SFU Harbour Centre, 515 West Hastings Street, Vancouver ... · Malcolm Smith (Hemmera) Purpose: 2. 1. Seek feedback from Working Group on Socio Economic valued component selection,

MEETING AGENDA

Project: Roberts Bank Terminal 2 (RBT2) Meeting Topic: Working Group – Workshop #4

Date: June 17, 2014

Time: 10:00am – 4:00pm

Location: SFU Harbour Centre, 515 West Hastings Street, Vancouver, Room 2270

Facilitator: Malcolm Smith (Hemmera)

Purpose:

1. Seek feedback from Working Group on Socio Economic valued component selection, based on descriptions and supporting rationale provided for components and assessment areas.

2. Describe the requirements for and proposed approach to the assessment of the ongoing productivity of Roberts Bank Ecosystem.

3. Discuss next steps. Note: a question and answer period will follow each presentation.

# Agenda Item Time

REFRESHMENTS 10:00-10:30 am

1 Welcome and Introductions

Recap of Working Group Process to Date

Questions and Discussion

10:30-10:45

2 Proposed Social and Economic Valued Components

Questions and Discussion 10:45-12:00

LUNCH 12:00-1:00 pm

3 Assessment of Human Health Valued Component


BREAK 2:30-2:45

4 Ongoing Productivity of Roberts Bank Ecosystem


5 General feedback and questions


6 Wrap-up and Next Steps 3:45-4:00

p o r t m e t r o v a n c o u v e r.c o m PRELIMINARY INFORMATION

SUBJECT TO REVISION Working Group #4 – June 17, 2014.

Meeting #4

June 17th, 2014

Morning Session

(NOTE: contains preliminary information subject to revision)

ROBERTS BANK TERMINAL 2 WORKING GROUP



• Facilitator: Malcolm Smith, Hemmera

• Working Group Members

• Presenters

• Housekeeping

• Washrooms and exits

• Breaks

• Speaking protocol

WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION

2



• Recap of Working Group Process to Date

• Proposed Social and Economic Valued Components

• LUNCH

• Assessment of the Human Health Valued Component

• BREAK

• Ongoing Productivity of Roberts Bank Ecosystem

• General feedback and questions

• Wrap-up and Next Steps

WG#4 PRESENTATION OUTLINE

3



• Working Group #3 focused on:

• Issues Scoping Process for Candidate Valued Components

• Cumulative Effects Assessment

• Proposed Intermediate Components and Biophysical Valued Components

• Summary of proposed Social and Economic Valued Components

• Expressions of interest received on all proposed Social and Economic Valued Components with high interest in:

• Marine Commercial Use

• Land and Water Use

• Human Health

• Also interest in Ongoing Productivity of Roberts Bank Ecosystem

RECAP FROM WG #3 – MAY 27, 2014

4



• Draft WG#3 meeting records and copies of presentations distributed on June 13, 2014

• Working Group #2 and #3 Question and Answer Forms also distributed to Working Group members

• Questions on meeting records?

FOLLOW UP FROM WG#3

5

Working Group #4 – June 17, 2014.

RECAP OF WORKING GROUP PROCESS TO DATE

6



RECAP OF WORKING GROUP GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

• Goals of the Working Group:

• Increase awareness and understanding of the work being undertaken by PMV for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project environmental assessment.

• Solicit input to be considered in the development of the EIS.

• Objectives:

• Share approaches and methodologies

• Inventory key interests of regulators and government agencies and Aboriginal groups

• Consider WG feedback in advance of the EIS submission

7



RECAP OF WORKING GROUP PROCESS

• Working Group 1:

• Port Metro Vancouver Overview

• Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Description

• Environmental Assessment Process Overview (CEAA)

• Consultation to Date

• Technical Advisory Group Process

• Site Tour


• Introduction to Container Movement in the Pacific Gateway

• Container Movement at Roberts Bank

• Pacific Gateway Transportation Infrastructure and Initiatives

• Container Movement outside PMV Jurisdiction

• Proposed Approach to the Environmental Assessment

• Air Quality Study

• Noise and Vibration Study

8



RECAP WORKING GROUP PROCESS


• Issues Scoping Process for Candidate Valued Components

• Cumulative Effects Assessment

• Proposed Intermediate and Biophysical Components

• Summary of Proposed Social and Economic Valued Components


• Proposed Social and Economic Valued Components

• Assessment of Human Health Valued Component

• Ongoing Productivity of Roberts Bank Ecosystem

9



QUESTIONS?

