Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Legislative Assembly
Province of British Columbia
Vicki Huntington, M.L.A.
e-maii: vicki.Huntington.mla@leg.bc.ca
(Delta South)
Constituency Office:
4805 Delta Street
Delta, B.C. V4K 2T7
October 28,2016
Debra Myles
Review Panel Manager, Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project
c/o Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
The Roberts Bank Terminal 2 (T2) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is designed to satisfy the
requirements laid out by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA). In doing so the
proponent, the Port of Vancouver, has the responsibility to provide sufficient data and analysis on any
potential chan es to the environment in order to permit a thorough evaluation of the environmental
assessment of T2 s likely effects on Southern Resident Killer Whales (SRKWs), existing environmental
effects are often used as a means to support additional projects, employing the argument that new
projects could not make the situation any worse.21 fear that one of the induced effects of T2 will be
further expansion on Roberts Bank, justified by the argument that the impacts will not exceed the
cumulative effects of the second terminal.
1 British Columbia Archives, Energy Board records, GR-0442 vl7f.9, box 3, Swan Wooster Engineering Co. Ltd.,
Master Plan: Roberts Bank Development, 1969.
2 Research not cited by the proponent shows that the T2 project will have a greater impact on SRKWs than they
suggest, beyond the existing cumulative effects. See detailed comments in the attached table.
2015 study prepared for the proponent, T2 will increase annual logistics oriented land demand by up to
30% ... [and] increase the need to find suitable sites to support associated growth in off-dock container
activity. 4 This, too, is not accounted for in the EIS.
Similarly, the acquisition of BC Rail lands for the proponent's use for T2 is not properly assessed. BC Rail
owns 159 acres of AIR land along Deltaport Way to fulfill its mandate of "acquiring and holding railway
corridor and strategic port lands. 5 In the EIS, the proponent acknowledges the use of the BC Rail
Option Lands for a new rail corridor as part of the Deltaport Road and Rail Improvement Project
(DTRRIP; see Appendix B map). The Option Lands are "a 60-metre-wide strip of land from Arthur Drive
west to the neck of the Roberts Bank causeway and are within the Agricultural Land Reserve slated for
development.6 The proponent, however, makes no attempt to link DTRRIP to T2, even though the EIS
includes information on the proponent's intent to acquire two hectares of BC Rail land specifically for
the project. BC Rail's lands are located predominately in the ALR (e.g., parcel #23 in Figure 3-7, portions
of which have been actively farmed). Further, there are ongoing, undisclosed and unassessed tenure
negotiations for more than the two hectares in question. T2 will conclusively increase the need for
additional land holdings to support the proponent's activities. The project will lead to incidental
activities affecting agricultural land, and an Agricultural Impact Assessment should therefore be
required.
The proponent should also be required to acknowledge the regional development pressures on
agriculture. A study by VanCity found that holding companies are leasing 4,860 acres of farmland in
Metro Vancouver.7 Some of these development pressures can be directly linked to the proponent's
activities: there are at least $50 million of active options to purchase ALR land by an industrial developer
whose stated intention is to create an intermodal yard to serve the port.8 Major infrastructure
developments such as T2 will only increase these development pressures on agricultural. The project's
agricultural impacts should be assessed as part of the EIS.
3 Port Metro Vancouver, Land Use Plan, (28 October 2014), 3 < http://www.portvancouver.com/wpcontent/uploads/2015/06/port-metro-vancouver-land-use-plan-english.pdf>.
4 Site Economics Ltd., The Industrial Land Market and Trade Growth in Metro Vancouver (October 2015), 1
<http://www.portvancouver.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/SiteEconomics-Study_MetroVancouverlndustrial-Land-Market.pdf>.
5 Government of British Columbia, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure: 2016/17 - 2018/19 Service Plan
(February 2016), 25 <http://bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2016/sp/pdf/ministry/trans.pdf>.
6 Port Metro Vancouver, Deltaport Terminal, Road and Rail Improvement Project: Project Update December
7 Vancity, Plome on the Range: Cost pressures and the price of farmland in Metro Vancouver (7 April 2016), 5
<http://www.vancity.com/AboutVancity/News/MediaReleases/AgriculturalLandPriceslncrease-Apr6-2016/VancityAgricultural-Land-Report.pdf>.
8 Lamington Pleights Investment (the Emerson Group) hold options-to-purchase on the followin PIDs, which expire
31 January 2019: 000-605-697, 001-993-038, and 016-997-492.
I would also like to express my support for Environment and Climate Change Canada s submission dated
October 11th, 2016 (#574), concerning the project s effects on the Pacific flyway. Their analysis and
conclusions must be respected if the unique Roberts Bank habitat-vital to so many species - is to be
preserved. Surely by now we have learned that we have not only a duty to protect these species, but an
obligation to honour the intent of an international treaty whose specific goal is to protect migratory
wildlife.
In conclusion, I believe there are significant gaps in the information submitted by the proponent. These
gaps will prevent both the public and the CEAA from fully understanding the impacts of the Terminal 2
project. After reviewing the supplemental information provided by the proponent, as well as the original
EIS, it is clear that the EIS is insufficient for the purposes of an effective environmental assessment.
My office's detailed submission begins by highlighting some general areas where the proponent has
either failed to provide sufficient information, or has reached unsubstantiated conclusions based on the
information provided. The second part of this submission uses the CEAA template and guidelines to list
specific areas where the proponent must provide more information. It is followed by two appendices,
which provide visual context for the 1960s expansion plans and DTRRIP. My office's previous
submissions for the project's completeness review (#233) and Marine Shipping Addendum (#361) may
contain comments appropriate to the sufficiency review stage, and I trust the CEAA will take them into
account at this stage as well.
Areas of Concern
1. Unsubstantiated Conclusions:
a. Throughout the EIS, the proponent claims either that there is no adverse residual effect
anticipated on valued components, or that any effect will be negligible. Yet often
these claims lack sufficient data to justify the proponent's conclusions.
b. In some cases the scientific data presented do not wholly support the proponent's
conclusions. This was particularly evident in sections that drew conclusions based on
modeling analysis.
c. Conclusions about the proponent's mitigation efforts are unsubstantiated because
detailed mitigation plans are not available for evaluation. This was the case for every
proposed mitigation strategy.
d. The proponent presupposes the results of various studies as justification for assuming
there will be only minor impacts from the project.
e. The proponent predicts the project will affect species in ways that do not appear
consistent with the typical behaviours of those species. This was apparent in the
proponent's analysis of the project's acoustic effects on SRKWs.
f. Throughout the EIS, the proponent reaches unsubstantiated conclusions regarding the
project's impact on aboriginal concerns including labour conditions, cultural heritage,
and sense-of-place.
g. The proponent draws conclusions on the project's likely effects using argument based
on existing conditions. The proponent argues, for example, that current noise and light
levels have not affected marine-based tourism businesses and concludes the doubling of
port capacity and associated increases in marine traffic will likewise have a negligible
effect. The proponent reaches that conclusion without supporting evidence.
