From: Rifkin,June Yoo [PYR] Sent: December 18, 2013 3:42 PM To: Lamont,Averil [CEAA] Cc: Raska,Andrea [CEAA]; McLean,Robyn [CEAA] Subject: T2 draft EIS Guidelines - EC Supplemental Info - Scope of Assessment for VCs Hi Averil, In a letter dated December 10th, Environment Canada suggested specific edits to the draft EIS Guidelines for the proposed Roberts Bank Terminal 2 (T2) project. Environment Canada comments included proposed amendments to Section 7.1.1 Scope of Assessment. As requested by the CEA Agency on Dec. 17, 2013, Environment Canada provides the following proposed changes to Section 7.1.1 that would facilitate a reasonable consideration of environmental effects as defined under Section 5 of CEAA 2012.

(1) The Local Assessment Area (LAA) is defined as the spatial area encompassing the Project’s impact assessment of direct effects to marine-associated birds. Generally, this area should include all tidal- and non-tidal-influenced habitats that the Project could potentially impact. There is likely large overlap between the marine-associated bird LAA and coastal geomorphology LAA. Environment Canada recommends that the spatial scope of the marine bird-associated LAA include the following areas:

a. Roberts Bank (including mud- and sand-flats, marshes (including Brunswick Point), biofilm). More specifically:

i. A boundary line parallel to the low water mark, 1000m seaward of it. ii. A boundary line parallel to the shore dyke, 500 m landward of it.

iii. A boundary line along the Steveston Jetty, from Steveston to Sand Heads.

iv. A boundary line along the Canada/US border. b. That the boundary under (1) (a.)(ii.) extend to include Canoe Pass.

(2) The Regional Assessment Area (RAA) is defined as the spatial area encompassing the Project’s cumulative impact assessment to marine-associated birds. Environment Canada recommends that the RAA include the following areas:

a. Fraser River Estuary (Boundary Bay, Sturgeon Bank, Roberts Bank, Fraser River South Arm);

b. Delta; c. Richmond; d. Sea Island e. Gulf Islands; f. Strait of Georgia; and, g. flyway (large fractions of the entire flyway population of Western Sandpipers

and Dunlins pass through the LAA for example). Environment Canada notes that potential Project impacts to bird habitat could result in birds moving elsewhere in search of forage resources, which in turn could result in impacts in those

areas and/or to the birds themselves (i.e. indirect effects). Snow Geese, as an example, might displace to the Fraser River Estuary for which effects would be relevant to both the LAA and RAA. Accordingly, Environment Canada reiterates the importance of appropriate consultation with federal departments etc. when defining spatial boundaries for each VC ( Environment Canada comment, Section 7.2.1 Spatial Boundaries, December 10, 2013 letter attd). Thanks, June A/Head, EA Unit Environment Canada 604-666-7829

From: Rifkin,June Yoo [PYR] Sent: December 11, 2013 4:51 PM To: Lamont,Averil [CEAA] Cc: Raska,Andrea [CEAA]; McLean,Robyn [CEAA] Subject: FW: EC Letter of Comment - Roberts Bank T2 - Draft EIS Guidelines Importance: High Hi Averil, The air expert review team at EC has picked up on 2 clarifications in the attd submitted letter. Can you kindly incorporate the following key addendums to our letter:

• Section 10.1.2 Changes to the Environment: after “toxic VOCs”, please insert “(defined as CEPA toxic)”.

• Section 10.1.2 Changes to the Environment: Please delete PM10 and replace with PM2.5.

If easier, I can re-submit a clean copy incorporating the above amendments. Thanks, June From: Rifkin,June Yoo [PYR] Sent: December 10, 2013 9:49 PM To: Lamont,Averil [CEAA] Cc: Raska,Andrea [CEAA]; McLean,Robyn [CEAA] Subject: EC Letter of Comment - Roberts Bank T2 - Draft EIS Guidelines Hi Averil, Please find Environment Canada’s comments on the draft EIS Guidelines for the proposed Roberts Bank T2 Project attd. Thank you for the opportunity to comment, and apologies for the slight delay. Regards, June A/Head, EA Unit Environment Canada 604-666-7829

1

Environmental Stewardship Branch Environmental Protection Operations Pacific and Yukon 201 – 401 Burrard Street Vancouver, BC V6C 3S5 December 10, 2013 ECPT No.: 07-1201 CEAR: 80054 Averil Lamont Acting Team Lead Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 410 - 701 West Georgia Vancouver, BC V7Y 1C6 Dear Ms. Lamont: Re: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project, Environment Canada Comments on Draft

Guidelines for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Environment Canada (EC) has reviewed and is pleased to provide comments on the following document:

Draft Guidelines for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, Pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project, proposed by Port Metro Vancouver, November 8, 2013.

EC comments attached are founded on the departmental mandate and are focused on matters related to wildlife, air quality and sediment management including disposal at sea. The first attachment sets out the legislation, regulations and policies applicable to key EC interests in the proposed Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project. It is in the context of the departmental mandate that the second attachment details proposed revisions to the draft EIS Guidelines. The proposed revisions reflect pertinent best practices as identified by departmental experts. I trust the attached commentary is helpful to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency as it finalizes the EIS Guidelines and prepares for next steps in the environmental assessment process. Sincerely, [ORIGINAL SIGNED BY] June Yoo Rifkin Acting Head, Environmental Assessment Unit Attach (2):

