From: Jessica Steele Sent: May 24 ... · From: Jessica Steele Sent: May 24, 2019 9:33 AM To: Parker, Cindy (CEAA/ACEE)

From: Jessica Steele <email address removed> Sent: May 24, 2019 9:33 AM To: Parker, Cindy (CEAA/ACEE) <email address removed> Cc: Melanie Walker <email address removed> Subject: Tsleil-Waututh Nation's IR Response Comments

Hello Cindy,

It was nice to meet you in-person this week.

Please find attached Tsleil-Waututh Nation’s comments on the Information Request responses. We acknowledge that these are being submitted past the deadline; however, due to the extensive amount of review (7000+ pages) required for these IR responses in addition to our capacity, we have only been able to submit these now. The timelines and the speed at which the Panel process is moving continues to negate meaningful consultation.

Thank you and we look forward to hearing how TWN’s comments will be incorporated and responded to.

Best,

Jessica Steele Referrals Analyst – Environmental Assessment Treaty, Lands and Resources Department, Tsleil-Waututh Nation <contact information removed> This electronic mail communication may contain privileged and confidential communications and/or work product. If you have received this communication in error or are not the intended recipient, please delete the communication without using, copying or otherwise disseminating it. Please notify the sender that you have received the message in error. Any modification of the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited unless expressly authorised by the sender. Thank you.

Page 1 of 56

`Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Comments - IR Response Comments

Reference Information Request Title Applicable Question Summary Response (by VFPA) TWN Comments

Sufficiency Information Request #17 (IR4-17) - see CEAR document #934

Marine Invertebrates Marine Fish and Fish Habitat – Effects Assessment: Area and Type of Fish and Invertebrate Habitat

Provide a summary that presents the extent of the area (m2 or ha) and type (intertidal sand, subtidal rock, eelgrass, subtidal sand with sea pens, etc.) of fish and invertebrate habitat that is likely to be affected, directly or indirectly, by each component of the proposed Project including, but not limited to, the terminal, causeway, tug basin and intermediate transfer pit. This summary should include: • the fish and invertebrate species that are likely to be affected by each Project component; • the life stages of the individuals of those species; • the geographical extent, frequency, magnitude, and duration of the potential effects on fish and fish habitat, including invertebrates, for each Project component; and • the likelihood that the potential effects on fish and fish habitat, including invertebrates, will occur.

The response presents the extent of the area and type of fish and invertebrate habitat that is likely to be affected by each component of the proposed Project (areal extent information is provided in Appendix IR4-17-B); however, the effects of the Project were assessed based on an ecosystem level and productivity approach in accordance with requirements of the federal Fisheries Act. The requested summary is provided in Appendix IR4-17-A and Appendix IR4-17-B. The rationale for and the approach taken in these appendices is explained.

1. In Table IR4-17-A1 the biomass loss is described as a percentage of the total existing biomass. What areal extent is used to define the total existing biomass? Is this the same for each habitat type? Has the prevalence of the habitat within the wider region been taken into consideration in this instance? i.e. 1% of an existing habitat within the local area may be assessed as negligible, however if the habitat is rare or only found at this particular location a loss of 1% could be considered to be significant. 2. In the tables in Appendix B a lot of emphasis is placed on productivity increasing due to offsetting measures. TWN are of the opinion that it will take considerable time for habitats created as part of offsetting measures to reach the levels of productivity that is seen in established habitats. Therefore, the amount of offsetting habitat created should substantially exceed the amount and quality of habitat that is lost.

Page 2 of 56


Sufficiency Information Request #18 (IR4-18) – see CEAR Document #934

Marine Invertebrates Marine Fish and Fish Habitat – Effects Assessment: Sensitive Life Histories Outside Salmon and Crab Windows

Identify the fish and invertebrate species which occur in the local assessment area that have sensitive life history stages which are outside the juvenile salmon and crab fisheries sensitive windows. Provide a summary of the effects of Project activities on different life stages of fish and invertebrates that occupy the local assessment area outside of the juvenile salmon and crab protection windows.

The response notes marine invertebrate and marine fish species known to occur in the LAA and that have the potential to be affected by the Project, requested to be identified in this response, were previously identified in Tables IR9-1 and IR9-2 in Information Request #9 (IR-7.31.15-09 of CEAR Document #314) and Additional Information Request #9 (AIR-12.04.15-09 of CEAR Document #389). Sensitive life history stages outside the juvenile salmon and Dungeness crab fisheries-sensitive windows are presented in this response for marine invertebrate and marine fish representative species (and not all species known to occur at Roberts Bank), in line with the methodology presented in EIS Section 8.0.

Sensitive life history stages outside the juvenile salmon and Dungeness crab fisheries-sensitive window are presented in this response. Please provide further information on how particular project interactions, with fish and invertebrate species occurring outside juvenile salmon and crab fisheries sensitive windows, will be addressed in Environmental Management Plans. Specifically, TWN requests further information on how Environmental Management Plans will mitigate project interactions with Pacific Salmon up-river migration from spring through to late fall. This information is imperative prior to assessing impacts.

Sufficiency Information Request #33 (IR4-133) - see CEAR document #934

Marine Invertebrates – Contaminants of Concern in Crab Hepatopancreas

Describe the concentration of contaminants of potential concern in crab hepatopancreas throughout the local assessment area, including sites situated within the tug basin and the intermediate transfer pit. Provide PCB, PAH and trace element concentrations, including the PAH congeners listed in Table 4-13 of Appendix 27-C, the PCB congeners listed in Table 5-2 of Appendix 9.6-B and trace element concentrations in crab hepatopancreas for the list of trace elements shown in Table 4-14 of Appendix 27-C, in crab hepatopancreas tissues for Dungeness crabs located

The response notes that a crab hepatopancreas study was conducted at Roberts Bank to determine the concentrations of contaminants of concern in crab hepatopancreas in the LAA. In June 2017, Dungeness crab were collected from five traps placed at each of the three study locations (15 traps total). Twelve adult male crabs were harvested from each of the three sites (36 crab total). Samples

Will the concentration of contaminants in crab hepatopancreas continued to be monitored throughout the construction and operation of the RBT2 terminal? The current study can be considered a good baseline to measure any changes in contaminants in crab in the local assessment area and it is the opinion of TWN that this is a good opportunity to continue to monitor any changes that may occur throughout the lifetime of the project.

Page 3 of 56

Reference Information Request Title Applicable Question Summary Response (by VFPA) TWN Comments in the local assessment area (as denoted by Figure 12-1 of the EIS)

were submitted under chain of custody to analytical laboratories accredited by the Canadian Association for Laboratory Accreditation (CALA) for the analysis requested. The analysis was completed in August 2017. Collectively, the results of a statistical comparison across sites indicate that the average concentrations of PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), coal indicator elements, arsenic compounds, and PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) measured in hepatopancreas from crab collected from the RBT2 and intermediate transfer pit (ITP) sites are not statistically higher than those measured in crab from the Canoe Passage reference site. This suggests that existing sediment and water quality in and around the existing terminal and proposed RBT2 terminal are not contributing to contaminant concentrations in crab hepatopancreas that are higher than levels found in crab hepatopancreas from the Canoe Passage reference site.

Page 4 of 56



Marine Invertebrates – Dungeness Crab Salvages

Provide a complete list and schedule of proposed Project activities for which Dungeness crab salvages are planned. Where Dungeness crab salvages are not planned for Project activities that have the potential to cause direct mortality to legal-sized male, gravid female and juvenile crabs, provide a rationale for omitting these salvages. Clarify which Project activities could cause injury to Dungeness crabs and whether crab salvages are planned for these Project activities. Describe alternative approaches for mitigating the potential effects of these Project activities on the Dungeness crab population in the local assessment area for the Project.

The response provides additional information concerning the proposed Dungeness crab salvages. Salvages were conducted to meet the conditions of the Fisheries Act Authorization for Deltaport Third Berth. Cutter suction dredging was preceded by ongoing crab salvages (where baited traps were set in advance of dredging and crabs relocated approximately 2 km from the project area) and a visual dive survey (where divers provided visual confirmation of no crabs prior to initial dredging) (Hemmera 2009). In the case of clamshell dredging, visual inspections of the collected dredgeate were made by the contractor’s crews and the environmental monitor; only one crab was identified within the dredgeate during the entire project (Hemmera 2009), underscoring the effectiveness of this measure. In consultation with Indigenous groups, the VFPA has heard a suggestion to bait outside the Project area to draw crabs away as opposed to baiting within the Project area and relocating them. As indicated in the response to IR13-30, the VFPA is committed to minimising handling of crab, and to working with Indigenous groups, in

It is stated that during some stages of the project crab salvages will occur daily prior to activities commencing. How will it be confirmed that the salvages have been a success if using baited traps? Will baited crab traps be monitored daily and will the local area be surveyed prior to activites beginning?

Page 5 of 56

Reference Information Request Title Applicable Question Summary Response (by VFPA) TWN Comments implementation of crab salvage mitigation. To this end, the VFPA has modified the method for the proposed crab salvage program to bait crabs away from terminal and causeway containment dykes, instead of capturing and relocating crabs as originally proposed.


Forage Fish Residual Effects, Frequency Criteria

For Pacific Sand Lance, provide further rationale for the criterion rating of infrequent to frequent that are applied to predict productivity losses in relation to the proposed Project. This should be done in terms of changes to habitat availability and sensitivities to alterations or losses in subtidal sand habitat.

Additional rationale on the frequency criterion of infrequent to frequent residual loss in forage fish productivity is provided in the response to clarify the approach taken in EIS Section 13.8.1. Residual loss in productivity of the forage fish sub-component is predicted to result from reduction in suitable subtidal burying habitat for Pacific sand lance, as well as residual behavioural disturbance from underwater noise on Pacific herring (see EIS Section 13.8).

TWN would like to see a dedicated monitoring programme for Pacific sand lance. This species of forage fish is an important source of food for other fish species including Chinook salmon. Therefore, any potential reduction in productivity of Pacific sand lance may impact upon salmon species. Please can VFPA provide information on how they plan to monitor Pacific sand lance throughout the construction and operation of RBT2 including changes in habitat use within the LAA.


Marine Fish – Forage Fish Residual Effects, Magnitude Criteria

Given the uncertainties presented in the marine fish assessment regarding potential proposed Project effects on forage fish and, in particular Pacific Sand Lance, provide a discussion and rationale explaining how uncertainties were considered in the assessment of the magnitude criterion rating of low in Table 13-15 of the EIS. Quantify the loss of suitable forage fish habitat, including Pacific Sand Lance, Surf Smelt, Pacific Herring and Shiner Perch habitat, caused by the Project.