3. Insufficient Information:
a. There are unresolved requests for information and updates on the status of disputes.
These range from requests for further species-specific information to issues raised by
First Nations.
b. Details of planned mitigation efforts are not provided. It is impossible to evaluate
mitigation plans without detailed information on what those plans will entail.
c. Baselines for a number of indicators will not be established by the time the project
begins, raising questions about whether or not the proponent will be able to measure
and monitor effects.
4. Weak Evidence:
a. In making some of its arguments for how various species will be represented, the
proponent uses out-of-date information, sometimes compiled decades ago and/or
pertaining to completely different biomes.
b. The proponent at times uses an average" measurement as a way to discount
c. The proponent largely ignores the possibility of terminal expansion beyond this project
(e.g., a short-sea-shipping barge terminal), despite the terminal being built with that
rail traffic).
f. Local context is often missing or misrepresented.
g. The larger context of climate change is significantly understated.
These are the general areas of concern my office has with the EIS, and why I consider the information
provided, including the supplemental documents, insufficient.
The attached table includes examples that substantiate the concerns I have raised above.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Proposed Information Requests on the Sufficiency and Technical Merit of the Environmental Assessment
IR#
VHIR-1
Information Source
Responses to Information
Requirements - July 31 (CEAA
Reference # 80054) Request
#1
Rationale
In both the original EIS (appendices 29-F and 29-G) as well as the Response to Information
Requirements, the proponent argues that there will be no change to the environment that
will result in adverse residual effects to labour market changes for Aboriginal Peoples. The
proponent provides no details on why they believe there will be no residual impacts to the
Aboriginal labour market.
Changes to the environment could impact the labour market for Aboriginal Peoples if the
tourist or commercial-marine sectors are affected. A detailed breakdown of what effects
are anticipated is needed. A thorough analysis of this land-use change and its impact on
the labour market and economic development of the local First Nations must also be
provided, with data to support the proponents conclusions.
In addition, section 21.5.1.1 of the EIS provides detail on the crab industry. It does not,
however, give adequate information on how the negative effects on Dungeness crab
harvesting will impact the Aboriginal labour market.
VHIR-2
Responses to Information
Requirements - July 31 (CEAA
Reference # 80054)
Response #1
The proponent argues that many potential effects of the project are not directly linked to
a change in the environment. For example, a change in daytime visual resources during
construction and operation is not directly linked to a change in the environment.
Disturbances to marine-related industrial uses and disturbances to the Protected Area of
Roberts Bank are also argued to have no direct link to a change in the environment. It is
difficult to understand how these effects are not directly linked to a change in the
environment caused by the project. The change in ocean flows and currents, the
disturbance to the seafloor and intertidal areas (through dredging and construction
activities), as well as the increase in noise/pollutants from the construction and operation
IR#
Information Source
Rationale
of T2 is causing those disturbances and is therefore directly linked to a change in the
environment.
VHIR-3
Responses to Information
Requirements - July 31 (CEAA
Reference # 80054)
Response #1
VHIR-4
Responses to Information
Requirements - July 31 (CEAA
Reference # 80054)
Response #1
The proponent is inconsistent with how it sees changes to the environment affecting the
physical and cultural heritage of Aboriginal Peoples in the area. For example, one
potential effect of the project is the crushing or biological degradation of potential fish
trap stakes during construction; however, they argue that this effect is not directly
linked to a change in the environment. Another potential effect is the exposure of
potential fish trap stakes during construction and with this effect the proponent states
Change in physical environment Project terminal footprint-related changes in coastal
processes include increased flow exchange in relict tidal channel west of the terminal from
flow acceleration. It is illogical for the crushing of fish trap stakes to not be linked to a
change in the environment while the exposure of fish trap stakes is linked to a change in
the environment.
VHIR-5
Responses to Information
Requirements - July 31 (CEAA
Reference # 80054)
Response #2
The Penelakut Tribe has commented that its traditional territory is misrepresented in the
EIS. The proponent gives an overview of the situation, how it came to pass, and argues
that the point is moot because it was a written description error, not a map and
geographical description error. There is, however, no information on the current state of
affairs. Have the written descriptions been modified to address this inaccuracy?
Responses to Information
Requirements - July 31 (CEAA
Reference # 80054)
Response #6
The information informing the diet assumptions of the Bald Eagle appears inadequate. For
example, the proponent originally presumed the birds diet to consist primarily of salmon
but then was changed to a site-specific preference for gulls (by a factor of 10). Yet the only
data they provide for that site-specific change is to reference a study done in Washington
from 1984 for Bald Eagles in Western Washington. For context, the Bald Eagle population
grew roughly 700% since 1981 to 2005 in Washington (Harvey CJ, Moriarty PE, Salath Jr
EP. Modeling climate change impacts on overwintering bald eagles. Ecology and
VHIR-6
IR#
Information Source
Rationale
VHIR-7
Responses to Information
Requirements - July 31 (CEAA
Reference # 80054)
Response #6
VHIR-8
Responses to Information
Requirements - July 31 (CEAA
Reference # 80054)
Response #6
A better explanation or
acknowledgement of uncertainty
in accounting for the estimated
biomass for forage fish.
It appears that the proponent guessed at the amount of forage fish in the Roberts Bank
area, read a study and revised that guess, and then found that their model did not balance
so changed the numbers again to ensure the model would balance. This is concerning
because forage fish biomass is the thirteenth largest input into the model, and they
account for the largest biomass of fish in the model. This changing of data inputs casts
doubt on the usefulness of the model itself.
The proponent does not mention a description of forage fish in its explanation of predatorprey interactions, despite forage fish accounting for a higher biomass then salmon. While
the matrix provides a reference to which species prey on forage fish and how much that
accounts for the predator diet, they do not give any further detailed written descriptions
for predator-prey interactions with forage fish (except for what is found in the EIS
Appendix 10-B, section 4.8, p.65, and the descriptions found in EIS Section 13.5 Marine
Fish: Existing Conditions). It is a requirement from the CEAA to give detailed descriptions of
predator-prey interactions for fish species, but no additional descriptions were done for
forage fish despite their importance to the biomass model.
VHIR-9
Responses to Information
Requirements - July 31 (CEAA
Reference # 80054)
Response #6
IR#
Information Source
Rationale
VHIR-10
Responses to Information
Requirements - July 31 (CEAA
Reference # 80054)
Response #8
The proponent repeatedly states that there was no relevant Aboriginal Traditional
Knowledge (ATK) to use for the selection of valued components, and/or the determination
of significance of adverse environmental effects. According to the proponent, ATK was
only used in baseline descriptions and the assessment of effects. It is difficult to believe
that no relevant ATK exists for the selection of valued components or the determination of
significance for adverse environmental effects. An independent process from the CEAA
should verify with First Nations groups that the proponents explanation is accurate.
VHIR-11
Responses to Information
Requirements - July 31 (CEAA
Reference # 80054)
Response #9 Appendix AIR9
This is a minimum requirement of the EIS (9.1.6) that is still not met. An
acknowledgement of the abundance and life stages for each species is given, but no
description is provided.
VHIR-12
Responses to Information
Requirements - July 31 (CEAA
Reference # 80054)
Response #12
The CEAA has asked for a more thorough description and explanation of the mitigation
measures proposed. In response, the proponent has highlighted that in its sub-plans it will
have the details of these mitigation measures. The issue is that those sub-plans dont yet
exist. For example, the Construction Compliance Monitoring Plan is supposed to regularly
test water quality as a way to ensure that macro-algae productivity is minimally affected.
But the proponent gives no details regarding: how often the water will be tested; where it
will test water; what the threshold for water quality is; what will happen if the water
quality exceeds that threshold; etc. There is no way to evaluate the mitigation measure if
there are no details provided on how that mitigation will actually be applied. The same
issue applies to all of the proponents sub-plans that are supposed to mitigate the
projects effects including: the Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Plan; Marine
Species Salvage Plan; Operations Compliance Monitoring Plan; the Dredging and
Discharge Plan; the Noise Management Plan; etc.
VHIR-13
Responses to Information
Requirements - July 31 (CEAA
Reference # 80054)
Response #12
It is impossible to verify if these are adequate mitigation measures without knowing the
finer details of these programs. Simply stating the objectives and the intended outcome of
these programs does not allow for any confidence in the proposed mitigation measures.
IR#
Information Source
Rationale
VHIR-14
Responses to Information
Requirements - July 31 (CEAA
Reference # 80054)
Response #12
The proponent regularly states that a mitigation measure it proposes will be effective
because it is proven. Aside from not providing any details of the plan that will implement
the mitigation measure, the proponent also fails to justify why a certain approach is
considered proven. What are the elements that will ensure this proven approach will
work for T2?
VHIR-15
Responses to Information
Requirements - July 31 (CEAA
Reference # 80054)
Response #13
Nowhere in the EIS is the Steelhead Malahat LNG project or the WesPac Tilbury Marine
Jetty project considered. These are two large projects that will increase LNG tanker traffic
in the area and thus have potential effects on marine mammals, marine fish, coastal birds,
and human health.
In table 13-7 EIS 13.10 the proponent discusses the following projects as they relate to
potential effects on marine fish: Fraser Surrey Docks Direct Coal Transfer Facility; Gateway
Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point and associated BNSF Railway Company rail facilities
projects; Kinder Morgan Pipeline Expansion Project; and Vancouver Airport Fuel Delivery
Project.
VHIR-16
Responses to Information
Requirements - July 31 (CEAA
Reference # 80054)
Response #13
In Appendix 13-C, however, the proponent excludes Centerm Terminal Expansion and
Woodfibre LNG because the number of vessels is anticipated to be small compared to
overall traffic. Yet according to the proponents own explanation, these projects could
have negative effects on pacific herring due to increased container traffic. As such, these
projects should be included in the overall cumulative effects analysis for marine fish.
Similarly, the proponent acknowledges that the George Massey Tunnel Replacement
Project and the Pattullo Bridge Replacement Project could affect marine fish through
water quality and sedimentation effects. However, they do not include these projects
because there is a lack of publicly available information. This is an unacceptable
position, as the information they require is or should be available. E.g., the more than
4,400 page application for an Environmental Assessment certificate for the Massey
project.
10
IR#
VHIR-17
Information Source
Responses to Information
Requirements - July 31 (CEAA
Reference # 80054)
Response #13
VHIR-18
Responses to Information
Requirements - July 31 (CEAA
Reference # 80054)
Response #13
VHIR-19
Responses to Information
Requirements - July 31 (CEAA
Reference # 80054)
Response #13
Rationale
On Table 14-25 in EIS section 14.10 the proponent discusses the following projects as they
relate to marine mammals: Fraser Surrey Docks Direct Coal Transfer Facility; Gateway
Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point; Kinder Morgan Pipeline Expansion Project; Vancouver
Airport Fuel Delivery Project; Neptune Terminals Coal Expansion; Richardson International
Grain Storage Capacity Project; and Pacific Coast Terminals.
In Appendix 14-A, however, the proponent excludes the Woodfibre LNG project because
the number of vessels is anticipated to be small compared to overall traffic. As
mentioned above, the proponent also makes no mention of Steelhead Malahat LNG or the
WesPac Tilbury Marine Jetty Project. This is unacceptable as all three of these projects will
increase tanker traffic and associated vessel noise and thus contribute to the cumulative
effects on marine mammals.
The proponent only looks at marine commercial use from the narrow scope of crab
harvesting. They do not consider any other type of marine commercial use in their
analysis. As a result, they are able to say that only one project, the Kinder Morgan
Expansion Project, will have a cumulative effect on marine commercial use (table 21-11).
The understanding of marine commercial use should be broadened to include at
minimum fishing and marine tourism.
11
IR#
Information Source
Rationale
VHIR-20
Responses to Information
Requirements - July 31 (CEAA
Reference # 80054)
Response #13
In appendix 27-D the proponent lists many other projects in the area as: too far from
proposed project site; effects of project not likely to interact with effects of RBT2. Using
this rationale they exclude many projects in the Cumulative Effects Assessment for Human
Health. However, many of these projects will have effects on Human Health in the area.
For example, the emissions from increased ships going down the Fraser River from Fraser
Surrey docks, or the effect on sense-of-place and visual resources from increased tanker
traffic coming from the Kinder Morgan Expansion project, should be considered as having
potential adverse human health effects in the area and should be included in the
Cumulative Effects Assessment of Human Health.
VHIR-21
Responses to Information
Requirements - July 31 (CEAA
Reference # 80054)
Response #13
The Tsawwassen Mills Mall development is a large infrastructure project occurring in close
proximity to T2. Presumably the two projects will increase the local traffic, water, and land
use demands on the area. The supplemental information provided by the port in response
#13-7 also does not address this issue.
Responses to Information
Requirements - July 31 (CEAA
Reference # 80054)
Response #13
The industrial land expansion on Tsawwassen First Nations land is a large project
occurring right beside the Toronto Terminals Railway at the beginning of the causeway to
Deltaport. It will include a large container storage area, a container inspecting security
area, a Chevron cardlock, various warehouse developments, and a water treatment plant
to name a few of the projects. This is another large development that the proponent does
not mention or refer to in the EIS but which has large implications for land and water use
in the area.
