2012 the total increase was only 9% so an average of 2.25% per year. Over the same four years, Prince Rupert Port increased TEUs by 210%.

In an Opinion piece in the Delta Optimist in September 2013, PMV’s President and CEO, Robin Silvester, claimed 2012 was a record at 2.71M TEUs but this used only 65% of current port capacity. Upgrades underway at PMV will more than double its capacity to 6.70M TEUs and Prince Rupert is set to quadruple its port capacity to 2M TEUs by 2015.

How much more port traffic is coming to westcoast ports? The widened Panama Canal is set to open in 2015. China and Russia tested an Arctic container route this summer through the NW Passage. International Drewry Consultants say these projects will mean "any new trade will probably pass the West Coast by. Volumes are unlikely to decline, but the days of strong growth on the Pacific Coast are behind us."

So it appears Terminal 2 on Roberts Bank is not need. Independent assessments must be done on PMV’s data and forecasts at the heart of this proposal. Further, since PMV ship traffic passes through the Gulf Islands National Park and Orca Pass, the summer habitat of the endangered Southern Resident Orcas (Killer Whales) while the approach to Prince Rupert Port is more direct, if there is ever any need for west coast port expansion this should be done in Prince Rupert.

Port Metro Vancouver’s Environmental Accountability on Roberts Bank

In 1979, an expert Federal Environmental Assessment Review (FEAR) Panel “concluded that the potential impacts on the Fraser River estuary … are too great to recommend that the port expansion be approved as proposed. The extent and ecological significance of the Fraser River estuary, particularly its use by fish and wildlife, make it Unique in North America.” In violation of this recommendation, PMV has since expanded twice and developed the whole area that was covered by the 1979 FEAR Panel. They built two huge pods, one of which was empty for 10 years and the other for 15 years. How is this unnecessary, piecemeal development possible in the light of the internationally recognized environmental values of Roberts Bank and the independent, expert FEAR Panel’s conclusions? This project simply should be rejected outright.

In 2003, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) in response to PMV’s proposal for Deltaport Third Berth stated that it “…will not be involved in any review of the Delta Port proposal as the only option proposed for that project results in the destruction of critical fish habitat …because of the critical value of the fish habitat in the area of the proposed expansion, DFO would not be able to issue a Fisheries Act Sec. 35(2) authorization for the destruction of habitat.”

Further, in 2005 in response to the same proposal, Environment Canada stated that it “has substantive concerns with the Deltaport Third Berth proposal, in particular because of the risk that it will act cumulatively and negatively with existing project impacts upon the marine habitat and fish and wildlife assemblages of Roberts Bank … there would be public outrage as well as agency embarrassment on an international scale”.

Previously Environment Canada wrote in March/April 2001 noting:

“Roberts Bank has seen significant reduction, disruption and pollution from coastal development over the past four decades” and

“The Bank has also been affected by the construction of two large human-made causeways that support the ferry and port terminals. These have blocked the natural flow of nutrients from the Fraser River onto the Bank, and thereby altered the invertebrate communities and disrupted the biofilm”.

In spite of the assessments by these agency experts, PMV went ahead with further piecemeal development on Roberts Bank with Deltaport and then Deltaport Third Berth. How is such cumulative destruction of this world class Roberts Bank ecosystem possible?

Previous Calls for Cumulative Impact Assessment on the Roberts Bank

There have been calls for an independent, comprehensive, cumulative effects study of port developments on Roberts Bank from both Responsible Authorities in the past: the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and Environment Canada (EC). For example:

In January 1992, in response to a port expansion proposal, S.A. Macfarlane (DFO): "Prior to any further immediate action on this application, I suggest immediate discussion by the E.R.C., with a view to directing a review and summary by an independent, competent scientific authority; for overall cumulative effects of: a) Both causeways, b) Subsequent expansions and c) Compensatory action efforts and results".

In February 1992, Adrian Duncan (EC): "It is the position of this committee that measures are needed to gain a better understanding of the cumulative impacts which may now be occurring at and adjacent to the Roberts Bank site as a result of the original port expansion and Ferry Terminal expansion and which may occur as a result of the container terminal development".

