KITS U M KA L U M

INDIAN BAND P.O. BOX 544, TERRACE, BC CANADA V8G4B5

TEL: (250) 635-6177 FAX: (250) 635-4622

March/10/2016

Candace Anderson Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Via email Candace.Anderson@ceaa-acee.gc.ca

Dear Candace:

Re: PNW LNG CEAA Draft Conditions

Thank you for your letter dated Febmary 10,2016. We have reviewed the draft report and the draft conditions and our comments are detailed below. We have not had time to review the Febmary 10, 2016 Aboriginal Tracking Table draft summary for Kitsurnkalum.

Draft Environmental Assessment Report In general we appreciate the enmmous amount of work you have put into this document. We feel however that it is hunied, with mistakes and especially that it is premature as the proponent still have many outstanding repmis to submit. For example, we have been waiting for a repmi on Eulachon baseline studies that were supposed to have been conducted by the proponent.

Section 6.10.2 Comments received On the bottom paragraph ofPage 102, please add Kitsurnkalum to the Nations who have repeatedly noted the lack of infmmation on Eulachon and the inadequate baseline studies conducted by the proponent.

Section 8.1 Potential or Established Aboriginal Rights or Title in the Project Area The description ofKitsumkalum First Nation is not acceptable and needs to be replaced with: "Kitsumkalum tribe-Galts'ap of the Tsimshian Nation has traditional tenitory over which it holds Aboriginal Title and Rights which overlaps into patis of the Nass River for harvesting animals, birds, eulachons and ground fish, then south along the coast including Stephens and Dundas Islands groups, Prince Rupeti Pmi lands and Porcher Island down Grenville Channel south, close to Low Inlet. It also includes the Skeena River and tributaries, west to the old Skeena Bridge in Tenace, south to the Lakelse Lake area and nmih to the Cedar River and tributaries, Kalum and Beaver Rivers. Port Essington and Ecstall River and its headwaters are

Page 1 of5

also pmtly Kitsumkalum Title lands. Kitsumkalum shares Aboriginal Title to some lands with other Tsimshian Nations and some lands are Kitsumkalum exclusively. Kitsumkalum shares in common some coastal waters and some lands around the Tsimshian Peninsula. The coastal areas are mainly common but Kitsumkalum' s Title areas on the coast include for example Casey Point, Banett Rock and the area around Stapledon Island, Dzagaedil's Village in Porpoise Harbour, Lax Spa Suunt on Alihur Island and K welmaas on Porcher Island. Kitsumkalum had main villages throughout these areas but also harvest camps and traditional trap lines along the Skeena and the main coast to help feed the villages that were near. The word Tsimshian means People of the Skeena, and Kitsumkalum moved with the seasons around the Skeena and the coast. Both areas are still very impmiant to Kitsumkalum's existence. Some villages got destroyed by the Grand Trunk Railroad and were never re-established. Kitsumkalum still continues to follow their seasonal rounds according to their cultural and traditional history."

Section 8.2 Potential Adverse Impacts of the Project on Potential or Established Aboriginal Rights or Title

While Aboriginal peoples would not be precluded from navigating alongside Project-related vessels to reach marine traditional activity sites, it is unknown whether Aboriginal peoples would be willing to access alternate sites, or navigate through the Project area because of perceived safety risks and decrease in the quality of the experience related to the presence of an industrial landscape.

Kitsumkalum has spoken about the fact that every Tsimshian group, house, tribe has their own specific areas to harvest the various resources and that there are also common areas to do so. People who cannot access their grounds are not able to just move over to someone else's ground. It is not a matter of being unwilling, it is illegal according to our laws. So the statement that this is unknown is inconect. Please discuss new wording with us.

Section 8.3 Proposed Accommodation Measures 1. Despite the heading, this section does not have the word or concept of accommodation in

it at all. The section header is misleading. Even if it was called Proposed Mitigation Measures it would be more or less misleading as shown by the following example:

The proponent also took actions in ... and committing to comply with monitoring requirements of the

Canadian Coast Guard, the Port Authorities Operations Regulations, and the Canada Shipping Act.

To commit to comply with regulations and legislation is not mitigation and definitely not accommodation. It is actually embmrassing to mention something like that.

2. A discussion on accommodation needs to be worked into this repmi somewhere. Please contact Kitsumkalum for fmther discussions.

Section 9 Follow-Up Program

There needs to be clear instructions about the minimal requirements expected of Follow-Up programs. There is no language to ensure that the proponent will follow the listed programs unless they are listed in the conditions. More language is needed to ensure compliance and enforceability.

Page 2 of5

All Monitoring Reports need to be submitted or made available to Kitsumkalum;

The format of the repmis needs to be clear, for example, the proponent should keep a website designated to all baseline studies, all repmis and such;

Specific details need to be provided on what happens when forecast or claims made by the proponent are not met, what thresholds require what action ie: at x% ofy in the air column, the plant shuts down;

All non-compliance and consequent actions need to be publicised on an ongoing and timely basis. Above mentioned website might be a good vehicle for that.

Section 11.1 Spatial Boundaries

As we have stated many times before, Kitsumkalum still does not agree with many of the local and regional assessment area boundaries. For example, the socioeconomic regional boundary is the Prince Rupe11 Pmi Authority (PRP A) boundary. How can CEAA accept this? We are feeling the Prince Rupert LNG wave in Tenace, as well as Port Edward and Prince Rupert. That is where people live, not in the PRP A.

Appendix 11.2 Environmental Effects Rating Criteria For example: Marine Fish and Fish Habitat

The baseline studies are inadequate in Kitsumkalum's opinion. The proponent will therefor need to do a lot more baseline work if they are expected to measure change. How is CEAA expecting to address this?

Appendix 11.3 Summary of Agency's Assessment of Residual Environmental Effects after Mitigation Kitsumkalum does not agree with the follow up program for the acid deposition in freshwater bodies to be restricted to the local assessment area boundary. Please change to at least regional boundary.

A follow-up program needs to be developed for effects on human health from changes to air quality.

Appendix 11.4 Key Mitigation Measures and Follow-Up Considered by the Agency And

Appendix 11.5 Proponent's Proposed Mitigation Measures The repmi states that the proponent has committed to the mitigation measures listed in Appendix 11.5. Kitsumkalum understands that the mitigation measures listed in Appendix 11.4 are requirements from CEAA to the proponent. Has the proponent committed to these as well? Will they be required to do so by CEAA? The document needs to have clear discussions on how the implementation and monitoring of these measures will be audited and by whom. Which federal agency is responsible for the management of these requirements, who will be signing off whether these measures have been met? This needs to be included in every potential residual effects line.

Page 3 of5

Were the term use of best technology is being used as a mitigation measure, Kitsumkalum expects to see a report on what options the proponent considered and what rationale was used in aniving at the final selection.

Kitsumkalum needs to be involved in the design and implementation of all mitigation measures. Mitigation measures need to be located in the northwest of BC. It is unacceptable to have restoration work done in Bums Bog when habitat on the nmih coast is getting impacted.

If the proponent or PRP A designate no-go-zones that impede our members' ability to access their traditional use sites, Kitsurnkalum needs to be involved in the planning and implementation of this and the proponent needs to be prepared to accommodate our members for any inconvenience or loss of access.

General Comments:

Baseline studies work conducted to evaluate if there are any potential residual effects does not include on-reserve populations. The provincial government has the SEEMP process which excludes any federal jurisdiction, hence excludes reserves. The federal Environmental Assessment Report only speaks to commercial or recreational fisheries. At the beginning of the EA process, on reserve population was included, but that was dropped later on. The end result is that any impact to on reserve people will be ignored. There will be no baseline infmmation and there will be no mitigation or accommodation. This needs to change. The federal government needs to take the lead in ensuring that their fiduciary responsibility is fulfilled and that on­reserve people are being addressed. This is the most vulnerable population as it is. We have seen a huge negative impact to our on-reserve members through increase in industrial activities around Kitimat. We expect to see even stronger negative effects through LNG development.

Due to the short review period, Kitsurnkalum was not able to thoroughly review and comment on the draft repmi.

Please remove any reference to the Cumulative Effects Monitoring Initiative cunently being unde1iaken in cooperation between the Canadian government and some Tsimshian First Nations, including Kitsurnkalum. This initiative is in reaction to proposed development in the Prince Rupert area but in no way contributes to the CEAA PNW LNG process nor is a mitigation of any kind by the proponent.