1. Overview of EC Mandate 2. Detailed Commentary on draft EIS guidelines

2

ATTACHMENT 1

Overview of Environment Canada Mandate as it relates to Key Issues Disposal at Sea Under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA 1999), EC may have responsibilities for regulating proposed disposal at sea activities associated with the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project (the Project). In general, all in-water sediment management activities have the potential to require a disposal at sea permit. Therefore, reference to ‘disposal at sea’ in EC-recommended revisions to the EIS guidelines is inclusive of in-water sediment management activities such as storage in transfer pits. Port Metro Vancouver (the Proponent) is encouraged to continue to consult with EC during the environmental assessment phase to collect and present information that would support an application for a disposal at sea permit should it be required. In terms of disposal site selection, the Proponent has been provided with draft national guidance on the subject. Air Quality EC administers regulations under CEPA1999 which apply to certain Project emission sources. Since 2008, the federal and provincial/territorial governments have worked together to develop a new Air Quality Management System (AQMS) through a multi-stakeholder consultation process. The AQMS provides a comprehensive, cross-Canada framework for collaborative action to protect human health and the environment through continuous improvement of air quality. The AQMS includes the following major elements

o Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) which update existing Canada Wide Standards for ambient air quality;

o Air quality management through local air zone and regional airsheds; o Base-level Industrial Emissions Requirements (BLIERs); and, o An intergovernmental working group on mobile sources.

In October 2012, jurisdictions, with the exception of Quebec, agreed to begin implementing the AQMS. Progress to date includes the publication of the first Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards in May 2013, work to delineate air zones, and work to develop Base-level Industrial Emissions Requirements. Canada and the United States (US) signed the 1991 Canada-United States Air Quality Agreement to reduce the impact of transboundary air pollution. Under this Agreement, Canada and the US committed to notify each other concerning proposals within 100 km of the Canada-US border, and if carried out could cause significant transboundary air pollution (https://www.ec.gc.ca/air/default.asp?lang=En&n=162474D9-1). Notification is to be provided for any new air pollution sources and any major modifications to existing facilities that are located within 100 km of the border and could result in emissions of certain contaminants above specified thresholds.

3

Species at Risk, Migratory Birds, and Wetlands EC’s recommendations on wildlife, migratory birds, and wetlands issues regarding the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project (the Project) are founded on the departmental responsibilities for administering the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 (MBCA), the Species at Risk Act (SARA), as well as its lead role in providing guidance on implementation of the Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation. EC notes that the MBCA applies to the 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of Canada. Similarly, Section 58 of SARA prohibits the destruction of critical habitat within a variety of areas, including within the EEZ. Migratory Birds Convention Act The purpose of the MBCA is to implement the Migratory Birds Convention between Canada and the United States by protecting and conserving migratory birds, as populations and as individuals. It is the responsibility of the Federal Government of Canada to protect and conserve the roughly five hundred species of migratory birds regularly occurring in Canada. EC’s Canadian Wildlife Service provides the list of bird species protected under the MBCA, which is derived from Article I of the Convention. This list includes all seabirds (except cormorants, pelicans), all waterfowl, all shorebirds and most landbirds (birds with principally terrestrial life cycles). The Migratory Birds Regulations provide for the conservation of migratory birds and for the protection of their nests and eggs. Section 5.1 of MBCA prohibits the deposit of a substance that is harmful to migratory birds in waters or an area frequented by migratory birds or in a place from which the substance may enter such waters or such an area. A prohibition against the disturbance, destruction, or taking of a nest, egg or nest shelter of a migratory bird without a permit is set out in Subsection 6(a) of the Migratory Bird Regulations. To avoid harming or destroying active nests of migratory birds, advice is available at EC’s website: http://www.ec.gc.ca/nature/default.asp?lang=En&n=2D16D723-1. Endangered and threatened migratory bird species at risk (species, subspecies, distinct populations) also have federal legislative protection under the Species at Risk Act. Species at Risk Act The SARA is a component of the implementation of the Canadian Biodiversity Strategy - an initiative developed as a response to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity to which Canada is a signatory. The purposes of SARA are to prevent Canadian indigenous species, subspecies, and distinct populations from becoming extirpated or extinct, to provide for the recovery of endangered or threatened species, and to encourage the management of other species to prevent them from becoming at risk. SARA applies to all at-risk wildlife species and their residences and critical habitat within Canada. In managing a project in the context of SARA-listed species, Environment Canada advises the Proponent to identify and evaluate likely species occurrences (including

4

methods such as conducting baseline surveys), assess environmental impacts, and develop mitigation strategies and follow-up monitoring plans. Section 79 of SARA applies to situations where a person is required by a federal Act to ensure that an assessment of the environmental effects of a project is conducted. Subsection 79(1) requires every such person to notify the competent Minister(s) without delay if the project is likely to affect a listed wildlife species or its critical habitat. Subsection 79(2) of SARA requires that the person identify the adverse effects of the project on the listed wildlife species and its critical habitat; and, if the project is carried out, to ensure that measures are taken to avoid or lesson those adverse effects and to monitor them, and to ensure that such measures are taken in a way that is consistent with all applicable recovery strategies and action plans. Subsection 79(3) defines ‘person’ as including an association, an organization, and a federal authority as defined in subsection 2(1) of CEAA 2012, and any body that is set out in Schedule 3 of that Act. Environment Canada’s Operational Framework for Use of Conservation Allowances ‘Environment Canada’s Operational Framework for Use of Conservation Allowances’ (Environment Canada 2012b) provides guidance in the use of conservation allowances. Conservation allowances are the third step of the mitigation hierarchy, a three-step approach that first examines options to avoid and minimize environmental impacts. The framework applies where EC has a role related to the review or approval of proposed land-use activities, including those that occur on federal lands or waters, projects or activities that are subject to federal legislation, actions that would affect Aboriginal and/or treaty rights, or when EC has environmental protection or conservation objectives that would be affected by the proposed activity. Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation The Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation (the Policy) is a government-wide policy that was approved by federal Cabinet and adopted in 1991. It was developed as a federal response to wetland decline in Canada and is driven by interdepartmental, intergovernmental and widespread public support for and interest in the conservation of Canadian wetlands. The ecological importance and economic value of wetlands stem from their ability to perform key ecological (hydrological, biochemical, habitat and climate) functions. The financial value of annual production related directly to wetlands, including both consumptive activities (hunting, fishing and trapping) and non-consumptive activities, such as tourism and recreation, is in the billions of dollars (Government of Canada 1991). The Policy applies to federal departments addressing the potential loss of wetlands and wetland functions. Projects and activities of the Government of Canada are subject to the Policy. For projects on non-federal lands and waters, such losses are evaluated in terms of the scope of any federal permits, licenses, authorizations and other instruments under federal jurisdiction which may be applicable. The Policy is underpinned by a no-net-loss of wetland functions objective, and as such, necessitates a consideration of all wetland functions which could be impacted. For EC, functions of specific interest include those important to migratory birds and species at risk.

