Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project

From the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to Port Metro Vancouver re: Completeness Review - Additional Information Requirements

PDF Version 261 KB

Document reference number: 271

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Place Bell Canada, 22nd floor
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3

Agence canadienne d'évaluation environnementale
Place Bell Canada 22e étage
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3

July 31, 2015

Cliff Stewart, P.Eng.
Vice-President, Infrastructure Delivery
Port Metro Vancouver
100 The Pointe, 999 Canada Place
Vancouver, BC V6C 3T4
<email removed>

Dear Mr. Stewart:

RE:Additional Information Required from Port Metro Vancouver for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Environmental Assessment

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (the Agency) has concluded its completeness review of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) submitted by Port Metro Vancouver for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project and has determined that additional information must be provided to satisfy the requirements of the EIS Guidelines. The additional information requirements are outlined in the attachment to this letter. Please provide the Agency with a schedule of the estimated time that will be required by Port Metro Vancouver to provide the required additional information.

The following statements are provided for your information and for the information of participants in the environmental assessment. No response to these points is requested from Port Metro Vancouver at this time.

Submissions Received on the Completeness of the EIS

The Agency conducted a comment period to obtain views from the public, Aboriginal groups, governments and other participants to assist with its determination on whether the required information is present in the EIS in a manner that would allow the Review Panel to begin its technical review of the Project. A number of substantive submissions were received during this comment period which have been posted on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry internet site (the registry), reference number 80054.

Many of the comments provided in these submissions were beyond the considerations of a completeness review as described in the Resource Document. These comments, however, along with all of the other information on the registry, will be provided to the Review Panel once it is established, to inform its sufficiency review. The Panel will be responsible for determining what additional technical information and analysis is required for it to complete its assessment of the Project. Port Metro Vancouver could benefit from the careful consideration of these suggestions at this time in its ongoing project planning and evaluation.

Documentation

The Agency will make the documents produced, collected or submitted in relation to the environmental assessment of the Project available on the registry unless these documents are protected for security or other reasons. These documents will make up the environmental assessment record for the Project. This does not include documents such as email messages that are administrative or non-substantive in nature. Maintenance of the registry will be the responsibility of the Panel Secretariat from the appointment of the Review Panel to the submission of the Panel Report.

It must be clear as to which documents comprise the environmental assessment record because this is the body of information that will be considered by the Review Panel as it fulfils its responsibilities for the assessment. The environmental assessment record does not automatically include documents that are referenced in other submissions such as the EIS, nor does it include documents for which only an Internet address or Internet link are provided. To ensure this is clear to all participants in the process, ‘live links' will be removed from the documents on the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project registry and from documents posted to the registry in the future. Note that the Agency or the Review Panel may post documents that contain links to other documents on the registry or Agency Website to facilitate participation in the environmental assessment.

It is important to have the appropriate level of detail on the environmental assessment record so that participants can understand the Project, the environment, and the potential for interaction between the two. It is essential, of course, for the Review Panel to obtain all the information that it needs at the appropriate level of detail, to allow it to reach its conclusions and formulate its recommendations in relation to the Project. Detailed scientific, technical, reference or other documents may be added to the environmental assessment record at the direction of the Panel as the assessment proceeds and advice from participants in this regard will be considered. The Panel will determine whether it specifically requires the addition of documents such as these to the environmental assessment record.

The final point in relation to documentation is accessibility. The Agency plans to replace the secured version of the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 EIS with the searchable PDF files that have been provided by Port Metro Vancouver at the earliest possible date. All other documents will be posted on the registry in accessible format, where possible. Please ensure that all documents submitted to the Agency in the future are unsecured, accessible files.

Updated Guidance

As the process proceeds, Port Metro Vancouver is required to consult updated or new policy and guidance from the Agency and federal or other authorities on topics to be addressed, and to apply these directives, as appropriate, into the environmental assessment.

For example, the following Agency guidance documents were updated in March 2015:

  • Operational Policy Statement - Assessing Cumulative Environmental Effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012
  • Operational Policy Statement - Addressing "Purpose of" and "Alternative Means" under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012
  • Technical Guidance for Assessing Physical and Cultural Heritage or any Structure, Site or Thing that is of Historical, Archeological, Paleontological or Architectural Significance under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012
  • Reference Guide Considering Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge in Environmental Assessments Conducted under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012

Further, Port Metro Vancouver is expected to consider updated or new scientific, technical or other information that becomes available over the course of the environmental assessment and to incorporate relevant information into the assessment, as appropriate. Port Metro Vancouver is advised to develop a procedure or framework by which this will be undertaken, assured and reported.

Follow-up Program

A follow-up program is designed to verify the accuracy of the effects assessment and to determine the effectiveness of the measures implemented to mitigate the adverse effects of the project.