Further in 1996, Cargill had a proposal for a grain terminal on the Pod that had been empty for 15 years. PMV (formerly Vancouver Port Authority) set up its own Project Environmental Review Panel which concluded that the proposal “should only proceed subject to the establishment of a process to deal with cumulative effects in the Roberts Bank area …without an assessment and understanding of cumulative effects in the vicinity of Roberts Bank, it is difficult to adequately assess potential impacts of any proposed new development.” The Panel went on to recommend that “a process for addressing cumulative effects in the Roberts Bank area” be established. However, Cargill the proponents, left and PMV slipped an expansion of its Deltaport Terminal into the Pod without adhering to its own Panel’s recommendations.

An independent, comprehensive, scientifically credible, cumulative effects study of port development on Roberts Bank is long overdue. I believe that only an Independent Public Review Panel of the best experts can mandate that this is completed before any further expansion is assessed.

Yours sincerely,

Mary Taitt

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Draft EIS Guidelines for Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project (Reference Number 80054) Date: December 5, 2013 8:27:14 PM

To whom it may concern,

The project scope described in section 6 includes "marine, road and rail transportation within the port's jurisdiction" as a project component. This should be expanded to include the whole supply chain, not just transportation effects within the "port's jurisdiction". The project will result in increased vessel traffic beyond the project footprint and port boundary, including through areas important to species at risk, such as resident and transient killer whales. As well, rail traffic will increase beyond the project footprint, which may have noise -related human health effects and/or pose a risk to community safety and well- being.

Section 9.1.2 discusses baseline surveys for air quality, noise, lighting, and climate. While noise is listed, this appears to be aboveground noise only. Baseline data for underwater noise should also be required. Current ambient underwater noise may already be above the threshold for impacts to marine species. For example, a study of underwater noise along the BC coast commissioned by WWF (http://scitation.aip.org/content/asa/journal/jasa/132/5/10.1121/1.4758779) identified "high noise levels in critical habitats for endangered resident killer whales, exceeding limits of “good conservation status” under the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive." Before any additional contribution is made to the underwater noise that killer whales and other marine species are already subjected to on a chronic basis, the impact of existing conditions should be better understood.

Sincerely, Derek Tam

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Port Metro Vancouver’s (PMV) Roberts Bank Container Terminal 2 (T2) project. Date: November 21, 2013 8:43:54 AM

Reviewing the report on Port Metro Vancouver’s (PMV) Roberts Bank Container Terminal 2 (T2) project I see how biased and inadequate it is - using outdated stats and lacking in specifics, and well as ignoring needs for the safety, and good health of the people. I see the following inadequacies in the report:

1. A detailed study of previous environmental reviews is missing –such as the 1979 Independent Panel Review (FEAR report) that turned down port expansion in the very area of Roberts Bank where PMV now wants to build T2.

2. Missing also is a review of the 2005 Environment Canada submission on Deltaport Third Berth which expressed a number of key concerns in respect of any further expansion on Roberts Bank.3. The planned approach for carrying out a cumulative impact assessment is weak and needs to be much more rigorous. For example this must include a look back at shorebird populations on Roberts Bank to at least 1990 and the population declines that have occurred.

4. The assessment needs to look at the potential impacts on the whole Fraser Estuary, not just the immediate area of the T2 location.

5. The assessment must include a proper review of the human environment and impacts from developing T2 – for example the visual and other impacts (light, noise, air pollution, vibrations etc.) of those living close to the planned development as well as those using the walking and biking trails such as the ones along Brunswick Point.

6. There needs to be a review of specific studies that have been done previously on the Roberts Bank environment such as the studies done by independent experts on the biofilm that is present on Roberts Bank. This biofilm is critical as a food source for western sandpipers as well as other bird species. Building T2 will destroy it and thus potentially wipe out a key feeding area for migratory and other birds.

7. There needs to be a thorough review of the Federal Government 2008 Emerson Report and recommendations on port expansion. Key recommendations contained in that report are thus far being ignored. For example that report recommended that no further port infrastructure be developed in the Lower Mainland until the container port of Prince Rupert had been maximized.

8. Missing is a thorough review of the planned road and rail works on agricultural land and the environmental and socio-community impacts.