5

The Policy recognizes the importance of considering cumulative effects, and tailors expected outcomes for wetlands to the level of cumulative effects experienced in the area. EC applies the Policy to ensure that project-related impacts to sensitive wetland/riparian habitats, in terms of the functions these habitats provide to migratory bird and species at risk populations, are appropriately addressed. In implementing the Policy, the department advises that impacts to wetlands, related riparian areas, and their associated functions be avoided wherever possible. Where avoidance is not possible, appropriate mitigation measures should be employed to minimize impacts. Finally, where there are residual impacts that cannot be addressed through feasible mitigation measures, compensation is recommended. Due to local circumstances where wetland losses have been severe, in some areas no further loss of remaining wetland area may be deemed essential. The following supplementary information on the Policy is offered. (A) The key policy objectives of the Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation (the Policy)

relevant to federal environmental assessment can be found in the section on strategy related to federal lands and water and in the section on ‘other federal programs’. These include:

Commit all federal departments to the goal of no net loss of wetland functions (i) on federal lands and waters, (ii) in areas affected by the implementation of federal programs where the continuing loss or degradation of wetlands has reached critical levels, and (iii) where federal activities affect wetlands designated as ecologically or socio-economically important to a region. Due to local circumstances where wetland losses have been severe, in some areas no further loss of any remaining wetland area may be deemed essential (Government of Canada 1991).

(B) The Policy applies to federal departments addressing the potential loss of wetlands

and wetland functions. Projects and activities of the Government of Canada are subject to the Policy, including those projects and activities considered under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act,2012 (CEAA 2012). For projects on non-federal lands and waters, such losses are evaluated (1) in terms of the scope of any federal permits, licenses, authorizations and other instruments under federal jurisdiction which may be applicable, and (2) where the associated wetland functions support areas of federal jurisdiction (for EC, for example, these include migratory birds and species at risk). To be clear: the Policy does not apply to wetlands in the absence of either of these two above links to federal jurisdiction.

(C) The Policy is underpinned by a no-net-loss of wetland functions objective, and as

such, necessitates a consideration of all wetland functions which could be impacted. For EC, functions of specific interest include those supporting migratory birds and species at risk. To inform the applicability of the Policy, EC recommends that proponents describe the natural processes of potentially impacted wetlands (physical and chemical) and perform an assessment of the potential impacts and mitigation.

Hanson et al. (2008) ‘Wetland Ecological Functions Assessment: An Overview of Approaches’ (accessible at: Environment Canada - Nature - Publications) should be reviewed before undertaking a functions assessment.

6

(D) The Policy is applied on a regional basis to reflect current conditions. The Policy applies to natural, degraded, and artificial wetlands. In British Columbia, for example, the geographic areas where continuing loss or degradation of wetlands has reached critical levels are defined as:

• Delivery Areas under the Pacific Coast Joint Venture; • Delivery Areas under the Canadian Intermountain Joint Venture; • Delivery Areas under the Prairie Habitat Joint Venture; • Lower Mainland / Fraser River region; • East Vancouver Island and Gulf Islands; • Okanagan Valley; and, • Portions of the Columbia Valley.

In British Columbia, ecologically or socio-economically wetlands important to a region are defined as:

• All marine coastal wetlands, saltmarshes, eelgrass (Zostera subspecies)

beds; and, • Red- and blue-listed wetland ecological communities.

With respect to the two definitions provided above, EC’s Canadian Wildlife Service (Pacific and Yukon) will provide more detailed guidance to project proponents as and when requested.

(E) Three mitigation strategies should be used to achieve a no-net-loss of wetland

functions for the three situations identified above. In order of application, these strategies1 are:

(1) Avoidance of impacts; (2) Minimization of unavoidable impacts; and, (3) Compensation for unavoidable impacts.

Due in part to the broader Policy objective of promoting the conservation of Canada’s wetland functions, now and in the future, and given the important role that wetlands play in sustaining populations of migratory birds and SARA-listed species, in addition to the foregoing no-net-loss considerations of the Policy, EC recommends that avoidance and minimization of impacts to ecological wetland functions be broadly considered in project design. It is important to note that application of the Policy is separate and distinct from a significance evaluation under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. The Policy is based on a no-net-loss of wetland functions, whereas the significance evaluation under the Act uses threshold-based criteria. The Policy applies to all wetland types, regardless of size; to all impact types, whether small or large, short duration or long, or direct or indirect. Specifically, the no-net-loss goal applies to the temporary loss of wetland functions. Monitoring programs needs to sufficiently

1 For more information on the mitigation hierarchy, refer for example to the Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation Policy

Implementation Guide for Federal Land Managers (1996), available through the following web link: http://www.ec.gc.ca/nature/default.asp?lang=En&n=132ADBFC-1&parent=0C1743A2-4D49-4183-AC5F-1DE909D2FEB1

7

robust to ensure effective implementation of mitigation measures and successful recovery of wetland functions.