The assessment of the potential environmental effects of the Project and the measures to mitigate those adverse effects will develop as the environmental assessment proceeds. Port Metro Vancouver is advised to apply the applicable requirements of section 11.4 of the EIS Guidelines to each adverse environmental effect prediction to verify its accuracy and evaluate each mitigation measure to determine its effectiveness. These components of the follow-up program are then to be carried forward as commitments of the proponent.

Proponent Commitments

Section 11.5 of the EIS Guidelines identifies that proponent commitments identified in the EIS, including environmental mitigation measures to address public and Aboriginal peoples concern, and follow-up program elements, may be considered for inclusion as conditions in the environmental assessment decision statement or as part of other compliance and enforcement mechanisms. Commitments are to be specific, achievable, measurable and verifiable, and described in a manner that avoids ambiguity in intent, interpretation and implementation.

In acknowledging that commitments will be initiated, developed, modified, or discarded as the environmental assessment by Review Panel proceeds, Port Metro Vancouver is advised to collate its commitments and continue to track them throughout the assessment. The Panel may provide direction in this regard, once it had determined its preferences on format, level of detail and the timing of submission.

Next Steps

The Agency awaits Port Metro Vancouver's schedule of the estimated time that will be needed to provide the required information, as requested at the beginning of this letter.

The Agency anticipates that Port Metro Vancouver will provide the addendum of information on marine shipping associated with the Project at the end of August, as stated in your letter of May 15 , 2015. Once this submission has been received, the Agency will consider the completeness of the information and provide an opportunity for participants to conduct their own review and provide comments.

Please contact me at <phone removed> or at RobertsBank@ceaa-acee.gc.ca if you have any questions about the completeness review or the additional information requirements.

Regards,

<original signature removed>

Debra Myles, Panel Manager
Telephone: <phone removed>
RobertsBank@ceaa-acee.gc.ca

/Attachment

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Environmental Assessment
Additional Information Requirements
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency - July 31, 2015

CLARIFICATION

#1 – Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012

Rationale: The EIS Guidelines (10.1.3) require the effects of changes to the environment on Aboriginal peoples and effects of changes that are directly linked or necessarily incidental to federal decisions to be described from the perspective of the proponent. Appendices 29-F and 29-G of the EIS is presented as a summary of all effects of changes to the environment as defined in section 5 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. It is not clear, however, how all of these effects are related to a change to the environment.

For example, the table does not identify the change to the environment that may cause a change in employment during construction and operation to the Labour Market valued component (Appendix 29-F).

Information Required: Explain how each entry identified as an effect in Appendices 29-F and 29-G of the EIS, results from a change to the environment.

#2 – Aboriginal Traditional Territories

Rationale: The EIS Guidelines (9.1.8, 9.2) require the identification of Aboriginal traditional territories, including maps where they are available. Port Metro Vancouver states that its definition of spatial boundaries for the traditional territories was based on asserted or established traditional territories, or otherwise defined areas. The Penelakut Tribe, however, commented that its traditional territory is misrepresented in the EIS.

Information Required: Confirm whether the Aboriginal traditional territories currently presented in the EIS remain appropriate for the purpose of the environmental assessment. Provide any additional information that describes how Port Metro Vancouver has updated the presentation of Aboriginal traditional territories in the EIS based on consultations with Aboriginal groups

#3 – Invasive species

Rationale: The EIS Guidelines (10.1) require the proponent to substantiate all conclusions and to provide predictions based on clearly stated assumptions. Section 11.1.2 of the EIS states that, as a result of eradication efforts occurring presently at Roberts Bank, English cordgrass (Spartina anglica) may not occur at Roberts Bank when Project operation begins. As such, Project effects on English cordgrass are not addressed in the EIS.

Information Required: Explain the confidence that Port Metro Vancouver has in its prediction that English cordgrass may not occur at Roberts Bank when Project operation begins. If this assumption is not strongly defensible, describe the consequences for the predictions of environmental effects in the EIS.

#4 – References

Rationale: The EIS Guidelines (4.2) require assumptions to be clearly identified and justified, and all data, models and studies to be documented such that the analyses are transparent and reproducible.

Appendix 10-B contains a reference to Fishbase (Froese and Pauly 2011) which is used as a source for Q/B and P/B parameters for a number of marine species within the ecosystem model. Appendix 10-C contains a similar reference to Froese and Pauly, 2006.

These are references to a generic database, which contains no specific reports associated with the referenced authors and years. In order to understand the validity of these sources, the original references for the values obtained and used via Fishbase are required.

Information Required: Provide the original reference sources for the values used and obtained via Fishbase including for P/B and Q/B habitat preference parameters used in the ecosystem model.

#5 – Editorial

Rationale: It is unclear whether a footnote is missing from Appendix 7.2-B on page 53.

Information Required: Confirm what footnote 1 in comment 146 of Table 27 is referencing (EIS Appendix 7.2-B).

ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

#6 – Ecosystem Modelling

Rationale: The EIS Guidelines (4.2, 10.1.1) require that all data models and studies be well documented such that the analyses are transparent and reproducible. Further, with respect to quantitative models and predictions, the proponent is required to detail the model assumptions, the quality of the data and the degree of certainty of the predictions obtained.