Responses to Information
Requirements - July 31 (CEAA
Reference # 80054)
Response #13
VHIR-22
VHIR-23
The industrial land expansion on Tsawwassen First Nations land mentioned above, as well
as the Delta Terminal Road and Rail Improvement Project, must be considered as part of
the cumulative effects on coastal birds. Both these projects are occurring alongside the
shore of Roberts Bank and will impact the habitat of coastal birds.
12
IR#
Information Source
VHIR-24
Responses to Information
Requirements - July 31 (CEAA
Reference # 80054)
Response #15
Rationale
The CEAA clearly asks for a detailed comparison between the options. However the
proponent only discusses the reasons why a land-based option was not considered and
avoids discussing the causeway option. The EIS simply states that this option was not
economically feasible and thus not considered. This does not allow the reader to
compare the two options in any meaningful way.
VHIR-25
Responses to Information
Requirements - July 31 (CEAA
Reference # 80054)
Response #16
The proponent claims that there are no plans to have a short-sea-shipping barge terminal
added on to the T2 project even though much of the terminal has been designed
specifically for that scenario. For example, they state in their response that RBT2 was
designed to not preclude a short-sea-shipping berth modification due to continued
stakeholder interest in alternative modes of transportation of goods in the Lower
Mainland, which may make the short-sea-shipping mode of operation viable sometime in
the future. This indicates that there is a strong likelihood of this terminal expansion being
built in the future and thus some description of what it could mean for the environmental
impact of the expansion should be provided. The CEAA should also take this potential
future project into consideration in assessing the projects overall impact.
VHIR-26
Responses to Information
Requirements - July 31 (CEAA
Reference # 80054)
Response #23
The proponent acknowledges the need for a Wetland Ecological Functions Assessment
with the Canadian Wildlife Service and lays out some bullet points of what that
assessment will include in section 17.4 of the EIS. However, they do not give any timelines
for when that assessment will be complete, how it will be done, or what metrics they will
use to determine if a wetland compensation plan is needed.
Responses to Information
Requirements - July 31 (CEAA
Reference # 80054)
Response #27
The proponent makes the case that recreational seafood harvesting and the potential
changes in access to the harvesting area would be the same for Aboriginal and nonAboriginal users. This fails to account for how Aboriginal people may use seafood
harvesting for ceremonial or cultural purposes, and it fails to differentiate between
recreational harvesters and Aboriginal users who may rely on seafood harvesting as a
stable food source. Even if the two groups access recreational seafood in the same manner
and will face the same potential impacts, it is important to note that the resource may not
VHIR-27
13
IR#
Information Source
Rationale
be used in the same way. This is a clear requirement from the CEAA (to differentiate
between Aboriginal use and non-Aboriginal use), which the proponent fails to do.
VHIR-28
VHIR-29
Responses to Information
Requirements - July 31 (CEAA
Reference # 80054)
Response #30
Responses to Information
Requirements - July 31, 2015
(CEAA Reference # 80054)
Response #31
Response to Additional
Information Request #31
Appendix 31-A
The proponent states that with the exception of a small upland area for the rail-tie in,
there is no upland component to the Project; as a result, potential interactions with access
to preferred Current Use locations in upland areas were not carried forward for
assessment for any Aboriginal group. Although the amount of increase in traffic to and
from the terminal may be an indirect effect of the project, it will have an effect on
Aboriginal groups and should therefore be considered.
While the proponent provides an estimate of consumption for Aboriginal People and their
intake of country foods, they do not adequately address the question of reliance, which
the CEAA requested. The proponent addresses the issue of food security implications but,
with the exception of some fish and crab species, fails to quantify the amount of country
foods harvested that are needed for cultural purposes for any First Nation.
The proponent fails to supply key environmental information that could have a significant
effect on marine shipping. This includes the following:
VHIR-30
The risk of floods to the area associated with climate change. The proponent
states that water level changes associated with climate change are not expected
to affect marine shipping. However, according to the Fraser Basin Council, the
BC Lower Mainland is vulnerable to major catastrophic floods from the Fraser
River freshet (spring) and from coastal flooding (winter). Their local report
specifically cites cargo shipping delays as an economic loss should a major
flood occur (Lower Mainland Flood Management Strategy Phase 1 Summary
Report of May 2016). Any major flood will impact marine shipping and the
associated infrastructure it needs to operate.
14
IR#
VHIR-31
Information Source
Rationale
The risk of ocean storm surge due to climate change. The proponent claims that
global warming is not likely to result in an increase in ocean storm surges for the
local area. However, according to the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium,
modeling for both the south coast of BC and all along the west coast indicates
that ocean storm surge events may increase in frequency and magnitude
(Climate Summary for South Coast Region & West Coast Region, Pacific Climate
Impacts Consortium, Nov 2013). This undermines the rationale for why the
proponent believes that climate change will not affect marine shipping and
should be addressed.
Government efforts to protect and ensure the recovery of Resident Killer Whales.
The Federal and Provincial government are intending to develop and implement
regulations, guidelines, sanctuaries and other measures to reduce or eliminate
physical and acoustic disturbance of Resident Killer Whales (Action Plan for the
Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whale, Environment Canada, 2016). This
will likely affect marine shipping and should be considered as a potential effect
that could impact marine shipping associated with the project.
The CEAA has clearly asked the proponent to update and revise vessel traffic predictions
due to the impact of the Woodfibre LNG project. In response the proponent has justified
the exclusion based on the claim that the information was unavailable in 2013. That is no
longer a valid claim, and the cumulative effects assessment must be updated accordingly.
The proponent claims in Appendix 27-D that the Woodfibre LNG Project is too far from
proposed project site; effects of project not likely to interact with effects of RBT2. This is
clearly not acceptable when increased cumulative shipping effects are considered
elsewhere.
15
IR#
VHIR-32
VHIR-33
VHIR-34
Information Source
Rationale
The CEAA has clearly asked the proponent to update and revise vessel traffic predictions
due to a number of proposed projects in the area, and they have also asked for the
cumulative effects of the project to be updated as a result of these projects. The
proponent has failed to do so. Instead, a large number of projects that will increase vessel
traffic in the area are not considered because that data was not available when the
proponent originally undertook the cumulative effects assessment. Given the number of
projects and the large amount of associated vessel traffic that could occur in the marine
shipping area, the EIS cumulative effects sections associated with vessel traffic must be
updated accordingly.
An increase in large vessel traffic in the area could potentially affect marine mammal
routes and thus impact marine-based tourism. The increase in vessel traffic also changes
the scenery and the potential use of surrounding waters for marine-based tourism
activities (such as whale watching, sailing, pleasure cruises, fishing, and kayaking). If the
effects of vessel traffic are indeed negligible to marine-based tourism activities, then the
proponent must provide the data that justifies that analysis. If this information is in the EIS
the proponent should outline where it can be found in their response.