(F) The Policy applies to CEAA 2012 to the extent of the application of federal

jurisdiction as described under (B). With specific reference to section 5 of CEAA 2012, the relevant sections are sections 5(1)(a),5(1) (b) and 5(2)(a). With respect to section 5(1) (a), there must be link between areas of federal jurisdiction as described (B).

EC’s Canadian Wildlife Service recommends that a Wetland Compensation Plan (WCP) be submitted with an Environmental Impact Statement for review in the environmental assessment process. Amongst other things, the WCP should describe the wetland ecological communities and functions potentially impacted to which the Policy applies; application of the mitigation hierarchy; identification of residual effects; identification of a compensation ratio; identification of the location and timing of implementation of compensation projects (where feasible); and, the parties responsible for implementation (including monitoring) and review. At a minimum, a compensation ratio of 2:1 is used; however, this ratio varies on a project-by-project basis. Consultation with the Canadian Wildlife Service is recommended to ensure the appropriate ratio is identified. In order of priority, the Canadian Wildlife Service recommends wetland restoration over enhancement and enhancement over creation.

(G) In summary, EC advises proponents that the Policy applies to the federal departments and agencies when addressing the loss of wetlands. It will be used to inform the environmental assessment process and will be considered by EC when assessing the appropriate measures to be taken to mitigate the adverse environmental effects of the Project under CEAA 2012, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, the International River Improvements Act, and the Species at Risk Act.

8

ATTACHMENT 2

Detailed Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines (EIS) Guidelines –

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Section 3.2 Study Strategy and Methodology In the EIS Guidelines, Port Metro Vancouver (the Proponent) is advised to consider effects that are likely to arise from the project “including situations not explicitly identified in these guidelines”. Environment Canada (EC) recommends that the EIS Guidelines clarify the nature of such “situations”, including the provision of examples pertinent to the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project (the Project). Section 3.4.3 Existing Information EC recommends the following addition to the EIS Guidelines (provided in bold italics): The Proponent should describe and explain the specific circumstances under

which existing studies and reports are to be considered relevant to the environmental assessment of the Project and the limitations of those studies and reports.

For example, the Comprehensive Study Report for the Deltaport Third Berth Project

(http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/052/details-eng.cfm?pid=3734) states in Section 16.2.4 Proponent’s Detailed Assessment of Impacts, that, in the case of Air Quality Analysis: “T2 (which is not expected to be fully operational until 2021) and the South Fraser Perimeter Road lack this detailed design information, and as a consequence, the T2 air quality analysis is limited to an emissions inventory only. Analyses that attempt to assess contaminant concentrations or human health risk beyond air quality predictions for 2011 cannot be completed until more detailed emission information on T2 and the South Fraser Perimeter Road is available”. The Report points out the lack of detailed design information about T2 and its required infrastructure and that “no assessment of potential human health impacts was conducted beyond 2011 because there is not enough detailed information available for such an analysis at this time.”

Section 5.6 Project Components EC recommends that the EIS Guidelines specifically identify the following additional Project Components to be assessed (identified in bold italics) taking into account the rationale identified:

o Increased traffic volumes given potential adverse effects on migratory birds (e.g., avoidance of habitat and resources due to noise, lights, chemical emissions; mortality rates due to collisions with vehicles); and,

o Hazardous material inventories and locations where spills could be reasonably expected taking into account provisions for spill prevention, preparedness, response and recovery.

9

EC recommends that the existing accounting of Project Components requiring assessment be amended to include the following details (identified in bold italics and strikethrough):

o permanent and temporary linear infrastructure (including description and size of road, railroad, pipelines, power supply, and overhead wires)…;

o marine traffic (including number, type, size…and tug basin, and any associated refueling activity); and,

o permanent and temporary works related to the construction phase of the project, including the provisions for sediment management transfer pit( and any (including e.g., size, location, source, type and volume of sediments to be stored disposed, the size and location of disposal at sea sites).

Section 5.7 Project Activities EC recommends that the existing accounting of specific Project Activities requiring assessment be amended (as identified in bold italics and strikethrough):

o dredging activities (including any maintenance dredging anticipated), specifying the locations, depths, surface area, types and volumes, and nature of sediment to be dredged (e.g. physical and chemical characteristics), dredging methods (e.g. type of dredge equipment, dredging depth, duration, frequency), sediment management plans (land and aquatic), and sediment transport methods of for materials to/from construction location(s) and disposal at sea / and transfer pit locations inclusive of transfer pits;

o construction methods for the development of the marine terminal including the three berth wharf structure (including caisson installation, backfilling and soil densification, installation of rip-rap, pile dredging, and sheet piling) and construction sequencing; and,

o disposal at sea activities inclusive of transfer pit storage (including e.g., location, type and volume of sediments to be disposed, timing and method of disposal).

Section 6 Scope of Project EC recommends the following amendments (identified in bold italics and strikethrough) to the EIS Guidelines related to environmental effects as defined in Section 5 of CEAA 2012.

o approach channel for both the marine terminal and tug basin, starting at the approach to Neah Bay (where all project-related commercial marine traffic will enter and depart);

o inbound and outbound journeys to and from the terminal including shipping lanes to the west of the project (between Vancouver and Juan de Fuca Strait);

o marine, road and rail transportation within the Lower Fraser Valley Airshed that is interconnected to project activities within Port Metro Vancouver’s jurisdiction taking into account:

10

• emissions from terrestrial mobile sources (i.e., rail including facility, adjacent yard, and long-haul corridors and road including facility, and major truck routes);

• emissions from marine mobile sources (i.e., mooring including at berth and other anchorages, and manoeuvring upon arrival and departure under way; and,