In reviewing the EIS for completeness, participants indicated further information is required prior to undertaking a technical review of the ecosystem model assumptions, the quality of the data used, and the modelling conclusions.

Information Required: Provide the following additional information with respect to the ecosystem model used in the effects assessment:

  1. confidence limits based on the empirical data for parameter estimates obtained through field studies;
  2. documentation of the assumptions made during balancing of the Ecopath model, including initial and final input parameters and a rationale for the modifications made;
  3. information about the spatial temporal model component of the EwE framework;
  4. information about the habitat capacity model component of the EwE framework;
  5. a description as to how the data sets defining environmental preference functions presented in Appendix 10B (preferences are lumped into categories) relate to Appendix 10C (preferences are defined as continuous data points);
  6. a quantitative measure of the accuracy (fit) of the model predictions of biomass distribution based on field data;
  7. a rationale for the range of vulnerability factors used in the sensitivity analysis;
  8. a description of the rationale for, and application of, the Monte Carlo approach to Ecospace; and
  9. a more detailed description of predator-prey interactions for fish populations in the area, particularly during spawning or juvenile rearing stages.

#7 – Significance Criteria

Rationale: The EIS Guidelines (13.1.1) require clear and sufficient information be provided in the EIS to enable the Review Panel, the Agency, technical and regulatory agencies, Aboriginal groups and the public to review the proponent's analysis of the significance of effects.

In the EIS, Port Metro Vancouver adopted common classifications across valued components or sub-components to describe productivity results from the Roberts Bank ecosystem model. ‘Negligible' is defined as a 0% to 5% increase or decrease which is considered to be within the margin of error of the ecosystem model and is therefore not considered to be detectable or measurable. ‘Minor' is defined as an increase or decrease of 6% to 30% which is considered to be within the range of natural ecosystem variability. ‘Moderate' is defined as an increase or decrease of 31% to 60% or 65% which is presumably considered to be beyond the range of natural ecosystem variability.

Magnitude (of effects) ratings, such as in EIS Table 12-13 (where ‘low' is a measurable change within the range of natural variability that will not affect population integrity or function; ‘moderate' is a measurable change outside of natural variability that may affect population integrity OR function, but not both; and ‘high' is a measurable change that exceeds the limits of natural variability and may affect long-term population integrity and function) are presented throughout the EIS. The EIS does not contain a description of the relationship between the productivity results classifications and the magnitude ratings.

Information Required: Provide a rationale for the application of the common classification system of negligible, minor or moderate to describe productivity results from the Roberts Bank ecosystem models for all valued components or sub-components.

Explain how a 6% to 30% increase or decrease in productivity represents the range of natural ecosystem variability for all valued components and subcomponents and how the threshold of 60% or 65% increase or decrease in productivity is determined to be the threshold for moderate changes for all components.

Explain how the definition of magnitude (of effects) ratings, such as in EIS Table 12-13, relates to the definition of changes in productivity, such as in EIS section 12.6.2.

ABORIGINAL TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE

#8 – Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge

Rationale: The EIS Guidelines (4.4.2) require that the proponent incorporate Aboriginal traditional knowledge into the EIS where it is available or acquired through public consultation or Aboriginal engagement activities.

Port Metro Vancouver referenced Aboriginal traditional knowledge in some sections of the EIS; however, this has not been clearly described in terms of its use to support the analysis of potential environmental effects of the Project and determination of the significance of adverse effects. For some valued components, Aboriginal traditional knowledge is not identified or is based solely on traditional use information. Aboriginal traditional knowledge can be used to provide relevant biophysical information and to help inform the EA process and should not be limited to traditional use information.

For example, section 12.4 of the EIS indicates that Aboriginal traditional knowledge pertaining to marine invertebrates was utilized in the selection of sub-components and is also taken into account in the assessment of potential effects of the Project on marine invertebrates. The EIS, however, does not contain a description of how input obtained from Aboriginal groups was used to support the analysis and conclusions.

Information Required: Provide a description of where and how Aboriginal traditional knowledge has been used to support the selection of valued components, baseline descriptions, the assessment of effects including the identification of mitigation measures, and in the determination of significance of adverse environmental effects. If Aboriginal traditional knowledge was not used, provide a rationale for why that information was not considered.

BASELINE INFORMATION

#9 – Species in the Local and Regional Assessment Areas

Rationale: As a minimum, the EIS Guidelines (9.1.5) require the EIS to include a characterization, including the results of baseline surveys, of fish populations (e.g. marine invertebrates such as crabs and bivalves, fish, marine mammals and other marine animals) found in, or migrating through, the local and regional study areas. This is to include species abundance, distribution and life stage (e.g. zooplankton and benthic stages for marine invertebrates, juvenile and returning adult stages for salmonids, juvenile and adult stages for forage fish), and also include seasonal and annual variations.