10



PROPOSED SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC VALUED COMPONENTS

Presenters:

• Roxanne Scott, Socio-Economic Technical Lead, Golder Associates Ltd.

• Erin Bishop, Socio-Economic Manager, Hemmera

11



PROPOSED ECONOMIC VALUED COMPONENTS

Labour Market

Economic Development

Local Government

Finances

Marine Commercial

use

12


LABOUR MARKET PROPOSED VALUED COMPONENT

Purpose:

• Overview of the labour market proposed VC and feedback on VC selection

13



LABOUR MARKET PROPOSED VC - BASIS FOR SELECTION

14

Labour Market

Assessment of labour market to include:

• Direct, indirect and induced employment levels

• Direct, indirect and induced employment income

• Project-related training requirements

Local Gov't, Public & Stakeholders

• Number and nature of potential jobs

Aboriginal Groups

• Number and nature of potential jobs

• Permanent jobs

• Skills and training requirements and opportunities

Key interests and issues raised:



LABOUR MARKET PROPOSED VC - BASIS FOR SELECTION

15

Drivers of Change - Project-related Interactions:

• Labour demand during construction and operations

Measures of Change - Assessment Indicators:

• Number of workers by occupation, industry affiliation and place of residence

• Participation and unemployment rates

• Difference between unemployment rate and natural rate of unemployment

• Income and wage levels and labour income



LABOUR MARKET PROPOSED VC - COMPONENT LINKAGES

16

Noise and Vibration

Marine Commercial

Use

Labour Market VC


VC

Population and Demographics

IC

Services and Infrastructure

VC

Human Health VC

Economic Analysis



• LAA: Metro Vancouver

• RAA: British Columbia

Rationale:

• LAA: The area from which majority of direct employment for the project will be sourced

• RAA: Labour mobility within the province

LABOUR MARKET VC - PROPOSED ASSESSMENT AREAS

17


ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED VALUED COMPONENT

18

Purpose:

• Overview of the economic development proposed VC and feedback on VC selection



ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED VC – BASIS FOR SELECTION

19

Local Gov't, Public & Stakeholders

• Opportunities for local businesses

Aboriginal Groups

• Opportunities for local businesses

• Business skills and training requirements and opportunities


Assessment of economic development to include:

• Goods and services supply opportunities

• Employee based purchasing




ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED VC - BASIS FOR SELECTION

20

Drivers of Change: Project-related Interactions

•Construction and operation demand for business contracting and goods and services suppliers

•Employee-based purchasing

Measures of Change: Assessment Indicators

•Distribution of labour force across industries

•Business and contracting profile

•Goods and services expenditures ($)

•Local capacity/supply constraints in services and goods supply and contracting

•Consistency of Project with local economic development plans



ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED VC - COMPONENT LINKAGES

21

Noise and Vibration

Marine Commercial

Use


VC

Local Government Finances VC

Labour Market VC

Economic Analysis



• LAA: Metro Vancouver

• RAA: British Columbia

Rationale:

• LAA: The area within which a large portion of goods and services will be sourced.

• RAA: mobility of goods and services supply

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT VC - PROPOSED ASSESSMENT AREAS

22


LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCES PROPOSED VALUED COMPONENT

Purpose:

Overview of the local government finances proposed VC and feedback on VC selection

23



LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCES PROPOSED VC - BASIS FOR SELECTION

24

Local Gov't, the Public & Stakeholders

• Level of contribution to local communities

•Changes to in-place infrastructure and associated costs

Aboriginal Groups

•None received to date

Local Government

Finances

Assessment of local and regional government finances to include:

• Additional expenditures incurred • Additional revenues received




LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCES PROPOSED VC - BASIS FOR SELECTION

25


• Project-generated tax revenues

• Services and infrastructure requirements during construction and operations and servicing agreements