As noted in the response, uncertainty in baseline data for Pacific sand lance was integrated into the effects assessment by assuming that the Project would interact with, and therefore potentially affect, Pacific sand lance productivity, despite lack of empirical evidence (based on field studies undertaken by the VFPA) of Pacific sand lance spawning or burying within the LAA. The effects of the

Further rationale explaining how uncertainties were considered in the assessment of the magnitude criterion rating of low proposed Project effects on forage fish are required. Specifically TWN disagrees with the conclusion that potential productivity loss to Pacific herring outside of the fisheries sensitive window will be counter-balanced over a relatively short time-period through

Page 6 of 56

Reference Information Request Title Applicable Question Summary Response (by VFPA) TWN Comments Project were assessed based on a productivity approach (as per advice by the Productive Capacity Technical Advisory Group). The results of the assessment of potential effects of the Project are presented as changes to productivity for marine fish subcomponents, including forage fish, based on weight of evidence, and not as changes to the areal extent of suitable forage fish habitat. As noted in the response, notwithstanding the above, the loss of suitable Pacific sand lance burying habitat was quantified (see EIS Section 13.6.3.3, including Table 13-11) to manage uncertainty regarding lack of empirical evidence on Pacific sand lance burying in the LAA.

natural recovery. Provide evidence for a case in which a previously disturbed herring spawn naturally recovered in a short time-period.


Marine Fish – Juvenile Salmon Effects Assessment

Synthesize the existing data, including historical studies and data identified in Section 2.2 of the Juvenile Salmon Surveys Report and provide a statistical analysis and interpretation of differences in juvenile salmon utilization of habitats to the north and south of the existing terminal and the terminal causeway. Report on displacement of juvenile salmon from the existing terminal and causeway as well as access to the inter-causeway area. Predict the effect of any displacement of juvenile salmon by the expanded causeway and new terminal structure, including the effect of exposure to predators and

The response presents existing and recent data that were synthesised qualitatively in the EIS (see TDRs MF-3 and MF-7 in Appendix AIR10-C of CEAR Document #388). A statistical analysis of historical and recent Roberts Bank data (to identify and interpret differences in juvenile salmon utilisation of habitats to the north and south of the existing causeway and terminal) was not undertaken as it is not technically feasible (further explanation available

The response notes that a statistical analysis of historical and recent Roberts Bank data was not undertaken as it is not technically feasible. Given that differences in sampling timing during studies undertaken to date at RBT2 prelude the ability to conduct rigorous statistical analysis comparing historical data, TWN disagrees that there is sufficient information to support the conclusion of negligible effects. Please update the effects assessment to reflect the lack of consistent data and empirical information.

Page 7 of 56

Reference Information Request Title Applicable Question Summary Response (by VFPA) TWN Comments change in access to intertidal habitats in the inter-causeway area.

in the response). As noted in the response, the degree to which the existing causeway may have contributed to the displacement of juvenile salmon from rearing habitats at Roberts Bank, or may have hindered access to rearing habitats in the inter-causeway area, cannot be quantified. Postcauseway construction, there is no empirical evidence to suggest that juvenile salmon use of rearing habitats in the inter-causeway area has been impeded. The potential effect on the migration behaviour of juvenile salmon from terminal placement and causeway widening was assessed qualitatively (see EIS Section 13.6.3.1). With implementation of mitigation measures, including adherence to juvenile salmon fisheriessensitive window, implementation of a light management plan, as well as offsetting in the form of onsite native eelgrass transplants and reconstructed tidal marsh habitats north of the widened causeway, migration-related changes in juvenile salmon productivity were assessed as negligible.

Page 8 of 56



Marine Fish – Effects of Underwater Noise on Pacific Salmon

Based on literature information, analyse the uncertainty regarding underwater noise effects on juvenile and adult salmon. Assess the potential behavioural effects of underwater noise on juvenile and adult Pacific salmon, Pacific Herring and Eulachon in the local assessment area of the Marine Shipping Addendum.

The response analyses uncertainty regarding the prediction of behavioural effects from Project-related shipping noise on juvenile and adult salmon. Such uncertainty, linked primarily with the scarcity of methods to assess behavioural effects that are generic and applicable across fish species, is reviewed extensively in the literature and is acknowledged in EIS Section 13.6.1.2 and MSA Section 8.1.6.1. The response also describes how uncertainty was managed in the assessment. Despite uncertainty, the 90 dBht metric (proposed by Nedwell et al. 2007) applied in the assessment of behavioural effects on salmon and herring from Project-related shipping noise, is the only method backed by empirical observations (see response to IR5-26 of CEAR Document #934). Thus, in the absence of universally accepted criteria or established regulatory thresholds, the dBht approach represents the best available method at the time of EIS and MSA preparation, and currently. Behavioural effects from Project-related shipping noise on juvenile and adult Pacific salmon and Pacific herring (and eulachon represented by

Although it is recognised that Atlantic salmon and Atlantic herring are the closest possible species that can be used for comparison of noise sensitivity it should be taken into consideration within the assessment that these values are estimates only due to species specific data not being available. Therefore, TWN does not agree that the impacts of underwater noise on salmon, herring, and eulachon can be deemed as negligible. TWN would like to see this re-assessed with a more conservative approach used due to confidence levels in the information used being low.

Page 9 of 56

Reference Information Request Title Applicable Question Summary Response (by VFPA) TWN Comments herring; see response to IR5-15 of CEAR Document #934) were assessed as negligible (see MSA Section 8.1.6.1); additional rationale is provided in the response.


Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes – Economic Conditions Assessment

Provide information to support the following assertions from Section 21 of the EIS: • Dungeness Crabs are known to move substantial distances to baited traps; • Dungeness Crab migration behavior within the proposed navigational commercial crab fishing exclusion zone would suffice to repopulate adjacent crab fishing areas in the local assessment area during the commercial crab fishing season between June 15 - November 30; and • Displaced crab harvesting activity from the navigational closure area as a result of the proposed Project can shift to an open area in the local assessment area, or to another open crab harvesting area within Crab Management Area I, or to another Crab Management Area.

The response presents information that supports the understanding of Dungeness crab movements, including movement with baited traps. Dungeness crab migration patterns are discussed in the context of repopulation of the adjacent crab fishing areas. The response notes it is reasonable to assume that commercial crab harvesters who have been harvesting in the proposed navigational closure expansion would re-establish some portion of their harvesting activities in the open area along the western boundary of the proposed navigational closure expansion and elsewhere in CMA I, or they may choose to re-select their CMA during a future re-selection period.

1. Is crab salvage and relocation now planned to involve baiting of crabs outside of the project area in an attempt to attract crabs away from the construction area? Or, in the context of this IR is the salvage and relocation still likely to involve handling of the crabs? 2. Given the evidence provided that Dungeness crab will move considerable distances to baited traps have any conclusions been drawn about how long prior to activities commencing baited traps need to be placed in order to successfully attract crabs away from the project area?

Page 10 of 56



Marine Mammals – Air Pollution

Provide information on the potential effects of the inhalation of the following pollutants on marine mammals: • CO; • NOx; • SO2; • PM2.5; and • Hydrocarbons. Describe how the implementation of the North American Emission Control Area may result in a reduction of the potential effects of pollutant inhalation by marine mammals in the local assessment area for marine shipping associated with the proposed Project.

The response provides a discussion of potential effects of air pollution on marine mammals. Potential health effects to marine mammals from air pollution in the LAA due to the incremental contribution of marine shipping associated with the Project are not anticipated; therefore, this potential effect was determined to be negligible in MSA Section 8.2.6.1.

TWN does not agree that the impacts of air pollution on marine mammals will be negligible. Although it is recognised that current levels of air pollution are likely to be reduced due to initiatives and legislation that is being introduced the future increased levels of shipping and traffic from other plans and projects within the local and regional assessment areas needs to be predicted. This should be taken into consideration when assessing the effects of air pollution on marine mammals.


Marine Mammals – Stress-Related Immune Suppression

Provide a rationale for why stress-related immune suppression was not considered in the assessment of effects of underwater noise on marine mammals. Describe the implications of not including stress-related immune suppression as a factor in the prediction of the effects of underwater noise on marine mammals.

The response notes that potential effects of stress-related immune suppression in marine mammals due to underwater noise from the Project, marine shipping associated with the Project, or cumulative effects of commercial shipping traffic were not measured or predicted in this assessment. Data on this subject matter are lacking, and the SRKW Technical Advisory Group (TAG) advised against including stress-related immune suppression in the assessment of effects of underwater noise on endangered SRKW due to the invasive nature of data collection required to quantify potential effects (i.e., vessel noise, physical

1. It is stated in the IR response that "Potential effects of underwater noise on marine mammal behavioural responses, acoustic masking, and availability of prey were assessed using conservative assumptions such that potential effects are likely overpredicted; therefore, any potential stress-related immune suppression effects are indirectly captured in the assessment." TWN disagrees with this statement and does not believe that an assessment can "indirectly" capture an impact pathway that is not included in the assessment and merely stating that the original assessment used conservative estimates cannot compensate for the lack of assessment on stress-related immune suppression.

Page 11 of 56

Reference Information Request Title Applicable Question Summary Response (by VFPA) TWN Comments disturbance). There are no implications of not including stress-related immune suppression as a factor in the prediction of the effects of underwater noise on marine mammals; in particular, its exclusion does not change the conclusions described in the EIS.

2. TWN would like to see this impact properly assessed, it is suggested that this could be done using published literature rather than invasive research methods.


Marine Mammals – Factors Influencing Response to Underwater Noise

Describe how different SRKW, North Pacific Humpback Whale and Stellar Sea Lion age classes would be affected by underwater noise originating from construction or operation of the proposed Project, or marine shipping associated with the Project.

The response will clarify how the assessment incorporated uncertainty regarding how different age classes of marine mammals are potentially affected by underwater noise from the Project and marine shipping associated with the Project. This response will also describe what is known about how different marine mammal age classes are potentially affected by underwater noise.

Has the variation in response of different age classes of marine mammal been taken into consideration within the assessment i.e. has the effect on the most sensitive age class been used in order to conservatively assess the impacts of underwater noise on marine mammals?