• any associated bunkering/refueling activity; o disposal at sea and sediment transfer pit location(s) and transportation of

sediment to/from these locations. Section 7.1.1 Scope of the Assessment EC recommends that the EIS Guidelines include the following direction on scoping the assessment (identified in bold italics): o ‘Ecological Importance’ should be recognized as a specific criterion for

Valued Component (VC) selection; o Biofilm should be identified as a VC due to its vital importance as a migratory

bird food resource; o The Local Study Area (LSA) for air quality should accommodate:

• transboundary effects (across international boundaries); • wind climatology including diurnal re-circulations; and, • location of sensitive receptor areas3.

o As a consequence of existing wind patterns, transboundary considerations for air quality will entail an LSA domain that includes the contiguous coastline of Whatcom County (Blaine and vicinity) as well as Point Roberts, Washington State. Given the project scale and emissions relative to the adjacent DP3 facility, as a minimum, the LSA domain should be at least as large as that used in the Deltaport Third Berth (DP3) assessment, namely 30 X 30 km to enable an adequate understanding of potential effects;

o The Regional Study Area (RSA) should be chosen to incorporate the Lower Fraser Valley (south of the North Shore mountains and west of Hope) in order to adequately determine transboundary effects including the environmental effects of the Project on the US mainland. The size of the RSA should be such that the cumulative effects of present and future projects immediately south of the continental US border may also be assessed; and,

o For each VC selected, information should be provided on how the baseline studies were designed to ensure that long-term monitoring would effectively assess the scale of Project effects, the success of implemented mitigation measures, and the value of management approaches.

Section 7.1.2 Effects of Potential Accidents or Malfunctions

EC recommends the following amendments to the EIS Guidelines (identified in bold italics): 3 The proponent should also refer to the document “Guidelines for Air Quality Dispersion Modelling in British Columbia” by the British Columbia Ministry of Environment (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/bcairquality/reports/pdfs/air_disp_model_08.pdf) to assist in the determination of the appropriate domain sizes for the Local Study Area and Regional Study Area, and receptor spacing.

11

o The accidents and malfunctions assessment should include all stages of the project (construction, operations, and closure/decommissioning).

o The EIS will also describe…the contingency/emergency response procedures in place or required if accidents or malfunctions do occur...

Section 7.2.1 Spatial Boundaries EC concurs with the statement that, “The proponent is advised to consult with the Agency, federal and provincial government departments and agencies, local government and Aboriginal groups, and take into account public comment when defining the spatial boundaries used in the EIS”, and reiterates the importance of these discussions to inform the spatial boundaries for each VC, as well as to allow EC to fulfill its responsibilities as a federal authority under Section 20 of CEAA 2012.

Section 8 Alternative Means of Carrying out the Project EC requests the addition of the following bullet (provided in bold italics) to the alternative means analysis in the EIS Guidelines:

o Alternatives to dredging. Section 9.1.1 Existing Environment - Methodology EC offers the following editorial:

o “section 0” should be replaced with “section 6”. EC recommends that the EIS Guidelines define the use of “resilience” in the following sentence, “The proponent will consider the resilience of relevant species populations, communities and their habitats”. EC also recommends that the EIS Guidelines require the Proponent to consult with appropriate federal departments to determine ‘relevancy’ as referenced in the following sentences in the EIS Guidelines:

• “The proponent will consider the resilience of relevant species populations, communities and their habitats”; and,

• “The proponent will summarize all pertinent historical information on the size and geographic extent of relevant species populations…”.

Section 9.1.2 Air Quality, Noise, Lighting and Climate EC recommends the following amendments (identified in bold italics) to the EIS Guidelines: As a minimum, the EIS will include the results of baseline surveys for the following:

12

o ambient air quality, including the following contaminants: total suspended particulates, PM2.5, PM10, NOx, CO, SO2, toxic VOCs, ground-level ozone, black carbon, and any other identified mobile-source toxins…; and,

o Atmospheric stability at the lowest levels, with consideration of - vertical air temperature profiles derived from high resolution

meteorological numerical models, and complemented with aircraft-measured profiles; and,

- coincident surface temperatures including the influence of tidal and Fraser River currents.

Further, EC recommends that the following direction on consideration of ambient light-related interactions on migratory birds be added to Section 9.1.2 of the EIS Guidelines (identified in bold italics): o Due to the effects of moonlight and moon phase on avian predator lethality

and forager vigilance, the effects of artificial light and moon phase on bird distributions should be separated;

o Existing night-time light levels at the Project site should be measured for all moon phases; and,

o An evaluation of the extent to which bird predators of the Fraser River Delta utilize artificial lighting associated with port structures in and around the project site (by which to expand hunting opportunities beyond daylight hours) should be evaluated, as well as the Project’s cumulative contribution to these predator-prey interactions.

Section 9.1.3 Coastal Geomorphology EC recommends that the use of the term “study” in the EIS Guidelines (as referenced in the first paragraph) be defined to include modeling of the effects of the terminal and expanded causeway on tidal currents and sediment and erosion processes. EC also recommends the following amendment to the last sentence (identified in bold italics and strikethrough):

o …those potential impacts may alter the coastal processes, physical environment and biological environment at Roberts Bank.

During construction of the Deltaport Third Berth Project (DP3), dendritic channels formed outside of the perimeter dykes. EC notes that the Project could result in the formation of dendritic channels due to other coastal geomorphological-related processes (e.g., head-cutting, erosion). Accordingly, EC recommends that the EIS Guidelines include the following direction (provided in bold italics):

o An explicit recommendation for a robust, quantitative assessment of the likelihood for the Project to result in the formation of dendritic channels; and,

o That the above recommended assessment be linked to a quantitative evaluation of the resulting impacts of any such newly formed dendritic channels to migratory birds and species at risk habitat, and in turn to the species and populations that depend on these habitats.