Sections 12 to 14 of the EIS present baseline information on species selected as valued components and subcomponents for the purposes of the environmental assessment within the local assessment area. However, no baseline information is provided for species that were not selected as valued components or represented by subcomponents. Additionally, with the exception of marine mammals, there is no baseline information presented for marine species within the respective regional assessment areas.

The EIS Guidelines (9.1.6) also require that, as a minimum, the EIS will include a description of the abundance, distribution, and life stages of migratory and non-migratory birds in the area (including waterfowl, raptors, shorebirds, marsh birds and other land birds), including species values (with error bars) and species composition for each season, and a characterization of year-round migratory bird use of the area (e.g. overwintering, spring migration, breeding season, fall migration), including results of baseline surveys.

Section 15 of the EIS presents baseline information on species selected as valued components and subcomponents for the purposes of the environmental assessment, but does not provide baseline information for species that were not selected as valued components or represented by subcomponents.

Information Required: Provide a characterization, including the results of baseline surveys, of fish populations (e.g. marine invertebrates, fish, marine mammals and other marine animals) found in, or migrating through, the local and regional assessment areas. Clearly indicate whether species are considered within various subcomponents for marine invertebrates, fish and marine mammals as presented in sections 12 to 14 of the EIS.

Provide a description of the abundance, distribution, and life stages of migratory and non-migratory birds in the area, species composition for each season, and a characterization of year-round migratory bird use of the area, including results of baseline surveys. Clearly indicate whether species are considered within various subcomponents for coastal birds as presented in section 15 of the EIS.

#10 – Mapping

Rationale: The EIS Guidelines (9.1.1) require habitat at regional and local scales to be defined in ecological mapping of aquatic and terrestrial vegetation types and species (e.g. ecological land classification mapping). Section 9.1.5 also requires that, as a minimum, the EIS will include maps, at a suitable scale, indicating the surface area of potential or confirmed fish habitat for spawning, nursery, feeding, overwintering and migration routes. Where appropriate, this mapping is to include reference to Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping using the applicable Provincial Resource Information Standards Committee (RISC) standards.

While the EIS does include maps for some valued component species within the local assessment area, these do not consistently present habitat features for all selected subcomponent species identified, or for species not represented by the various valued components. No maps are presented that identify fish migration routes through the local or regional assessment areas. Additionally, with the exception of some maps for marine mammals, maps of aquatic and terrestrial vegetation types and species are not presented to depict existing baseline at a regional scale.

Information Required: Provide maps at a local and regional scale indicating surface area of potential or confirmed fish habitat for spawning, nursery, feeding, overwintering and migration routes for relevant species, including selected subcomponents of valued components (e.g. marine invertebrates such as crabs and bivalves, fish, marine mammals and other marine animals).

Provide habitat mapping for marine vegetation and coastal birds at a regional scale.

Provide a description of how reference to Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping was used in the preparation of relevant maps.

#11 – Species at Risk

Rationale: The EIS Guidelines (3.3.1, 9.1.6) require information to be provided on all species at risk that may occur in the Project area. Full consideration of section 79 of the Species at Risk Act (SARA), which requires that all adverse effects be identified and that measures be taken to avoid or lessen those effects and monitor them, is also required.

The EIS identifies several terrestrial bird species listed under SARA that may be affected by the Project (i.e. Great Blue Heron, fannini subspecies; Barn Owl; Short-eared Owl; Peregrine Falcon, anatum subspecies, Western Screech-Owl, Megascops kennicottii subspecies). Information is provided for three of these species (Great Blue Heron, fannini subspecies; Barn Owl; and Peregrine Falcon, anatum subspecies), but not for Short-eared Owl and Western Screech-Owl. The EIS indicates that both species occur within the local assessment area, but they were not selected as representative species due to their low numbers.

Moreover, Pacific Water Shrew and Northern Red-legged Frog are mentioned as potentially occurring in the Project area, but no further information is provided on these species.

Information Required: Explain how the list of species at risk that potentially occur in the Project area was established. Discuss the possibility that other terrestrial and aquatic species at risk occur in the area, for instance Red Knot and Northern Abalone.

Provide baseline information on all terrestrial species at risk potentially occurring in the Project area including the regional importance, abundance, distribution, residences, seasonal movements, movement corridors, habitat requirements, key habitat areas, designated or identified critical habitat and recovery habitat (where applicable) and general life history.

Provide a consolidated description of the potential adverse effects to all species at risk potentially occurring in the Project area along with a description of the measures that would be taken to avoid or lessen those effects and monitor them.

MITIGATION MEASURES

#12 – Mitigation Measures

Rationale: The EIS Guidelines (11.1.1) require that mitigation measures be identified for each environmental effect along with the reasons for determining if the measures reduce the significance of the effect, the anticipated effectiveness of the measures, other measures that were considered but rejected and the reasons for their rejection.