Potential EA Conditions We have attached a spreadsheet detailing our comments and the reasons for them for every one of your proposed conditions. We have also added a list of our own conditions that we think are needed to make the proponent accountable. Some of these have been shared with you already under TESA. This list of our conditions and comments should not be construed as suppmi for or acceptance of the PNW LNG Project by Kitsurnkalum.

Page 4 of5

We look forward to discussing the above statements with you. If you have any questions in the meantime, please contact me at 250-635-5000 Ext 6, or at rgemeinhardt@kitsumkalum.bc.ca.

Sincerely,

Rina Gemeinhardt Environment, Lands and Refenals, Kitsumkalum Indian Band rgemeinhardt@kitsumkalum.bc.ca

Cc: Don Roberts/Sm'oogyit Wiidildal, Waap (House of) Lagaax, Chief Councillor, Kitsumkalum Indian Band droberts@kitsumkalum.bc.ca Steve Robe1is, Kitsumkalum Band Manager, sroberts@kitsumkalum.bc.ca Alex Bolton/Sm'oogyit Hataxgm Lii Mideek, Waap (House of) Lagaax, Treaty Negotiations, kalum.treaty@kitsumkalum.bc.ca Siegi Kriegl, Advisor, skriegl@kitsumkalum.bc.ca Mike Lambe1i, PNW LNG, mlambert@pnwlng.com

Page 5 of5

<Original signed by>

1of 28

Existing Potential Conditions (CEAA) Suggested Edits / New Potential Conditions Context / The "why" for the Suggested Change Other Comments

1.1-1.36 Definitions definition of "consultation" required

to understand the fiduciary obligations of the crown as it relates to the use of consultation within the Conditions

definition for "natural variability" from Condition 6.22.5

who will be deciding the "range of natural variability" would hope that it might be a regulatory agency with expertise in that subject area.

definition required for "additional mitigation measures" and consider the use of "adaptive management" in conditions where monitoring and follow-up programs are aimed at reducing the uncertainty of unforeseen project effects. The key place in the Conditions to potentially change or add wording around the use of adaptive management could potentially be 2.4.2 / 2.4.3. The idea of asking for contingency plans (for certain Conditions like the follow-up program for monitoring the effects of the bridge tower and anchor block) so that there is a measurable process to the addition of "additional mitigation measures" and answers the "what if" no additional mitigation measures are feasible.

There is concern that use of "additional mitigation measures" throughout the Conditions does not incorporate the concept of adaptive management and contingency planning. CEAA's Operational Statement on AM states "In response to data generated by the follow-up program or monitoring, the proponent, the responsible authority or the regulated authority should be prepared to initiate adaptive management measures if mitigation is not adequate to eliminate, reduce or control adverse environmental effects." It is the need to consider (forward thinking and planning) the "what if" and the "what if there is no feasible additional mitigation measures" to be used to mitigate unforeseen effects.

definition of "proponent" needs to include more clarity around the use of "successor" such that it is clear that any company that buys or acquires the PNW LNG project (even at decommissioning) is obligated to comply with all the Conditions in the EA Decision.

2.0 General conditions

2.1 The Proponent shall, throughout all phases of the Designated Project, ensure that its actions in meeting the conditions set out in this document are informed by the best available information and knowledge, including community and Aboriginal traditional knowledge, are based on validated methods and models, are undertaken by qualified individuals, and have applied the best available economically and technologically feasible mitigation measures. 2.2 The Proponent shall, where consultation is a requirement of a condition set out in this document:

March 10m 2016 Kitsumkalum First Nation Comments and additional conditions on CEAA draft conditions for PNW LNG

2of 28

2.2.1 provide a written notice of the opportunity for the party or parties being consulted to present their views on the subject of the consultation;

2.2.2 provide sufficient information and a reasonable period of time to permit the party or parties being consulted to prepare their views;

choice of terms "sufficient" and "reasonable"

We can understand CEAA's perspective on being less prescriptive, but there is concern that parties will have differing opinion the definition of those terms.

2.2.3 provide a full and impartial consideration of any views presented by the party or parties being consulted; and

2.2.4 advise the party or parties that have provided comments on how the views and information received have been considered by the Proponent.

2.3 The Proponent shall, where consultation with Aboriginal groups is a requirement of a condition set out in this document, and prior to initiating that consultation, communicate with each Aboriginal group to determine the manner by which to satisfy the consultation requirements referred to in condition 2.2, including the methods of notification, the type of information and the period of time to be provided when seeking views, the process for full and impartial consideration of any views presented and the means by which each Aboriginal group will be informed of how the views and information received have been considered by the Proponent

add: "the proponent, in consultation with CEAA, shall consider options for financial support to Aboriginal groups in order for them to participate meaningfully in the fulfillment of the Conditions (follow-up programs) for which they will be consulted." 2.3 could be the Condition in which it is suggested for the Proponent to form and support a Monitoring Committee in which Aboriginal Groups (or representative group) will participate in to remain engaged in the follow-up and monitoring programs associated with the Environmental Assessment Decision Conditions

There needs to be consideration here for the funding of the "consultation" (see request above regarding definition of consultation) through out the life of the project. Who is legally responsible and how will Aboriginal Groups financially support the engagement expected?

2.4. The Proponent shall, where a follow-up program is a requirement of a condition set out in this document:

2.4.1 undertake monitoring and analysis to verify the accuracy of the environmental assessment as it pertains to the particular condition and/or to determine the effectiveness of any mitigation measures;2.4.2 determine whether additional mitigation measures are required based on the monitoring and analysis undertaken pursuant to condition 2.4.1; and

2.4.3 if additional mitigation measures are required pursuant to condition 2.4.2, implement the additional mitigation measures and monitor them pursuant to condition 2.4.1.

2.5 Where consultation with Aboriginal groups is a requirement of a follow-up program, the Proponent shall discuss with each Aboriginal group opportunities for the participation of that Aboriginal group in the implementation of the follow-up program as set out in condition 2.4. see response in Condition 2.3

3of 28

2.6 The Proponent shall, commencing in the reporting year that construction begins, submit to the Agency an annual report, including an executive summary of the annual report in both official languages. The annual report shall be submitted by the Proponent no later than June 30 following the reporting year to which the annual report applies. In the annual report, the Proponent shall set out:

2.6.1 the activities implemented in the reporting year to comply with each of the conditions set out in this document;

2.6.2 how the Proponent complied with condition 2.1;2.6.3 for conditions set out in this document for which consultation is a requirement, how the Proponent considered any views and information that the Proponent received during or as a result of the consultation;

2.6.4 the results of the follow-up program requirements identified in conditions 4.1, 5.5, 6.12, 7.5, 8.3, 9.4 and 10.3; and

2.6.5 any additional mitigation measures implemented or proposed to be implemented by the Proponent, as determined under condition 2.4.

reference to "adaptive management" would be required 2.6.5

2.7 The Proponent shall publish on the Internet, or any medium which is widely publicly available, the annual report and the executive summaries referred to in condition 2.6, the wetland function compensation plan referred to in condition 5.3, the plan to offset the loss of fish and fish habitat referred to in condition 6.6, the weekly reports referred to in condition 6.18, the archaeological and heritage resources management plan referred to in condition 11.1, the decommissioning plan referred to in condition 12.1, the annual report referred to in condition 12.3, the reports referred to in conditions 13.3.3 and 13.3.4, the communication plan referred to in condition 13.5, the implementation schedule referred to in condition 14.1 and any update(s) or revision(s) to the above documents, upon submission of these documents to the parties referenced in the respective conditions. The Proponent shall keep these documents publicly available for 25 years following the end of operation or until the end of decommissioning of the Designated Project, whichever comes first. The Proponent shall notify the Agency, Aboriginal groups and the Prince Rupert Port Authority of the availability of these documents once they are published.

references to Conditions with reporting requirements are not all correct

2.8 The Proponent shall notify the Agency in writing no later than 60 days after the day on which there is a transfer of ownership, care, control or management of the Designated Project in whole or in part.

see response regarding definition additions for "proponent"

to ensure that upon a change of ownership or bankruptcy that all conditions and decommissioning obligations are met.

4of 28

2.9 The Proponent shall consult with Aboriginal groups prior to initiating any change(s) to the Designated Project that may result in adverse environmental effects, and shall notify the Agency in writing no later than 60 days prior to initiating the change(s).

add: "Not withstanding any other legislative obligations"…..prior to initiating any "material (or substantive)" change(s) to the Designated Project that may result….