9. There needs to be a full risk assessment of the probability of marine accidents, given that the T2 berths are in an exposed location in Georgia Strait and subject to extreme wind events. What are the wind measurements, how strong a wind before the port must stop operating, what then happens if port operations are suspended (such as port truck back-ups) are all questions that must be asked.

10. The PMV business case and their forecast growth levels need to be properly analyzed by somebody other than PMV. The PMV business case is flawed and they

know it. It needs to be given a much more rigorous peer review and critique by an independent third party and analyzed against other industry reports that deal with forecast growth in container traffic.

11. A review of alternatives for port expansion needs to include facilities outside the jurisdiction of PMV – such as the potential for Prince Rupert container expansion. Margot Thomson - Crescent Beach, B.C.

TransLink

South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority

December 6, 2013

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 410-701 West Georgia Street Vancouver, BC V7Y 1C6

To whom it may concern:

RE: TRANSLINK COMMENTS ON ROBERTS BANK TERMINAL 2 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) GUIDELINES

TransLink is Metro Vancouver’s regional transportation authority, and is responsible for planning and managing the region’s transportation system for both passenger and goods movement. As described in our earlier correspondence, we share responsibility for the Major Road Network (MRN) with municipalities in Metro Vancouver, and we are also responsible for regional transit, cycling and commuting options, and the AirCare air quality program. We are the first North American transportation authority to be responsible for the planning, financing and managing of all public transit in addition to major regional roads and bridges. The Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project will have direct impacts on the immediate area of development as well as secondary impacts on the Metro Vancouver region, all of which should be evaluated. We recommend that the following items be included in the evaluation: Impacts of road network expansion. The Port expansion would generate increased goods transportation and commuting activity, which could lead to demand for expanding roadway capacity in the region. If roadway capacity is increased to accommodate Port-related traffic, this could have the unintended consequence of encouraging increased road travel among non-Port users, and may stimulate an increase in dispersed forms of development. Both direct and indirect impacts of roadway expansion should be evaluated. Air quality impacts from the vehicular transport of commodities and commuting. The increased movement of goods as well as increased commuting resulting from the Port expansion would have impacts on air quality. Land use impacts. The assessment should include evaluation of whether land availability in the immediate project area is adequate for the intended functions of the terminal expansion, or whether the project would result in spillover pressure on adjacent and peripheral land uses, such as pressure to convert agricultural lands to industrial uses. These pressures would impact the regional transportation network.

Canadian Environmental Assessment December 6, 2013 Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Page 2 of 2 ______Please feel free to contact Tara Gallen at 778-375-7646 should you have any questions or wish to discuss further.

Sincerely,

Andrew Curran Manager, Strategy cc: Sany Zein, Director, Roads, TransLink

TSLEIL-WAUTUTH NATION

People of the Inlet

December 6, 2013

Our ref: 11-124 Your ref: 80054

Lisa Walls Regional Director, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency PO Box 10114 701 West Georgia St Suite 410 Vancouver, BC V7Y 1C6

Dear Ms. Walls,

Re: draft Guidelines for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement

We have had the opportunity to review the draft Guidelines for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that you sent to Tsleil-Waututh on November 8,2 013 regarding the proposed Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project (“the Project”). We have reviewed this document from the perspective of the Tsleil-Waututh Nation’s Stewardship Policy (published January 2009).

This letter is not necessarily a complete or comprehensive list or description of specific Tsleil-Waututh concerns regarding the Project and environmental assessment (EA). Ongoing and detailed consultation throughout the Project and EA process will be necessary to address potential impacts to Tsleil-Waututh rights and title as they arise.

A key goal of the Tsleil-Waututh community is to expand its participation in all planning and development processes that take place within the Consultation Area in order to fulfill the Nation’s role as stewards of the lands and resources of the territory, to protect Tsleil-Waututh Aboriginal rights, title and interests, and to create greater economic and social results that can be equitably shared.

With the above in mind, Tsleil-Waututh has the following comments regarding the draft Guidelines:

1) Under section 2.3., Aboriginal Consultation (p1), CEAA mentions “the proponent will ensure that it engages with Aboriginal people and groups that may be affected by the project or that have potential or

3075 Takaya Drive North Vancouver, B.C. V7H 3A8 Tel: 604-924-4186 Fax: 604-929-4158

established Aboriginal rights and related interests in the project area…” Tsleil-Waututh seeks assurances that “established rights” include Aboriginal and treaty rights.