However, in section 15.8.3 of the EIS, for example, mitigation measures are identified to address productivity loss due to changes in habitat quality related to underwater noise. It is highlighted that measures will be developed to mitigate the effect (some options are listed), but the other mitigation related requirements are not discussed. Appendices 29-A and 29-B provide a summary of all mitigation measures, but mostly refer to plans without being explicit about the mitigation measures. Section 24.8 of the EIS states that with the implementation of mitigation measures the residual effects of the Project would be negligible, but there is no discussion of how the mitigation measures are meant to reduce significance and result in negligible effects.

Information Required: For each environmental effect:

  1. provide a list of mitigation measures;
  2. explain how the mitigation measures are meant to reduce significance;
  3. discuss the anticipated effectiveness of the mitigation measures;
  4. if there is some question as to effectiveness of the mitigation measures, discuss the potential risks and effects to the environment should those measures not be effective; and
  5. provide the list of other mitigation measures that were considered and the reasons for rejecting them.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT

#13 – Cumulative Effects Assessment

Rationale:

Context: To enable the assessment of Project-related effects and cumulative effects of the Project in combination with the effects of other Projects and activities that have been or will be carried out, Port Metro Vancouver considered four temporal cases:

  • •Existing conditions: describes the current conditions of each component, and takes into account the effects to date of other projects and activities that have been carried out;
  • •Expected conditions: describes changes that may occur in the existing conditions as a result of other projects that may be carried out before Project construction begins in 2018 or operations in 2024;
  • •Future conditions with the Project: predicts the future condition by examining how the Project would change the existing conditions or, if appropriate, the expected conditions; and
  • •Future conditions with the Project and other certain and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities: considers the total future cumulative effects of the Project in combination with other certain and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities that will be carried out.

Port Metro Vancouver assessed cumulative effects by examining the potential for the residual effects of the Project to combine with effects of other certain and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities. Port Metro Vancouver assumed that residual effects of the Project had integrated effects of past projects and activities and, as such, did not explicitly examine these effects in the context of cumulative effects. For instance, Port Metro Vancouver determined that no cumulative interactions were expected for marine invertebrates, because the effects of past projects (e.g. existing terminals) were already reflected in the baseline and, consequently, did not need to be considered in the cumulative effects assessment and no future activities and projects would interact with the residual effects of the Project.

Considerations: The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 requires that any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the designated project in combination with other physical activities that have been or will be carried out, be taken into account in the environmental assessment. The EIS Guidelines (12.1.2) define cumulative effects as being changes to the environment due to the project combined with the existence of other works or other past, present and reasonably foreseeable physical activities and further states that cumulative effects may result if residual effects of the Project may combine with the effects of past, present, or reasonably foreseeable physical activities. The EIS Guidelines require an analysis of the total cumulative effect on a valued component over the life of the Project, including the incremental contribution of all current and proposed physical activities, in addition to that of the Project.

While existing conditions have been shaped by effects of past projects and activities, using only the current state of a valued component in combination with future effects to fulfill the requirement of a cumulative effects assessment may not always provide a full understanding of the cumulative effects of successive projects from the past, present and future. If each successive project in an area uses a baseline into which past effects have been incorporated, the baseline is continually shifted and significant effects to valued components could be overlooked because of the absence of consideration of the effects of prior projects.

A cumulative effects assessment that fulfills the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act,

2012 and the EIS Guidelines would need to provide a clear understanding of how a valued component (1) has been affected by past projects and activities, (2) is being affected by existing projects and activities and, (3) could be affected by future projects and activities.

Consideration of past effects could be done by describing qualitatively known trends in the condition of the valued component using available Aboriginal traditional knowledge, historic data or any other sources and describing how past activities have affected the conditions of the valued component.

Information Required: For each valued component that may be affected by residual adverse effects of the Project, provide an analysis of the total cumulative effects over the life of the Project. The analysis should include:

  1. how the valued component has been affected by past projects and activities;
  2. how the valued component would be further affected by the residual effects of the Project; and
  3. how other certain and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities may also affect the valued component.

TRANSBOUNDARY EFFECTS

#14 – Transboundary Effects

Rationale: The EIS Guidelines (10.1.2) require the EIS to include a stand-alone section that summarizes changes the Project may cause to the environment on federal lands or lands outside of British Columbia.

Although Appendix 29-B and 29-C identify which intermediate and valued components would experience transboundary effects of the Project, the EIS does not include a description of the nature and characteristics of the transboundary aspects of the environmental effects. For example, Appendix 29-C indicates that the Project will have an effect on transboundary lands, but the transboundary nature of the residual effect to the productivity of diving birds is not clear. Section 15 identifies that the local and regional study areas for the coastal birds assessment both terminate at the United States border and the description of the future conditions with the Project on the potential productivity of diving birds is focused only on changes that are expected to occur within the local assessment area.

Information Required: Provide a description of the nature and characteristics of the transboundary aspects of the environmental effects listed in Appendix 29-B and 29-C, namely for air quality, noise, light, surficial geology and marine sediment, marine water quality, underwater noise, marine mammals and coastal birds.