Trying to see what might trigger a new review of a "change" in the project. Would require the definition of material or substantive change in the up front definitions. It seems that this Conditions does not allow for a stoppage of work / change plans if it is found by CEAA (or Aboriginal Groups) that potential effects from the change in Project may not be adequately assessed or mitigated.

2.10 In notifying the Agency pursuant to condition 2.9, the Proponent shall provide the Agency with an analysis of the adverse environmental effects of the change(s) to the Designated Project, as well as the results of the consultation with Aboriginal groups.

add: "the change(s) in the Project shall not proceed until CEAA has consulted Aboriginal Groups and approved the assessment of potential effects"

It seems that this Conditions does not allow for a stoppage of work / change plans if it is found by CEAA (or Aboriginal Groups) that potential effects from the change in Project may not be adequately assessed or mitigated.

3.0 Air quality

3.1 The Proponent shall implement best available technology and best management practices to reduce and control air emissions during all phases of the Designated Project to mitigate adverse environmental effects on freshwater fish and fish habitat and human health.

Add: ……to mitigate adverse environmental effects on freshwater fish and fish habitat and human health. " A review, to be included in the annual report of that year, shall be completed every 10 years to assess the current Project practices and the feasibility of implementing new technology at the Project facility to reduce and control GHG and air emissions. "The Proponent shall make every effort to incorporate in the final design of the Project the ability to move toward electric energy source for the functioning of facility processes."

What can CEAA have the Proponent committee to for GHG reduction? This is the missing piece in the Air Quality Condition 3.

4.0 Freshwater fish and fish habitat

4.1 The Proponent shall develop, prior to operation, and implement a follow-up program to verify the accuracy of the environmental assessment in relation to the adverse environmental effects of acidification and eutrophication on freshwater fish and fish habitat and to determine the effectiveness of the mitigation measures. The follow-up program shall include:

change to "The proponent shall develop and implement, prior to operation, a follow-up program…." This Condition thus far is focused only on freshwater, whereas acidification and eutrophication processes have the potential to effect vegetation (and Aboriginal traditionally harvested vegetation). Either this section could be changed to incorporate vegetation (i.e. establish baseline and monitor change to baseline 4.1.1 and 4.1.2) or a separate section on vegetation could be added with the same Conditions herein.

in order for the follow-up program to appropriately capture changes associated with acidification and eutrophication of water bodies baseline data must be collected prior to operational activities (and incorporate appropriate seasonality difference in baseline); therefore, "implementation" of this Condition must be prior to operation.

5of 28

4.1.1 establishing baseline water quality (including seasonal assessment of acid neutralizing capacity and critical loads of acidity), fish habitat quality, fish presence, and habitat use of the Wolf Creek system, the Hayes Creek system, Alwyn Lake and two headwater lakes on Kaien Island based on a minimum of one year (four seasons) of data collection prior to the start of operation of Train 1; and

Add: "…..two headwater lakes on Kaien Island, or any other waterbody that is found within the boundary of the air emissions of concern zone of influence (currently or as updated or changes in this information is obtained). Or state as it is presented in the Draft Assessment Report under Table 12 to "including but not limited to.....Wolf Creek system....". See above 4.1, requires the addition of establishing baseline for vegetation to be including in monitoring for acidification effects.

Why is "Monthly water quality sampling and laboratory analysis in selected freshwater bodies found to have potential for fish and fish habitat. Collected samples should be analyzed for pH, conductivity, alkalinity, nutrients, anions, organic carbon, total and dissolved metals, and chlorophyll a. Sampling will occur for at least one year prior to commissioning of Train 1 to establish a baseline" not incorporated into the Conditions under 4.0 as suggested in Table 12 of the Draft Assessment Report? Suggest that this should be incorporated in to the Condition 4.1.

4.1.2 monitoring changes to the baseline conditions established in 4.1.1, beginning from the start of operation of Train 1, and ending one year following the start of operation of Train 2.

change to: "…..beginning from the start of operations and ending at decommissioning of the Project or at an agreed upon point in time that it is established that no acidification or eutrophication effects to freshwater bodies and vegetation is occurring"

We do not believe that the Condition as it current stands allows a long enough period of monitoring to confirm that no acidification or eutrophication effects are occurring.

5.0 Wetlands5.1 The Proponent shall mitigate the adverse environmental effects of the Designated Project on wetland functions with a preference for avoiding the loss of wetlands over minimizing the adverse effects on wetlands and for minimizing the adverse effects on wetlands over compensating for lost or adversely affected wetlands.5.2 The Proponent shall manage surface water and avoid erosion and sedimentation within the Project area to maintain hydrology of wetlands adjacent to the Project area and to protect water quality during all phases of the Designated Project.

"maintain hydrology of wetlands" how will this be decided (quantified)?

5.3. The Proponent shall, for adverse effects from the Designated Project on wetlands that cannot be avoided or minimized, set out mitigation measures in a wetland function compensation plan which shall be developed prior to construction in consultation Aboriginal groups and submitted to the Prince Rupert Port Authority for approval. The wetland function compensation plan shall take into account Canada’s Federal Policy on Wetland Conservation and Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Operational Framework for Use of Conservation Allowances. The mitigation measures to be set out in the wetland function compensation plan shall include:

suggest addition of "……shall be developed prior to construction in consultation with Aboriginal groups and Environment and Climate Change Canada and submitted to PRPA….."

ECCC would seem to be the expertise and the RAA (for anywhere outside of PRPA boundary) for wetland function, so assume they would be consulted for advice.

6of 28

5.3.1 implementing a 2:1 ratio of wetland area to compensate for the loss of wetland functions;

5.3.2 identifying sites to compensate for the loss of wetland functions referred to in condition 5.3.1 that are within the Kaien landscape unit, or in immediately adjacent regions, and that reflect similar wetland types and functions to those lost;

5.3.3 selecting wetland restoration over enhancement, and wetland enhancement over creation;5.3.4 whenever possible, incorporating traditional use plants in the restoration, enhancement or creation of the compensatory wetland sites and providing access to those sites to Aboriginal groups for the purposes of gathering traditional use plants; and

5.3.5 identifying sites to compensate for the loss of wetland functions related to habitat for listed species at risk, including little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus ).

The wording "identifying" doesn't not seem to capture the intent of the condition. Suggest "prioritizing" instead.

simply identifying sites to compensate for the loss of wetland function related to habitat for listed species including the little brown bat does not commit the proponent to choosing those sites for implementing compensation.

5.4 The Proponent shall implement the wetland function compensation plan referred to in condition 5.3 within five years of the date of the start of construction.5.5 The Proponent shall develop, prior to construction, and implement a follow-up program to verify that the compensatory wetland sites referred to in condition 5.3 are fulfilling the wetland functions they are replacing. Monitoring of the compensatory wetland sites shall start with their implementation and continue in years one, three, five, ten and twenty, or until wetland functions are attained, whichever comes first.

Add: "The Proponent, in consultation with Aboriginal groups, shall develop, prior to construction, and implement a ……."

6.0 Marine fish (including marine mammals) and fish habitat

6.1 The Proponent shall identify, prior to the start of in-water construction activities, to the satisfaction of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and following consultation with Aboriginal groups and other relevant federal authorities, timing windows of least risk for in-water construction activities to protect marine fish, including marine mammals, during sensitive life stages, and notify the Agency and Aboriginal groups of the timing windows of least risk identified and the results of the pre-construction surveys supporting the identification of these timing windows once Fisheries and Ocean Canada has indicated it is satisfied and before in-water construction activities start. In doing so, the Proponent shall: This condition may need some reorganization

The preferred order of operations would be Aboriginal groups would see the results of the "pre-construction surveys"(the current and on-going fish and fish habitat studies results including additional studies such as is expected to be presented in the eulachon technical memo), consultation with the Proponent on their proposed least risk timing windows, then discussion with DFO (to make sure we understand their perspective on the proposed timing windows) ....all of this prior to the start of in-water construction activities.

7of 28

6.1.1. identify timing windows of least risk for each of the Materials Offloading Facility, trestle and suspension bridge, and disposal at sea areas and for each of the following in-water construction activities, as applicable: dredging, vibratory pile driving, impact pile driving, sub-tidal blasting, and sediment disposal at sea;

6.1.2. conduct dredging, vibratory pile driving, impact pile driving, and sediment disposal at sea during timing windows of least risk to the extent possible;

Either change to not describe specific activities (and rather use a term like "high risk (to fish) activities" or "isolation works", or alternatively add to the list other activities including, but not limited to, "installing coffer dams", potentially "terrestrial blasting". These changes would be required through 6.0 where reference to the specific activities is made.

