Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Environmental Impact Statement Comments on Completeness April 30 June 15, 2015

Transcription

1 Participant: Susan Jones Organization (if applicable): Boundary Bay Conservation Committee General Comments: June10, 2015 The on the endangered Killer Whales needs to include increase of shipping in Georgia Strait, through Boundary Pass and Haro Strait along the international boundary and into the Strait of Juan de Fuca and then along the west coast of Vancouver Island Comments on Completeness of Information in the Significant Adverse Effects on endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales Executive Summary Part Two page 73 Assessment Highlights Page 74 Potential effects Page 74 Mitigation Measures Add a bullet describing impacts from increased size and number of container ships in the area and on the shipping routes through Orca Pass. Include impacts of noise, light, pollution, and potential for collisions and oil spills at Roberts Bank and along shipping routes. Include impacts of activities that prevent Orcas from utilizing the Roberts Bank area in the estuary. Provide information on the impacts of increased shipping in the area and increased development of berths as well as road and rail facilities. Remove Bullet #3 as it contradicts Bullet #6. Page 74 need to include these effects on shipping routes. need to add effects from pollution Page 74- provide more specific measures This section fails to include significant environmental effects of doubling marine shipping at Roberts Bank and through Orca Pass. Contradictory Statements need to be corrected. This section fails to include significant environment effects of increased marine shipping through Orca Pass. Historically Port Metro Vancouver has done nothing to assist in protecting the habitat of Southern Resident Killer Whales. The mitigation for the Deltaport Third Berth was monitoring, educating and avoiding. These practices cannot be measured. It stretches the imagination to believe doubling (forecast tripling) the container business at Roberts Bank and through Orca Pass will not significantly impact the endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales. 1

2 Disclose on page 75 that the new terminal is planned in the area identified as critical habitat for the Southern Resident Killer Whale in the Recovery Strategy. Claims that underwater noise will be comparable to current levels are inaccurate. There will be double or triple the amount of activity. Also the activity will now be in the area identified in the Recovery Strategy as critical habitat for the Southern Resident Killer Whale. It is inappropriate to omit this information. Impacts on Marine Mammals Executive Summary Key Findings Marine Mammals page 75 Provide more accurate information about the impacts to the salmon which in turn impact the marine mammals. Include information on the likelihood of whale collisions with vessels not just at Roberts Bank but also on the marine shipping routes. Remove statement that the Project would not limit the survival or population recovery of southern resident killer whales. As migrating salmon will be forced to traverse a more difficult path due to the new terminal, this will impact the marine mammals. The terminal will act like a dam in the middle of the estuary. potential vessel impacts with the whales on the shipping routes is missing. As this statement cannot be proven, the statement is inaccurate and does not apply the Precautionary Principle as required in the Assessment. This is confirmed on the next page which specifically states: The contributions of various factors on the recovery of the southern resident killer whale population are not well understood. A lack of full scientific certainty is the very situation addressed by the precautionary principle. 2

3 fails to specifically identify impact of the Project on Residual Adverse cumulative environmental effects on southern resident killer whales Section 14.0 Marine Mammals Effects Assessment, page 14-1 to Remove contradictory statements Request more scientific information on the protection of these habitats and specific application of the Precautionary Principle. Provide information showing how presence of southern resident killer whales has changed over the last 6 years. Answer the question with scientific date: Do the southern resident killer whales come to this area as frequently as they did 6 years ago? The recognizes that there will be significant residual cumulative effects on the southern resident killer whales. However, on page , it is stated that this Project will be a minor contribution to the Project cumulative effects. There is no evidence provided to support this statement. The impact could be major, particularly considering the location of the Project away from the shoreline where the whales used to frequent the estuary to feed. Port activities have already impacted this feeding area. The language of this section skirts around the issue but does not specifically and scientifically address the impacts. The Recovery Strategy specifically states the need to ensure food supply, protection from pollutants, protection against human activity and protection of habitat. There can be no doubt that this Project will severely impact these vital habitat issues. It is not responsible to avoid a major issue of global importance Species at Risk. Anecdotal information should not be presented as evidence of minimal impact. The Precautionary Principle must be applied. 3