Page 12 of 56



Marine Mammals – Mitigation of Underwater Noise During Construction

Describe additional mitigation measures that could be used to avoid and/or reduce the potential effects of underwater noise on marine mammals during construction of the proposed Project. Describe whether any contingency plans or additional mitigation measures would be developed and then be employed in the event that a transiting pod of SRKW is traveling in silence at nighttime, or under conditions of fog. Quantify how all the proposed mitigation measures, including any additional measures identified in response to the above, would reduce the potential effects on marine mammals. Describe whether there would be an adverse residual effect after the implementation of the above mitigation measures.

The response notes that after reviewing existing guidelines and recommendations, and other relevant scientific literature, a series of industry-best mitigation measures were proposed in the EIS for implementation during Project construction (EIS Section 14.7.1.1), including the following: • Reduction of construction noise, including gradual start-up of noise producing activity, maintenance of equipment, and noise reduction and dampening methods (e.g., bubble curtains during impact pile driving); • Establishment and monitoring of buffer distances by trained marine mammal observers and shutdown of relevant construction activities when marine mammals enter prescribed buffer zones; and • During periods of darkness and fog, hydrophones will be used to detect vocalizing marine mammals and monitor underwater noise to inform when noise-producing construction activities should be shut down. The response further discusses additional mitigation measures proposed by DFO. No additional mitigation measures are being proposed in the event that a transiting

TWN do not find it acceptable that additional methods for mitigation are not proposed for when construction occurs during conditions of fog or at night time. The potential effects on SRKW are a major concern for this project and TWN are of the opinion that VFPA should be exploring all possible options for mitigation, this should include trialling new technologies. TWN would like to see some of the new methods that are described in the response being taken forward to be used as additional mitigation methods.

Page 13 of 56

Reference Information Request Title Applicable Question Summary Response (by VFPA) TWN Comments pod of SRKW is travelling in silence at nighttime, or under conditions of fog. The mitigation measures proposed in the EIS are industry-best standards and have been successfully implemented for decades worldwide to mitigate potential effects to marine mammals from underwater noise.

Sufficiency Information Request #27 (IR 7-27) – see CEAR Document #934

Marine Fish – On Site Offset Features

Provide a schedule for the construction of offset features. Provide a description of how the geomorphological changes from the proposed Project footprint are predicted to affect the proposed onsite habitat concepts and the timing of the construction of the offset features. Quantify the time lags between Project construction effects to fish habitat and the development of functioning offsetting projects and analyze their implications.

Figure IR7-27-A1 in Appendix IR7-27-A provides the anticipated Project construction schedule (as provided in the PCU, CEAR Document #1210), including a preliminary construction schedule for the proposed onsite habitat Offsetting Concepts. The proposed onsite habitat Offsetting Concepts are anticipated to benefit from geomorphic changes and are not predicted to be adversely affected. A new schematic (Figure IR7-27-A2 in Appendix IR7-27-A) is presented that indicates approximate spatial extent of potential geomorphic changes associated with the Project footprint and onsite habitat offsetting concepts. The predicted physical factors associated with the potential geomorphic changes have been summarised in Table IR7-27-1. The response notes time lags between the impact from the Project and the

1. TWN need to see sufficient habitat offsetting to account for the volume of habitat loss as well as the habitat productivity. This may involve increasing the area of habitat offsetting that is implemented in order to account for the loss in productivity between construction and establishment of offset habitat. In addition, TWN stand for net environmental gain and would therefore expect to see an increase in the proposed amount of offset habitat. 2. It is stated that the ecosystem model estimates an overall increase in productivity in the project area. a) On what timeframe is the increase in productivtiy based? b) Does the ecosystem model assume that all proposed offsetting measures will be succesful? 3. In the case that the proposed offsetting sites do not successfully support productive habitat are there any additional sites that

Page 14 of 56

Reference Information Request Title Applicable Question Summary Response (by VFPA) TWN Comments functioning of the habitat used as an offset may contribute to a loss in fisheries productivity. Accounting for this potential loss in productivity will be a key component of the Offsetting Plan (to be developed as part of the Fisheries Act Authorization phase) to ensure productivity at Roberts Bank is maintained. The quantification of any productivity losses will be performed during the development of the Offsetting Plan.

have the potential to also suport offsetting for the RBT2 project?

Page 15 of 56



Marine Fish – Mitigation, Habitat Compensation

Provide an evaluation of the effectiveness of past fish habitat compensation measures which relied upon intertidal marsh habitat creation within the local assessment area. Include any marsh habitat creation measures undertaken by the Proponent or other agencies. Provide an analysis of the effectiveness of intertidal marsh habitat creation as targeted mitigation for juvenile Chinook Salmon and other marine fish in the local assessment area.

The response demonstrates that intertidal (salt) marsh habitat creation is effective when implemented with appropriate design that accounts for site-specific biophysical conditions and geomorphic constraints that influence establishment and growth of transplanted vegetation and, ultimately, determine transplant success. Examples of such success are provided. Transplanted marshes within (e.g., BC Ferries constructed marsh) and outside LAA boundaries (see examples in Table IR7-28-1) created as targeted mitigation for juvenile Chinook salmon and other marine fish are considered effective in providing the same functional attributes as naturally occurring marsh, including productive foraging and refuge opportunities for marine fish (and juvenile Chinook salmon). This is supported by results from long-term effectiveness monitoring undertaken following marsh habitat creation to satisfy the terms of the projects’ respective DFO Authorizations. It is also supported by the literature, including a research program that was undertaken by DFO in the 1990s, which revealed that compensation marsh habitats support

1. If transplanting of intertidal marsh is unsuccesful at the proposed site, are there any other locations that could potentially be used? 2. TWN would like to know how the transplanting of the intertidal marsh demonstrates net environmental gain for this habitat type. 3. Please clarify how the effectiveness of salt marsh habitat creation has been assessed specifically with respect to juvenile Chinook Salmon productivity. The summary of project methods, results and effectiveness included in this response have focused on vegetation establishment and on the stability of constructed habitat, but not on the response of juvenile Chinook Salmon and other marine fish in the local assessment area. 4.Please demonstrate how the assessed functional attributes of transplanted marshes have successfully supported juvenile Chinook Salmon and other marine fish in the local assessment area. TWN requires the 2004 and 2014 reports on the BC Ferries Marsh creatation project. TWN also requires the 2015 envirowest report. 5. What metrics will be used to monitor the productivity of the intertidal marsh habitats? TWN would expect to see a combination of the metrics mentioned within the proponent response, including

Page 16 of 56

Reference Information Request Title Applicable Question Summary Response (by VFPA) TWN Comments invertebrate fish food organisms and maintain juvenile salmon abundances at levels similar to reference marshes.

plant productivity and fish productivity. TWN considers it important to measure fish productivity to ensure that this habitat is used by juvenile Chinook salmon as well as other fish species.


Marine Fish – Mitigation, Offsetting (Eelgrass)

Provide an evaluation of the effectiveness of eelgrass transplanting activities in the local assessment area. Include any eelgrass habitat creation measures undertaken by and the Proponent or other agencies. Provide an analysis of the effectiveness of transplanted eelgrass as targeted mitigation for juvenile Chinook Salmon and other marine fish in the local assessment area.

The response demonstrates that eelgrass transplantation activities are effective, when properly implemented with appropriate design that accounts for site-specific biophysical conditions and constraints. Examples of successful eelgrass transplants are considered.

1. Where are the planned donor sites for the seagrass that will be transplanted to the offsetting areas? How will VFPA ensure that there will be no impact on the functioning of donor sites? 2. In the instance that transplanted eelgrass is unsuccesful in establishing productive habitat how will VFPA ensure that the effects of RBT2 on juvenile Chinook salmon and other fish species are mitigated?

Page 17 of 56



Marine Commercial Use – Crab, Effects Assessment

Describe and quantify the potential reductions in commercial crab harvest levels and the potential reductions in revenue from the proposed decrease in the size of the fishing areas in Fisheries and Oceans Canada Area 29-6.

The response discusses potential reductions in commercial crab harvest levels and the potential reductions in revenue from the proposed decrease in the size of the fishing areas in DFO Area 29-6 based on additional DFO data on commercial crab harvest landings and landing values and Crab Management Area (CMA) I electronic monitoring data on commercial crab vessel counts and crab trap hauls unavailable to the VFPA at the time the EIS was written. The analysis of this additional data supports the conclusions made in EIS Section 21.9 that the Project terminal and proposed navigational closure expansion would displace a large portion of commercial crab harvesting in the LAA, and result in a demonstrable change to harvest landings and revenues, particularly from sub-area 29-6. The reestablishment of displaced commercial crab harvesters and effects on commercial crab harvest landings and revenues accrued to displaced harvesters and other harvesters harvesting outside of the propose closure boundary, would be similar to that which occurred with

This response demonstrates information regarding crab harvest landings (kg) and landing values for the Proposed Navigational Closure Expansion and 2009 Closure Area at Roberts Bank between the years 2006 through 2015. However, the response does not predict the potential reductions in commercial crab harvest levels and in revenue resulting from the proposed decrease in the size of the fishing areas in Fisheris and Oceans Canada Area 29-6. Please provide potential effects on commercial crab harvesting for all stages of the project including potential reductions in revenue and reductions in harvest landings (kg).

Page 18 of 56

Reference Information Request Title Applicable Question Summary Response (by VFPA) TWN Comments the 2009 Closure, and be within historical norms.


Marine Commercial Use – Crab, Mitigation Measures

Describe technically and economically feasible mitigation measures that could address the potential effects on commercial harvesters including a reduction in 1,183 hectares of crab fishing areas during construction of the proposed Project and 1,063 hectares during operations, other than those identified in Table 21-7 of the EIS. Provide information about the engagement activities held to date with stakeholders and Indigenous groups that could be affected by the proposed expansion of the navigational closure and displacement from crab harvest areas.

As noted in the response, mitigation measures currently undergoing consultation and evaluation include: • CMA re-selection opportunity; • Adjustment of proposed navigational closure area expansion with consideration of commercial harvesting during Project operation; • Adjustment of the proposed navigational closure area expansion with consideration of Indigenous harvesting during operation; • Navigational Limited Access Fishing Area (multi-user system during operation); and • Financial compensation. The evaluation of additional mitigation measures is being informed by consultation with commercial crab harvesters (including the Area I Crab Fisherman Association

TWN will need to consult with the fishermen within the impacted communities, including TWN in order to best understand the effects of the RBT2 project on crab harvesting within the local area. Therefore, TWN looks forward to consultation on this matter; it is essential that any impacts to commercial fishing be managed with a net gain outcome.