2) Under section 5.7, Project Activities, we have noted two important gaps:

a) Regarding dredging activities, Tsleil-Waututh requests that sediment sampling for contaminants be included. b) Tsleil-Waututh requests that storm water management be added.

3) Under Section 9.1.3., the regional sediment transport model (p.17, paragraph 2, 4th dash) should be large enough to encompass the Gulf Islands, the San Juan Islands, Burrard Inlet, and up to the north end of the Strait of Georgia. The Fraser River plume is a key driver of many ecological functions in the Salish Sea and the study domain must be large enough to evaluate all the effects of any changes.

4) Tsleil-Waututh further requests that the shoreline drift cells for sediment transport be mapped. Tsleil- Waututh requests that the maps depict three data sets: 1) historic, 2) current and 3) post-RBT2 construction, in order to track changes over time.

5) Tsleil-Waututh would like to see this project achieve net environmental benefit, not just no net loss as described in later sections of the EIS Guidelines. Tsleil-Waututh seeks “net gain” restoration, and therefore requests a formal net environmental benefit analysis (NEBA) to be completed as part of the EIS.

6) In both 10.2., “Adverse Impacts on Aboriginal Rights and Related Interests,” and 11.2., “Measures to Address Impacts on Aboriginal Rights”, the first paragraphs reference Section 9.1.2. It seems as though the paragraphs should instead reference 9.2.

We look forward to working collaboratively to ensure that any adverse impacts from the Project are limited and that meaningful benefits are returned to the affected First Nations. We also look forward to discussing capacity funding with you.

Please contact me at 604-924-4184 ([email protected]) if you have any questions.

Respectfully,

Erin Hanson Consultation and Accommodation Coordinator Treaty, Lands and Resources Department

3075 Takaya Drive North Vancouver, B.C. V7H 3A8 Tel: 604-924-4186 Fax: 604-929-4158

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Date: November 21, 2013 9:01:26 AM

Dear Sirs/Mesdames,

I'm writing in regards to the proposed Roberts Bank Container Terminal 2 (T2) project. Given the complexity and potential impact of T2 on the environment and the health of local communities, it is essential that a complete review be carried out by an independent panel review.

The assessment should include: - a look at the potential impacts on the whole Fraser Estuary, not just the immediate area of the T2 location - a look back at shorebird populations on Roberts Bank to at least 1990 and an assessment of why population declines have occurred; - a proper review of the human environment and impacts from developing T2 – for example the visual and other impacts (light, noise, air pollution, vibrations etc.) of those living close to the planned development as well as those using the walking and biking trails such as the ones along Brunswick Point - a review of specific studies that have been done previously on the Roberts Bank environment such as the studies done by independent experts on the biofilm that is present on Roberts Bank. This biofilm is critical as a food source for western sandpipers as well as other bird species. Building T2 will destroy it and thus potentially wipe out a key feeding area for migratory and other birds; - a thorough review of the Federal Government 2008 Emerson Report and recommendations on port expansion. Key recommendations contained in that report are thus far being ignored. For example that report recommended that no further port infrastructure be developed in the Lower Mainland until the container port of Prince Rupert had been maximized; - a thorough review of the planned road and rail works on agricultural land and the environmental and socio-community impacts; - a full risk assessment of the probability of marine accidents, given that the T2 berths are in an exposed location in Georgia Strait and subject to extreme wind events. What are the wind measurements, how strong a wind before the port must stop operating, what then happens if port operations are suspended (such as port truck back-ups) are all questions that must be asked.

In addition, the Port Metro Vancouver (PMV) business case and their forecast growth levels need to be properly analyzed by somebody other than PMV. It needs to be given a rigorous peer review and critique by an independent third party and analyzed against other industry reports that deal with forecast growth in container traffic.

Finally, the review of alternatives for port expansion needs to include facilities outside the jurisdiction of PMV – such as the potential for Prince Rupert container expansion.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Raynard von Hahn, B.Comm., LLB

Vancouver, BC

************************************************* This e-mail transmission contains information that may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended solely for the intended recipient and use by any other party is not authorized. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited.