PROJECT COMPONENTS AND ACTIVITIES

#15 – Intermodal Yard Locations

Rationale: The EIS Guidelines (section 8) require the proponent to identify the alternative means to carry out the Project, and to identify the effects of each technically and economically feasible alternative means. In EIS section 5.4.3.1 , Port Metro Vancouver reports that there are two technically and economically feasible intermodal yard (IY) locations: an IY on land adjacent to Deltaport Way off of the causeway, and an IY on the marine terminal. The potential environmental effects of these feasible alternatives must be identified at a level of detail that allows the alternatives to be compared. The lists of valued components that could be affected by the alternatives on page 5-17 of the EIS do not provide the appropriate level of detail. Justification for the selection of the preferred alternative must also be provided in terms of the potential environmental effects, technical and economic feasibility, and any other factors that are applied such as community preference, as appropriate.

Information Required: Provide a description of the potential environmental effects of the technically and economically feasible alternative means of the intermodal yard location. Compare the alternatives to identify the preferred alternative based on the relative consideration of potential environmental effects, and technical and economic feasibility of the alternatives. Explain any additional criteria that were used in the identification of the preferred alternative such as public preference or perception.

#16 – Short Sea Shipping

Rationale: The EIS Guidelines (7.1) require the EIS to describe the Project, including the marine terminal and all associated infrastructure. Provision for a potential future short-sea-shipping barge terminal (berth and terminal operational offices) is described in EIS Appendix 4-A, Basis of Design and section 5, Alternative Means of Carrying out the Project, but it is not included in the description of the Project. It is understood that the Port Metro Vancouver technical/supporting studies may include physical activities that are not, or are no longer considered in the definition of the Project for the purpose of the environmental assessment.

Information Required: Confirm whether the short-sea-shipping facilities and activities described in Appendix 4-A and section 5 of the EIS are part of the proposed Project. If part of the proposed Project, provide the required information as per the EIS Guidelines (7.1) for this component and its associated activities.

#17 – Cleanup and On-site Grounds Reclamation

Rationale: The EIS Guidelines (7.2) require the proponent to provide information on the decommissioning of any construction-related temporary facilities and post-construction cleanup and on-site grounds reclamation. The terms ‘cleanup' (except in relation to accidents or malfunctions) and ‘reclamation' in reference to on-site grounds are not used in the EIS which made it difficult for reviewers to locate information on these activities in the documentation.

Information Required: Verify that all of the post-construction cleanup and on-site grounds reclamation activities that are anticipated to be required for the Project are identified in the EIS. Provide a short summary of the post- construction cleanup and on-site grounds reclamation activities and include reference to the EIS sections where these activities are discussed.

GROUNDWATER

#18 – Groundwater

Rationale: The EIS Guidelines (9.1.4) require a delineation and characterization of groundwater areas/sources including the locations of groundwater discharge and recharge areas and a description of groundwater flow patterns and rates, including seasonal changes in groundwater flow.

The EIS (section 9.1.2.1) presents a limited discussion regarding delineation and characterization of groundwater areas/sources. The EIS describes the processes and general water bodies involved in the discharge and recharge of groundwater, without providing actual locations. The EIS also discusses the patterns of groundwater flow; however, there is no information on the rates of flow, including seasonal changes.

Request: Provide delineation and characterization of groundwater areas/sources including the locations of groundwater discharge and recharge areas.

Provide a description of groundwater flow patterns and the accompanying flow rates, including seasonal changes in groundwater flow.

AIR QUALITY

#19 – British Columbia and Canadian Ambient Air Quality Objectives

Rationale: The EIS Guidelines (13.1.1) require that, in reaching conclusions on the significance of adverse environmental effects, the proponent use the existence of environmental standards, guidelines or objectives for assessing the impact, and (consider) the implications of any currently proposed revisions.

On October 21, 2014 British Columbia established interim Provincial objectives for 1-hr NO2 and 1-hr SO2. Port Metro Vancouver indicated that those objectives have not been incorporated into the assessment of air quality in EIS section 9.2 or subsequently in the determination of significance of air quality impacts to Human Health in EIS section 27 or Potential or Established Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Related Interests, including Current Use of Land and Resources for Traditional Purposes in EIS section 32.

The EIS also indicates that, under the Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards, new NO2 and SO2 criteria are expected to be established in the 2015-2016 timeframe but does not discuss the implications of these proposed standards.

Information Required: Provide an analysis of the Project's 1-hour NO2 and 1-hr SO2 emissions according to the methodology and objectives provided in the October 2014 British Columbia Interim Air Quality Objectives. Discuss how any changes to the existing analysis would affect the predicted significance of the Project's effects on Human Health and Potential or Established Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Related Interests, including Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes.

Provide a discussion regarding the implications of the currently proposed revisions to the Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards criteria for NO2 and SO2 for the relevant predictions within the EIS.