Page 19 of 56

Reference Information Request Title Applicable Question Summary Response (by VFPA) TWN Comments (AICFA)), Indigenous groups, DFO, and may include other relevant regulatory agencies regarding their specific interests and concerns. Evaluation of technical and economic feasibility of the suggested measures is currently underway to inform this consultation. Technical feasibility considers the following: • Availability, applicability, and effectiveness of the specific technology; • Fit with local site characteristics, Project design, construction schedule; • Applicable regulatory frameworks; and • Whether implementation is within the VFPA’s jurisdiction. Economic feasibility considers the following: • Scope of the Project design (Project re-design not required); • Construction schedule (Project construction delay not required); and • Total cost of implementation of each measure during construction and/or operation.

Page 20 of 56



Marine Commercial Use – Crab Harvesting

Provide information to support the following assertions from Section 21 of the EIS: • Dungeness Crabs are known to move substantial distances to baited traps; • Dungeness Crab migration behavior within the proposed navigational commercial crab fishing exclusion zone would suffice to repopulate adjacent crab fishing areas in the local assessment area during the commercial crab fishing season between June 15 - November 30; and • Displaced crab harvesting activity from the navigational closure area as a result of the proposed Project can shift to an open area in the local assessment area, or to another open crab harvesting area within Crab Management Area I, or to another Crab Management Area.

The response presents information that supports the understanding of Dungeness crab movements, including movement with baited traps. Dungeness crab migration patterns are discussed in the context of repopulation of the adjacent crab fishing areas. The response notes it is reasonable to assume that commercial crab harvesters who have been harvesting in the proposed navigational closure expansion would re-establish some portion of their harvesting activities in the open area along the western boundary of the proposed navigational closure expansion and elsewhere in CMA I, or they may choose to re-select their CMA during a future re-selection period

1. TWN notes the results of the Dungeness crab migration study. TWN is not assured that it is reasonable to assume that Dungeness crab migration will suffice to repopulate adjacent crab fishing areas inside the Local Assessment Area (LAA) during the crab fishing season between June 15 and November 30. TWN is concerned that the re-establishment of crab harvesting in the western boundary could lead to overcrowding, increased competition and decreased accessibility of crab harvesters to the area. Please provide further information on the size of western boundary of the proposed navigational closure expansion in addition to the accessibility of the western boundary of the proposed navigational closure expansion. 2. TWN notes the response states that crab harvesters can re-select their CMA during a future CMA re-selection period. What is the timeline for CMA re-selection and how will this timeline impact those who have already selected CMA I.

Page 21 of 56



Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes – Indigenous Traditional Knowledge

Provide tables similar to those presented in CEAR Doc#572 and CEAR Doc#930 to summarize how all available Indigenous Knowledge was incorporated into the Proponent’s environmental assessment of the proposed Project and marine shipping associated with the Project for the Indigenous groups listed in Tables 1-A and 1-C. The tables must be group-specific. When addressing input from Indigenous groups regarding proposed mitigation measures, include all the groups listed in Tables 1-A, 1-B, 1-C, and 1-D of Attachment 2.

As noted in the response, the overall approach taken for integration of Indigenous traditional knowledge (ITK) is described in EIS Section 7.2.1.7 and in MSA Section 5.1.4. All relevant ITK that was available was incorporated into the EIS and MSA. The response presents Table IR10-02-A1 and Table IR10-02-A2 of Appendix IR10-02-A relate to the EIS and MSA respectively and summarise how all available ITK was incorporated into the environmental assessment of the proposed Project and marine shipping associated with the Project. As expressed in the table, ITK provided by a number of Indigenous groups has been incorporated into the EIS and MSA and considered in the description of existing conditions, definition of study areas, selection of intermediate components and VCs, effects assessment determination, as well as measures proposed to mitigate or avoid environmental effects. Suggested mitigation measures by Indigenous groups has been provided in previous filings. Further input from Indigenous groups, including ITK, to support the development of mitigation measures, is currently being sought by the VFPA.

Page 22 of 56



Marine Invertebrates Marine Fish and Fish Habitat – Effects Assessment: Area and Type of Fish and Invertebrate Habitat

For each of the Indigenous groups listed in Tables 1-A and 1-B of Attachment 2, assess the economic implications of any permanent or temporary displacement in terms of: • access to resources; • any constraints of displacement (e.g. alternate areas previously alienated); • the sufficiency of resources at alternate locations to meet the requirements of the community; and • any extra expenses involved in terms of time traveled, incremental costs or necessary changes in technology for the practice or access to resources The assessment should include a discussion about the potential consequences of displacement that may occur as a result of Project activities on current use of Indigenous groups regardless of the amount of present-day harvesting carried out by each group. The discussion should cover any potential implications associated with an increase in competition by other user groups and other Indigenous groups and displacement of activities to another area or territory. Provide clarification on how the Proponent plans to mitigate the potential increase in competition amongst and between commercial and recreational user groups and Indigenous groups harvesting crab.

The response references and discusses how potential economic implications of any permanent or temporary displacement related to the navigational closure has been captured in the EIS and in other IR responses. The response further discusses mitigation plans to address potential displacement effects on current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes (Current Use) by Indigenous groups, and notes that the VFPA continues to consult with Indigenous groups concerning mitigation measures, environmental management plans (EMPs), the FUP, and the implementation of Project-related benefits.

1. TWN are not satisfied with the assessment that there will be no economic consequences due to project related displacement. As noted previously, the reduced access to traditional crab fishery areas is likely to cause overcrowding in other locations, increased competition and decreased accessibility of crab harvesters to the area. 2. Is the proposed exclusive Indigenous crab fishery suggested as a permanent measure once works begin at RBT2, or will it be temporary? If it is temporary, how long is it planned for? Will Indigenous groups be required to apply for a specific CMA area to allow access to this site?

Page 23 of 56



Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes Mitigation Measures Offset

Discuss the potential effects of the proposed Project on availability of preferred traditional resources taking into account the time lag required for the establishment of functioning habitat offsets. When responding to this request, the Proponent should include any relevant elements that will be covered in its responses to IR7-27 and IR7-31.

The assessment of potential effects of the proposed Project on the availability of Current Use resources presented in EIS Section 32.2.6.2 considered the mitigation measures proposed for the biophysical components of the environment—including those in relation to the Project’s proposed Offsetting Framework, which considers minimising temporal losses in the establishment of fully functioning onsite habitat offsets. The response presents rationale that the conclusions presented in the EIS and reiterated in the response to IR10-06 (CEAR Document #934) regarding Project-related effects on the availability of preferred Current Use resources remain negligible after both biophysical mitigation measures (including offsetting) and additional Current Use-specific mitigation measures are taken into account (refer to the assessment tables for each applicable Indigenous group in Appendix IR10-A of CEAR Document #934).

1. TWN expect to see the offsetting measures proposed with the principle of net environmental gain. This principle allows for recovery of the local environment with an aim for return to pre-contact conditions. Improvement in environmental conditions will increase the opportunity for use of lands and resources for traditional purposes. 2. How does the offsetting plan aim to account for uncertainty in offsetting success?

Page 24 of 56



Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes – Effects Assessment; Access, Availability and Quality of Preferred Current Use Resources

Provide a group-specific assessment of potential effects and the characterization and significance of residual effects of the marine shipping associated with the proposed Project on current use in terms of changes to access and availability and quality of preferred marine resources for each Indigenous group listed in Tables 1-C and 1-D of Attachment 2. At minimum, the assessment should: • Present baseline data of: • preferred species and locations; o timing of the current activities, such as frequency, duration and seasonality; o FSC harvest achieved and desired to meet the FSC requirements of the community; o existing and future conditions of travel and access for groups using the shipping lanes for fishing, groups traveling through the shipping lanes to access fishing, harvesting and cultural sites and, groups using the marine shipping area adjacent to the marine shipping lanes. • Provide maps indicating marine harvest sites for each Indigenous group; In addition, with respect to ship pass-bys, the following should be provided: 1. a list of issues/concerns raised by each Indigenous group in relation to effects on current use from vessel transit associated with the Project; 2. whether each Indigenous group considered that these issues/concerns were adequately addressed by the Proponent; 3. the views of the Proponent regarding: a) thresholds of acceptance for measuring effects on

As noted in the response, group-specific assessments of the potential effect of the marine shipping associated with the proposed Project for Indigenous groups listed in Tables 1-C and 1-D of Attachment 2 to IR Package 10 are presented in Appendix IR10-A (see CEAR Document #934). The VFPA notes that the assessments for Musqueam First Nation and Tsleil-Waututh Nation were group-specific in the AIMSA (CEAR Document #572). Additional discussion related to the information requested is provided in the response.

1. TWN disagrees with the assessment that the effects on Current Use access would be negligible. It is not deemed acceptable to state that there is a minor incremental effect in comparison to the shipping levels already present, as this level of shipping is already disruptive to current use of the area by Indigenous groups. 2. TWN does not agree with the approach of only assessing residual effects as part of a cumulative effects assessment. TWN expect to see the cumulative effects of marine shipping on Current Use properly assessed.

Page 25 of 56

Reference Information Request Title Applicable Question Summary Response (by VFPA) TWN Comments access to preferred locations and resources, incorporation of Indigenous Knowledge and whether the studies relied upon for considering the existing conditions were considered acceptable; b) risk tolerance in relation to the use or avoidance of a site; and, c) acceptable ‘temporary’ or ‘permanent’ displacement conditions.


Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes – Effects Assessment, Quality of the Current Use Experience

Provide a group-specific assessment of potential effects of the changes in quality of the current use experience resulting from marine shipping associated with the proposed Project and the characterization and significance of residual effects. The assessment should include the Indigenous groups listed in Tables 1-C and 1- D of Attachment 2. • The assessment should evaluate: • Sites of importance to Indigenous groups; • Decreased willingness, ability or avoidance by Indigenous peoples to access Current Use sites in or through the marine shipping lanes due to safety concerns and the perception of risk, reduced harvesting opportunities, and/or sensory disturbances; • Alienation from existing patterns of traditional harvesting due to the temporary or permanent displacement from areas of importance; and • Loss of opportunities for the cultural transmission of Traditional Knowledge and practices due to the temporary or permanent displacement from those areas of importance.

As noted in the response, group-specific assessments of the potential effect of the marine shipping associated with the proposed Project for Indigenous groups listed in Tables 1-C and 1-D of Attachment 2 to IR Package 10 are presented in Appendix IR10-A (see CEAR Document #934). The VFPA notes that the assessments for Musqueam First Nation and Tsleil-Waututh Nation were group-specific in the AIMSA (CEAR Document #572). Additional discussion related to the information requested is provided in the response.