4 Mitigation appears to be observation, avoidance and education. Provide information how the Precautionary Principle is applied to mitigation. Management Plans do not have much credibility as they consist of observations and reports by the Proponent with intermittent, ineffective input from Government Agencies. Mitigation 14.7 Pages to Provide scientific evidence that mitigation measures will prevent increase in noise, light and pollution impacts as well as loss of food supply due to negative impacts of fish habitat in the estuary. Provide information about mitigation for impacts of increase in size and number of container ships through Orca Pass and shipping routes. This is not likely to mitigate impacts of noise, pollution, interference in pathways, and impacts to food supply from negative impacts to fish habitat in the estuary. The has failed to properly identify harmful impacts to marine mammals and their habitats. Furthermore, the conclusion of negligible impacts has not been substantiated. The mitigation measures are reactive and will be ineffective. There will be a further loss and degradation of productive habitat and the potential impacts will not be appropriately mitigated. The protection of resident killer whales includes agreements with the United States and the precautionary principle is a principle of international law. As there are inherent limits in being able to predict environment harm in the Fraser estuary, the precautionary principle should require the Governments of Canada and Changes in fish habitat Table 14-8 Page to Provide evidence of conclusion that potential changes to the availability of prey from changes in fish habitat are negligible. Provide evidence for potential effect ratings in Table

5 Apply the Precautionary Principle to anticipate the potential for environmental degradation in the estuary. B.C. to refrain from permitting Projects where there is no proof of scientific certainty that there will not be serious, irreversible environmental damage to internationallysignificant habitat. There will be major disruption of fish migration. There will be loss of easy access to near-shore feeding habitats for juvenile salmon due to the flawed design of Roberts Banks port. Fish have to navigate around structures as there has been no provision for fish migration under the causeway. The Project will dramatically alter the physical area of the estuary creating another set of hurdles for the migrating salmon. Dredging and dumping can cause significant harm to marine life by altering sensitive habitats where aquatic species breed and grow. Dredging has radically altered the habitat characteristics of the Fraser estuary over the last century and a half. Furthermore, little inventory and assessment, no mitigation, no compensation is required by the authorizing agencies for the destruction of this key habitat feature. This does not meet the intention of the Canada Fisheries Act and its no-net-loss policies Dredging in the Fraser River estuary constitutes a largescale Canada Fisheries Act Section 35 HADD (Harmful Alteration, Destruction or Disruption of Habitat) and Fisheries and Oceans Canada has failed to meet its statutory mandate in respect to this issue. 5

6 Causeways disrupt normal sediment erosion and deposition patterns. As there will be contaminant emissions, particularly Particulate Matter, during construction, the conclusion that there will not be effects to marine mammals is not substantiated. This section needs correction and the Precautionary Principle needs to be applied. The Precautionary Principle approach is required here as the deposition of sediments in the Fraser estuary is highly complex and clearly influenced by human intervention in flow and dredging patterns; clearly fish movement is almost certainly profoundly also affected although we do not have the research to tell us how. Marine Mammals are impacted by air and water pollution. The endangered southern resident killer whales are known to be negatively impacted by pollution. The Precautionary Principle needs to be applied. Government Agencies should not accept a subjective anticipation by Port Metro Vancouver and its paid experts. Air Pollution Contamination Page In this section, provide information on air pollution at Roberts Bank, the surrounding area, up the Fraser Valley and along the shipping routes and impacts of additional air pollution from ships, trucks, tugs and trains. Include cumulative effects assessment of air pollution at Roberts Bank, the surrounding area and on the marine shipping route and the effects on marine mammals. Provide information on enforcement of fuel The photos below show there is air pollution from ships and port activities at Roberts Bank and there will be more with a second container terminal. Doubling or tripling the container business at Deltaport (as planned by Port Metro Vancouver) will send more, and bigger, shipping vessels into Georgia Strait, through Boundary Pass and Haro Strait along the international boundary and into the Strait of Juan de Fuca and then along the west coast of Vancouver Island. This is the corridor used by the southern resident killer whales. More vessels are passing through their habitat disturbing their available space. 6

7 burning by ships at Roberts Bank. While there are regulations, there are reports that dirty bunker fuel is burned at night when it can t be seen. How are the regulations enforced? Based on the limited information provided in the application, the overall package of mitigation measures the proponent has committed to for project operation, does not appear to represent best practices and technologies to minimize air emissions. A cumulative effects assessment of the effects on marine mammals, and in particular, the southern resident killer whales is essential. Roberts Bank, May 9,