#20 – Metro Vancouver Ambient Air Quality Objectives

Rationale: The EIS (pg. 9.2-8) reports that the Government of British Columbia has delegated the Greater Vancouver Regional District (or Metro Vancouver) as the single agency under which provincial and municipal air pollution control activities would be integrated in the Greater Vancouver urban area. The EIS also further states that regional objectives and standards are considered for comparison purposes only, but does not provide a rationale for this consideration.

Information Required: Provide clarification on how the Metro Vancouver Ambient Air Quality Objectives were applied in the assessment of air quality effects and the determination of the significance of effects on Human Health and Potential or Established Aboriginal and Treaty Rights and Related Interests, including Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes.

#21 – Sulphur Oxides

Rationale: The EIS Guidelines (9.1.2) require the EIS, as a minimum, to report the ambient air quality at the Project site and within the airshed likely to be affected by the Project in terms of the following contaminants: total suspended particulates, PM2.5, PM10, CO, SOx, toxic VOCs (as defined by the Canadian Environmental Protection Act), NOx, ground-level ozone, black carbon and any other identified mobile-source air toxins (i.e. acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, etc.). The EIS contains information and analysis only for sulphur dioxide (SO2) rather than for all sulphur oxides (SOx).

Information Required: Provide information on sulphur oxides, other than sulphur dioxide, at the Project site and within the airshed likely to be affected by the Project.

WETLANDS

#22 – Wetlands Identification and Characterization

Rationale: The EIS Guidelines (9.1.6) require the proponent to provide the locations and extent of wetlands likely to be affected by Project activities according to their location, size, type (wetland class and form), species composition, and ecological function.

The EIS contains information about types of marine vegetation potentially affected by the Project, although not all wetlands are discretely identified. Provincially listed estuarine wetland communities located at Roberts Bank are also provided in a table, without identifying which of these would be affected or providing further characterization. Section 17.4 of the EIS further states that a wetland ecological function assessment meeting the requirements of the EIS Guidelines will be completed in the future, but the status of when this analysis will be available is unclear.

Information Required: Provide a consolidated description of the location, size, type, species composition, and ecological functions of wetlands potentially affected by the Project.

#23 – Implications of Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation

Rationale: The EIS Guidelines (6.2) require the proponent to identify government policies relevant to the Project and discuss their implications.

Appendix 6-B of the EIS discusses relevant federal policies, plans and initiatives, but does not include information on the Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation. Section 11 of the EIS mentions that this policy would apply to the Project but the implications of the Policy on the Project are not discussed.

Information Required: Provide a discussion of the implications of the Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation to the Project.

MARINE INVERTEBRATES

#24 – Orange Sea Pens

Rationale: The EIS Guidelines (9.1.1) require that where little or no information is available, specific studies will be designed to gather further information on, among other matters, the interrelations of a species to the ecosystem. The EIS Guidelines (10.1.1) further require all conclusions to be substantiated, and predictions to be based on clearly stated assumptions.

The EIS notes the ecological importance of orange sea pens for structural habitat complexity and as a prey species in supporting a large number of predators (EIS section 12.5.4.2, Appendix 12-A, p32). The EIS states that orange sea pens benefit fish and other macro-invertebrate species, such as Dungeness crab, and diving birds which have also shown a preference for sea pen coverage (EIS sections 10.2.1, 15.5.6). The EIS does not explain the nature and importance of the interrelations between sea pens and those species that rely on them for high quality habitat.

Port Metro Vancouver reports that the expected moderate loss of orange sea pen habitat and decrease in productivity may affect the availability of high-quality habitat for flatfish, demersal fish, and coastal birds. Although the EIS states that the potential for negative effects of sea pen habitat loss cannot be discounted (EIS sections 13.3.6.4 , 13.3.6.5), the EIS does not include a description of how the effect of this habitat loss is accounted for in the effects assessment.

Information Required: Provide a description of the interrelations between orange sea pens and the marine invertebrates, demersal fish, flatfish species, and diving shorebirds that rely on this habitat.

Clarify how the predicted effects to these species considered the anticipated loss of sea pen habitat.

COASTAL BIRDS

#25 – Project Lighting Effects

Rationale: The EIS Guidelines (9.1.6) require that a characterization of the way existing artificial light and moon phase affect bird distributions at the Project site. The EIS describes how some species of birds are affected by light at the Project site, but does not provide an overall characterization of effects on bird distributions, nor does it describe the potential added effects of Project lighting on bird distributions.

Information Required: Provide a characterization of the way existing artificial light and moon phase affect bird distributions at the Project site and discuss the potential added effects of Project lighting on bird distributions.

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SETTING

#26 – Social and Economic Setting

Rationale: The EIS Guidelines (9.1.8) require the proponent to provide a description of general social and economic conditions of each identified Aboriginal group. Section 18 of the EIS states that existing economic and social conditions are provided for only two Aboriginal communities in close proximity to the Project with established rights to fish near Roberts Bank (Tsawwassen First Nation and Musqueam First Nation). The EIS does not provide a rationale for excluding the other groups identified in the EIS Guidelines (9.2).