1. TWN does not find it acceptable that the effects of ship pass-bys should be assessed against the current conditions and therefore considered to be not measurable. The current levels of shipping in the region already impact upon the quality of use and access of the local area by Indigenous groups. Stating that increased ship pass-bys due to the RBT2 project will have an unmeasurable effect over the current baseline does not take into consideration the level of impacts already experienced by Indigenous group when utilising the project area. 2. TWN does not agree with the approach of only assessing residual effects as part of a cumulative effects assessment. TWN expect to see the cumulative effects of ship pass-bys on Current Use properly assessed.

Page 26 of 56



Physical and Cultural Heritage – Baseline Information, Effects Assessment: Physical and Cultural Heritage Sites

Present an assessment of the effects of the potential loss of sites of physical or cultural importance to Indigenous peoples resulting from natural and ship-wake waves greater than 10 cm. When responding to this request, the Proponent should include any relevant elements that will be covered in its responses to the wave environment requests of Package 7. Provide information regarding any plans to mitigate the loss or deterioration of physical or cultural heritage sites occurring in the heritage resources regional assessment area of the marine shipping associated with the Project.

As noted in the response, regardless of additional baseline information (i.e., maps of archaeological sites located on the shores of the marine shipping area), no measurable loss or deterioration of archaeological sites—all of which are considered by the VFPA to be sites of importance to Indigenous peoples—is predicted as a result of Project-associated ship-wake waves. As no potentially measurable effects on archaeological sites are expected as a result of Project-associated ship-wake waves (refer to Part 2 of this response above), no mitigation measures have been suggested by the VFPA specifically in relation to the potential loss or deterioration of these sites of physical and cultural importance.

TWN requests more information to support the VFPA's conclusion - for example, there are studies that speak to a boat/tug wave being a different shape and thus having a different impact on erosion and shoreline impact - has the potential impact been modeled? Indigneous elders in the area often speak of shoreline erosion as seen over the past decades with increasingly coastal development - how has this evidence been taken into consideration (ie. Indigenous knowledge)?

Page 27 of 56



Archaeological and Heritage Resources – Baseline Information, Effects Assessment: Archaeological Sites

Provide maps of the archaeological sites located on the shores of the marine shipping area that cross-reference the locations provided in the Marine Shipping Addendum (Sections 9.4.5.3 and 9.4.5.4). Present an assessment of the effects of the potential loss or deterioration of archaeological sites resulting from natural and ship-wake waves greater than 10 cm, and considered important by Indigenous peoples and the British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development. When responding to this request, the Proponent should include any relevant elements that will be covered in its responses to the wave environment requests of Package 7. Describe any suggested measures to mitigate for the loss or deterioration of any of those archaeological sites.

The response clarifies that the VFPA wishes to maintain the confidentiality of the maps of archaeological sites requested by the Panel. If the Panel believes further information (beyond the overview information provided below) is necessary, the VFPA would only proceed following a confidentiality request to the Panel. The response summarises the response to IR7-18 (CEAR Document #934), which concluded that except during calm conditions, vessel wake would be indistinguishable from the spectrum of wind-generated waves at most shoreline locations. In addition, from the point of view of physical processes at a shoreline, wake-generated waves arriving at a shoreline during calm periods have the same interaction as waves arriving during non-calm periods. Although the probability slightly increases from Project-associated vessels (0.034% during calm conditions, as shown in Table IR7-21-1 of CEAR Document #934), wake-generated waves from Project-associated vessels will not result in a change to the shorelines in Zones 1, 2, and 3 due to the similarity of interaction at the shoreline from wake generated and wind-generated

Sensitive life history stages outside the juvenile salmon and Dungeness crab fisheries-sensitive window are presented in this response. Please provide further information on how particular project interactions, with fish and invertebrate species occurring

Page 28 of 56

Reference Information Request Title Applicable Question Summary Response (by VFPA) TWN Comments waves. As such, all potential incremental effects on archaeological and heritage resources related to Project-associated vessel transit activities, including shoreline erosion from vessel wake greater than 10 cm, remain negligible, as wake waves predicted from Project-associated marine vessel traffic are predicted to be within the range of natural conditions. All archaeological sites are considered important to Indigenous groups in terms of cultural continuity and sense of place and identity; thus, the response does not distinguish any archaeological sites that are not important to Indigenous groups. As potential incremental effects on archaeological and heritage resources related to Project-associated vessel transit activities, including shoreline erosion from vessel wake greater than 10 cm, remain negligible (as per the EIS), the VFPA does not expect there will be loss or deterioration of archaeological and heritage resources from marine shipping associated with the Project that requires mitigation.

Page 29 of 56



Archaeological and Heritage Resources – Chance Find Procedure

Provide details on the chance find procedure proposed by the Proponent; management guidelines for workers; relations with relevant authorities, such as the British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development, Parks Canada and others; and participation of Indigenous groups.

The response notes that the chance find procedure, identified in EIS Section 28.12, will be part of the Project’s Archaeological Monitoring and Management Plan, as outlined in the Construction EMPs (EIS Section 33.3). The plan will be developed in the future in consultation with appropriate agencies (e.g., B.C. Archaeology Branch, Parks Canada) and Indigenous groups. Additional details for the chance find procedure, as described in the response, will be incorporated into the body of, or an appendix to, the Archaeological Monitoring and Management Plan.

No concerns, but TWN requests consultation on development of the CFMP once an archaeological consultant has been contracted to develop one.


Archaeological and Heritage Resources – Mitigation Measures: Indigenous Input

Provide a summary of the information regarding mitigation measures provided by Indigenous groups living or using the marine shipping area or the archaeological and heritage resources regional assessment area for the proposed Project. Discuss how that information would be used for the development of mitigation measures, including for any standard operating practices and standard management practices developed to specifically avoid or reduce the potential adverse effects of the proposed Project or marine shipping associated with the Project on the archeological and heritage resources of Indigenous peoples. When responding to this request, the Proponent should include any relevant elements that will be

The response indicates that a review of all comments provided by Indigenous groups since initial consultation, and since submission of the MSA, has been conducted to identify any suggested mitigation measures related to potential effects of marine shipping associated with the Project (vessel transits) on archaeological and heritage resources. Suggestions are catalogued in the response, and indication of how suggested measures might be applicable are considered.

This response does not address the question. TWN requests that the proponent provides a response to IR#25.

Page 30 of 56

Reference Information Request Title Applicable Question Summary Response (by VFPA) TWN Comments covered in its responses to the wave environment requests of Package 7.


Effects Assessment Socio-economic Conditions – Commercial Ventures for Indigenous Peoples

Provide an assessment of the potential effects of the proposed Project on existing business ventures that have been identified by Indigenous groups listed in Tables 1-A and 1-B. Include consideration of the loss of any existing business and any identified future opportunity in terms of socioeconomic conditions.

The response notes that the Project has the potential to positively affect Indigenous businesses—including businesses pertaining to Indigenous groups—who secure materials, goods, and services contracting opportunities during construction and operation. Positive effects include changes in revenues and employment. The Project could potentially result in a not significant residual effect on Indigenous commercial crab harvesting businesses who hold CMA I licences, as well as those who hold commercial licences in other CMAs that may experience increased competition from relocation of commercial harvesting activity out of CMA I as a result of the Project (as

1. How do VFPA plan to assisst Indigenous groups in accessing potential economic opportunities? Will Indigenous groups be considered preferentially for contracting or construction opportunities? 2. TWN does not agree with the approach of solely assessing residual effects in a cumulative assessment (as is summarised in the Marine Commercial Use subsection). TWN expect to see all effects assessed within a cumulative assessment to ensure that any impacts upon Crab Harvesting are captured.

Page 31 of 56

Reference Information Request Title Applicable Question Summary Response (by VFPA) TWN Comments described in EIS Sections 21.9 and 21.10)


Mitigation Measures (Offsetting) – Consideration of Time Lags and Uncertainty

Provide a quantitative analysis to demonstrate how the benefits of offsetting are proportional to the habitat losses caused by the proposed Project, including time lags and uncertainty in the functionality of the offsetting measures. Describe the compensation ratios that were adopted to guide the design, type and location of offsetting measures.

The response notes that a quantitative analysis of how the benefits of offsetting are proportional to the habitat losses is provided by the Roberts Bank ecosystem model outputs. The Roberts Bank ecosystem model is comprehensive in that it accounts for biomass with area (tonnes per square kilometre (t/km2)), production/biomass (P/B) ratios, consumption/biomass (Q/B) ratios, and ecotrophic efficiency. Compensation ratios were not explicitly used to guide the design of RBT2’s onsite habitat Offsetting Concepts. Rather, offsetting followed a set of five principles in selecting onsite habitat Offsetting Concepts, further discussed in the response.

TWN stands for net environmental gain for all projects and supports the like-for-like habitat offsetting measures. The habitat compensation mitigation measures do not meet TWN expectations. 1. Please explain how the loss of subtidal sand habitat at Roberts Bank will be addressed? 2. Please explain why compensation ratios were not explicitly used to guide the design of RBT2’s onsite habitat Offsetting Concepts? 3. It is stated in the response that with the proposed onsite offsetting, 24/37 focal species will benefit or see negligible changes to their productive potential. Given the importance of all species to a healthy, functioning ecosystem it is expected that all 37 focal species should benefit onsite offsetting. TWN requires more support for the ability of the proponent to successfully

Page 32 of 56

Reference Information Request Title Applicable Question Summary Response (by VFPA) TWN Comments construct functioning marsh habitat, support that involves showing learning not just from the successes of the previous projects but also learning from failures.

Page 33 of 56



Mitigation Measure (Offsetting) – Onsite Habitat Concept for Sandy Gravel Beach

Discuss whether the sand berms which formed at the openings to the lagoon marshes subsequent to the sandy gravel placements for the Deltaport Third Berth project had effects on tidal circulation and juvenile Chinook and Chum salmon access to marsh habitats. Provide a time series of photos, where available, including current photos, showing the installation of the Deltaport Third Berth sandy gravel beaches and their subsequent condition as observed during effectiveness monitoring. Describe the proposed measures to protect the sandy gravel beach habitats from substrate transport and any adaptive measures to re-establish sandy gravel beach habitats in the event that the proposed sandy gravel beach offsets fail. In the event that the artificial sandy gravel beach habitats were to fail, describe what procedures would be adopted to recover and reuse sandy gravel materials from the offsetting sites and to remediate affected areas. Describe how forage fish utilization of constructed sandy gravel beach habitats would be monitored.