6.1.3. conduct sub-tidal blasting only during timing windows of least risk; and

6.1.4. identify and implement additional mitigation measures, following consultation with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, to avoid causing harm to marine fish, including marine mammals, and fish habitat if conducting dredging, vibratory pile driving, impact pile driving, or sediment disposal at sea outside of timing windows of least risk. When dredging or disposing of sediments at sea outside of timing windows of least risk, the Proponent shall take into account the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment’s Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life for long-term exposure.

6.2 Prior to the start of in-water construction activities, the Proponent shall conduct high resolution modelling of the south-west tower and anchor block of the suspension bridge and regional three-dimensional modelling of the area likely to be affected by the Designated Project to confirm that erosion and deposition are at least the same or less than the levels predicted in the environmental assessment. The modelling shall incorporate proposed construction-ready designs for the south-west tower and anchor block of the suspension bridge and shall include two berthed LNG vessels. The Proponent shall calibrate the model using measured field data of waves, currents, and total suspended sediment concentrations over Flora Bank. The Proponent shall provide the results of the modelling, including detailed inputs, methodologies and outputs, to the Agency, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Natural Resources Canada and Aboriginal groups.

As stated: "the Proponent shall calibrate the model using measured field data of waves …..over Flora Bank" there is no commitment to timing of this data (i.e. the need to account for season changes and tidal changes in this data). What is the expectation?

8of 28

6.3 The Proponent shall build the south-west tower and anchor block of the suspension bridge based on the construction-ready designs incorporated in the additional high resolution modelling referred to in condition 6.2. The south-west tower and anchor block of the suspension bridge shall incorporate scour protection that shall result in levels of erosion and deposition at least the same or less than the levels predicted in the environmental assessment.6.4 The Proponent shall use silt curtains around in-water construction activities in areas of low to moderate currents (≤ 1 knot).6.5 The Proponent shall take measures to exclude fish or reduce the presence of fish from the Materials Offloading Facility work area during dredging, blasting, and pile installation.

6.6 The Proponent shall use coffer dams to isolate the south-west tower block and anchor block work areas during in-water construction activities and shall place scour protection around the coffer dams. The coffer dams shall be shaped in a manner that minimizes scour and turbulence around the south-west tower block and anchor block of the suspension bridge.

There is no mention of the proponent conducting fish salvage associated with the implementation of coffer dams, this would be a requirement. The use of coffer dams has not be considered in the modeling the Proponent has conducted (for changes to TSS, sedimentation on Flora Bank, current velocities, morphology of Flora Bank etc.). Another condition is required to address this issue whereby the Proponent will include design ready structures, including coffer dams, in follow-up modelling activities.

6.7 The Proponent shall use vibratory hammers for all pile installation to the extent feasible.6.8 The Proponent shall use impact installation methods only when seating piles into bedrock and impact hammers shall be constructed of sound absorbent material.6.9 The Proponent shall use bubble curtains and isolation casings when conducting impact pile driving activities and blasting.

6.10 The Proponent shall implement all reasonable measures to minimize the destruction of fish, or any the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat, during all phases of the Designated Project when using explosives in or around water frequented by fish.

9of 28

6.11 The Proponent shall reduce the number of detonation occurring underwater and shall implement additional mitigation measures if underwater pressure pulse levels exceed 100 kilopascal during blasting or 30 kilopascal during impact pile driving.

Condition 6.11 covers protection of fish from pressure waves associated with under water construction activities. And in Condition 6.12 there are provisions for protecting (and monitoring) changes in marine mammal behaviour due to underwater noise. What is missing are provisions for monitoring fish behavioural changes due to underwater noise and to provide assurance that predictions made in the EA are correct. It was suggested in DFO's January 13, 2016 submission to CEAA regarding the Nov 10, 2015 IRs, under Appendix 1, pg 16, paragraph 3 that because of uncertainty around timing windows and the use of certain mitigation measures (i.e. bubble curtains) that fish behavioural changes "(i.e. herring spawning on Flora Bank)" be monitored (e.g. "by underwater video and acoustic monitoring to determine the range of behavioural change occurring around the works"). A condition to this affect should be presented.

6.12 The Proponent shall develop, in consultation with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and implement a marine mammal observation program for all in-water construction activities where underwater noise levels are anticipated to exceed 160 decibels at a reference pressure of one micropascal to avoid adverse behavioural change in or injury to marine mammals. The marine mammal observation program shall include:

Would like to see reporting associated with Condition 6.12 and specifically 6.12.1 to be shared with DFO and Aboriginal Groups

6.12.1. conducting predictive acoustic modelling, prior to the start of in-water construction activities, to identify to what extent in-water construction activities would generate underwater noise levels greater than 160 decibels, including activities occurring simultaneously, and the period(s) of time when these activities will occur;

Would like to see reporting associated with Condition 6.12 and specifically 6.12.1 to be shared with DFO and Aboriginal Groups (i.e. a report on the predictive acoustic modelling used to identify the extent of underwater noise greater than 160 decibels).

As harbour porpoise are likely to have significant changes to habitat use from the Project it would seem important that the marine mammal program follow-up have a significant report aspect to the Condition in order to ensure transparency to the federal agencies and to Aboriginal Groups

10of 28

6.12.2 establishing and maintaining through acoustic monitoring a safety radius for each in-water construction activity identified in condition 6.12.1 at the distance from the in-water construction activity at which the underwater noise level is predicted to reach 160 decibels;6.12.3. employing marine mammal observers, who are qualified individuals, and requiring that they observe from locations in and along the perimeter of the safety radius and report the presence of marine mammals within the safety radius during in-water construction activities identified in condition 6.12.1;

6.12.4. conducting in-water construction activities identified in 6.12.1 only during daylight hours so marine mammal observers are able to conduct the observations referred to in 6.12.3;

6.12.5. stopping or not starting the in-water construction activities identified in condition 6.12.1 if a marine mammal is sighted in the safety radius by the marine mammal observers referred to in condition 6.12.3 and not re-starting the in-water construction activities identified in condition 6.12.1 until the marine mammal has moved out of the safety radius and no marine mammals have been sighted in the safety radius for a period of at least 30 minutes; and 6.12.6. implementing mitigation measures, including sound dampening technology and soft-start procedures, to reduce underwater noise levels in the safety radius referred to in condition 6.12.2.

6.13 The Proponent shall retain, prior to the start of in-water construction activities, the service of independent environmental monitors, who are qualified individuals, to observe, record and report on the implementation of the mitigation measures related to marine fish, including marine mammals, and fish habitat for in-water construction activities set out in this document. The Proponent shall give environmental monitors the authority to stop in-water construction activities if environmental monitors determine that adverse environmental effects to marine fish, including marine mammals, and fish habitat may occur if in-water construction activities do not stop.

11of 28

6.14 The Proponent shall retain, prior to the start of in-water construction activities, the service of a registered professional biologist with accreditation with the British Columbia College of Applied Biology to oversee the work of the independent environmental monitors referred to in condition 6.13. The Proponent shall require the registered professional biologist to prepare weekly reports during the in-water construction phase. The weekly reports shall include:

Should Condition 6.14 specify that weekly reports should also go directly to DFO? (along with the public internet site submission)

6.14.1. a description of the in-water construction activities that occurred and the mitigation measures that were applied during the reporting week, including through photo evidence;6.14.2. if any, a description of non-compliance issue(s) related to the mitigation measures for marine fish, including marine mammals, and fish habitat set out in this document observed during the reporting week and how non-compliance issue(s) were corrected; and6.14.3. if any, a description of accident(s) and/or malfunction (s) which may have resulted in adverse environmental effects to marine fish, including marine mammals, and fish habitat during the reporting week and of how these adverse environmental effects were mitigated.

6.15 The Proponent shall conduct, prior to the start of in-water construction activities, a survey of Northern Abalone (Haliotis kamtschatkana ) in areas of potential Northern Abalone habitat in accordance with Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s Impact Assessment Protocol for Works and Developments Potentially Affecting Abalone and their Habitat (found in Appendix 2 of the Recovery Potential Assessment for the northern abalone (Haliotis kamtschatkana) in Canada and in Appendix 4 of the Action Plan for the Northern Abalone (Haliotis kamtschatkana) in Canada ) and shall adhere to the procedure outlined in the most recent Impact Assessment Protocol for relocating Northern Abalone if the species is found during the survey.