16
IR#
Information Source
Rationale
VHIR-35
The proponent notes that they used data that was provided from the affected Aboriginal
groups, and in some cases there simply was no baseline data. It is unclear if this was the
case for all Aboriginal groups, or if a previous study (if it exists) would allow for a rough
approximation of baseline data. It is also unclear if the proponent could have done more
to approximate this baseline data through a survey or focus group of affected First
Nations. For example, salmon is stated to be heavily relied on by the Tsartlip First Nation,
yet no baseline information in terms of the amount of salmon caught/consumed/or used
for cultural practices is given.
VHIR-36
The proponent states numerous times that the social context and expectations for
visual quality mean that the change in visual resources will not be significant. There
appears to be a large assumption that the people of the area have certain expectations for
visual quality that fit with the proponents argument. There is no data to support this
assumption. There are many in the community for whom even small changes to visual
resources are likely to be significant.
The proponent argues in their summary of the Cumulative Effects on Visual Resources that
the incremental change introduced by the project will contribute only a minor increase in
the visibility of anthropogenic features and artificial lighting and the characteristics of the
project features will be consistent with the existing landscape character. This appears to
be a highly subjective argument. The Massey Tunnel Replacement Project is described in
the same way. Both of these are large-scale industrial projects, which raises the question
of what would actually constitute a large increase in the visibility of anthropogenic
features or what would be inconsistent with the existing landscape character. This is also
an inexplicable conclusion for this project given that visible light will effectively double
along the horizon.
VHIR-37
17
IR#
Information Source
VHIR-38
VHIR-39
The proponent argues that the only future activity associated with RBT2 is incremental
road, rail, and vessel traffic. Presumably, according to the proponents own studies, it
should be closer to a doubling of traffic, and it is thus unclear why this increase is
described as incremental.
VHIR-40
The proponent does not consider mental health effects (as a human health effect) due to
shifting cultural identity, which may be of importance to Aboriginal Peoples who have
seen the landscape change dramatically. There is also a lack of any information
surrounding the emotional health impacts this project could have on the Aboriginal
population as well as the general population in Delta.
The proponent acknowledges that ground-borne vibration at some levels may occasionally
exceed the 103VdB threshold, and they argue that because the average is below that
threshold it is unlikely to have adverse health effects. This is problematic because it implies
that if you had 100 heavy truck pass-bys at farms per day, and out of that 100, 70 were
under that threshold and you had 30 above, then the 30 that were causing annoyance are
discounted because on average there is no issue. This logic appears highly problematic.
VHIR-41
Rationale
The proponent references EIS v4, s27.5, P.27-20 as an explanation for why the nature and
level of existing activities is not anticipated to change. However, this section only
discusses the health effects associated with air quality and does not have any of the
information referenced.
The proponent lists a number of new and expected projects in the area, all of which will
increase certain activities (e.g., marine traffic), and it is unclear how they are supporting
the conclusion that the nature and level of existing activities will not change.
18
IR#
VHIR-42
Information Source
Rationale
The proponent argues that there is little risk to further shellfish contamination resulting
from sediment resuspension, despite the fact that the area and local sediment has been
affected for decades by coal dust. The proponent provides no evidence for this conclusion,
while other studies have shown the opposite. For example, a 2014 study at Stockholm
University showed that resuspension due to human activity can directly affect
contaminate uptake by blue mussels (http://su.divaportal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A687062&dswid=5741).
In addition, on p.8 of the Response to Additional Information Request #13, the proponent
acknowledges that coal particles [] tend to remain in suspension longer than coarser
grained sediments. There is also nothing in the original version of the EIS (section 9.6
surficial geology and marine sediment) to support the conclusion that this suspension of
coal particles may not be harmful to local marine life.
Appendix 27C of the EIS highlights anecdotal evidence that supports the idea that
Aboriginal groups have limited their collection of bivalves for consumption due to
perceived contamination. Yet it also argues that because the current state of bivalve
contamination is not high, it poses little risk to human health based on consumption. This
appendix does not address the potential coal dust resuspension problem and how it could
impact both Aboriginal groups and bivalve contamination in the area.
VHIR-43
The proponent acknowledges that the 35dBA threshold for speech comprehension indoors
could be exceeded at some locations. However, the proponent gives no further
information and simply states that there are no schools in the area so it is not a problem.
There may however be homes or meeting places in the area, and any risk to human health
in this sense should be acknowledged. Figure 27-4 shows a large area that is greater than
45 and 55 dBA but does not show where homes or buildings can be found, which is
necessary for assessing the risk to human health.
VHIR-44
On p. 27-26 the proponent states that ground-borne vibration associated with heavytrucks may occasionally exceed the 103VdB threshold. However, on p. 27-48 the
proponent states that vibration levels are not expected to exceed 90VdB during
construction. This appears inconsistent, and clarification is needed.
19
IR#
VHIR-45
VHIR-46
VHIR-47
VHIR-48
Information Source
Rationale
The proponent notes that several aspects of the air emissions and air quality monitoring
studies completed for the RBT2 EA are expected to result in conservative over-predictions
of the concentrations during construction of the criteria air contaminants. If there are
studies that have been completed and are the baseline for making predictions for the
construction phase, then the results of those studies should be provided. Presupposing the
results of a study used to predict future conditions is unacceptable.
In order to evaluate whether the proposed mitigation strategies will be adequate, the
proponent must actually provide a plan instead of stating that a plan will be developed.
For example, the referenced Section 33.3.3 (Air Quality and Dust Control Plan) is two
paragraphs long and highlights some basic strategies but gives no details or timelines. The
same problem recurs with the Noise Management Plan, Construction Monitoring Plan,
and Operation Compliance Monitoring Plan.
For example, in the proponents first mitigation option (Crane Colour Optimisation), the
proponent simply states it is a technically and economically feasible option. They provide
no data on how this measure has been used in other areas and with what effect. Their
Light Management Plan is similarly short on details.
The table listing the potential incremental effects of other projects and activities on
human health is insufficient. For example, the only health effect listed for any of the other
projects is noise levels. No other human health effects are included, such as anxiety, light
pollution, sleep disturbance, or air quality, all of which are human health effects likely to
be associated with this project. Appendix 27-D, which gives the rationale for excluding
other projects, does not give any reason why other human health effects were not
considered.
20
IR#
VHIR-49
Information Source
VHIR-50
VHIR-51
Rationale
The consultant (Hemmera) notes that other projects and activities will influence upland
noise levels but says there was not sufficient information about these projects at the
time of study to permit the calculation of noise level-trends from 2018-2023. This
information should be easily available by now and should thus be included in the EIS.