As noted in the response, the formation of the sand berm and associated effects (including limitations to access for juvenile Chinook and chum salmon) were identified and documented by the VFPA during ongoing monitoring of the habitats (illustrated in Photos A to F, Figure IR11-17-A1 in Appendix IR11-17-A). Lessons from the experience are discussed in the response. A time series of photos between 2010 (post-construction of Deltaport Third Berth compensation habitats) and 2015 (last year of Deltaport Third Berth habitat compensation monitoring; Archipelago and Williams 2016) is provided in Figure IR11-17-B1 in Appendix IR11-17-B. The Offsetting Concepts, including the sandy gravel beach onsite habitat Offsetting Concept, were designed by a multidisciplinary team of marine biologists, coastal engineers, hydrodynamic modellers, and specialists from the VFPA’s Habitat Enhancement Program. Suitability was determined by considering the maximum wind and wave conditions, which in turn are driven by the direction of exposure, elevation, and slope of the planned habitat (see also

Please show overhanging vegetation which is essential for limiting egg mortality for surf smelt and sand lance spawning beach to protect eggs during hot summer months. Provide information on detection, if any, of surf smelt spawn in the constructed sandy gravel beaches of the Deltaport Third Berth offsetting project. TWN would like to see the forage fish monitoring plan .

Page 34 of 56

Reference Information Request Title Applicable Question Summary Response (by VFPA) TWN Comments response to IR11-16 of CEAR Document #934). Effectiveness monitoring of the sandy gravel beach onsite Offsetting Concept will include assessing substrate stability at each location and the spatial extent of the sandy gravel beach. An adaptive management approach will be taken and, should monitoring of the offsetting habitats determine that the sandy gravel beaches are not performing as expected, the VFPA will engage the relevant regulatory agencies and develop a remediation plan as was done for Deltaport Third Berth. Forage fish utilisation of sandy gravel beach habitat will be monitored as part of the RBT2 FUP, as described in IR13-30 (CEAR Document #934).


Human Health – Indigenous Health, Traditional Foods, Baseline and Effects Assessment

For each Indigenous group listed in Attachment 2, compile and complete baseline information related to the reliance on traditional foods that has been presented in the EIS, Section 32 and the MSA, Section 9.5 and supporting documents in IR31 (CEAR Doc#388) and IR11 (Doc#391) and, when available, the information to be provided in responses to Package 10, IR10-06 and IR10-13. The information should be presented by order of priority of the reliance on food consumed. Where the information is available, include details on relative quantities harvested by Indigenous groups and what they are harvested for: subsistence and/or cultural

A summary of the information available to the VFPA on Indigenous groups’ reliance on traditional foods is provided in Tables IR12-01-A1 through IR12-01-A13 in Appendix IR12-01-A. The information in Appendix IR12-01-A includes, for each Indigenous groups available, the following: • A list of all harvested traditional foods, as indicated by the Indigenous group, including foods harvested in the Project area (potentially affected by the Project) and in the marine

1. TWN disagrees with the conclusion that there is no residual effects on availability of food harvesting due to the changes to access to traditional crab harvesting areas and availability of salmon species. 2. Will suspended sediments resulting from the construction and opeation of RBT2 continue to be monitored to ensure that there is no contamination in shellfish? In addition will shellfish in the area be monitored for contaminants? TWN considers it to be important to continue to

Page 35 of 56

Reference Information Request Title Applicable Question Summary Response (by VFPA) TWN Comments purposes. Provide an assessment of the effects of the proposed Project on food security for each Indigenous group specified in Attachment 2. This should include a discussion on the methodology used to establish baseline conditions and an assessment of the effects of the Project on food security. The assessment should take into consideration preferred food, reliance on traditional foods, restrictions on or avoidance of foods due to pollution/contamination (perceived or real), sanitary closures and moratoriums either imposed by Government or Indigenous communities for resources or human health protection.

shipping area (included for context on reliance); • Quantities harvested, where available; • The purpose or use of each resource (subsistence or cultural, where indicated in the information available); and • Any available information on closures or restrictions to harvesting the particular food. The discussion of food security is provided in the response. Potential effects of the Project on the food security sub-component human health was determined to be negligible because residual effects on the three pathways linked to food security were determined to be negligible. This conclusion is not influenced by the assumed volume of food consumed, or level of reliance on traditional food. If a measurable Project-related effect on food security was predicted, related to one of the three effect pathways, the level of reliance on traditional food resources would be relevant to the characterisation of the level of potential health effect (i.e. minor, moderate, high) or the magnitude of the residual effect, if one was predicted. Changes outlined

monitor sediments that are distrubed during the dredging operations that are planned as part of the RBT2 project. Please provide detail on when and how the monitoring of contaminants is expected to be implemented.

Page 36 of 56

Reference Information Request Title Applicable Question Summary Response (by VFPA) TWN Comments in the PCU are predicted to further reduce the potential for a Project-related effect on food security, and support the rationale for a negligible potential effect prediction.

Page 37 of 56



Human Health – Indigenous Health, Consumption Rates

Discuss discrepancies between the different shellfish consumption rates (g/day) used in the Proponent’s studies, the Tsawwassen First Nation’s submission and the Penelakut Tribe’s submissions. Discuss the accuracy of the food consumption rates for the Indigenous groups harvesting in the Human Health Local Assessment Area (LAA) and, in particular, the Lower Fraser River area (South Arm and Roberts Bank) and the southern Strait of Georgia; include groups such as the Tsawwassen First Nation, the Musqueam Indian Band, the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation, Nations of the Cowichan Alliance, the Lyackson First Nation, the Lake Cowichan First Nation, the Hwlitsum First Nation and the Métis Nations of British Columbia. Provide information as to whether the shellfish consumption rates were verified with these Indigenous groups. Update the effects assessment on the health of Indigenous populations based on a more appropriate consumption rate.

The response notes that the Preamble to Shellfish-related Information Requests (see CEAR Document #934) provides context related to the scoping of the human health assessment in EIS Section 27.0 and the rationale for completing a quantitative human health risk assessment (HHRA) as part of the characterisation of existing conditions, to address concerns raised by Indigenous groups. This response includes additional analysis, including an updated HHRA for existing conditions as well as sensitivity analyses, to address information provided by Indigenous groups since the EIS was submitted. The response is structured in three parts: • Part 1: Includes a discussion of discrepancies between different rates of shellfish consumption used in the EIS studies and whether these rates were verified with relevant Indigenous groups. Part 1 also includes a discussion of the consumption rates provided by Tsawwassen First Nation and Penelakut Tribe, as well as additional information on consumption rates identified in an updated literature search by the VFPA; • Part 2: Includes a discussion on the

Page 38 of 56

Reference Information Request Title Applicable Question Summary Response (by VFPA) TWN Comments complexities of determining accuracy of consumption rates for Indigenous groups harvesting in the LAA; and • Part 3: Provides an updated effects assessment for shellfish ingestion under existing conditions, based on an updated consumption rate (including a rationale for selection of the updated rate). Part 3 also includes a sensitivity analysis for existing conditions on the effects of shellfish ingestion for the full range of consumption rates considered in Part 1 of the response. The response concludes that health risks under existing conditions are minimal, as risk quotients (RQs) marginally exceed thresholds for two contaminants.

Page 39 of 56



Human Health Risk Assessment – Marine Resources and Contamination

Revise the assessment of the potential effects on human health from marine resource contamination for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations using the following conditions: • Include the effects of resuspension and uptake of existing contaminants in marine resources due to construction of the proposed Project, based on the analysis presented in IR11-23. Include a full set of contaminants of potential concerns (COPCs) that could be discharged or mobilized from the Project. • Include marine resources, in addition to those included in the assessment (i.e., bivalves and crab), that are harvested by Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations within the Human Health Local Assessment Area (LAA); • Update shellfish consumption rates (g/day) (as per IR12-02) for Indigenous groups harvesting in the Human Health LAA and, in particular, the Lower Fraser River area and the southern Strait of Georgia; include groups such as the Tsawwassen First Nation, the Musqueam Indian Band, the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation, Nations of the Cowichan Alliance, the Lyackson First Nation, the Lake Cowichan First Nation, the Hwlitsum First Nation and the Métis Nations of British Columbia); • Include the exposure to arsenic in marine resources using a 3% inorganic arsenic to total arsenic ratio for crab (muscle and hepatopancreas), and a 5% ratio for bivalves (including oysters and mussels). Provide mitigation measures to address any new conclusions from the revised assessment, and details on their effectiveness. The results and assessment of

The Preamble to Shellfish-related Information Requests (see CEAR Document #934) provides context related to the scoping of the human health assessment in EIS Section 27.0, and the primary rationale for the determination of a negligible potential effect of the Project related to shellfish consumption. This response provides further detail to support this rationale, which is primarily based on the conclusions of IR11-23 (CEAR Document #934) that indicate that the sediments at Roberts Bank are not considered contaminated. The response also includes consideration of additional lines of evidence for the determination of a negligible effect. The response is structured in two parts. Part 1 includes information and rationale for each of the four conditions listed in the IR. Part 2 of the response provides information about related mitigation measures, implementation of which will further contribute to the avoidance of any measurable potential effects on human health from consumption of shellfish.

1. TWN expect to see a continuation of sampling of crab and bivalve populations throughout the construction and operation of RBT2 to ensure that arsenic levels remain below the safe thresholds. 2. TWN considers it unlikely that 100% of crabs present in the area will be relocated via the proposed crab salvage. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the potential for contamination of crabs through release of sediment can be entirely eliminated. 3. TWN supports the sharing of information and data collected on shellfish contamination. How frequently do VFPA propose to conduct shellfish contamination studies? TWN would expect to see them conducted on at least an annual basis.

Page 40 of 56

Reference Information Request Title Applicable Question Summary Response (by VFPA) TWN Comments effects should be presented in a manner that differentiates between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people.

Page 41 of 56



Human Health Risk Assessment – Crab Contamination – TEQs

Report, in tabular format, the individual congener concentrations associated with reported TEQ values. Based on reported concentrations of individual PCDD and PCDF congeners, provide a discussion on the toxicity of crab hepatopancreas and the potential health effects.

The Preamble to Shellfish-related Information Requests (see CEAR Document #934) provides context related to the scoping of the human health assessment in EIS Section 27.0 and the rationale for completing a quantitative HHRA as part of the characterisation of existing conditions, to address concerns raised by Indigenous groups. This response provides additional information related to characterising health risks in existing conditions. The response is provided in two parts. Part 1 addresses the individual PCB congeners used to calculate the toxicity equivalency (TEQ) values presented in the response to IR4-33 (CEAR Document #934). Part 2 provides a prediction of the risks to human health using TEQ values. Based on these results, and additional studies identified in the literature, a qualitative discussion is provided on the inferred potential health effects related to polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) in crab hepatopancreas at Roberts Bank. The response notes that it is reasonable to infer that the combined

As previously mentioned TWN expect to see continued monitoring of contaminants in crab throughout the construction and operation of RBT2.