Information Required: Provide a rationale for presenting social and economic conditions for the Tsawwassen First Nation and Musqueam First Nation only.

OUTDOOR RECREATION

#27 – Recreational Uses of the Project Area by Aboriginal Peoples

Rationale: The EIS Guidelines (9.1.7, 9.1.8, 10.1.3) require baseline information on recreational use of the Project area and an assessment of effects of changes to the environment to be provided for both Aboriginal and non- Aboriginal people. Section 24 of the EIS discusses potential effects of the Project on outdoor recreation, but it does not provide a separate assessment for Aboriginal people and non-Aboriginal people nor does it explain why both aspects are presented together.

Information Required: Present the assessment of the effects of the Project on outdoor recreation in a manner that differentiates between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal users.

HUMAN HEALTH

#28 – Aboriginal Health

Rationale: The EIS Guidelines (9.1.7, 9.1.8, 10.1.3) require an assessment of effects of changes to the environment to be provided for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. section 27 of the EIS discusses potential effects of the Project on human health, but it does not provide a separate assessment for Aboriginal people and non- Aboriginal people nor does it explain why both aspects are presented together.

Information Required: Present the assessment of effects of the Project on human health in a manner that differentiates between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people.

PHYSICAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE

#29 – Physical and Cultural Heritage

Rationale: The EIS Guidelines (10.1.3) require the proponent to assess the effects of any changes the Project may cause to the environment, with respect to Aboriginal peoples, on physical and cultural heritage.

In chapter 28 of the EIS, the archaeological and heritage effects assessment includes an assessment of the physical impacts on heritage as it pertains to Aboriginal interests, but notes that the cultural effects assessments (i.e. intangible aspects) are included in other sections of the document.

In EIS section 32.2.4, the baseline information for the Aboriginal groups includes information on culturally important features for each Aboriginal group. The effects assessment in section 32.2.6, however, does not include an assessment of the effects of any changes the Project may cause to the environment, with respect to Aboriginal peoples, on cultural heritage. A list of cultural places, sites and features is provided per Aboriginal group, but no analysis is provided that would support a conclusion of significance of environmental effects in the relevant sections, including in sections 32.2.6.1 to 32.2.6.4.

In EIS section 32.3.2, in the assessment of potential impacts on the exercise of asserted or established Aboriginal and Treaty rights impacts, Port Metro Vancouver does not make any determinations of significance of the Project effects on cultural heritage. Sacred sites, cultural landscapes, language and beliefs, as indicated above, are not reflected in the analysis of the determination of the significance of adverse environmental effects.

Information Required: Provide an assessment of the environmental effects of the Project on the cultural heritage of Aboriginal peoples, including proposed mitigation and a determination of significance.

CURRENT USE OF LANDS AND RESOURCES FOR TRADITIONAL PURPOSES

#30 – Rationale for Conclusions

Rationale: The EIS Guidelines (10.1.1) requires that conclusions with respect to environmental effects are substantiated, that predictions are based on clearly stated assumptions and that the proponent describes how it has tested those assumptions.

Disaggregated baseline information is provided for Aboriginal groups in section 32.2 of the EIS. However, the potential Project-related effects described for the Future Conditions with the Project (32.2.6) are not described in the same level of detail. As such, the conclusions of the effects assessment on current use, particularly where there is a finding of "negligible effect" or "no environmental effect", are not substantiated for all of the Aboriginal groups.

For example, in the assessment of access to preferred current use locations related to the harvesting of marine invertebrates, the baseline information in section 32 indicates that Tsawwassen, Musqueam, Lake Cowichan and Lyackson First Nations all harvest crabs in the local assessment area. However, while the effects assessment concludes potential adverse effects for Tsawwassen and Musqueam First Nations, it also concludes that potential effects on access to preferred locations for current use is anticipated to be negligible for the other Aboriginal groups mentioned (p. 32-104) without providing a rationale.

Information Required: Provide a rationale for the conclusions of the effects assessment for the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by Aboriginal peoples where the conclusions are reported as "no effect" or "negligible". Presenting the effects assessment on a per group basis may help clarify the various conclusions.

#31 – Country Foods

Rationale: The EIS Guidelines (9.1.8) require the proponent to provide information about reliance on country foods for each identified Aboriginal group. The EIS states that a limited amount of information on the level or quantity of traditional food consumption in the local assessment area was provided in Aboriginal traditional use studies and from other sources. Section 27 of the EIS notes that current consumption rates, as reported by Aboriginal groups, are included in section 32. However, while section 27 and 32 generically identify the types of traditional food consumed, they do not discuss consumption levels or the reliance on country foods by Aboriginal peoples.

Information Required: Provide baseline information about the reliance on country foods for each Aboriginal group identified in the EIS Guidelines (9.2).

Report a problem on this page
Date modified: