Proposed Information Requests on the Sufficiency and Technical Merit of the Environmental Assessment

Transcription

1 Participant: Chelsea Dale on behalf of the Malahat First Nation Organization (if applicable): Malahat First Nation General Comments: Malahat First Nation was not consulted or engaged in the Environmental Impact Assessment process and subsequent completeness review of the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 (RBT2) Project despite the fact that Malahat has Aboriginal and Douglas Treaty rights, and interests in the BC Modern Treaty Process, that may be adversely affected by the Project. Consequently, Malahat First Nation considers the information contained within the RBT2 EIS and Marine Shipping Way (MSW) Addendum to be incomplete, and views the proponent, Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA), as failing to meet the duty to consult with Malahat First Nation in violation of the Crown s duty to consult and accommodate Nations facing potential adverse impacts from the RBT2 Project, pursuant to Section 35 of the Constitution Act, In accordance with the UN Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples Article 32.2,.States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water, or other resources. Malahat First Nation exercises its Aboriginal and Treaty rights in Traditional Use areas both within and exceeding the traditional territorial boundaries as seen in the Statement of Intent. As a part of the Coast Salish cultural group, seasonal round, Traditional Use, social and trade networks see members travelling throughout the Salish Sea to areas beyond their territorial boundaries. Malahat First Nation affirms that the absence of Traditional Use and Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge information contained in the RBT2 EIS and MSW Addendum is not indicative of the cultural significance, quantity and/or quality of Traditional Use sites within the Project LAA, RAA and greater territory. Importantly, Malahat First Nation regards all Traditional Use studies and information that has been undertaken by the Nation to be project-specific and proprietary for the exclusive use of Malahat First Nation. While VFPA approaches the RBT2 project and associated MSW as two separate projects due to the shipping routes being under the jurisdiction of Transport Canada, Malahat First Nation views both the RBT2 project and associated MSW as one project, on the account that all shipping activities and associated environmental and cultural impacts are a direct result of the RBT2 Project. The responsibility of Project-related impacts therein lies with VFPA, regardless of jurisdiction over shipping lanes, and Malahat First Nation should be consulted on the totality of the RBT2 Project. An important commercial crab harvesting area at Roberts Bank held by Malahat First Nation will be directly impacted or destroyed as a result of the RBT2 Project. Crab harvested from Roberts Bank provides an important source of marine sustenance upon which the entire community is dependent. Not only will access to the crab harvesting area be restricted and members displaced, the intergenerational transmission of knowledge inextricably tied to place will be severed. Taking this into consideration, Malahat First Nation requests an explanation as to why it was not consulted nor engaged in the environmental impact assessment process and completeness review of the RBT2 Project. Additionally, the RBT2 Project socio-economic study was limited to those Nations geographically situated on the lower Mainland, thus, extending the study to assess impacts to Nations situated on Vancouver Island is prudent. Further research is required to contribute to the discussion of the RBT2 Projectrelated impacts to Malahat First Nation s areas of Traditional Use within the project LAA, RAA (Inclusive of the project MSW) and greater territory, and subsequent impacts to Malahat First Nation s Aboriginal and Treaty rights. 1

2 Places of Traditional Use are holistic in nature and do not exist in isolation, rather, they are interconnected, transcending space and time to weave the cultural landscape of a nation. To this end, places of Traditional Use cannot be defined in a linear temporal context as places and/or practices of current or past use. Utilizing the terms current and past to describe Traditional Use sites imposes a Western value system upon Aboriginal ways of knowing. Specifically, Malahat First Nation views Traditional Use in the context of time immemorial, and places equal value upon past, present and future use sites and practices. Throughout the RBT2 EIS and MSW addendum, analysis of Project-related impacts to Traditional Use is limited to areas of current use, defined by VFPA as the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes. Project-related impacts to current use sites and practices are measured, while impacts to those sites defined as past use are overlooked. Further, the EIS and MSW addendum make no mention of places and practices of future use. Placing emphasis on areas of current use arbitrarily assigns a higher value to these places and in doing so, diminishes and in some cases negates the value and importance of past use or future use sites. Further, it should be noted that periods of, or the appearance of dormancy for Traditional Use sites and practices does not diminish the importance of such sites and practices. Ultimately, all Traditional Use sites and practices regardless of temporal context must be considered when measuring Project-related impacts. Throughout the EIS and MSW Addendum, the terms negligible and minor are employed to measure Project-related impacts to Traditional Use, access and Aboriginal and Treaty rights. This language effectively minimizes the severity of cultural loss associated with Project-related impacts to Traditional Use, and generalizes levels of importance of sites and practices to distinct and separate nations, as one nation may value a Traditional Use site or practise differently than another. Further, VFPA fails to indicate how and where Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge (ATK) and input from impacted nations were used to inform the scale of measurement. Impacts to Traditional Use and access attributed to Project-related activities will result in interruptions to the transfer of knowledge to younger generations, connections to other Traditional Use sites and places of cultural importance, kinship ties, and social and trade networks, in turn leading to the fragmentation of the cultural landscape of Malahat First Nation. To that end, Malahat First Nation cautions that interruptions to its members ability to access sites or practise Traditional Use activities due to any measureable increase in vessel traffic, or Project-related impacts during construction or operation phases directly infringes upon their Aboriginal and Treaty rights. The mitigation measures presented for potential Project-related impacts to Traditional Use, access, commercial use, and Aboriginal and Treaty rights outlined in the EIS and MSW addendum are incomplete, and do not indicate where and how ATK and input from impacted nations was incorporated into the process. The EIS and MSW addendum fail to present a comprehensive mitigation process incorporating measures to accommodate or compensate Aboriginal groups in the event of Project-related impacts to Aboriginal and Treaty rights. Malahat First Nation considers the RBT2 project EIS and MSW addendum to be incomplete, as it contains insufficient TUS/ATK information to properly inform the CEA agency panel s decision-making process. The failure of VFPA to consult and engage with the Malahat First Nation in a proper and meaningful way is evident and must be addressed prior to proceeding with the project. 2

3 Information Source (section or page# of EIS, Marine Shipping Addendum, Responses to Information Requirements, etc.) EIS-Section 7.2, Appendix 7.2-A Entire EIS document EIS Guidelines; EIS Section Identification of Aboriginal Groups Proposed Information Request Section 2.3 of the RBT2 EIS Guidelines state.the proponent will ensure that it engages with Aboriginal people and groups that may be affected by the project or that have potential or established Treaty rights and related interests in the project area, as early as possible in the project planning process. Please provide a detailed explanation for the exclusion of Malahat First Nation in the RBT2 project engagement and consultation process...additional agreements were also initiated to support the development of studies regarding the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes Please provide the rationale for excluding Malahat First Nation from this opportunity. Please provide the criteria used to inform VFPA and CEAA s RBT2 EIS Guidelines in identifying the fourteen Nations included in the RBT2 project engagement and consultation process. Rationale The RBT2 project location is situated within Malahat First Nation s traditional territory where Malahat holds Aboriginal and Douglas Treaty rights and interests in its negotiations in the BC Modern Treaty Process that may be adversely affected by the project. This potential for adverse effects triggers the duty to consult with Malahat First Nation. The proponent (Vancouver Fraser Port Authority) has not fulfilled its duty to consult. Malahat First Nation was excluded from the process of information gathering through additional studies funded by VFPA. Malahat First Nation was excluded from the engagement and consultation and completeness review processes for the RBT2 project, and was not properly consulted in the RBT2 EIS Shipping Addendum; however, the nation was 3

4 invited to participate in the completeness review process for the EIS Shipping Addendum. EIS Section ; entire EIS document EIS- Section The term current use is utilized throughout Section 7.2 of the EIS to define areas and resources used for traditional purposes. Please explain why there is no discussion of past and future use as it relates to Traditional Use, access, and ATK? A key issue raised by Aboriginal groups during the engagement and consultation phase is how the project will impact current use of land and resources for traditional purposes. How will the project impact past and future use of places, along with associated practices and resources, for traditional purposes? Aboriginal ways of knowing hold that places and practices of Traditional Use are holistic in nature, and transcend time and space. To this end, practices and places of Traditional Use cannot be defined in a linear temporal context as practices and/or places of current or past use. Utilizing this language to describe Traditional Use and areas of cultural significance perpetuates the use of a Western lens to assign value to Traditional Use sites through placing emphasis on current use activities or places. The project as proposed will prevent MFN from pursuing and increasing its commercial and communal interests. Aboriginal ways of knowing hold that places and practices of Traditional Use are holistic in nature, and transcend time and space. To this end, practices and places of Traditional Use cannot be defined in a linear temporal context as practices and/or places of current or past use. Past and future use of land and 4

5 resources for traditional purposes must also be considered in the assessment of Project-related impacts. EIS- Section Selection of Valued Components Please provide rationale for the exclusion of Current Use for Traditional Purposes as a Valued Component (VC). EIS- Section Selection of Valued Components; Table 8-1 Please provide rationale for the exclusion of Aboriginal Food, Social & Ceremonial (FSC) or domestic use fishery as a valued component, while commercial fishery was selected as a VC. EIS- Section Selection of Valued Components; Table 8-1 The table showing connections between Intermediate Components (ICs) and Valued Components (VCs) is incomplete. Please complete as per our recommendations in the Rationale column. The following ICs (Coastal Geomorphology, Surficial Geology and Marine Sediment, Marine Water Quality and Underwater Noise) all impact Current Use and Aboriginal Rights and Title by way of the following VCs: Marine Vegetation, Marine Invertebrates, Marine Fish, Marine Mammals and Coastal Birds. Population, identified as an IC, is connected to or impacts Outdoor Recreation and Land and Water Use (identified VCs), which, in turn, impacts Current Use. Population 5

6 increases resulting from Projectrelated labour opportunities may adversely impact Aboriginal rights and the integrity of TU places by way of increasing competition for land and marine-based resources. EIS- Section Selection of Valued Components; Table 8-1 Explain why Seasonality was excluded as an IC. Seasonality is an indicator for TU places, resources, practices, and access to preferred past, current and future use places. EIS- Section , Table there are no anticipated residual effects to most traditional food sources. (section ). Please provide a rationale for concluding that all Project components will have negligible effects on food security for Aboriginal peoples. Any residual effects from Projectrelated activities resulting in the interruption to or displacement of preferred past, present and future use places and ability to access said places for food harvesting purposes is considered a measurable effect and must be acknowledged and mitigated appropriately. The displacement and interruption of traditional subsistence activities ultimately threatens the food security, livelihood and well being of Malahat First Nation and all Aboriginal peoples. 6

7 EIS- Section Mitigation Measure # 3 Perceived Contamination: VFPA is in the process of addressing perceived food source contamination at Roberts Bank. Should the results show that contamination is a result of port-related activities, what is VFPA s plan to mitigate? At this point, VFPA has not outlined any plan to actively reduce food source contamination beyond consultation, education and awareness. EIS-Section EIS Section , entire EIS EIS Section 32.0 Why is access to preferred food sources and TU foodharvesting sites not included in the cumulative effects assessment? The information provided within the studies, as well as information obtained through readily available public sources or consultation, does not necessarily delimit current or existing use from past use. Why is future use not considered? How does VFPA plan to address concerns raised by Aboriginal groups regarding food security, specifically those marine resources traditionally harvested within the project Marine Invertebrates LAA that are now inedible due to biotoxins and other contaminants? Cumulative effects resulting from multiple projects may reduce the ability of Aboriginal peoples to pursue subsistence activities and access preferred past, current and future food harvesting places. Future use remains an integral part of the holistic nature of Traditional Use and must be considered in assessing Project-related impacts to TUS within the EIS and MSW addendum. Aboriginal groups stress a desire to harvest presently contaminated marine resources again in future, and are concerned with the increasing frequency and magnitude at which marine resources and other traditional foods are becoming contaminated due to RBT2 and other projects. 7

8 EIS Section 32.0 EIS Section EIS Section (p ) The EIS contains no TUS/ATK information provided by Malahat First Nation. Why was Malahat First Nation s TUS/ATK information not sought through a Projectspecific study? VFPA has indicated that Project-related effects on Current Use by several nations are expected to be negligible. How did they determine the severity of effects? Please provide a rationale for determining the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures. current harvesting of [marine mammals] by Aboriginal groups does not appear to be occurring within the marine mammals LAA (the area within which marine mammals may potentially be affected by the Project). The Project is therefore not expected to affect access for the purposes of Current Use or marine mammals Please provide a rationale for why future use of marine mammals is not considered. Semiahmoo First Nation, consulted for the project, is closely related to the Saanich Nations and its information was included. Malahat First Nation has Aboriginal and Treaty rights that may be affected by the Project. Malahat First Nation s TUS and ATK information is relevant to the assessment of the Project. Many distinct Aboriginal groups share similar interests that will be impacted by Project-related activities. Conversely, each group may rate the value of site-specific TU activities differently. The complexity of these values makes it very difficult to summarize and determine the effectiveness of mitigation measures. In other words, while a set of mitigation measures may reduce Project-related residual impacts in one area for a specific Aboriginal group, that same set of measures may not be effective for another Aboriginal group or site. The appearance of (or lack thereof) current harvesting activities by Aboriginal groups within the marine mammals LAA is not representative of the overall temporal scale or frequency of Traditional Use practices, or the level of importance placed upon patterns and areas of 8

9 use. Future use remains an integral part of the holistic nature of Traditional Use and must be considered in assessing Projectrelated impacts to TU and access. EIS Section (p ) EIS Section (p ) EIS Section (p ) VFPA is proposing to increase the navigational closure area for crab by 50-70%. A portion of the extended closure area will remain closed permanently to Aboriginal commercial or recreational fishing, while FSC fisheries will be allowed to continue. How does VFPA plan to mitigate the Project-related displacement of existing Aboriginal commercial and recreational crabbing? The proposed crab fishery closure area, a preferred crabbing area for Tsawwassen and Musqueam nations, will remain open to Aboriginal FSC fisheries only. Is VFPA suggesting that other nations who do not claim rights to this area will now be permitted to crab for FSC purposes? Please provide clarification, along with a plan to mitigate the increase in competition amongst commercial and recreational user groups. What is VFPA s plan to mitigate the residual effect of increased competition? There is insufficient information regarding the extent of commercial and recreational Aboriginal crab harvesting that will be impacted by the proposed closure in Crab Management Area I. Please provide more information about the extent of impact. Malahat First Nation holds a commercial crabbing license and fishes the area where the initial port project displaced 50% of licences. This project will displace the remainder, thus completely eliminating access to the preferred fishery. The proposed commercial crab closure will displace Aboriginal groups who hold commercial licenses. This closure will inevitably create more competition amongst Aboriginal and non-aboriginal commercial and recreational fisheries. The EIS only considers the impact to Tsawwassen, Musqueam, Semiahmoo and Tseil-Watuth harvesters in the assessment of impacts. Malahat First Nation holds a commercial crabbing license for this area, which has not been addressed in the EIS. 9

10 EIS Section No cumulative effects are predicted on Marine Vegetation, and impacts to TU harvesting dependent upon the health of marine vegetation. How did VFPA arrive at this conclusion? EIS Section 32.0 EIS Section 16.0 Why has VFPA neglected to provide an assessment of cumulative effects for Marine Invertebrates, Marine Vegetation, Marine Fish? Why are Aboriginal FSC fisheries grouped in with commercial and recreational fisheries? FSC fisheries should be discussed separately from commercial and recreational fisheries. Each of these VCs have been described to have Project-related residual effects; any residual effects should warrant an assessment of cumulative effects. Aboriginal groups have an inherent right to fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes. Malahat First Nation also has a Douglas Treaty right to fish for food, social and ceremonial and commercial purposes. Commercial and recreational fisheries are governed by DFO and are separate from FSC fisheries. FSC fisheries are to be recognized and protected above commercial and recreational fisheries; the values placed upon the fisheries differ and should be assessed accordingly. 10

11 EIS Section (p ) EIS Section (p ) EIS Section (p ) EIS Section (p ) The EIS does not characterize Project-related impacts to TU site access as a change in quality of use experience. Please characterize these impacts as a change in quality of use experience or provide a rationale for the failure to properly characterize impacts to Traditional Use site access. The EIS quantitative risk assessment for vessel collisions is insufficient as it is based upon current use only, and does not consider the entirety of Aboriginal groups travelling across the Strait of Georgia to access TU sites at the Fraser River, Roberts Bank and other areas on the Lower Mainland. Please provide a rationale for failing to include past and future use. The residual effect on access to preferred Current Use locations as a result of the Project is therefore predicted to be negligible. VFPA is making a grievous assumption with this statement. Please provide the rationale for this statement. VFPA has determined its proposed mitigation measures to be effective at reducing Project-related impacts to access to TU sites. Please provide a rationale for drawing these conclusions. Changes in access to Traditional Use sites resulting from Project-related impacts will impact the quality of use experience, and any associated changes to cultural practices, in addition to any connections to additional sites and areas of use. This, in turn, will result in a fragmentation of the cultural landscape and associated social networks. VFPA did not take into consideration the frequency at which other Vancouver Island based nations cross the Strait, and did not assess anticipated future use and/or potential increases in numbers of vessels crossing the MSW. Any overlap associated with Projectrelated shipping activities resulting in an adverse effect on a First Nation s ability to access any Traditional Use site, regardless of whether or not it is a place of current or past use, is an infringement upon that Nation s Aboriginal and/or Treaty rights. How does VFPA determine the effectiveness of its mitigation strategies to reducing impacts to access? Have the measures outlined been reviewed by all Aboriginal groups? 11

12 EIS Sections 11.0, 12.0, 13.0, 14.0, 15.0, 16.0, 21.0, and 32.0 EIS Section (p ) EIS Section and EIS Section (p ) The proposed mitigation measures outlined throughout the EIS are all proponent-led, and are therefore insufficient. The mitigation measures as outlined throughout various sections of the EIS do not include Aboriginal group-led measures, nor do they consider seasonality for TU activities. What Aboriginal group-led mitigation measures were proposed? The residual effect on availability of preferred Current Use resources as a result of the Project is therefore predicted to be negligible. VFPA is making a grievous assumption with this statement. Please provide the rationale for this statement. VFPA has determined its proposed mitigation measures to be effective at reducing Project-related impacts to changes in availability of preferred Current Use resources. Please provide a rationale for drawing these conclusions. How does VFPA determine the effectiveness of its mitigation strategies to reducing impacts to changes in availability of preferred Current Use resources? Has VFPA considered future use? Have the measures outlined been reviewed by all Aboriginal groups? Section 11.2 of the EIS Guidelines state the proponent is to include a summary of specific suggestions raised by Aboriginal groups for avoiding, reducing, mitigating or otherwise accommodating the potential adverse impacts of the project on potential or established Aboriginal and Treaty rights and related interests in relation to environmental effects Any overlap associated with Projectrelated activities resulting in an impact on availability of a preferred resource is considered a measurable effect and must be acknowledged and mitigated appropriately. Clear rationale should be provided for assessing the effectiveness of mitigation measures. 12

13 EIS Section (p ) EIS Section (p ) EIS Section 32.0 EIS Section 32.0 The residual effect on the quality of preferred Current Use resources as a result of the Project is therefore predicted to be negligible. VFPA is making a grievous assumption with this statement. Please provide the rationale for this statement. The residual effect on the quality of Current Use experience as a result of the Project is therefore predicted to be negligible. VFPA is making a grievous assumption with this statement. Please provide the rationale for this statement. VFPA has not outlined any plans to mitigate the loss of named places associated with Project construction, operation and shipping. Please provide information about plans to mitigate the loss of named places. VFPA has noted there will be some potential changes in productivity of marine fish due to Project-related activities, and has provided several mitigative measures to reduce any residual effects. Post-mitigation residual effects are predicted to be negligible, and VFPA has therefore determined associated impacts to Current Use and access to be negligible. What is VFPA s plan to compensate impacted Aboriginal groups during the mitigation period? Any overlap associated with Projectrelated activities resulting in an impact to a preferred resource is considered a measurable effect and must be acknowledged and mitigated appropriately. Any overlap associated with Projectrelated activities resulting in an impact to the quality of Traditional Use experience, regardless of its temporal context (i.e. past, current, or future use) is considered a measurable effect and must be acknowledged and mitigated appropriately. The loss of or inability to access named places within the cultural landscape of a nation effectively severs the transmission of placebased knowledge from generation to generation. For example, marine fishing and crabbing will be impacted as noted in the EIS. VFPA has suggested implementing habitat creation as a mitigative measure for Projectrelated impacts to ground fish. This mitigative measure, even if effective, will require many years to establish new habitat and recover productivity of impacted species. In the meantime, access to fishing and 13

14 crabbing will be limited. EIS Section 32.0 EIS Section (p ) The EIS has stated that while certain Aboriginal groups have expressed interest in harvesting specific marine resources (i.e. marine mammals), it does not appear (to VFPA) that these groups are currently harvesting. VFPA has therefore concluded that the Project will not impact Aboriginal rights to harvest marine mammals. This is a generalized statement, as it overlooks future or planned uses. Please provide a rationale for why future or planned uses are not considered. The EIS states that there is an information gap with regards to Tsleil-Waututh use of travelways within the Project area, and has therefore determined there will be no Project-related impacts to their ability to access travelways. This is an enormous assumption. Please revise so that information gaps are not used to justify a conclusion of no impacts. VFPA has noted that several Aboriginal groups failed to provide information relating to Current Use and practices within the Project LAA and RAA. Information gaps do not in any way indicate a lack of past, current or planned future TU activities and/or sites, or negate the cultural significance of a space within a larger territory. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that there will be no Project-related impacts to Current Use because an activity does not appear to be occurring, or where information is unavailable. Information gaps do not in any way indicate a lack of past, current or planned future TU activities and/or sites, or negate the cultural significance of a space within a larger territory. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that there will be no Project-related impacts to Current Use because an activity does not appear to be occurring, or where information is unavailable. 14