13

EC strongly recommends moving the following bullets (related to minimum EIS requirements) from ‘Section 9.1.3 Coastal Geomorphology’ to ‘Section 9.1.4 – Aquatic environment’. Once repositioned in Section 9.1.4, EC recommends the following amendments (identified in bold italics and strikethrough):

o a sediment transport model(s) for the proposed disposal at sea / transfer pit activities. regional and local project areas as well as the disposal at sea location(s). The model(s) should be verified against field measurements of currents and waves at relevant locations and should consider both short-term and long-term fate of the sediment. The potential for transboundary effects related to disposal at sea activities should also be explicitly addressed; and,

o sediment quality and chemical composition including concentrations of trace elements (including persistent organic pollutants in marine sediments) the characterization of marine sediment quality, including the physical properties (e.g. TOC, grain size, percent moisture), and chemical properties (e.g. Cd, Hg, As, Cr, Cu, Zn, Total PCBs, Total PAHs, and other contaminants of concern).

Section 9.1.4 Aquatic Environment Disposal at Sea EC recommends addition of the following item in the EIS Guidelines (identified in bold italics): As a minimum, the EIS will include:

o a description of the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the proposed disposal at sea site(s).

Wetlands In relation to wetland functions, EC recommends that the EIS Guidelines refer the Proponent to the following published guidance material:

o Hanson et al. (2008) ‘Wetland Ecological Functions Assessment: An Overview of Approaches’ (accessible at: http://wetkit.net/docs/WA_TechReport497_en.pdf).

Vegetation With respect to vegetation resources, EC recommends that the EIS Guidelines include the following item (identified in bold italics):

o A description of the occurrence of any federally or provincially listed aquatic plant species including vascular and non-vascular plants (bryophytes) and lichens.

Fraser River Delta The Fraser River Delta is recognized as a globally important area for the conservation of birds and their habitats through several international designations, in particular: the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network (WHSRN) and the Fraser River

14

Estuary (Boundary Bay, Sturgeon Bank, and Roberts Bank) Important Bird Area (IBA) under Birdlife International’s Important Bird Areas Program. As well, large areas of the Fraser River estuary – Sturgeon Bank, South Arm Marshes, Boundary Bay, Burns Bog Ecological Conservancy Area, and Serpentine – were designated as part of the Fraser River Delta Ramsar Site in September 2012 (accessible at http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-documents-list-anno-canada/main/ramsar/1-31-218%5E16491_4000_0__). The Fraser River Estuary IBA supports fifteen species of globally or continentally significant bird populations, including the American Widgeon, Western Sandpiper, Dunlin, Northern Pintail, Mallard, Brant, Snow Goose, Trumpeter Swan, Black-bellied Plover, the fannini subspecies of Great Blue Heron, Western Grebe, Red-necked Grebe, Glaucous-winged Gull, Thayer's Gull, and Mew Gull, as well as nationally significant numbers of Barn Owl and Peregrine Falcon (IBA 2012). Roberts Bank, as part of the Fraser River Delta, contains the richest and most important ecosystems for supporting waterbird abundance and diversity in Canada (Butler 1992). The Fraser River Estuary provides critical feeding, breeding and wintering habitat for 250,000 migrating waterfowl and 1 million migrating shorebirds along the Pacific flyway migratory corridor (Pacific Joint Venture 2012). Large areas of sheltered mudflat habitats are rare along the Pacific flyway migratory corridor; however, these habitats occur extensively in and around Roberts Bank, making it a vital stopover site between the breeding grounds in eastern Russia, Alaska, and northern Canada and wintering grounds in the southern United States and Central and South America (Butler and Campbell 1987), as well as an important overwintering site. The Western Sandpiper (Calidris mauri) and the Pacific subspecies of Dunlin (C. alpina pacifica) in particular rely on Roberts Bank as stopover and wintering sites, respectively. Peak abundance estimates during spring migration for Western Sandpipers at Roberts Bank range from 77,163 to 1,050,561 birds, with a median value of 149,581 birds (Drever et al. in press), and maximum counts during winter for the Pacific subspecies of Dunlin are 5,000-25,000 birds (BSC 2008). These values account for a significant portion of both species’ global populations (Delany and Scott 2006).

EC recommends that Section 9.1.4 of the EIS Guidelines include the following item (identified in bold italics):

o A description of the regional, continental, and global importance of Roberts

Bank for migratory birds, as well as a description of how migratory birds use habitat and food resources in the project area.

Biofilm The aquatic habitats at Roberts Bank, including marshes and mudflats, are critical for supporting globally and continentally significant populations of migrant and resident waterbirds (IBA 2012). Biofilm along the mudflats plays a critical role in sustaining this biodiversity at Roberts Bank, and has been shown to serve as a major food source in the diets of Western Sandpipers and Dunlin (Elner et al. 2005, Kuwae et al. 2008, Mathot 2010). The biofilm community consists of microbes, organic detritus, and sediment particles in a mucilaginous matrix of largely extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) combined with noncarbohydrate organic compounds in a dense layer that is maintained by coastal geomorphological and hydrodynamic processes (Characklis and Marshall

15

1990, Kuwae et al. 2008, Mathot et al. 2010, Kuwae et al. 2012). Biofilm develops most richly over sheltered, low-energy intertidal and estuarine mudflats (de Jonge and van Beusekom 1995), which accounts for its prevalence at Roberts Bank. Biofilm fields over the intertidal mudflats at Roberts Bank fuels the long distance migrations of Western Sandpipers and Dunlin to their Alaskan breeding grounds (Kuwae et al. 2008), making this area essential to the successful migration and reproduction of these species. Alterations to the biofilm community at Roberts Bank could, either directly or indirectly through significant changes to geomorphological and hydrodynamic processes, potentially disrupt the physical and functional integrity of the intertidal system and contribute to population-level declines of shorebird species, such as Western Sandpiper and Dunlin (Kuwae et al. 2008). Worldwide declines in shorebird populations (Wetlands International 2006) heighten the need to conserve the food resources they rely upon, including biofilm. Beyond a description of the abundance and distribution of the biofilm community at Roberts Bank (as stated in Section 9.1.4 Aquatic Environment), EC recommends that the draft EIS Guidelines include the following item (identified in bold italics):

o A description of the relationship between biofilm and migratory birds.

For clarity, with respect to the above recommendation, a description of baseline conditions must be sufficiently detailed to generate an in-depth understanding of the composition and dynamics of the biofilm community, particularly how coastal geomorphological and hydrodynamic processes maintain the biofilm fields grazed upon by migratory birds, such that the impacts of potential changes to the biofilm regime on migratory birds can be identified, assessed, and, if possible, effectively mitigated. Planning the project and examining its potential environmental effects in a precautionary manner as per Section 10.1.1 (Application of Precautionary Approach) of the EIS guidelines is particularly important given scientific uncertainty of the cumulative effects of current projects on the biofilm regime at Roberts Bank and the globally significant migratory bird biodiversity it supports. Section 9.1.6 Birds Wildlife and their Habitat The use of ‘indicator’ and ‘keystone’ species to represent (generally) a broader range of species (with similar traits, habitat requirements, etc.) is well established in the environmental assessment realm. The effectiveness of this approach is dependent on appropriate selection criteria, as the species and species groups chosen perform a pivotal role in the assessment of baseline data, identification of adverse effects, and mitigation. EC recommends that the EIS Guidelines include the following additions (identified in italics and bold): o This section indicate in a table, the wildlife groups and species identified as

Valued Components / Key Indicators, and the inventory methods used for each; and,

o In addition to abundance, distribution, and life stages, that the description of migratory and non-migratory bird species in the study area (e.g. waterfowl,

16

raptors, shorebirds, marsh birds and other landbirds) include species density values (with error bars) and species composition for each season. (This information would help to identify annual and seasonal trends).

As advised in comments on section 9.1.4, biofilm provides an important ecological function on Roberts Bank, an understanding of which has recently emerged through on-going research. In particular, biofilm is an important food source for migrating shorebirds of the Pacific flyway. Changes to coastal geomorphology and hydrology resulting from the Project have the potential to alter the composition and dynamics of the biofilm community grazed upon by migratory birds. Accordingly, EC recommends an amendment to the following item in the EIS Guidelines (identified in bold italics and strikethrough):

o Abundance and distribution description of submerged floating and emergent

aquatic vegetation including the composition and dynamics of biofilm and eelgrass communities, with particular attention to the interactions of these communities with migratory birds and how the Project could potentially impact these interactions.

EC recommends the following amendments and additions in the EIS Guidelines (identified in bold italics and strikethrough): o areas of concentration of migratory birds, such as breeding, feeding, resting,

nesting, molting, denning and/or wintering areas’; o A description of predator-prey interactions ‘trophic interactions’ for migratory

birds and federally or provincially listed bird and wildlife species; o A description of trophic interactions including, but not be limited to, potential

effects of the project on changes to avian predator-prey interactions, including timing of adjacent patch use, flock size, increased vigilance and changing flock composition. (For example, the Project would likely alter sight lines and introduce additional perch sites for predators);

o An evaluation of any and all potential effects to critical habitat; o A quantitative assessment of impacts to the distribution and productivity of

habitat that supports migratory birds and species at risk that is linked to an evaluation of potential impacts to the species and populations themselves; and,

o Monitoring of year-round migratory bird habitat use including non-migratory, federally- and provincially-listed, and Great Blue Heron (subspecies fannini).

The referenced “list of all potential or known species at risk” should include COSEWIC-listed species assessed or re-assessed as Extirpated, Endangered, Threatened, or of Special Concern.

Section 10.1.1 Methodology EC recommends the following amendment (identified in bold italics) to the EIS Guidelines (2nd paragraph):

17

o With respect to quantitative models and predictions, the Proponent will present in detail the model assumptions. For example, in the case of air quality modeling, this would include details on source characterization and source activity. The Proponent will also discuss the quality of the data and the degree of certainty of the predictions obtained. For dispersion modeling, when observational data is available the EIS will use observational data rather than model data.

For the Risk Assessment Framework sub-section, EC recommends that the EIS Guidelines include the following statement (identified in bold italics): o Given the role of coastal geomorphology and hydrology in the production and

maintenance of biofilm on which migratory birds graze, potential changes to coastal geomorphology resulting from the project are to be included as part of the Risk Assessment Framework.

For the Impact Matrix sub-section, EC recommends the following addition to the EIS Guidelines (identified in bold italics): To determine impact on Air Quality, modeling scenarios should include the following: 1. Baseline Scenario – status quo; 2. Future No Project Scenario; 3. Future with Project Scenario; 4. Future with Project “Worst Case” Scenario. A Future with the Project (scenario 3) should be compared to a future with no project (scenario 2). Section 10.1.2 Changes to the Environment EC offers the following editorial:

o change ‘section 0’ to ‘section 6’.

EC strongly recommends the following amendments (identified in bold italics):

o Land, water, and air, including all layers of the atmosphere, consisting of but not limited to Greenhouse Gases or GHGs (C02, CH4, N20), PM10, NOx, CO, SO2, toxic VOCs, Black Carbon, and Ground-level Ozone.