8 Residual Effects and Residual Cumulative Effects Summary of Residual Effects and Residual Cumulative Effects Pages to Include residual effects and Residual Cumulative Effects of the Project on the marine mammals listed under SARA of the increased size and volume of shipping vessels through Georgia Strait, through Boundary Pass and Haro Strait along the international boundary and into the Strait of Juan de Fuca and then along the west coast of Vancouver Island Include residual effects and cumulative residual effects of construction and operation in the vicinity of Roberts Bank and along the marine shipping routes. Include risks of fuelling and fuel spills; vessel March 14, 2013 More vessels are passing through their habitat disturbing their available space. Plans for doubling, and ultimately tripling, the container business at Roberts Bank will have major impacts and will cumulatively harm the productive habitats of the Fraser estuary leading to irreversible degradation. The assumption that there will be insignificant impacts is not supported by the evidence. No evidence has been provided to show that impacts on the Project footprint and shipping lanes beyond will not act cumulatively to degrade valued ecosystem components. 8

9 collisions; greater wakes from larger ships; noise interference; water pollution; light pollution; and air pollution. Include impacts of increase in number of ships moving through critical habitat of the southern resident killer whales. Mitigation for Marine Biophysical Valued Components; Mitigation; Compensation and Management Program 17.2 Reducing Potential Effects and Section 33.0 Management Program Provide evidence that the approach of observe, avoid and offset will effectively mitigate residual adverse environmental effects and irreversible loss of valued ecosystem components. Monitoring is not mitigation. Identify the scale of impacts and how individual impacts will affect interactive environmental processes. Provide information proving plans will be effective in protecting threatened and endangered species. In the interests of the Precautionary Principle, the detailed Management Plans should be provided at this stage. Sections 17 and 33 describe outlines of future plans but do not provide clear science-based and results-oriented standards. Mitigation by Management cannot substitute for a thorough comparison of alternatives or proper mitigation. Observing and recording environmental damage will not prevent the adverse effects. Often plans and recommendations are ignored or badly implemented. The Management approach fails totally to allow for the fact that many environmental impacts cannot be mitigated once the project is built. An example of this is the Deltaport Third Berth Project at Roberts Bank where the on-site compensation for the intercauseway was not implemented leading to the continuing loss and erosion of mudflat, biofilm and eelgrass features caused by ongoing port expansions. When it came to implementing the Plan, the Agencies concluded (several years later) that the compensation/mitigation plans for the intercauseway 9

10 Provide science-based information on steps planned to protect the impacted habitats and species. Provide science-based information providing evidence that the interactive environmental processes are not being compromised or degraded. Provide science-based information to demonstrate how success or failure of plans and actions will be measured. Identify valued ecosystem components that cannot be fully mitigated despite best efforts and techniques. Specify and justify on-site restoration and enhancement plans Provide data to support the plans. Identify Funding in Government Agencies that realistically provides for long-term monitoring and protection of the globally-significant habitats in the south arm of the Fraser River. Identify what powers Government Agencies have to prevent environmental degradation once a Project is approved and licences are issued. between the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal and the Roberts Banks ports might not be successful and, furthermore, might cause, further damage. As a result, the plan was abandoned. It was replaced with a last-minute scramble for offsite compensation which was a totally different set of interactive environmental processes and habitat. It was socalled enhancement of existing, protected habitat so there was a net loss of habitat. The result is ongoing habitat loss in the intercauseway. This has not been disclosed to the public. There has been no transparency. With respect to the dendritic channels in the intercauseway and continuing loss and erosion of mudflat, biofilm and eelgrass features caused by ongoing port expansions, historic port development accountability is being discounted. There is a failure to recognize the cumulative effects of all previous port developments at Roberts Bank As for monitoring, in 2010, the reporting of fish and wildlife elements of the Deltaport Third Berth Project in Project Reporting Updates from the Port s consulting firm, have been characterized by a government agency as grossly incomplete (despite repeated input over the last two years) ( acquired through Access to Freedom of Information) The public has to request information through the process of Access to Freedom of Information to get any information on Habitat and Compensation Plans for approved CEAA 10

11 Provide detailed documentation of the compensation and mitigation measures of the Deltaport Third Berth Project and their outcomes. Provide the scientific data and evidence used for these measures. Provide detailed documentation of the compensation and mitigation measures of past developments at Roberts Bank. Projects. As Habitat Compensation and Mitigation Plans and actions take place behind closed doors after approval of a Project, there is no public disclosure or accountability. This subverts any acceptable notion of transparency and credible ecological planning and protection. Provide detailed documentation of the Adaptive Management Plan for the Deltaport Third Berth Project and how it relates to the Terminal 2 Project. Provide information to show that the step-bystep implementation of mitigation and compensation plans will be transparent to the public without having to go through a process of a request through Access to Freedom of Information. Please add as many rows as necessary 11