6.16 The Proponent shall use tugs that produce the least possible scour volumes from propeller action.

Add: Every 10 years the proponent shall reevaluate technology in the tugs they currently use against new technology and where reasonable utilize new technology to ensure the least possible scour volumes from propeller action.

12of 28

6.17 The Proponent shall require that LNG vessels associated with the Designated Project proceed at a safe speed and respect speed profiles applicable to the operation of the Designated Project, subject to navigational safety, to prevent or reduce the risks of collisions between LNG vessels and marine mammals.

The definition of "speed profiles applicable to the operation of the Designated Project" means. Clarification is required. Suggest that a speed limit be put in the Condition as not greater than 10 knots.

In the Draft EA report the table of Propoent suggested mitigation measures states that 16 knots for LNG vessle related traffic is acceptable within the PDA. We do not believe that is acceptable.

6.18 The Proponent shall require that LNG vessels and tug operators associated with the Designated Project report collisions with marine mammals between Triple Islands and the marine terminal berths to the Canadian Coast Guard and the Prince Rupert Port Authority within two hours of a collision being observed, and notify Aboriginal groups in writing.

Change such that the Proponent require its LNG vessels to report all vessel strikes with marine mammals (not just simply within the PDA). Also suggest that a time line be given for written notification to Aboriginal Groups to be given in 2 months or less.

The reporting timing (or to whom, maybe to DFO would suffice and written communication to the rest) could be different for those strikes outside the Triple Island boundary

6.19 The Proponent shall, to the satisfaction of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and in consultation with Aboriginal groups, develop and implement an offsetting plan related to the loss of fish and fish habitat associated with the carrying out of all phases of the Designated Project.

should include "prior to the start of construction activities" needs a timeframe

6.20 For any fish habitat offset area(s) proposed in the offsetting plan referred to in condition 6.19, and prior to submitting the offsetting plan to Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Proponent shall determine whether there are adverse environmental effects:

suggest a reiteration of the consultation with Aboriginal Groups for the assessment of adverse effects, especially as they pertain to Conditions 6.20.4 and 6.20.5

6.20.1. on migratory birds and their habitats;6.20.2. on terrestrial species and their habitats;6.20.3. on listed species at risk and their habitats;6.20.4. on the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes by Aboriginal peoples; see Condition 6.20 comment6.20.5. on physical and cultural heritage and structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, paleontological, or architectural significance to Aboriginal peoples; see Condition 6.20 comment6.20.6. on the flow rates, water depths or water widths that may affect the passage of a vessel, including a vessel used by Aboriginal peoples in the context of their current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes; and6.20.7. from potential sources of contamination, including dioxins, furans and metals, on the receiving environment.

should include ……on the receiving environment "and human health" i.e. via traditional food / harvest

6.21. The Proponent shall, if there are adverse environmental effects on any of the elements set out in conditions 6.20.1 to 6.20.7, implement mitigation measures to address those effects.

suggest change to …..implement "accommodation or compensation measure to address those effects"

additional mitigation for effects from an offsetting program is likening to offsetting the offset to which we ask at what point must the proponent pay for damage done?

6.22. The Proponent shall develop and implement a follow-up program for marine fish, including marine mammals, and fish habitat to verify the accuracy of the environmental assessment and to determine the effectiveness of mitigation measures. The follow-up program shall include:

13of 28

6.22.1. monitoring of total suspended sediments and turbidity during dredging at the Materials Offloading Facility to confirm that the levels of total suspended sediments and turbidity are within the ranges predicted during the environmental assessment;

Condition 6.22.1 should read similar to 6.22.2 in that guideline limits should be presented and the stipulation that the Proponent shall implement additional mitigation measure should the limits be exceeded needs to be added.

6.22.2. monitoring of total suspended sediments during construction of the marine terminal and for at least 10 years after construction to confirm that the amount of total suspended sediments occurring on Flora Bank and around the marine terminal is within the ranges predicted during the environmental assessment. If the amount of total suspended sediments exceeds the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment’s Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life for total suspended sediments, the Proponent shall implement additional mitigation measures to maintain the amount of total suspended sediments within the levels provided in the guidelines;

after "CCME's Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life" add "for long term exposure". Also consider adding something which confers that if after 10 years of monitoring we are still seeing exceedances that monitoring and additional mitigation will continue.

There are two CCME guidelines for TSS one for short term exposure and one for long term exposure. It is important to distinguish between them. Perhaps during construction certain activities may be allowed under the short term exposure, but for the monitoring of TSS from sediment movement in and around the bridge tower and anchor block etc. after construction, during operation, this should be using the long term exposure criteria of 5 mg/L above background. 10 years of monitoring may not be long enough.

6.22.3. monitoring of morphological changes due to erosion and deposition on Flora Bank to confirm that the elevation changes on Flora Bank are within the natural range predicted during the environmental assessment and that the construction of the marine terminal is not causing a continuous loss of sand volume on Flora Bank. Monitoring shall begin prior to the start of construction, as required to support the follow-up program, and shall continue for 10 years, or until monitoring results confirm that the criteria described above are not exceeded;

6.22.4. monitoring of morphological changes due to erosion and deposition around the south-west tower and anchor block of the suspension bridge during construction of the marine terminal and for at least 10 years after construction to confirm that the changes are within the range predicted during the environmental assessment. Monitoring shall continue until equilibrium between erosion and deposition is reached. If equilibrium is not reached after five years following the end of construction, the Proponent shall implement additional mitigation measures;

14of 28

6.22.5. monitoring of the extent and density of eelgrass beds associated with Flora Bank to confirm that changes to eelgrass are within the range of natural variability. Monitoring shall continue for a minimum of 10 years after construction of the marine terminal;

"natural variability" requires definition. There were predicted values or ranges for many of the other monitoring pieces in Condition 6.22 but for Condition 6.22.5 there is not. Can only suggest that DFO be the RA with regards to "natural variability" to ensure transparency for the understanding of the threshold.

6.22.6. monitoring of changes in current velocities around the south-west tower and anchor block of the suspension bridge, including extent and duration of the changes, for a minimum of one year after construction of the marine terminal to verify the accuracy of the predicted effects on marine fish and fish habitat, including eelgrass beds on Flora Bank;

6.22.7. when vessels associated with the Designated Project (including LNG vessels, tugs and construction vessels) are maneuvering and docking at the marine terminal berths and at the Materials Offloading Facility, monitoring of total suspended sediments and changes in bathymetry of the south end of Flora Bank and of the Materials Offloading Facility work area, including propeller wash-derived scour, to confirm that the amounts of total suspended sediment and scour are within the ranges predicted during the environmental assessment, including along the western flank of Agnew and Flora Banks and south-west corner of Flora Bank. Monitoring shall continue for a minimum of 10 years after construction of the marine terminal, or until equilibrium between erosion and deposition is reached;

suggest change to "Monitoring shall continue for a minimum of 10 years, or longer as dictate by the results of monitoring, after construction of the marine terminal and during the operation of LNG and tug vessel traffic at the berth" Exclude "or until equilibrium between erosion and deposition is reached

10 year may not be long enough to confirm changes and variability of vessel traffic movement.

It is suggested in Condition 6.22.7 that monitoring is to confirm that TSS is "within the ranges predicted during the EA" what is not clear is that there is baseline information / predictions of the amount of TSS associated with tug movement at the MOF in order to use this statement as the threshold

6.22.8. monitoring of the abundance of commercial, recreational and Aboriginal fishery species and spatial and temporal use, distribution and composition of habitat potentially affected by the Designated Project. Monitoring of commercial, recreational and Aboriginal fishery species shall include salmon, crab, shrimp, herring, eulachon, flatfish, and forage species, and shall begin prior to the start of construction, as required to support the follow-up program, and cease at the end of the operation phase. Monitoring during years one, two, three, five, eight, and ten of operation shall be included in the follow-up program;

Condition 6.22.8 requires words to ensure that the monitoring / follow-up program runs through the entire construction period (to differentiate between the specific years of monitoring during the operational phase of the project. Suggest that it is confusing to discuss the timing of monitoring (during operations) (i.e. year one, two etc.) only up to 10 years (operational phase will be longer than 10 years) when in fact the monitoring program should continue through the life of the project (not cease at the "end of the operation phase".