Page 42 of 56

Reference Information Request Title Applicable Question Summary Response (by VFPA) TWN Comments risk to human health from PCDDs, PCDFs, and dioxin-like PCBs in crab hepatopancreas would be expected to be below risk thresholds.

Page 43 of 56



Cultural and Physical Heritage Resources – Wave Environment, Cumulative Effects Assessment

Based on information found in Package 10 on current use and in Package 7 on the wave environment, provide an assessment of the effects of shoaling on shoreline structures and sites of physical and cultural heritage importance to identify any residual effects and the significance of those effects. Where residual effects are identified, provide a discussion of the cumulative effects of shoaling on shoreline structures and sites of physical and cultural heritage importance.

Detailed investigations of the nearshore wave interactions (i.e., shoaling, reflection, and refraction) were not conducted for the MSA since these processes are occurring in relation to the existing wave climate and are unaffected by Project-associated vessels. The response to IR7-20 (CEAR Document #934) provides an analysis of wave shoaling for varying wave periods for each of four deepwater wave heights. The analysis concludes that based on a comparison of vessel-wake generated waves with a wave period of 4.2 seconds, shoaled vessel-wake waves would be similar to wind-wake waves with a 4.0 second wave period, and could be 6 cm to 10 cm larger than shoaled wind-generated waves with a 2 second wave period, depending on the deepwater wave height. As stated in the response to IR7-23 (CEAR Document #934), the interactions of wake-generated waves with shorelines are well within the range of existing wind-generated wave climate. Based on these results, there are no effects of marine shipping associated with the Project on shoreline processes and a reassessment is not required (see responses to IR7-20 and

Please refer to line/comment 29

Page 44 of 56

Reference Information Request Title Applicable Question Summary Response (by VFPA) TWN Comments IR7-23 of CEAR Document #934). In consideration of updated baseline information as requested, the conclusions of the MSA assessment on archaeological and heritage resources remain unchanged; no measurable effects to shoreline structures and sites of physical and cultural heritage importance are predicted.

Page 45 of 56



Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes – Access to Preferred Locations – Wave Environment – Cumulative Effects Assessment

In addition to the information requested in Package 10, provide the following for each applicable Indigenous group in Attachment 2: • a discussion of the effects from the cumulative change in the wave environment on current use activities, access, and navigation. Incorporate seasonal change to the wave environment and seasonal harvesting activities that take place in the shipping lanes or that require crossing the shipping lanes to access preferred sites; • a discussion of how increases in ship movement as a result of the proposed Project or marine shipping associated with the Project, in combination with past, present, and future increases in ship movements has the potential to impact an Indigenous group’s perception of sense of place or changes to risks to safety and security in the wave environment; and, • a discussion on the effectiveness of project-specific mitigation1 in relation to protection of access to current use resources.

As noted in the response, the assessment of the potential effects of vessel movements as a result of the proposed Project on Current Use access and quality of experience (e.g., sense of place, risks to safety and security) within the Roberts Bank area was presented in EIS Sections 32.2.6.1 and 32.2.6.4 and Additional Information to the EIS – WSÁNEĆ Nation (AIEIS) Sections 7.2.6.1 and 7.2.6.4 (CEAR Document #930). The assessment of the potential effects of vessel movements as a result of marine shipping associated with the Project on Current Use access and quality of experience in relation to the marine shipping area, including in consideration of the wave environment, was presented in MSA Section 9.5.5 and Additional Information to the MSA – Musqueam First Nation and Tsleil-Waututh Nation (AIMSA) Section 7.3 (CEAR Document #572). As specifically discussed in the responses to IR10-06 (Part 5) and IR10-13 (Part 3, (3)(a)(ii)) of CEAR Document #934, and reflected in other responses within Package 10 and Package 13, a cumulative effects assessment was only carried out when

TWN disagree with RBT2’s assertion that they do not need to conduct a cumulative effects study. Please conduct a cumulative effects study regarding the increased marine shipping and increased wake activity. Cumulative effects studies are necessary to understand the impact of the project on cultural heritage sites along the shipping lane through time.

Page 46 of 56

Reference Information Request Title Applicable Question Summary Response (by VFPA) TWN Comments a residual adverse effect of the Project or marine shipping associated with the Project was predicted and the residual adverse effect was considered likely to interact cumulatively with the effects of other projects and activities that have been or will be carried out. As no residual effects on Current Use access or quality of experience are identified in the responses within Package 10, as noted by references to specific IRs within Package 10 above, a cumulative effects assessment is not required.

Page 47 of 56



Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes – Access to Preferred Current Use Fishing Locations at Lower Fraser River area (South Arm, Canoe Passage), Roberts Bank and Marine Fish LAA; Cumulative Effects Assessment

In addition to the information requested in Package 10, provide the following for each applicable Indigenous group in Attachment 2: • a discussion of the effects as a result of the past changes on current use activities, access, navigation, and travel corridors, including seasonal harvesting activities; • a discussion of how increases in ship movements as a result of the proposed Project or marine shipping associated with the Project, in combination with past, present, and future increases in ship movements have the potential to affect an Indigenous group’s perception of changes in risks to safety and security of fishing areas or travel corridors; and, • a discussion of the effectiveness of Project-specific and cumulative mitigation measures in relation to protection of access to current use resources. Where there is a residual effect on current use identified in responses to Package 10 provide a cumulative effects assessment which includes: • a discussion on current use in terms of changes in access to current use locations; and, • an assessment of the socio-economic consequences, of the existing and proposed navigational closures on Indigenous, domestic and Food, Social, and Ceremonial fishing activities.

The VFPA notes that Indigenous group perspectives of past changes to activities, access, navigation, and travel corridors for traditional purposes, including seasonal harvesting, at locations in the Lower Fraser River area (South Arm, Canoe Passage), Roberts Bank, and marine fish LAA—including declines in this use over time and the effects of existing navigational closures to commercial and recreational crab harvesting—were included in the group-specific existing conditions summaries in EIS Section 32.2.4, AIEIS Section 7.2.4 (CEAR Document #930), MSA Section 9.5.4, and AIMSA Section 7.2 (CEAR Document #572). As discussed in the response to IR13-20 (CEAR Document #934), the assessment of the potential effects of ship movements as a result of the proposed Project on Current Use access to preferred locations (including, as it relates to this IR, fin-fishing areas and travel corridors), and quality of experience (e.g., perception of risks to safety and security) while at these locations, was presented in the EIS Sections 32.2.6.1 and 32.2.6.4 and AIEIS Sections 7.2.6.1 and 7.2.6.4. As reviewed in the responses to IR10-06

TWN does not agree with the approach of only assessing residual effects as part of a cumulative effects assessment. TWN expect to see the cumulative effects of current use for access to current use locations and of the socio-economic consequences, of the existing and proposed navigational closures on Indigenous, domestic and Food, Social, and Ceremonial fishing activities as was originally requested.

Page 48 of 56

Reference Information Request Title Applicable Question Summary Response (by VFPA) TWN Comments (Part 3) and IR10-07 (CEAR Document #934), existing access/displacement effects were considered in the evaluation of Project-related effects on access to Current Use locations for domestic or FSC harvesting, as well as indirect socio-economic consequences as a result of those potential access effects. Refer to Appendix IR10-A (CEAR Document #934) for group-specific assessments in relation to access and quality of experience (specifically, line items IR10-06, IR10-07, and IR10-08 in each Table 1-A and Table 1-B Indigenous group’s assessment table). The VFPA has reiterated its views on the effectiveness of mitigation measures proposed to address potential Project-related effects on Current Use in the responses to IR10-09, IR10-11, and IR10-12 (CEAR Document #934). The response notes that as no residual effects on Current Use are identified in the responses within Package 10, a cumulative effects assessment is not required.

Page 49 of 56



Current Use of Lands and Resources for Traditional Purposes – Availability of Preferred Resources – Crab; Cumulative Effects Assessment

For each applicable Indigenous group listed in Attachment 2 and in consideration of Package 10, provide: • an assessment of proposed Project effects on applicable Indigenous groups’ ability to harvest crab for Food, Social and Ceremonial (FSC) purposes; • an assessment of the past changes on Indigenous groups’ ability to harvest crab for FSC purposes; and, • the proposed mitigation measures and their effectiveness to maintain the availability of these resources based on ongoing discussions with Indigenous groups and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Where there is a residual effect on current use identified in response to Package 10, provide a cumulative effects assessment which includes how the Project and its associated marine shipping, in combination with past, present, and future increases in shipping activities have the potential to affect Indigenous harvesting activities. Include a discussion on the perception in the change to risk in safety and security related to this experience.

The response provides EIS and IR references for the information and assessment requested. As no residual effects on the ability of Indigenous groups to harvest crab for domestic or FSC purposes are identified in the responses within Package 10, a cumulative effects assessment for Current Use that includes discussion of changes in Indigenous harvesting activities is not required.

TWN does not agree with a cumulative effects approach that solely includes residual effects in consideration with other plans and projects. TWN adopts a holistic approach in assessing cumulative effects inclusive of past (pre-contact baseline), present and future impacts on its members, culture, economy, and the environment from all projects across the territory. TWN would like to see all effects, including those generated by mitigation and adaptive measures, be included in the cumulative effects assessment. TWN expects to see a cumulative effects assessment for Current Use that includes discussion of change in Indigenous harvesting activities.

Page 50 of 56


Project Design – Sea-Level Rise – Environmental Effects

Provide the rationale that supports the selection of the 0.5 meter relative sea level rise adjustment as technically acceptable, given that the amended Flood Hazard Area Land Use Management (FHALUM) guidelines identify a global sea level rise of 0.5 meters by 2050 and 1.0 meter by 2100 relative to the year 2000.

The response notes the FHALUM guidelines are not applicable to RBT2 and provides rationale for not applying them in the response. Rather, a risk-based approach is followed. The VFPA’s risk-based approach to managing sea level rise (SLR) for the Project involves the current design that has accommodated up to 0.5 m of SLR, together with the ability to implement SLR mitigation modification measures that would be capable of accommodating SLR of 1 m or more. Such SLR mitigation modification measures could be required as soon as between 2050 and 2070, based upon the current understanding of SLR rates. Potential measures that could be implemented to mitigate effects arising from SLR are presented.