If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us immediately by reply email or by telephone at and kindly delete this message. Thank you. *************************************************

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Please commit to a Panel Review of Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Date: December 2, 2013 4:04:00 PM

Good afternoon.

This is massive proposal with significant potential impacts. I urge you to commit to a full independent panel review of RBT2 so that the public has full confidence that all issues have been given proper consideration.

Thank you

Kevin Washbrook Vancouver --

______

Director, Voters Taking Action on Climate Change

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: T2 project Date: November 27, 2013 12:36:01 PM

To the CEAA

I am writing to strongly oppose this project. There is more coal dust in our air now, with the current operations, than is healthy for our community and we certainly do not need another terminal. I do not live near the railroad tracks or by Tsawwassen Beach but in the town centre area.

However, I am sweeping coal dust off my patio every day. For the past couple of months I have been sweeping it into the gutter so that, if you are interested, you could come and see the amount that is gathered there.

Please, do not add any more pollution to our already fragile air quality.

Thank you!

Doris Wasylyk

Street Delta B.C.

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Roberts Bank Container Terminal 2 - Draft Environmental Impact Date: December 8, 2013 7:14:19 PM

Subject: Roberts Bank Container Terminal 2 – Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines – Public Comment

We are very concerned about this project and the impact that it will have on the environment and the communities both in Delta as well as elsewhere in the Lower Mainland.

We believe that it is essential that the T2 project be subjected to a full panel review, due to the complexities of the project and to the significant implications that it has on the whole of the Fraser Estuary. It must therefore be given a complete and thorough assessment by a panel that is independent from Port Metro Vancouver.

The T2 development is an extremely contentious issue, given the history of port development in Delta in general, and the threat to internationally significant populations of migratory birds in particular. Roberts Bank, where T2 is to be located, sits in the Fraser Estuary which has now been given a UN Ramsar designation as wetlands of international significance. This world class ecosystem is recognized internationally and any further development that negatively impacts this ecosystem will come under international scrutiny. Bird watching injects billions of dollars into the economy. For all the above reasons it is therefore essential that this project be subjected to the most rigorous level of assessment, being a full and independent panel review.

Given that salmon are the backbone of our ecosystem and a major contributor to our economy we are sure you are not planning to destroy them both.

S. Watkins White Rock BC

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Dear CEAA Date: December 4, 2013 9:34:05 PM

I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed coal port at Roberts Bank. This project could have serious health implications to the citizens along the route and in the area, as well as marine life in the area, including salmon, whales and dolphins. I would like to ask for an independent joint review panel to give this project the scrutiny it deserves. Thank you

Lynne Wheeler Fanny Bay, B.C.

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Independent Environmental Assessment Panel Needed Date: December 8, 2013 8:54:58 PM

I am resending this letter in hopes you will make the ethical decision to set up an independent panel with the highest level of scientific inquiry for the Terminal 2 proposal.

> > As a citizen who is very concerned about the cumulative effects of proposed Roberts Bank Terminal 2, I will be very alarmed about the integrity of our government if the highest level of environmental assessment, an independent panel is not created. > > This project was artificially broken up to avoid proper cumulative independent assessment, so the mandate needs to look at the whole expansion including the 3rd berth, the South Fraser Perimeter Road, the other components of expansion including rail, etc. > > I am aware of our limited farmland and growing population, air pollution issues from bunker fuel and trucks etc., the fragility of the Fraser Estuary and it's national importance to our salmon, Orcas and other marine life. I worry about the Pacific Flyway and the key role played by the delta including Roberts Bank. > > Our trust in our government and Port Metro has been repeatedly put to the test, by allowing proponent assessments, "habitat banking" of dissimilar habitats, and the current process that invites people in small groups (divide and conquer, co-optation) and sets up "open houses" with limited options. All to say the project has been environmentally assessed and the public has been consulted. > > This is an opportunity to win back our trust, and scientifically and democratically make the best decisions for the land and next generations. > > Sincerely, > Kathleen Whipp > Beach Grove, Tsawwassen > > >

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project A.Wightman Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 410-701 West Georgia Street Delta, BC Vancouver, BC V7Y 1C6 Telephone: 604-666-2431 Fax: 604-666-6990 [email protected] Nov. 30, 2013

Dear Sir

Roberts Bank Container Terminal 2 – Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines – Public Comment Period commencing November 8 2013.