Indeed, logistic and distribution centers are planned for the area which will have a large
impact on upland noise levels but are not acknowledged in the EIS. Similarly, the industrial
development occurring on Tsawwassen First Nations land, the optioned agricultural land
that the proponent is trying to acquire in order to have more industrial land, and the railline expansions, will all contribute to upland noise levels in the area.
The consultant (Hemmera) notes that the ground-borne vibration from heavy truck passbys exceeds the threshold used. They also predict a rough doubling in truck and rail traffic
due to the project (p.29). However, in their conclusion of (6.4.3 Predicted Ground-borne
Vibration During Operation) they state that the increased vibration is outside the
jurisdiction of PMV. This is in direct conflict with the statement that there are no
predicted health risks from Project-related ground-borne vibration.
In their conclusion they state that neither the construction nor operation of RBT2 are
expected to affect ground-borne vibration levels experienced by noise and vibration
sensitive upland receptors. While this may be true within the jurisdiction of Port Metro
Vancouver, the contractor has pointed out that significant increased traffic will occur as a
result of this project, and the EIS must consider the ground vibration that will occur from
truck and rail traffic coming to and from the project even if it is not within the specific
jurisdiction of the proponent.
The contractor (Hemmera) notes that it is important to take into account source
characteristics when calculating %HA. This community is likely to be more sensitive to
infrastructure noise and health effects because of the large number of new industrial
projects that have happened in this area over the last decade. The contractor does not
appear to take this into account.
21
IR#
VHIR-52
Information Source
VHIR-53
VHIR-54
VHIR-55
Rationale
The proponent states that they will develop and implement a follow-up program after the
submission of the EIS (p32-20); however, there is little detail on when this will be
implemented except to say that complete draft sections of the RBT2 Follow-up Program
will be available. This approach of developing a mitigation plan after the project is
approved is highly problematic because the reader is not able to assess if that plan will be
sufficient. It is also problematic to begin the baseline measurements only as the project
starts. The longer the baseline data exists prior to construction, the better the data from
which to compare (e.g., there will be seasonal variations that will only be accounted for
over the period of at least a year).
There is no information on what consequences the proponent will face, if any, if the
follow-up program does not achieve its intended mitigation results. If, for example, the
CEAA determines the mitigation measures are failing, or if the proponents own studies
show mitigation is failing, what is the next step? Will they be fined or will they be required
to undertake further mitigation?
The proponent does not seem to have any plans to establish pre-construction baselines for
the following elements: water salinity; biofilm productivity; orange sea pens; bivalves;
forage fish; and flat fish. In order to monitor any changes that may occur to these
elements it is necessary to first establish baseline measures. If this is not possible, then the
proponent must give a clear rationale for why this is the case.
The proponent argues that the noise and visual aspects of the environmental setting for
marine-based tourism are considered negligible because the existing terminal operations
and their associated noise levels and visual features have not deterred marine-based
tourism operators from operating nearby. This is poor logic. Just because the existing
terminal has not deterred marine-based tourism operators from operating nearby does
not mean that a doubling of marine traffic and a doubling of the size of the port itself will
not deter marine-based tourism operators from operating nearby.
22
IR#
Information Source
Rationale
On p. 21-45 the proponent argues Project construction and operation would add new
visible industrial features in the Roberts Bank area, but that these features would not
result in a change in the areas current visual character.
VHIR-56
However, in section 25.6 (p.25-25) the proponent says that a potential effect of the project
is increased visibility of anthropogenic features and changes in character of the existing
visual landscape.
This is a clear contradiction. Either the project will result in a change in the areas visual
character, or it will not (the latter of which is a highly self-serving and unfounded
conclusion). The proponent must be consistent for any meaningful evaluation to occur.
VHIR-57
VHIR-58
The proponent did a technical study between March 27 and April 2, 2014 to determine
existing and future conditions at night. A five-day study in early spring is not a good proxy
for determining existing and future light conditions for the entire future of the project. The
seasonal changes in the area will certainly affect light pollution (from cloud cover and
moisture content to the amount of daylight in the year). A five-day study is simply not
enough data from which to extrapolate this kind of conclusion. At a minimum there should
be a lengthy study in which sky conditions are measured when it is overcast, clear, or
raining.
Appendix AIR9n p2
The proponent lists the Dungeness crab as the representative species for all of these
completely separate species. While habitat may be similar, to have Dungeness crabs be
the representative species for sea cucumbers strains the bounds of scientific credibility.
23
IR#
VHIR-59
VHIR-60
VHIR-61
VHIR-62
Information Source
Rationale
The Blood Star for example can use water currents to capture food in mucous secretions of
the tube-feet. This would indicate that water quality and changes in sedimentation could
have a potential effect on the species. The California Sea Cucumber feeds by filtering
organic material found in sediment; therefore, changes in sediment processes would likely
affect this species.
It is unclear why water quality affects some species but not others (e.g., eulachon is found
in shallow waters yet apparently will not be affected by changes in water quality or
sedimentation, yet the spotted ratfish that can be found a deeper levels could be
affected by changes in water quality). An explanation is needed as to why water quality
and changes in sedimentation and coastal processes would only affect certain species.
The barn owl is listed as a representative species, but during numerous studies it appears
that the barn owl was not observed once, whereas the species it represents were sighted
numerous times. This seems like an oversight. How can a representative species that was
never observed in any study period be used as a proxy for other species?
Follow up to Additional
Information Requirements of
July 31, 2015 #11 Species at
Risk. (p.7)
The proponent has listed various mitigation strategies to reduce the potential effects on
Marbled Murrelets. One of these strategies is quoted as follows: hazing birds prior to
construction to move them away from the affected zone if loud operations are necessary
during periods of peak bird abundance (emphasis added). This species is Blue-listed
provincially as a species at risk and is listed as threatened under the Species at Risk Act
(SARA).
The common idea of hazing would likely contravene section 32(1) of the Species at Risk
Act which states no person shall kill, harm, harass, capture or take an individual of a
wildlife species that is listed as an extirpated species, an endangered species, or a
threatened species (emphasis added). Further clarification on the proponents intentions
for this strategy are needed.
24
IR#
VHIR-63
Information Source
Follow up to Additional
Information Requirements of
July 31, 2015 #11 Species at
Risk.
Rationale
The proponent is required to provide a description of the measures that would be taken
to avoid or lessen effects to each species at risk listed under SARA potentially occurring
in the Project area and the actions to monitor them. However, in its response the
proponent states that various plans will be developed in the future that may include certain
components (e.g. Underwater Noise Management Plan; Noise Management Plan;
Compliance Monitoring Plan; emphasis added). They give no explanation for the actions
that will be taken to monitor these species except to say that a follow-up monitoring
program for coastal birds [or marine mammals] will be developed. To evaluate the
proposed mitigation we must be able to evaluate the program.