Design measures to accomodate up to 0.5m of SLR are inadequate and outdated. Melting of the Antarctic and Greenland continental icesheets is occuring faster than previously expected, and climatologists (e.g. James Hansen et al. 2015) estimate that sea level rise could rise upwards of 10 feet (3m) within the next 50 to 100 years if high levels of greenhouse gas emissions continue.

Demonstrate that the flood construction levels and setbacks were established using one of the two methods, (Probabilistic or Combined methods), as outlined in the FHALUM guidelines. Or, alternatively, that the method used in the EIS provides the same result as the FHALUM guidelines methods.

Design adjustments to the tug basin infrastructure to accommodate 1 m SLR are not expected, as it is a floating dock structure. The floats would rise with elevated water levels and the ramp angle would flatten under such conditions. Longer support piles may be needed to avoid the floats from surpassing the height of the pile during extreme events; this will be evaluated during detailed design.

The VFPA design criteria plans for a 0.5m rise in sea level, but does not appear to account for storm surge, wave action and king tides which may occur simultaneously with SLR. According to a study (Kerr Wood Leidal, 2013) done by the the Fraser Basin Council, a simulated 1-in-500-year (considered the recommnended minimum standard under climate change) storm today would inundate much of the Lower Mainland’s port lands. Adding 1m of SLR

Page 51 of 56

Reference Information Request Title Applicable Question Summary Response (by VFPA) TWN Comments These surface and near surface installations or modifications on the terminal or causeway would not increase the Project footprint.

anticipated by 2100 would place most major port facilities under water.

Describe the potential environmental effects resulting from a catastrophic failure of the Project’s shoreline structures and facilities (terminal, causeway and tug basin) in the case of an extreme weather event and, based on a project design that assumes a 0.5 meter sea level rise adjustment. Identify the mitigation measures required to prevent any potential environmental effects and their effectiveness.

Setbacks for RBT2 have been established using the 2011 B.C. Ministry of Environment Guidelines for Management of Coastal Flood Hazard Land Use (Ausenco-Sandwell 2011), as described in the RBT2 Metocean Desktop Study (CEAR Document #1223). The method outlined by Ausenco-Sandwell (2011) is the same as the Combined Method in the FHALUM guidelines. As a result, the location of all occupied buildings adopted in the Project design exceed the 15 m minimum setback requirements stated in the FHALUM guidelines.

The VFPA response appears to address measures to secure electrical systems in the event of flooding. However, sea level rise may bring a host of other potential impacts that need to be addressed as well. These include: - damages to road, bridge and rail connections (compounded by the fact that sediments in the Fraser River delta are slowly compacting causing surrounding lands to subside); - reduced drainage capacity of stormwater infrastructure and increased risk of flooding; - risks to chemical storage facilities; - saltwater induced damage to crane motors, tractor trailers and train brake systems; - power failures impacting safe port operations; - saltwater intrusion into drinking water systems. Furthermore, Port operations on the

Page 52 of 56

Reference Information Request Title Applicable Question Summary Response (by VFPA) TWN Comments Roberts Bank Terminal must be examined in conjunction with supporting external private or public operations, utilities and infrastructure on which the Port depends for the safe movement of workers and freight. TWN expect to see these potential impacts considered within the assessment.

Indicate whether using a 1.0 meter relative sea level rise adjustment versus the 0.5 meter adjustment at year 2100 would result in any changes to Project (including terminal, causeway and tug basin) design.

A catastrophic failure at RBT2 from 1 m of SLR is not considered plausible based on selected design criteria. The RBT2 buildings and overpass structure are designed to withstand forces arising from an A2475 seismic event. The wharf structure is designed to withstand forces arising from an A1000 event, as well as loads created from the berthing of an 18,000

Even modest increases in sea level have the potential to cause damage to infrastructure. Various Port Authorities (PAs) are proactively working to respond to rising sea levels and to minimize damage through the implementation of engineering guidelines for new projects (New York PA), flood proofing design guidelines (Massachusetts PA), and climate change adaptation plans (Seattle PA) that may be worthy of

Page 53 of 56

Reference Information Request Title Applicable Question Summary Response (by VFPA) TWN Comments twenty-foot equivalent unit (TEU) vessel and loads created from the simultaneous mooring of an 18,000 TEU and two 12,000 TEU container vessels. While wave loading is not strictly comparable to seismic, or berthing or mooring loads, wave loading on the structure will be considerably lower than these much larger governing design forces.

examination by the VFPA. Preparing for higher sea level rise now can be cost effective and may save money in the future by helping to avoid expensive reconstruction/repair costs. TWN would like to see evidence that such plans are being considered.

Assess any resulting environmental effects from a change in Project design to allow for the 1.0 meter relative sea level rise adjustment.

As indicated above, the footprints of Project components (terminal, widened causeway, expanded tug basin) will not change as a result of future potential modifications for mitigating higher water levels associated with SLR. Any design modifications are anticipated to occur from and on the land surfaces of the terminal and causeway. Therefore, the environmental effects assessments presented in the EIS and updated in the Project Construction Update (PCU; CEAR Document #1210) will not change with such modifications.

Wave and other seawalls can be problematic in that they are prone to failure and act to deflect even greater wave energies to other adjacent areas. The Roberts Bank environmental assessment application needs to consider possible environmental and shoreline erosion impacts to adjacent areas. Habitat enhancement and natural/living shoreline protection techniques can be beneficial in both enhancing species biodiversity and effectively dissipating wave action. According to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 15 horizontal feet of marshy terrain can absorb 50% of incoming wave energy. Habitat enhancements (such as attaching wire cages to armoured shorelines and bulkheads) can enable marsh plants to take root and become established. Please comment on whether this has been considered.

Page 54 of 56



Compilation of Environmental Management Plans, Mitigation Measures, and Follow-Up Programs

Using the attached templates, provide a compilation of the mitigation measures for each environmental component (both intermediate and valued components) affected by the proposed Project and marine shipping associated with the Project. Include mitigation measures that reduced the adverse effect to a negligible residual adverse effect. Using the attached templates, provide a compilation of the elements of a follow-up program that are to be applied for each environmental component affected by the proposed Project and marine shipping associated with the Project.

The response includes an updated compilation of proposed mitigation measures, EMPs, and FUP elements. The main body of this response provides a summary of the changes to mitigation measures and FUP elements since EIS and MSA submission, including a description of input from Indigenous groups. The response also includes explanatory notes on the VFPA’s approach to presenting requested information in the appendices referenced. The requested information is provided in the following appendices: • Appendix IR13-30-A – A compilation of mitigation measures and other commitments pertaining to the RBT2 Project; • Appendix IR13-30-B – A compilation of mitigation measures and other commitments pertaining to marine shipping associated with the Project; and • Appendix IR13-30-C – A compilation of FUP elements pertaining to the RBT2 Project.

1. Are there no changes/additions to mitigation for marine mammals or fish following the Indigenous Advisory Forum (IAF) in September 2018? There were lenghty discussions and multiple suggestions for additional mitigation measures proposed for both receptors but there doesn't seem to be any mention of additional mitigations being included based on the outcome of this. 2. Regarding Western Sandpiper and other wading bird species, will a monitoring programme be conducted to detect any changes in behaviour due to disturbance from construction and operational noise of the RBT2 project? Although habitat may be available for wading birds to use they may be deterred from using it if construction and operation works result in high levels of noise and/or vessel movements in the vicinity. 3. TWN would support the mitigation method of introducing clam gardens as a means of increasing the food source available for diving birds within the vicinity of the RBT2 project. 4. Although it is stated that the loss of productivity of forage fish will be not significant TWN would expect to see a monitoring programme for forage fish, specifically for sand lance. The predicitions of the EIS rely heavily on the offsetting proposed being successful, however, it is

Page 55 of 56

Reference Information Request Title Applicable Question Summary Response (by VFPA) TWN Comments likely to be sometime until habitat offsetting has reached the same level of productivity as the habitat that will be lost by the construction of RBT2. Therefore, sand lance populations should be closely monitored during the construction and operation phase to ensure that the predictions of the EIS can be met. 5. Whilst TWN understands that monitoring project specific effects on SRKW is diffcult due to the high level of activity in the area it does not support the lack of a FUP for SRKW and other marine mammals. TWN believe that efforts should be made to investigate the newest technologies/science available in order to implement a monitoring plan for this sensitive species.

Page 56 of 56



Marine Fish – Juvenile Chinook and Chum Salmon

Provide further rationale for the prediction that the temporary and permanent effects of the proposed Project on the migratory behaviour of juvenile Chinook and Chum Salmon will have a minor effect on productivity. Provide an estimate of the potential loss of juvenile Chinook and Chum Salmon productivity associated with the following Project construction activities: • construction of permanent dykes around terminal east and west basins; • construction of the containment dyke along the western portion of causeway; and • construction of the containment dyke along eastern portion of causeway.

As noted in the response, Project-related changes in productivity of juvenile Chinook and chum salmon that may result from changes in salmon migration behaviour were assessed as stemming from two effects mechanisms: (i) changes in the light environment (during Project operation), and (ii) changes in habitat from marine terminal placement (also during Project operation). Pre-mitigation, migration-related changes in juvenile salmon productivity were rated as minor. With mitigation, including onsite offsetting in the form of native eelgrass transplants, migration-related changes in juvenile salmon productivity were assessed as negligible, with no residual effect. The response further expands on the rationale for a ‘minor’ ranking. Pre-mitigation, multiple lines of evidence suggest a minor loss in juvenile salmon productivity associated with construction of containment dykes around the marine terminal and causeway (see EIS Table 13-8, and EIS Sections 13.6.2.1 and 13.6.3.1). This assessment, which is conservative in nature, is explained further in the response.

The response notes Project-related changes in productivity of juvenile Chinook and chum salmon that may result from changes in salmon migration behaviour. However, additional rationale is required for classifying potential construction and operational effects as minor. Project-related changes in productivity of juvenile Chinook salmon that may result from changes in salmon migration behaviour were assessed as stemming from only two mechanisms which did not include changes to acoustic environment. Please provide further rationale for the prediction that the temporary and permanent effects of the proposed Project on the migratory behaviour of juvenile Chinook and Chum Salmon will have a minor effect on productivity. Effects stemming from changes in the acoustic environment must be included in this assessment.

Documents

From: Jessica Steele Sent: May 24 ... · From: Jessica Steele Sent: May 24, 2019 9:33 AM To: Parker, Cindy (CEAA/ACEE)