15of 28

6.22.9. monitoring of the abundance of marine mammals and spatial and temporal use, distribution and composition of habitat potentially affected by the Designated Project. If results of the monitoring identify concerns related to the disruption of marine mammals’ ability to carry out one or more life process (es), the Proponent shall implement additional mitigation measures following consultation with Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Prince Rupert Port Authority. Monitoring shall begin prior to the start of construction, as required to support the follow-up program, and continue for at least the first 10 years of operation; and

suggest change "Monitoring shall begin prior to the stat of construction, as required to support the follow-up program, and continue for at least the first 10 years of operation, or longer as monitoring results dictate; and"

6.22.10. prior to the first disposal at sea event, confirming the environmental effects of sediment disposal at Brown Passage on marine fish and invertebrates and their habitat using final dredged sediment volumes, sediment characterization, disposal timing, and updated ocean current speed data. If the environmental effects are greater than the environmental effects predicted during the environmental assessment, the Proponent shall develop and implement, following consultation with relevant federal authorities and Aboriginal groups, additional measures to mitigate the adverse environmental effects of the disposal at sea activities at Brown Passage.

6.23. The Proponent shall develop the monitoring protocols associated with each element of the follow-up requirement referred to in conditions 6.22.1 to 6.22.10 prior to the start of in-water construction activities and in consultation with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Natural Resources Canada, the Prince Rupert Port Authority, Aboriginal groups, and other relevant federal authorities. Monitoring protocols associated with each element of the follow-up requirement referred to in conditions 6.22.1 to 6.22.10 shall define, as appropriate, methodology, location, species, frequency, and duration of monitoring activities and reporting requirements. Monitoring protocols shall also identify action thresholds, if not already identified, for which, if monitoring results are above the identified thresholds, additional mitigation measures are required, and what those additional mitigation measures will be.

Condition 6.23 is a good condition. Concern lies in the "what if" there are no "additional mitigation measures" to be had? Going back to comments on 1.1-1.36 Definitions and the potential use of adaptive management in this condition and suggest that contingency planning is required. Kitsumkalum wants assurance that the Proponent will be held accountable for compensation if there are no "addition mitigation measures" available.

6.24. The Proponent shall develop, in consultation with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and provide to Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Prince Rupert Port Authority, and the Agency a marine mammal protection plan prior to the start of in-water construction activities. The marine mammal protection plan shall include the following information:

add develop plan" in consultation with Aboriginal Groups" and provide to "Aboriginal Groups"

16of 28

6.24.1. the timing windows of least risk for marine mammals referred to in condition 6.1 and the results of the pre-construction surveys of marine mammals supporting the identification of these timing windows;6.24.2. the measures to be implemented to mitigate the adverse environmental effects of the Designated Project on marine mammals, including the mitigation measures set out in this document;6.24.3. the marine mammal observation program referred to in condition 6.12;

6.24.4. how environmental monitors referred to in condition 6.13 will observe, record and report on the implementation of mitigation measures related marine mammals; and

6.24.5. the follow-up program for marine mammals referred to in condition 6.22.8, including the details of the monitoring protocol associated with this follow-up program referred to in condition 6.23.

6.25. The Proponent shall participate, at the request of federal authorities, in regional initiatives relating to cumulative effects monitoring and the management of marine shipping, should there be any such initiative(s) during the construction and operation phases of the Designated Project.

The definition of "participate" is required. It could be limiting. Kitsumkalum does not want to simply see the proponent share their data with these potential initiatives, but rather take initiative in leading and providing financial support to these initiatives. What is their obligation here? Would like to add: "relating to cumulative effects monitoring and assessment and the management of marine shipping......"

7.0 Migratory birds7.1. The Proponent shall carry out all phases of the Designated Project in a manner that protects migratory birds and avoids harming, killing or disturbing migratory birds or destroying, disturbing or taking their nests or eggs. In this regard, the Proponent shall take into account Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Avoidance Guidelines. The Proponent’s actions in applying the Avoidance Guidelines shall be in compliance with the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 and with the Species at Risk Act.

7.2. The Proponent shall not clear or develop Lelu Island within 30 metres from the high water mark except when required for the Lelu Island bridge, pioneer dock, Materials Offloading Facility, marine terminal and pipeline interconnection, or for safety or security considerations.7.3. The Proponent shall:

17of 28

7.3.1. restrict flaring to the minimum required during operation, maintenance activities or emergency to prevent the accumulation of natural gas and protect from overpressure;

7.3.2. minimize flaring required for operation and maintenance activities of the Designated Project during night time and during periods of migratory bird vulnerability; and

7.3.3. control lighting required for the operation of the Designated Project, including direction, timing, intensity, and glare of light fixtures, to avoid effects on migratory birds, while meeting operational health and safety requirements.

7.4. The Proponent shall avoid or lessen, and monitor effects on the habitat of the marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus). The Proponent shall compensate for the loss of habitat of the marbled murrelet as a result of the Designated Project, taking into account Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Operational Framework for Use of Conservation Allowances.

7.5. The Proponent shall develop, prior to construction, and implement, during all phases of the Designated Project, a follow-up program to determine the effectiveness of the mitigation measures used to avoid harm to migratory birds, their eggs and nests, including the mitigation measures used to comply with conditions 7.1 to 7.4.

Suggest that it be made clearer the components of reporting (for the annual report) of the follow-up program under Condition 7.5. This may include status reports on the Marbled Murrelet monitoring, reporting on number, type and effects of flaring events during a year. Reporting on effectiveness of mitigation measure to protect birds potentially affected by the Project and Project activities (i.e. lighting, flaring etc.).

8.0 Listed terrestrial species at risk8.1. The Proponent shall carry out site clearing between mid-September and mid-October to avoid or minimize adverse effects on little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus). 8.2. The Proponent shall, prior to construction and throughout all phases of the Designated Project, install, maintain, and monitor roosting structures within a radius of five kilometres of the centre of Lelu Island to mitigate the loss of little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus) roosting habitat.

18of 28

8.3. The Proponent shall develop, prior to construction and in consultation with relevant federal authorities, and implement, starting prior to construction, as required to support the follow-up program, and during all phases of the Designated Project, a follow-up program to monitor the effectiveness of the mitigation measures for little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus) referred to in conditions 8.1 and 8.2. The Proponent shall implement additional mitigation measures, in consultation with relevant federal authorities, if the results of the follow-up program show that the Designated Project is causing adverse effects on little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus).

9.0 Human health 9.1. The Proponent shall implement noise reduction measures during all phases of the Designated Project to avoid or reduce potential adverse environmental effects on human health, including:

9.1.1. applying best management practices and guidance for construction noise from the British Columbia Oil and Gas Commission’s Noise Control Best Practices Guideline ; and

9.1.2. complying with the operational noise requirements of the British Columbia Oil and Gas Commission’s Liquefied Natural Gas Facility Regulation.

9.2. The Proponent shall develop, prior to construction, and implement, during all phases of the Designated Project, a mechanism for receiving noise complaints, in consultation with Aboriginal groups and other parties who may be adversely affected by the noise caused by the Designated Project, and for responding in a timely manner to any noise complaint(s) received.

9.3. The Proponent shall design and manage exterior lighting from all Designated Project components during all phases of the Designated Project to prevent excessive emanation of light, taking into account the International Commission on Illumination’s CIE 150:2003 Guide on the Limitation of the Effects of Obtrusive Light from Outdoor Lighting Installations, while meeting marine transportation and aviation safety requirements.