15 EIS Section 32.0 EIS Appendix 29-F EIS Table while container ship traffic at Roberts Bank is expected to increase, the risk of an incident is very low or negligible. Consequently, the Project is not expected to impact the ability of the Lyackson First Nation to exercise their right to the use of travelways to preferred harvesting areas. What are the increases of ship traffic in combination with other planned projects? Lyackson First Nation and CNA raise the concern of large wakes and risk to safety due to an increase in large vessel traffic. How does VFPA plan to mitigate? The EIS based its risk assessment only on vessel collisions. How does VFPA determine the level of significance of a residual effect of Project-related impacts on Aboriginal rights and interests? What are the thresholds for Current Use and access? Introduction of invasive species is not indicated as having a potential effect on marine fish. Does VFPA have a strategy for reducing negative impacts to the marine environment due to the introduction of invasive species? Any overlap associated with Projectrelated activities resulting in an impact to the ability of an Aboriginal group to access preferred travelways is considered a measurable effect and must be acknowledged and mitigated appropriately. Only those Aboriginal groups impacted by the Project can determine the significance of such an impact. Importantly, levels of significance may vary between impacted nations; therefore, significance for one group may not be representative of others. Increases in marine vessel traffic associated with RBT2 is listed in Table (Potential Incremental Effects of Other Projects and Activities on Marine Fish) as having the potential to impact marine fish. EIS Section 13.7 Please provide a rationale for excluding Aboriginal input as a mitigation measure for Project-related impacts to marine fish. On-going Aboriginal input should inform the mitigation process of Project-related impacts. 15

16 EIS Section 13.7 The EIS does not outline a mitigative measure for impacts to marine mammals due to Project-related underwater noise during construction activities. Please provide a rationale for omission. VFPA notes there will be a detectable or measurable residual adverse effect. EIS Section EIS Section Entire EIS document VFPA has rated Project-related impacts to access to commercial crab harvesting areas as having negligible effects due to the implementation of an expanded navigational closure area. Please provide rationale and mitigation strategies for the displacement of Aboriginal commercial license holders due to the expanded navigational closure. Mitigation strategies proposed by VFPA include informing Aboriginal groups of timing and Project-related navigational closure to commercial crab harvesting. What about accommodating Aboriginal groups directly impacted by the Project-related impacts on their fishery? How did VFPA incorporate ATK and other Aboriginal views into the consideration of environmental effects on potential or established Aboriginal and Treaty rights and related interests? Expanding the navigational closure area to commercial crab harvesting does not work to reduce impacts to access; rather, the expanded closure creates a larger problem as Aboriginal commercial harvesters are now displaced, and competition for the resource is increased in other areas. The mitigation measures proposed by VFPA have a paternalistic undertone and are insufficient in terms of accommodating impacted groups. Aboriginal people hold an inherent right to harvest and must be accommodated and engaged as active participants in the mitigation process. Section 10.2 of the EIS guidelines state the proponent is to summarize where and how ATK or other Aboriginal views were incorporated into the consideration of environmental effects and potential adverse impacts on potential or established Aboriginal rights and related interests. 16

17 EIS The EIS does not address impacts to the marine environment due to invasive species transported via vessels. Please provide rationale for the exclusion of invasive species as a Project-related impact to the marine environment. Increasing vessel traffic related to the RBT2 project heightens the risk of the introduction of invasive species into the local marine environment. Invasive species introduce competition and stress to indigenous marine species, thus creating a downstream effect for industry and Aboriginal peoples reliant upon the health and productivity of the marine environment. EIS Section 33.0 What is the framework for mitigating impacts to established and Aboriginal and Treaty rights? Traditional Use sites, associated practices and resources, and access to sites? There are no management plans outlined for the mitigation of Projectrelated impacts to Aboriginal and Treaty rights, title, Traditional Use and access. Please use as many pages as necessary. 17