The proponent states that the project is not expected to result in residual adverse effects
on the sub-components of eelgrass, intertidal marsh, macroalgae, and biomat. However,
a key component of this rationale is the eelgrass transplant the proponent is planning to
undertake. The information for that transplant is woefully inadequate, casting doubt on
the above statement.
VHIR-64
Follow up to Additional
Information Requirements of
July 31, 2015 #13 (p.1)
VHIR-65
Follow up to Additional
Information Requirements of
July 31, 2015 #13 Schedule
13-3: Marine Fish (p.20)
It is also important to note that the proponent applied for tenure of a provincial water lot
in order to facilitate the eelgrass transfer. In the EIS, the proponent states they will use an
eelgrass transplant method developed in B.C., which is considered to be greater than 90
per cent effective. However, the study they cite from 2002 only classifies 7 out of 15
transplant sites - 47 per cent - as definitive successes [Precision Identification, A Review
and and (sic) Assessment of Eelgrass Transplant Projects in British Columbia (February
2002), Executive Summary. Online at http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Librarv/319812.pdf].
While the proponent indicates that the potential interactions between herring and vessel
noise will be infrequent, they also state that the cumulative effects of other projects and
activities that have already been carried out have compromised the long-term population
integrity of Pacific Herring. Presumably the herring behaved in the same way for these
other projects (e.g., in terms of avoidance measures); therefore, the proponents
conclusion that a residual effect is unlikely appears inaccurate and unsubstantiated.
25
IR#
Information Source
Rationale
VHIR-66
Follow up to Additional
Information Requirements of
July 31, 2015 #13 Schedule
13-3 Marine Fish (p.20)
The proponent argues that the residual effect of productivity loss via changes in water
quality is not considered significant because project-related TSS levels, combined with
ambient vales, are not expected to reach lethal levels for marine fish (emphasis added).
The reader is left with the assumption that a residual effect is only acknowledged if the
fish are expected to die, rather than acknowledging the projects residual effects on the
general health and behaviour of a species. The proponent does acknowledge how the DAS
discharge pipe may cause behavioural effects but does not acknowledge the above
concern.
VHIR-67
Follow up to Additional
Information Requirements of
July 31, 2015 #13 (schedule
13-8 Archaeological and
Heritage Resources) p.9
The proponent argues that there are three archaeological residual adverse effects
anticipated from the project. However, the only mitigation strategy the proponent
suggests is excavating a test trench or series of trenches as a way to discover the
existence of these archaeological resources. They give no details as to what will happen if
these resources are discovered, and at what threshold they could affect project
development.
VHIR-68
Follow up to Additional
Information Requirements of
July 31, 2015 #29 p.15
The proponent argues that because the access to the use of lands and resources will
continue to occur at Roberts Bank, the sense of place is therefore not expected to change
measurably over existing conditions as a result of the project. While they acknowledge
that sense-of-place can be community-specific, their mitigation section does nothing to
address the concern or acknowledge the potential for a range of impacts. Sense of place is
a community-specific and even individual value, and the proponent provides no data that
would justify the idea that local First Nations would not experience an altered sense-ofplace. The doubling of land traffic, an extra terminal, and an additional 260 container
ships are likely to influence ones sense of place even if the access to the immediate water
resources is not severely impacted.
It is also important to note that this sense-of-place is important for the general population
of Delta. The community has become increasingly industrialized over the last two decades.
The proponent makes no reference to how the project will negatively impact the
communitys sense-of-place.
26
IR#
Information Source
Rationale
Appendix AIR10-C
VHIR-69
In this report the authors use two survey techniques (driving surveys and walking surveys)
that differ wildly in their results (50% to 130% differences). This indicates the need for
either more surveys or a third type of survey to get a more accurate shorebird count.
Multi-seasonal and multi-week studies are likely needed.
The proponent has only conducted one study on over-wintering shorebirds over a five
month period. This is hardly relevant to one of the most important bird areas in North
America. A second study is warranted to account for seasonal variation/outliers.
While the Federal Recovery Strategy for the Northern and Southern Resident Killer Whales
has been included, the Action Plan has not. The appendix needs to be updated.
Appendix AIR10-C
VHIR-70
VHIR-71
VHIR-72
The proponent argues that the predicted change to the acoustic environment and
predicted behavioural responses and acoustic masking, are not predicted to affect an
individual SRKWs ability to forage in critical habitat when needed, and is therefore not
predicted to result in population-level effects on SRKWs.
According to an academic report produced for the NEB on the proposed Kinder Morgan
Trans Mountain Expansion project, however, behavioural responses to elevated noise
levels are primarily influenced by context. The proponent references the context as a
factor but fails to consider it in its modeling exercise.
27
IR#
Information Source
Rationale
In looking at the Salish Sea we can see that the Southern Resident Killer Whales are
already losing 6% of their opportunities to communicate acoustically, and that level rises
to 97% loss of acoustic communication space during periods of busy ship traffic. The
import of this finding is that present noise levels under busy ship traffic conditions are
already so high that additional ship traffic will seem to have little impact on
communication space, when in fact their additional noise could essentially eliminate even
those few remaining opportunities for killer whales to communicate.
The proponent must re-evaluate and incorporate the wider context in their sound
modeling and conclusions of the effects of the project (and associated shipping) on the
Southern Resident Killer Whale.
The proponent focuses on noise levels likely to cause injury rather than the potential
chronic effects of noise likely to affect feeding habits. Whales are known to avoid areas
where they might be exposed to elevated noise levels, so to focus on injury distracts from
the chronic effects posed by increased noise levels. http://www.raincoast.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/05/RCF-SRKW-acoustics-NEB.pdf
The proponents EIS also fails to cite scientific publications that focus on the specific issue
of chronic vessel noise impacts on an endangered species [e.g., Hatch et al. (2012)], which
would directly apply to this project. Finally, the proponent should also take into
consideration a population viability analysis, such as the one submitted to the NEB here:
http://www.raincoast.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/RCF-SRKW-PVA-for-NEB-May2015.pdf
VHIR-73
The proponent argues that 97% of the time underwater noise from the Project is
expected to be within existing underwater noise levels. This ignores the fact that overall
noise levels could increase significantly.
According to Christopher Clark, the physical metrics by which changes in noise level are
quantified are logarithmic and based on the ratio of a measured sound pressure or
intensity to a standard reference level. Thus, if a new activity doubles the existing sound
pressure (a 100% increase), the decibel level only increases by 6dB.
