Some Emails in This Document Contain Material That May Not Be Appropriate for All Audiences
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Warning: Some emails in this document contain material that may not be appropriate for all audiences. FSD-EIA From: FSD-EIA Subject: FW: Port Metro Vancouver Project Update: Fraser Surrey Docks Direct Transfer Coal Facility From Sent November-18-13 1 13 PM To Port Metro Vancouver Public Affairs, ministerec gc Ca, minister©tc gc ca, mem minister@qov bc Ca, Env Minister©ciov bc ca, FSD-EIA Cc Subject Re Port Metro Vancouver Project Update Fraser Surrey Docks Direct Transfer Coal Facility Dear Directors of Port Metro Vancouver and Honourable Federal and Provincial Ministers, As a resident of Texada Island who lives within 4km of the proposed coal stockpile, I am shocked by this obscene pretense of an “environmental impact assessment” that fails to take into consideration the shipping of the coal and its that an independent federal and provincial environmental and health impact storage on Texada Island. I demand assessment be undertaken that includes the full scope of the proposed undertaking. If you refuse to carry out such an assessment, please be advised that I will take whatever measures are necessary to protect my health and property. 1 FSD-EIA From: FSD-EIA Subject: FW: Requested comments for EtA internal ref: 614836 Attachments: volume-I -main-document-and-executive-summary. pdf From: Sent: November-18-13 4:24 PM To: FSD-EIA Cc: Subject: Requested comments for EIA internal ref: 614836 Dear Mr Tim Blair, Senior Planner at Port Metro Vancouver, About the Environmental Impact Assessment (ETA) conducted by Fraser Surrey Docks, internal ref: 614836. Document location at http://portmetrovancouver.com/en/proieets/OngoingProj ects/Tenant-Led Projects/FraserSurreyDocks.aspx Thanks for inviting the public to review and comment, this shows transparency:) I have three comments below Comment 1: Comment 1 summary: Tom Watson does not seem to be an appropriate contributor to this ETA document, as he has a potential financial conflict of interest Comment 1 details: In the “VOLUME 1: Main Document and Executive Summary”, on page 1, it reads “Tom Watson, PhD, Soleil Environmental Consultants Ltd’ That document is located at http://portmetrovancouver.com/docs/default-source/PROJECTS-FSD/volume-1- main-document-and-executive-summary.pdf?sfvrsn=O Tom Watson does not seem to be an appropriate contributor to this EIA document, as he has a potential financial conflict of interest. In other words, Tom does not seem to be fully financially independent from FSD, Triton, their contributors and their business partners. Tom worked and might still be working for Triton Environmental, source https://www.linkedin.comlpub/tom watson/4a/2 11 /a78 And also because Triton gets money from FSD, and FSD is promoting the Texada coal expansion, source: page 23 of 41 at http ://www.delta.ca/assets/Environment/PDF/FSD CouncilPresentationO2 1813 .pdf Here are some interesting information about Tom: * Tom received money coming from Lafarge Canada paid to Triton, source “Triton recently completed a project for Lafarge Canada’s Texada Quarry (3906; PM: Tom Watson) to assist them in receiving Wildlife at Work certification from the Wildlife Habitat Council. An article about the quarry (and a Triton ad) appear in the MarchlApril 2009 issue of Exploration + Processing” source: http://www.triton env.com/intranet/documents/Newsletter-Issue2_May2009 . pdf 1 * During the period 2012-2013 Tom Watson received money from Triton, potentially $135 to $190 hourly rate, assuming it’s equivalent to a “M3” rate. Potentially an even higher rate because “M3 *?is listed higher in Triton hourly rates table, source: http ://www.triton-env.comlintrahet/employee-manuals/documents/RATESHEET 2012-201 3updatedAug29l 2.pdf * Tom was also involved in Triton’s Board of Directors. Source: “The new executive team officially took up the reins October 1. Many thanks to Tom Watson and Clyde Mitchell for their contributions over the years and their continued work on the Board of Directors”. Source: http://www.triton env. comlintranet/documents/Newsletter-Issue4 Nov2009.pdf Tom has not yet reply to the private message I sent him. Anybody know if Tom is now currently fully financially independent from FSD, Triton, their contributors and their business partners? If Tom his still receiving money from any of them that makes his argument much less valuable to me. I’ll let others decide their opinion, they own it. Check this out, interesting short video showing the relationship between Bias, Conflict of Interest (CoT), and Money ($), http ://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia!commons/transcoded/0/08/Bias_v2.ogg/Bias v2 .ogg.3 60p.webm BTW, if any of the above documents are no longer available there are alternative locations on the internet, let me know if needed Comment 2: Before involving someone in a EIA document, I suggest to request from them a written confirmation that they do not have financial conflict of interest with the parties. In that ETA case, parties such as FSD, Triton, their contributors and their business partners. Comment 3: I suggest to do a fully independent Environmental Impact Assessment for the proposed Texada Island Terminal expansion. As it’s related to that project. For example, a large number of barges would commute from FSD to Texada. Then, be unloaded at Texada Island. Next, commute back to FSD. Cheers, 2 FSD-EIA From: FSD-EIA Subject: FW: What are the primary reasons for making this port The Port? From: Sent: November-18-13 8:55 PM To: FSD-EIA Subject: What are the primary reasons for making this port “The Port?” Your plan is flawed. We know that you have lead a gross campaign for your port to export the coal. You have disregarded the social, health, environmental and inconveniences of your plan. Our legislation needs to change. You should not be allowed to do this without approval from various levels of government. I will personally barricade myself to an area near your rail line, Just close enough to make it unsafe. If your train passes, it will only prove my point more. Then, after a few truckloads, I will blow my nose and leave the sooty kleenex on your desk for you to dispose of. “no impact on health” my ass. You know people aren’t this dumb. This proposal just makes you greedy pricks. 1 FSD-EIA From: FSD-EIA Subject: FW: Re: Flaws in Vancouver Fraser Port Authority Coal Export EIA From: On Behalf Of RealPortHearings Sent: November-19-13 12:50 AM To: FSD-EIA Subject: Fwd: Re: Flaws in Vancouver Fraser Port Authority Coal Export ETA Administrator info©realporthearincis.org REAL PORT HEARINGS OPEN, PUBLIC CONSULTATION ABOUT PORT OPE = = = = = = = = = = = = Forwarded message = = = = = = = = === = To : “[email protected]” <[email protected]>, “darrell.desiardiniortmetrovancouver.com” <darrell.desiardin(portmetrovancouver.com>, “willyyungportmetrovancouver.com” <[email protected]>, “evanqeline.englezos©portmetrovancouvercom” <evancieline.englezos©portmetrovancouver.com> Cc : “[email protected]” <[email protected]>, “[email protected]” <ENV.Ministergov.bc.ca>, “MEMMinistergov.bc.ca” <MEM.Minister©gov.bc.ca>, “hlth.ministerqov.bc.ca” <hlth.ministergov.bc.ca>, “Minister Ministrehc-sc.gc.ca” <Minister Ministre©hc-sc.cic.ca>, “Ministerec.cc.ca” <Ministerec.gc.ca>, “mintctc.gc.ca” <mintctc.cic.ca>, “inforealporthearings.org” <info©realporthearings.org> Date : Mon, 18 Nov 2013 20:43:00 -0800 Subject : Re: Flaws in Vancouver Fraser Port Authority Coal Export ETA = = = = = = = = = = = = Forwarded message = = = = = = = = = = = = What is the cost of cleanup of 50 years of accumulated environmental contamination? How effective is the cleanup? Who pays for the cost? 1 Who pays the cost of marine contamination (bunker oil) if ships transporting coal have an accident on the Salish Sea? What are the risks of shellfish contamination? Who will pay for losses? Who will pay for the increase in medical services required from those who suffer from coal dust exposure? What are the true costs to our economy (including real estate) and lost tourism dollars? Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. 2 FSD-EIA From: FSD-EIA Subject: FW: Review of inadequate report Original Message From: Sent: November-19-13 9:35 AM To: FSD-EIA Subject: Review of inadequate report In the face of the opposition (thus far) from the Governments of Vancouver, Surrey, New Westminster, White Rock, and Langley who represent more than 30% of the population of this province, this report is totally inadequate. All of the above have asked for a proper health assessment to be provided by an independant third party review. As well, representatives of the Fraser Health Authority and the Vancouver Health Authority who have previewed this report have written to say that the SNC Lavalin report is full of holes, errors and inconsistancies. Further, dozens of Physicians, scientists and hundreds of citizens have voiced their opposition. You must stop the process until a proper health assessment has been completed and reviewed and a full public hearing process has taken place. 1 FSD-EIA From: FSD-EIA Subject: FW: movement of coal From: Sent: November-19-13 10:27 AM To: Crandles, James; Desjardin, Darrell; Yung, Willy; Englezos, Evangeline; FSD-EIA; [email protected]; ENV.Ministergov.bc.ca; [email protected]; [email protected]; Minister [email protected]; Ministerec.cjc.ca; mintcctc.gc.ca; inforealporthearings.orq Subject: movement of coal Name Email Subject movement of coal Listen to the science.... continued use of fossil fuels is mortgaging the future of all Message