Request Number IR1-08: Outputs of Alternative Means Analysis Information Request 1. Explain how environmental considerations, other than requirements for habitat offsetting and terminal and dredge basins footprint, were used in the analysis of alternative locations for the terminal and orientations of the terminal. 2. Clarify the relative importance of construction scheduling compared to environmental considerations. 3. Discuss the relative importance (weighting) of information from available environmental reports compared to technical inputs from subject matter experts and work stream leads in the selection of preferred scenarios. 4. Elaborate on the cost differences between the pile and deck structure as compared to the concrete caisson structure for the options considered for the terminal construction. 5. Provide a detailed description of the information that was presented to the public and to Aboriginal groups regarding the reinforced concrete caisson type terminal option which resulted in the assertion that the public and Aboriginal groups preferred this option. VFPA Response 1. Explain how environmental considerations, other than requirements for habitat offsetting and terminal and dredge basins footprint, were used in the analysis of alternative locations for the terminal and orientations of the terminal. 1 Environmental considerations, other than habitat offsetting requirements and direct footprint- 2 related changes, used in the preliminary analysis of alternative terminal locations and 3 orientations at Roberts Bank included the following: 4 Indirect changes from altered coastal processes (e.g., productivity loss), including: 5 o Tide currents and how they shape tidal flat evolution; 6 o Waves and how they shape tidal flat evolution; and 7 o Tidal channel formation; 8 Underwater noise; 9 Noise emissions; 10 Light and visual resources; and 11 Aboriginal rights and related interests. 12 Following preliminary analyses, it was determined that while light and visual resources, and 13 Aboriginal rights and related interests, were important considerations in the environmental 14 effects assessment of alternative means, they were not differentiating criteria that permitted Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Sufficiency Information Request #08 (IR1-08) | Page 1 15 a comparative analysis. Hence, the criteria that were carried forward for the analyses included 16 the following: 17 1. Coastal processes were considered for the coastal birds, marine fish, marine 18 invertebrates, marine mammals, and marine vegetation VCs, including changes in 19 water quality (i.e., water ponding) and tidal flat evolution (i.e., dendritic channel 20 formation, wave-induced scour, current-induced scour at the northwest corner of the 21 terminal, tidal channel formation, and sediment deposition patterns including berth 22 pocket infilling). 23 2. Underwater noise was considered in the evaluation of effects to marine fish and marine 24 mammals based on the encroachment of the terminal into open water. The furthest 25 offset from the -10 m CD contour line provides for the least potential effect. 26 3. Noise emissions were considered in the evaluation of potential effects to coastal birds 27 and human health, with increases in noise anticipated based on berth face distance 28 from local communities. 29 For each alternative terminal location and orientation at Roberts Bank, comparative 30 evaluations were conducted based on the environmental considerations described above, in 31 addition to habitat offsetting requirements and direct footprint-related changes, as described 32 in EIS Table 5-8 (updated Table 5-8 is provided in the VFPA’s response to IR1-07—see 33 Table IR1-07-2). 2. Clarify the relative importance of construction scheduling compared to environmental considerations 34 The VFPA’s response to IR1-06 and IR1-07 describes the approach and technical, economic, 35 and environmental criteria used to determine the preferred means of carrying out the Project. 36 Construction schedule was not considered as a technical criterion during these analyses. 37 Construction schedule was considered once a preferred means of carrying out the Project was 38 determined and is described in EIS Section 4.3. Several constraints to work activities were 39 considered, including fisheries work windows (juvenile salmon and crab closures), work 40 stoppages for marine mammal sightings, and certain provisions of the Coasting Trade Act that 41 regulate marine activities. 42 In the case of the preferred alternative means of carrying out the Project, environmental 43 considerations dictated the start of construction, the duration of construction activities, and 44 were considered early in the planning process. Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Sufficiency Information Request #08 (IR1-08) | Page 2 3. Discuss the relative importance (weighting) of information from available environmental reports compared to technical inputs from subject matter experts and work stream leads in the selection of preferred scenarios. 45 The analyses of alternative means of carrying out the Project was based on the consideration 46 by the Project team of multiple streams of information, which included historical information, 47 technical, engineering, and environmental reports, and feedback from consultation. During 48 this process, technical information was not weighted against information available from 49 environmental reports. Information sources were generally considered to be of equal 50 importance during the analysis of alternative means, except for the following: 51 Regulator input on preferred location: Preliminary planning for a new three-berth 52 container terminal at Roberts Bank was undertaken in the early 2000s1 (as described 53 in EIS Section 2.3.1) and input from regulators during that time provided guidance as 54 to the preferred location of a potential future terminal at Roberts Bank. This input was 55 considered at the beginning of the process of determining alternative means; and 56 Input from consultation: Feedback on the design and location of the alternative means 57 from consultation with Aboriginal groups and the public, including communities, local 58 and regional government, stakeholders, community groups, and residents, was 59 initiated in 2012 on Project concepts. Details of the consultation process are provided 60 in the VFPA’s response to Question 5 below. Feedback received during all rounds of 61 consultation was considered iteratively during Project planning. 62 In 2011, as part of the feasibility assessment phase of the Project, conceptual design and 63 technical reports were prepared, including geotechnical (including seismic) assessments, 64 metocean studies, dredging concept and dredgeate usage studies, desktop ship navigation 65 study (including pilot feedback), mooring and berthing analysis, transportation analysis, 66 terminal equipment configuration alternatives, automation alternatives, environmental 67 reports (e.g., Roberts Bank Port Expansion – Report of the Environmental Assessment Panel2, 68 Deltaport project reports), and financial analysis. Information provided by these studies was 69 considered during the definition phase and provided the basis of the preliminary engineering 70 design criteria used in the analyses of alternative means of carrying out the Project. Once the 1 In 2002, RBT2 was proposed together with the Deltaport Third Berth (DP3) Project. Based on regulator input, the VFPA chose not to advance RBT2 in order to provide more time to complete environmental and engineering studies to explore the best location and design for a new terminal; DP3 proceeded through the regulatory process as a separate project. 2 Federal Environmental Assessment Office. 1979. Roberts Bank Port Expansion – Report of the Environmental Assessment Panel. Available at http://www.robertsbankterminal2.com/wp-content/uploads/Report-of-the- Environmental-Assessment-Panel-Roberts-Bank-Port-Expansion-1979.pdf. Accessed October 2016. Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Sufficiency Information Request #08 (IR1-08) | Page 3 71 preferred option was selected, this information was also used in the preliminary design of the 72 Project and is provided in the EIS Appendix 4-A. 4. Elaborate on the cost differences between the pile and deck structure as compared to the concrete caisson structure for the options considered for the terminal construction. 73 A berth structural system options study for the RBT2 terminal considered costs associated 74 with both the caisson and pile and deck structures. This study, which was recently updated 75 to take into account the revised seismic standard and the latest geotechnical assumptions, 76 concluded that a pile and deck structure would cost 35% more to build than the caisson 77 option. 78 As indicated in the VFPA’s response to IR1-06 Question 1 (Table IR1-06-4 in 79 Appendix IR1-06-A) and IR1-07 Question 3 regarding the analyses of alternative means of 80 construction activities, both the caisson and pile and deck options are considered to be 81 technically feasible, but only the caisson option is considered to be economically feasible. 5. Provide a detailed description of the information that was presented to the public and to Aboriginal groups regarding the reinforced concrete caisson type terminal option which resulted in the assertion that the public and Aboriginal groups preferred this option. 82 During Project Definition consultation in 2012, the following information was provided to the 83 public and Aboriginal groups regarding the reinforced concrete