It would seem that the guidelines referenced in Condition 9.3 relate only to the effects of lighting on human receptors. Suggest that guidance also be included which speaks to best practices to minimize lighting effects on the ecosystem components (especially fish - the effects of downward facing lighting over water and birds / bats - effects of bright lighting at night which attracts migrating animals)

19of 28

9.4. The Proponent shall develop, prior to construction, and implement in consultation with Aboriginal groups a follow-up program to verify that dredging of marine sediment at the Materials Offloading Facility does not result in increased risk to human health as a result of changes to marine country foods in Porpoise Channel. The follow-up program shall include:

Is there not a requirement for the use of dredging equipment that creates the lease amount of dispersion of sediments and for confirmatory sampling during dredging to ensure that they layer containing dioxins/furans has been captured and disposed of on land? The wording may be " ECCC DAS permit conditions will include the requirement for specific dredging equipment and confirmatory sediment sampling during dredging activities to ensure that all sediments containing dioxins /furans will been dredged using the least sediment dispersive technology and confirmed to have been removed from the MOF area and disposed of on land as per the EA"

9.4.1. collecting legal-sized Dungeness crabs (Metacarcinus magister) and at least two other commonly-consumed species (including one prawn species and one groundfish species) in Porpoise Channel in three different sampling periods:

there is no mention of sampling a reference site outside of the area of potential influence of the PNW LNG project activities (and any other project in the immediate area with dredging /sediment transport potential generating activities, i.e. PRGT and/or PR LNG)

9.4.1.1. prior to the commencement of in-water construction activities;9.4.1.2. immediately upon completion of dredging; and9.4.1.3. one year following completion of dredging;

9.4.2. conducting laboratory analysis of each animal’s tissues, including the crab hepatopancreas, for concentrations of dioxins, furans, arsenic and copper for each sampling period; and

9.4.3 reporting results of the monitoring to the Agency, Aboriginal groups and relevant federal and provincial authorities, as appropriate, within 90 days following the end of each sampling period. The results to be reported shall include:

9.4.3.1. all marine tissue contaminant concentrations from samples collected by the Proponent and the methodology for determining sample size;

20of 28

9.4.3.2. a quantitative assessment of any changes in human health risk from consuming country foods in Porpoise Channel for all receptor age groups; and9.4.3.3. updated recommendations on the quantity of marine country foods that can be safely consumed per week, using a hazard quotient of 0.2 to calculate the recommended maximum weekly intake. Updated recommended maximum weekly intakes shall take into account the additive risk from consuming multiple species in the same week.

9.5. The Proponent shall implement additional mitigation measures if the results of the follow-up program referred to in condition 9.4 show that there is an increased risk to human health from changes to marine country foods in Porpoise Channel resulting from the dredging of marine sediments.

What "additional mitigation" measure are possible if in fact the representative country foods samples contain contaminant level which have increased the hazard quotient such that Aboriginal Groups are limited in their intake of marine country foods? Suggest that wording in Condition 9.5 include the concept of compensation to Aboriginal Groups should this occur.

10.0 Current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes and socio-economic conditions

10.1. The Proponent shall build the suspension bridge and the Lelu Island bridge to a height and width which can accommodate vessels with a minimum airdraft of 11.3 metres from the highest high water level.

10.2. The Proponent shall develop, prior to construction, and implement, during all phases of the Designated Project, marine communication protocols that respect existing marine communication practices. The communication protocols shall include procedures and practices for sharing information and facilitating communication between the Proponent and the Aboriginal groups and other marine users on the following:

Suggest that since Condition 10.2 is bent toward facilitating communication with Aboriginal Groups that the protocols be developed and implemented in "consultation with Aboriginal Groups" (and other stakeholders? PRPA, commercial fishers etc.)

10.2.1. location and timing of Designated Project-related construction activities, including temporary restrictions due to construction, routing advisories and alternate routes;10.2.2. location and timing of traditional activities by Aboriginal groups and of activities by other marine users;10.2.3. Designated Project-related safety procedures, such as navigation aids and updated navigational charts;10.2.4. areas where navigation may be controlled for safety reasons;

21of 28

10.2.5. speed profiles and schedules applicable to the operation of LNG vessels associated with the Designated Project; and

10.2.6. ways for Aboriginal groups and other marine users to provide feedback to the Proponent about adverse environmental effects related to navigation caused by activities associated with the Designated Project, including construction activities and the operation of LNG vessels associated of the Designated Project.

the feedback loop must close. Condition 10.2.6 should include the commitment of the Proponent to respond to the feedback given by Aboriginal Groups and other marine users (as per Condition 9.2)

10.3. The Proponent shall develop, prior to construction and in consultation with Aboriginal groups, and implement, during all phases of the Designated Project, a follow-up program to verify that the Designated Project does not result in decreased opportunities for traditional and Aboriginal commercial fisheries. As part of the follow-up program, the Proponent shall define, prior to construction, methodology, location, species, frequency, and duration of the associated monitoring and shall identify action thresholds beyond which, if opportunities for traditional and Aboriginal commercial fisheries decrease below an agreed-upon level, additional mitigation measure are required and what those additional mitigation measures will be. The Proponent shall provide the results of the follow-up program and details of any additional mitigation measures implemented as a result of the follow-up program to Aboriginal groups.

Condition 10.3 is another area in which the concept of compensation should be introduced (should additional mitigation measures not be possible). See comment for 9.5

10.4. The Proponent shall provide Aboriginal groups with the implementation schedule, updates or revisions to the implementation schedule pursuant to conditions 14.1 to 14.3 at the same time these documents are provided to the Agency.

11.0 Physical and cultural heritage and structures, sites or things of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural significance

11.1. The Proponent shall develop, prior to construction and in consultation with the Prince Rupert Port Authority and Aboriginal groups, and implement, during all phases of the Designated Project, an archaeological resources and heritage management plan for the Designated Project. The archaeological resources and heritage management plan shall take into account the Treasury Board of Canada’s Guide to the Management of Movable Heritage Assets and the British Columbia’s Handbook for the Identification and Recording of Culturally Modified Trees. The archaeological resources and heritage management plan shall include:

22of 28

11.1.1. a description of the types of physical and cultural heritage features and structures, sites or things of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural significance (including culturally modified trees) that may be encountered by the Proponent during construction on Lelu Island or in the intertidal area;

11.1.2. how Aboriginal groups will be involved in pre-construction surveys of Lelu Island or the intertidal area and on-site monitoring of construction activities on Lelu Island or in the intertidal area that may affect physical and cultural heritage features and structures, sites or things of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural significance (including culturally modified trees), subject to the safety requirements of the Designated Project construction site;

If the goal of Condition 11.1.2 is to ensure that Aboriginal Groups participate in the on-the-ground work in their traditional territories then the statement "subject to the safety requirements of the Designated Project construction site" may be limiting to this goal. Suggest either remove the statement or add that the Proponent must provide the necessary training to meet those requirements.

11.1.3. procedures for the identification and removal of physical and cultural heritage features and structures, sites or things of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural significance (including culturally modified trees) that may be affected by construction activities on Lelu Island or in the intertidal area;11.1.4. procedures for the preservation and sharing of information about physical and cultural heritage features and structures, sites or things of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural significance (including culturally modified trees) recovered by the Proponent before construction activities affect them; and

11.1.5. a chance find protocol if previously unidentified physical or cultural heritage features or structures, sites or things of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural significance (including culturally modified trees) are discovered by the Proponent or brought to the attention of the Proponent by an Aboriginal group or another party during construction on Lelu Island or in the intertidal area, that requires:

11.1.5.1. determining the heritage value of the physical or cultural heritage features or structures, sites or things that have been discovered by the Proponent or brought to the attention of the Proponent; and

23of 28

11.1.5.2. if the physical or cultural heritage features or structures, sites or things that have been discovered by the Proponent or brought to the attention of the Proponent are determined to be of important heritage value, implementing information recovery measures to collect information about the finds before they are removed from their context or impacted further.

12.0 Decommissioning

12.1. At least one year prior to the end of operation, the Proponent shall develop, in consultation with Aboriginal groups and other relevant parties, and submit to the Agency a decommissioning plan. The decommissioning plan shall include a description of:

There is no condition under 12.0 which ensures that the proponent will actually be required to complete decommissioning activities regardless of their financial situation (i.e. even if bankrupt there is money somewhere which will pay for decommissioning activities). A condition to address this is required. Locally, communities are far to aware of the outcome / legacy of this sort of issue.

12.1.1. any consultation undertaken by the Proponent during the development of the decommissioning plan, including any issues raised by Aboriginal groups and other parties during consultation and how these issues were addressed by the Proponent;

12.1.2. the components of the Designated Project that will be decommissioned by the Proponent and the components of the Designated Project that will not be decommissioned;12.1.3. the desired end-state objectives of the Project area;12.1.4. the components of the environment that may be adversely affected by decommissioning activities or by components of the Designated Project that will not be decommissioned;12.1.5. how the Proponent will conduct in-water and land-based decommissioning activities (including the location, the scheduling and sequencing of activities);

12.1.6. how the Proponent will mitigate and monitor adverse environmental effects from decommissioning activities;

12.1.7. the plan for progressive reclamation, if appropriate; and suggest: remove "if appropriate" and add "if applicable"

all reclamation is appropriate it is whether reclamation is applicable to certain aspects of the Designated Project

12.1.8. the manner and timing of consultation of Aboriginal and other relevant parties throughout the decommissioning phase.