In the sub-section, ‘Changes to the environment that would occur on federal or transboundary lands’, EC recommends the following additional information (provided in bold italics):

o The EIS will include a stand-alone section… (including outside of Canada). Canada and the United States share the Georgia Basin Puget Sound Airshed4. Potential transboundary effects to be considered are to include Point Roberts, the vicinities of Blaine, Lynden, Birch Bay, Bellingham, and the shipping channel through the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

4 As referenced in the Canada United Air Quality Agreement Progress Report 2012:

http://www.ec.gc.ca/Publications/default.asp?lang=En&xml=D9D6380B-4834-41C4-9D36-B6E3348F1A39

18

Section 12.1.2. Cumulative Environmental Effects From a migratory birds / wetlands / species at risk perspective, EC recommends that the EIS Guidelines include the following items (identified in bold italics):

o Existing projects in and around Roberts Bank be considered in the analysis including but not limited to the Roberts Bank Coal Terminal, the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal, Deltaport Terminal Road and Rail Improvement Project, South Fraser Perimeter Road, Tsawwassen First Nation Industrial Lands Development, Tsawwassen Mills and Tsawwassen Power Centre, and the Deltaport Third Berth Project (DP3); and,

o A quantitative assessment of the potential cumulative impact of the project to result in increased bird mortality rates arising from vehicle collisions and transmission/distribution line electrocution and collisions.

From an air quality perspective, EC recommends that the EIS Guidelines include the following items (identified in bold italic): o All projects present and reasonably foreseeable within the Regional Study

Area (RSA) as defined in Section 6. The following projects and their associated cumulative effects should be included: Tsawwassen First Nations Developments, Massey Tunnel Replacement, Fraser Surrey Docks coal depot, LNG facility in Squamish, Neptune Terminals, Vancouver Airport Fuel Delivery Facility, TransMountain Expansion Pipeline Project, and US-based projects within the RSA.

Section 13 Significance Determination EC recommends the following additions to the list of factors that should be considered in reaching conclusions on the significance of residual effects (identified in bold italics): o Implications of proposed revisions to existing standards, guidelines, and

objectives that may only be formalized or come into force after the Project is in operation5; and,

o The results of recent studies on impact sources associated with the Project (e.g., the effects of NOx and VOCs on ground level ozone).

5 This is relevant to Ambient Air Quality Objectives (AAAOs) in BC. The AAQO for NOx, SOx, and PM are under review by the

Province of British Columbia, and for SO2 by Metro Vancouver. Therefore it is possible that the significance of an environment affect could increase after this assessment has been completed, once these new AAQOs have been adopted.

19

References Bird Studies Canada. 2008. British Columbia Coastal Waterbirds Survey. Data accessed

from NatureCounts, a node of the Avian Knowledge Network, Bird Studies Canada. Available: http://www.naturecounts.ca/. Accessed November 28, 2013.

Butler, R.W. and R.W. Campbell. 1987. The birds of the Fraser River delta: populations,

ecology, and international significance. Occasional Paper No. 65. Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa.

Butler, R.W. (Editor). 1992. Abundance, Distribution, and Conservation of Birds in the

Vicinity of Boundary Bay, British Columbia. Technical Report Series No. 155. Canadian Wildlife Service. Pacific and Yukon Region, British Columbia.

Characklis, W. G., and K. C. Marshall. 1990. Biofilms. Wiley, New York, New York, USA. Delany, S., & D. A. Scott. 2006. Waterfowl Population Estimates. 4th ed. Netherlands:

WetlandsInternational. Drever, M.C., Lemon, M.J.F., Butler, R.W., and Millikin, R.L. In press for the Journal of

Field Ornithology. Monitoring populations of Western Sandpipers and Pacific Dunlins during northward migration on the Fraser River Delta, British Columbia, 1991-2013.

Elner, R. W., Beninger, P. G., Jackson, D. L., and Potter, T. M. 2005. Evidence of a new

feeding mode in Western Sandpiper (Calidris mauri) and Dunlin (Calidris alpina) based on bill and tongue morphology and ultrastructure. Marine Biology 146: 1223–1234.

Environment Canada 2012b, Environment Canada’s Operational Framework for Use of

Conservation Allowances (available at http://www.ec.gc.ca/eeea/default.asp?land=En&n=DAB7DD13-1

Hanson, A., L. Swanson, D. Ewing, G. Grabas, S. Meyer, L. Ross, M. Watmough, and J. Kirkby. 2008. Wetland Ecological Functions Assessment: An Overview of Approaches. Canadian Wildlife Service Technical Report Series No. 497. Atlantic Region. 59 pp. IBA Canada. 2012. Important Bird Areas.

http://www.ibacanada.ca/site.jsp?siteID=BC017&lang=EN. Accessed November 28, 2013.

de Jonge, V. N., and J. E. E. van Beusekom. 1995. Wind- and tide-induced

resuspension of sediment and microphytoben thos from tidal flats in the Ems estuary. Limnology and Oceanography 40:766-778.

Kuwae, T., Beninger, P.G., Decottignies, P., Mathot, K.J., Lund, D.R. & Elner, R.W.

2008. Biofilm grazing in a higher vertebrate: the Western Sandpiper, Calidris mauri. Ecology 89: 599–606.

Kuwae, T., Miyoshi, E., Hosokawa, S., Ichimi, K., Hosoya, J., Amano, T., Moriya, T.,

Kondoh, M., Ydenberg, R.C. and Elner, R.W. 2012. Variable and complex food

20

web structures revealed by exploring missing trophic links between birds and biofilm. Ecology Letters 15: 347‐356.

Mathot, K.J., Lund, D.R. & Elner, R.W. 2010. Sediment in stomach contents of Western

Sandpipers and Dunlin provide evidence of biofilm feeding. Waterbirds 33: 300–306.

Pacific Joint Venture. 2012. Expanded Ramsar designation will help protect wetlands in

Fraser River Delta. http://www.pcjv.org/home/news/archives/ . Accessed November 28, 2013.

Wetlands International. 2006. Waterbird population estimates. Fourth edition. Wetlands

International, Wageningen, The Netherlands.