28
IR#
Information Source
Rationale
Clark points out that a small increase in the decibel level, or even no increase, is not
representative of the actual impact on underwater noise levels and the effect it could have
on marine species.
http://www.raincoast.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/RCF-SRKW-acoustics-NEB.pdf
VHIR-74
Marine Shipping
Supplemental Report Section
7.1.6.1, p.7.1-25
VHIR-75
Marine Shipping
Supplemental Report Section
7.1.7, p.7.1-37
VHIR-76
Responses to Information
Requirements - July 31 (CEAA
Reference # 80054)
Response #29
And
EIS Section 27 Human Health
Effects Assessment
The proponent acknowledges that RBT2 marine traffic would be responsible for an
increase of up to 8% of the cumulative VOC emissions in the Marine Shipping Area by
2030. They also discuss the estimated emissions of other chemicals from the shipping
industry associated with RBT2. However, they provide no analysis on how these chemicals
could combine and produce other human health and environmental effects. For example,
photochemical oxidants (which form between VOCs, NOx, hydrocarbons and oxygen in the
presence of sunlight) can lead to photochemical smog.
The proponent acknowledges that annual emissions of trace organic contaminants for
cumulative conditions are conservatively projected to increase by approximately 20% over
existing conditions. Despite this significant increase, there is no acknowledgement of the
risk this plays to the marine or human environment, and/or the uncertainty/risks that such
an increase might have in the long-term.
This information is needed in order to estimate the true health impacts on the local
population from NO2, SO2, and particulate matter. Individuals already experiencing
respiratory health issues are more likely to experience negative effects from increased air
pollutants, even if the total amount is relatively small.
An assessment should also be considered for air quality issues in general as there have
been numerous complaints about black film in the community (e.g., Hans Verbeek, Hard
to think black stuff is anything but coal dust, Delta Optimist 24 October 2012. This
should be included as part of the human health effects assessment of the area.
29
IR#
VHIR-77
Information Source
Responses to Information
Requirements - July 31 (CEAA
Reference # 80054)
Response #29
And
EIS Section 27 Human Health
Effects Assessment
VHIR-78
VHIR-79
VHIR-80
Rationale
One of the most definitive assessments for the health effects associated with short-term
NO2 exposure is the EPA Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen Health
Criteria final report. This study and its implications should be acknowledged and
incorporated into the assessment.
https://www.epa.gov/isa
The proponent states multiple times that construction activities associated with past
causeway development contributed to significant dispersal of sediment over the tidal
flats on either side of the constructed Roberts Bank causeway which has persisted to the
present day, resulting in a bed level rise of between 1 m and 5 m in those areas.
Despite this historical precedent, the proponent does not analyze the impacts of the
project construction phase on coastal geomorphology, stating for example: The approach
that has been adopted is to assess the future changes to coastal geomorphology arising
from the completed Project, and not to consider changes associated with incremental
stages of the Project during the construction phase. The proponent should analyze the
changes in coastal geomorphology associated with the construction phase.
The proponent says It is not possible to accurately predict rates of deposition of the fine
sediment fraction that is carried in suspension, but the zone is expected to experience a
slight increase in sedimentation rates above the existing slow rates of accumulation.
Despite saying it cannot predict the deposition of sediment, the proponent says there will
be a slight increase. The proponent should quantify this increase.
The included study says there is an accepted popular assumption that storms will become
stronger and more frequent in the future, but Given the lack of strong science indicating
otherwise, the assumption has been made that storm conditions will remain constant
within the time horizon of this study. This conclusion is inconsistent with the proponents
citation of an IPCC report stating that climate change is expected to result in changes to
weather patterns, including an increase in storm frequency and intensity. The proponent
30
IR#
Information Source
Rationale
attempts to downplay the IPCCs findings of by citing an older study that suggests these
changes will not affect B.C. The proponent should consider the effects of increasing storm
frequency and intensity throughout the EIS.
VHIR-81
VHIR-82
VHIR-83
While discussing causeway widening during construction, the proponent assume[s] that
sediment re-suspension and deposition from activities can be effectively managed through
the implementation of standard management practices. In light of the acknowledged
problems with deposition during previous causeway construction activities, the proponent
should provide a clear analysis of the effects of causeway widening on both marine
sediment and marine water quality, as well as a clear explanation for how the planned
construction techniques will avoid the negative effects seen in the past. The proponent
should also provide worst-case scenario modelling analysis of the projects effects on
marine sediment and marine water quality if the planned construction techniques fail to
mitigate sediment deposition.
The proponent models changes to salinity associated with the project that do not appear
to be temporary. The proponent also says There are no known measures to mitigate the
temporary effects to biofilm assemblage composition from changes to salinity associated
with spring freshet, and a residual effect is anticipated. The proponent should develop a
plan to mitigate the effects of these changes to salinity or a proposal to avoid them
entirely.
The proponent states that storm-water discharge will be managed according to standard
management practices and in accordance with regulations, and are not expected to result
in measurable changes in water quality. They also have a storm-water drainage system
meant to filter out oil and grit from reaching the marine environment. However, it
would be more prudent to test this system after a major storm to ensure that the system
was working properly and to have protocols in place for if that system was to fail. If these
measures exist, they are not described in the EIS.
The potential health effects of storm-water pollution should also be acknowledged in the
EIS. See this submission to the Kinder Morgan Expansion Project for why storm-water
31
IR#
Information Source
Rationale
effects must be considered: http://www.livingoceans.org/sites/default/files/BattermanExpert-Report-Health-Risks.pdf
VHIR-84
The proponent states that daytime viewscapes in the vicinity of the Project area have
recognised scenic value and support tourism and recreational values by providing a setting
for activities such as whale watching and fish, seafood, and waterfowl harvesting.
However, on p.24-26 the proponent argues that predicted changes in noise and visual
resources will not alter the character of the environmental settings at recreational hunting
locations, and are deemed to be nominal. Changes to quality of recreational hunting
experiences as a result are negligible.
There is no analysis that supports this claim. This analysis must be provided by the
proponent.
VHIR-85
The consultant (Hemmera) notes that the level of orange sea pen importance in the
demography of fish/invertebrate populations and communities remains to be
established. However, they also note significant trends between faunal presence and sea
pen distribution. Furthermore, many study participants indicated that sea pens play a
vital role as ecological engineers in that they turn over and oxygenate sediments through
their burying behaviour, provide habitat structure and heterogeneity, and influence
current flow over the substrate. This would imply that the sea pen habitat therefore could
be playing an important ecological role for the local marine habitat and should not be
disturbed.
Furthermore, participants identified the possibility that the sea pen population may be on
the decline across the region, and on the coast more generally. This highlights the
possibility that the species is more endangered than previously thought.
32
IR#
VHIR-86
Information Source
Rationale
The proponent notes that in their follow-up study survivorship averaged 72 per cent after
one month at a single monitoring event. This is not enough of a follow-up to determine
actual survivorship. At least one more follow-up study should be conducted to determine
the success of the transplant program.
33
34
35