24of 28

12.2. The Proponent shall implement the decommissioning plan referred to in condition 12.1.

12.3. The Proponent shall, from the reporting year in which decommissioning begins until the end of the decommissioning phase or for a maximum of 25 years, submit to the Agency a written annual report no later than June 30 of the following reporting year. The written annual report shall include a description of:

Under 12.3 suggest that a sixth condition be added to include reporting on any monitoring activities / programs associated with decommissioning and/or reclamation activities

12.3.1. the decommissioning activities undertaken by the Proponent during the reporting year;12.3.2. any adverse environmental effects identified by the Proponent with respect to the decommissioning activities identified in condition 12.3.1; 12.3.3. a description of the mitigation measures that were implemented by the Proponent to mitigate the adverse environmental effects identified in condition 12.3.2 and the results of any associated monitoring;12.3.4. any modifications made to the decommissioning plan referred to in condition 12.1; and 12.3.5. consultation undertaken by the Proponent with Aboriginal groups and other relevant parties during the reporting year.

13.0 Accidents and malfunctions

13.1. The Proponent shall take all reasonable measures to prevent accidents and malfunctions that may result in adverse environmental effects.

13.2. The Proponent shall, prior to construction, consult with Aboriginal groups on the measures to be implemented to prevent accidents and malfunctions. 13.3. The Proponent shall, prior to construction and in consultation with relevant federal and provincial authorities and Aboriginal groups, develop an emergency response plan in relation to the Designated Project.13.4. In the event of an accident or malfunction with the potential to cause adverse environmental effects, the Proponent shall implement the emergency response plan referred to in condition 13.3 and shall:

suggest addition of "….with the potential to cause adverse environmental effects or increase human risk, the Proponent shall implement…."

an example of accident or malfunction that may increase human risk could be an air emissions event

13.4.1. notify relevant federal and provincial authorities and Aboriginal groups of the accident or malfunction as soon as possible and, in writing, the Agency; 13.4.2. implement immediate measures to mitigate any adverse environmental effects associated with the accident or malfunction;

25of 28

13.4.3. submit a written report to the Agency no later than 30 days after the day on which the accident or malfunction took place. The written report shall include:

Suggest that this written report be posted as per Condition 2.7. Believe this has been done, but reference in draft version is not the correct reference to Condition 13.4.3

13.4.3.1 a description of the accident or malfunction and of its adverse environmental effects;13.4.3.2 the measures that were taken by the Proponent to mitigate the adverse environmental effects of the accident or malfunction;13.4.3.3 any views received from relevant federal and provincial authorities and Aboriginal groups with respect to the accident or malfunction, its adverse environmental effects, or measures taken by the Proponent to mitigate adverse environmental effects;13.4.3.4 a description of any residual environmental effects, and any additional measures required to mitigate residual adverse environmental effects; and13.4.3.5 details concerning the implementation of the emergency response plan referred to in condition 13.3;

13.4.4. submit a written report to the Agency no later than 90 days after the day on which the accident or malfunction took place, on the changes made to avoid a subsequent occurrence of the accident or malfunction, and on the implementation of any additional measures to mitigate residual adverse environmental effects, taking into account the information in the written report submitted pursuant to condition 13.4.3. see comment under Condition 13.4.3

13.5. The Proponent shall develop and implement a communication plan in consultation with Aboriginal groups. The communication plan shall be developed prior to construction and shall be implemented and maintained up to date during all phases of the Designated Project. The plan shall include:

13.5.1. the types of accidents and malfunctions requiring a notification by the Proponent to the respective Aboriginal groups;13.5.2. the manner by which Aboriginal groups shall be notified by the Proponent of an accident or malfunction and of any opportunities for the Aboriginal groups to assist in the response to the accident or malfunction; and

26of 28

13.5.3. the contact information of the representatives of the Proponent that the Aboriginal groups may contact and of the representatives of the respective Aboriginal groups to which the Proponent provides notification.

14.0 Implementation schedule

14.1. The Proponent shall submit an implementation schedule for conditions contained in this document to the Agency, or anyone designated pursuant to section 89 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, at least 30 days prior to the start of construction. The implementation schedule shall indicate the commencement and completion dates for each activity relating to conditions set out in this document.

14.2. The Proponent shall submit an update to this implementation schedule in writing to the Agency, or anyone designated pursuant to section 89 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, every two years on or before June 30, until completion of the activities.

Suggest that update submission of implementation schedule be every year for at minimum the pre-construction / construction period

Many of the Conditions within the Draft Potential Conditions document must be fulfilled prior to construction: therefore, receiving feedback on where the Proponent is at in that schedule is important and will occur at a much faster rate.

14.3. The Proponent shall provide the Agency, or anyone designated pursuant to section 89 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, with a revised implementation schedule if any material change(s) occur from the initial schedule referred to in condition 14.1 or any subsequent update(s). The Proponent shall provide the revised implementation schedule at least 30 days prior to the implementation of the change. definition of "material change" is required

15.0 Record keeping

15.1. The Proponent shall maintain a written record, or a record in an electronic format compatible with that used by the Agency, and retain and make available that record to the Agency, or anyone designated pursuant to section 89 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, at a facility close to the Designated Project in Canada (local facility). The record shall include information related to the implementation of the conditions set out in this document, and the results of all associated monitoring, including:

15.1.1. the place, date and time of any sampling, as well as techniques, methods or procedures used;15.1.2. the dates and the analyses that were performed;15.1.3. the analytical techniques, methods or procedures used in the analyses;

27of 28

15.1.4. the names of the persons who collected and analyzed each sample and documentation of any professional certification(s) relevant to the work performed that they might possess; and15.1.5. the results of the analyses.

15.2. The Proponent shall retain and make available upon demand to the Agency, or anyone designated pursuant to section 89 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, the information referred to in condition 15.1 at a facility in Canada close to the Designated Project (or at another location within Canada and agreed upon by the Agency, should the local facility no longer be maintained). The information shall be retained and made available throughout construction and operation, and for 25 years following the end of operation or until the end of decommissioning of the Designated Project, whichever comes first.

confirm that the written record stipulated in Condition 15.1 is the same information that will be shared by the Proponent on the internet as per Condition 2.7. If not the same, then Aboriginal Groups would also like access to the written record under Condition 15.0.

Other Concerns or Comments

A Condition to require the Propoent to conduct a follow-up program with regards to eulachon studies should be included

Add: under 6.0 of the Conditions - the Proponent shall develop and implement, in consultation with Aboriginal Groups and DFO, a follow-up program to confirm the timing and distribution of adult eulachon throughout the Skeena Estuary as they migrate into the Skeena River to spawn (i.e. staging timing and distribution). The results of the follow-up program will help inform the identification of least risk timing windows under Condition 6.1; therefore, the follow-up program on Eulachon will be required to be completed prior to the fulfillment of Condition 6.1. The new Conditions should in no way preclude the Proponent from conducting additional follow-up / monitoring programs associated with studies of eulachon as other stage of their life history.

28of 28

A condition is required to ensure that should there be a gap in time between a positive decision statement and a start to construction activities that baseline information (especially with regards to fish and fish habitat) remain valid.

Suggest : "If Construction activities do not start within 3 years of the decision statement then the Proponent must be required to re-assess, to the satisfaction of federal authorities and First Nations, the baseline condition of VCs that may have changed since initial assessment during the EA. If baseline is substantially different than reported in the EA, impact predictions must be re-assessed and new mitigations developed to ensure impacts, including cumulative impacts, remain consistent with those predicted in the EA."

A general Condition is required to address the commitment of the Proponet to follow through with all the suggested mitigation measures from the EA

Add: under 2.0 of the Conditions " The Proponent shall implement all the mitigation measures to reduce adverse effects from the Project as committed to in the EA and summarized in Section 11.5 of the CEAA Assessment Report"

Need for legally binding commitment to implement all suggested mitigation measures from the EA

Concerns still exist with the community regarding the effects of lighting from the bridge and trestle structures on fish migration.

Suggest a monitoring / follow-up program under Conditions related to 6 "Marine Fish (including Marine Mammals) and Fish Habitat" and 6.22 to evaluate the validity of the EA predictions: "Monitoring of juvenile fish distribution and attraction (night vs. day) to and surrounding the marine infrastructure elements which have associated lighting over the water. Monitoring could be a sub task of the monitoring program under Condition 6.22.8"

The monitoring would include information to understand whether juvenile fish are staying longer in the area than natural / previously understood behaviour and whether this is then subjected them to higher levels of predation (potential thought to be associated with predators which are utilizing the marine infrastructure as habitat)