There are real and very significant risks associated with the planned expansion of Port Metro Vancouver’s Roberts Bank Terminal-2 Project (T2).

The approach taken to date by PMV and its consultants is aimed at minimizing the impact of T2 on biofilm and infauna that are critical to the survival of migratory birds and shore birds especially the western sandpiper. If this central part of the diet of these birds is damaged by T2 and its effects on inshore tidal currents, then the integrity of the Pacific Flyway will be compromised and there is potential for an eco-system collapse.

Southern resident killer whales, endangered and on the COSEWIC red list, are a species that is already in trouble from vessel noise which is changing the communications patterns of all whales in the area, and which will be affected far more by T2.

A central issue with T2 is the undoubted negative effect on tidal flows and the attendant foreshore scouring effect due to this enormous man-made island, and the potential for interruption of the migration paths of salmon, a species critical to the environmental health of all of BC and the west coast.

Roberts Bank, where T2 is to be located, sits in the Fraser Estuary which has now been given a UN Ramsar designation as wetlands of international significance. This world class ecosystem is recognized internationally and any further development that negatively impacts this ecosystem will come under international scrutiny, being immediately adjacent to US waters

We trust that you will understand that anything less than a full, rigorous, and well defined assessment of the cumulative environmental impact of T2 by a panel of experts that is independent of, and not funded by, Port Metro Vancouver will not provide the degree of scientific scrutiny required to shed light on the very real and significant risks associated with T2.

Sincerely,

Adrian and Jean Wightman

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Comments on Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Draft EIS Guidelines (80054) Date: December 7, 2013 2:06:01 PM

The proposed Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project should have an environmental assessment conducted by an independent review panel. The project will destroy 117 ha of southern resident killer whale critical habitat, increase vessel traffic, and add to the already high levels of underwater noise that killer whales and other marine species are chronically exposed to. The area is also important to migratory birds, many of which are also classified as species at risk. The scoping in the EIS guidelines should be expanded to include impacts to air quality, bird migration, and underwater noise beyond the project boundary and port jurisdiction. In particular, the effect of underwater noise on marine species should include vessel routes and traffic to and from the terminal, not just at the berth face. Vessel-related underwater noise affects killer whales along the complete route that a ship travels. With more vessels travelling to a new terminal, the impacts will increase in areas that have been designated as critical to the survival of the species. Similarly, the air quality assessment should include the supply chain and the impact of increased rail and truck traffic on a regional level, not just within port jurisdiction. While the port may not be able to mitigate these impacts directly, they are still impacts that will result from the project and require consideration in the environmental assessment. Sincerely, Karina Wilson

From: To: Roberts Bank [CEAA] Subject: Terminal 2 at Roberts Bank is an ecological disaster Date: December 7, 2013 10:44:48 AM

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project, Registry #80054 Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 410-701 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, BC V7Y 1C6

Re: Terminal 2 at Roberts Bank

Dear Sir/Madam: I am strongly opposed to Terminal 2 at Roberts Bank as I believe it will be an ecological disaster. There is no reason other than commercial greed that this project has been proposed. Please ensure that there is a thorough Environmental Assessment that will stop this ill advised project. Sincerely, Dr. Karen Wonders

Victoria BC

======

Terminal 2 at Roberts Bank requires an Independent Review Panel Environmental Assessment for the following reasons:

· The Fraser River Delta is habitat of global significance for migratory birds of the Pacific Flyway.

· It is a Global Important Bird Area under Birdlife International.

· Roberts Bank is recognized as a Western Hemispheric Shorebird Reserve Network.

· Shorebirds show evidence of serious decline and wetlands are imperiled.

· Roberts Bank is located in the middle of the Fraser River Delta RAMSAR site.

· The T2 Project will Degrade Habitat of Western Sandpipers.

· The T2 Project will Degrade Salmon and other Fish Habitat

· The T2 Project will Degrade Habitat of endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales

· There is no business justification for Terminal 2.

· There are alternatives for the container business.

· A credible cumulative effects assessment is necessary.

· There will be social impacts of noise, light and air pollution.

· There will be social impacts from increase in rail and truck traffic.