• Local government expenditures on specific programs and services

• Local government revenue from payments in lieu of taxes and property taxes



LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCES PROPOSED VC - COMPONENT LINKAGES

26

Marine Commercial

Use



VC


VC

Economic Analysis

Population and Demographics IC



• LAA: Corporation of Delta and Tsawwassen First Nation

• RAA: Metro Vancouver

Rationale:

• Local governments that may incur Project induced expenditures and collect additional revenues from the Project.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCES VC - PROPOSED ASSESSMENT AREAS

27


MARINE COMMERCIAL USE PROPOSED VALUED COMPONENT

Purpose:

• Overview of the marine commercial use proposed VC and feedback on VC selection

• Summary of the marine commercial use assessment approach

28



MARINE COMMERCIAL USE PROPOSED VC - BASIS FOR SELECTION

29

Marine Commercial

use

Assessment of commercial use in marine waters to include:

• Marine-based tourism industry • Commercial fishing industry • Guided recreational fishing industry

Local Gov't, public and stakeholders

•Loss of invertebrate, fish and marine mammal habitat

•Barrier to marine invertebrate migration patterns

•Displacement of use activity

•Pollution and pumping of ballast water

•Vessel safety hazards and gear damage

Aboriginal Groups

•Loss of invertebrate, fish and marine mammal habitat

•Barrier to marine invertebrate migration patterns

•Access to fish and harvesting areas

•Effect of pollution on marine resources

•Vessel and fisherman safety

•Income security





30


•Marine based construction activities

• Terminal construction activities linked to displacement, noise and visual

• Terminal operations linked to vessel movement, noise and visual





•Commercial fishing, seafood harvesting whale watching areas

•Commercial fishing and seafood harvesting vessel counts

•Number and location of vessel registration

•Commercial and sports fishing catch numbers and harvest values

•Commercial fishing and seafood harvesting operations and revenues

•Marine-based tourism operations and revenues

•Vessel counts and traffic; marine traffic incidents

•Results from: Marine Fish, Marine Invertebrates, CRA Fisheries Productivity and Marine Mammal assessment; Noise and Vibration IC assessment

31



MARINE COMMERCIAL USE PROPOSED VC - COMPONENT LINKAGES

32

Noise and Vibration

Marine Commercial

Use

Marine Commercial

Use VC

Marine Invertebrates VC

Marine Fish VC

Marine Mammals VC

Ongoing Productivity of CRA Fisheries VC

Coastal Birds VC

Coastal Geomorphology IC

Noise and Vibration IC



• Same assessment areas as for marine invertebrates VC:

• LAA: Roberts Bank, from the north side of the B.C. Ferries causeway to Canoe Passage and from high water mark to -140 m depth CD.

• RAA: The LAA at Roberts Bank plus Boundary Bay, east side of the B.C. Ferries causeway, Roberts Bank North and Sturgeon Bank.

MARINE COMMERCIAL USE VC: COMMERCIAL HARVESTING OF INVERTEBRATES - PROPOSED ASSESSMENT AREAS

33



MARINE COMMERCIAL USE VC: COMMERCIAL AND GUIDED FISHING - PROPOSED ASSESSMENT AREAS

34

Same assessment areas as for marine fish VC:

• LAA: Roberts Bank from B.C. Ferries causeway to Canoe Passage and high water mark to -100 m depth CD.

• RAA: The Fraser River Estuary to -100 m CD, plus the Fraser River to Hope.



Same assessment areas as for marine mammals VC RAA.

• LAA and RAA: Canadian critical habitat for endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales, including the Strait of Georgia, Puget Sound and Juan de Fuca

Strait.

MARINE COMMERCIAL USE VC: MARINE-BASED TOURISM - PROPOSED ASSESSMENT AREAS

35



• Primary Information Sources

• General Population

• Interviews with industry participants and regulators

• Mapping sessions to identify use areas and access

• First Nations

• Interviews and mapping

• Secondary Information Sources

• DFO

• RBT2 Studies

• Other reports and data sources

INFORMATION SOURCES

36



QUESTIONS?

37




PROPOSED SOCIAL VALUED COMPONENTS

38


Outdoor Recreation

Visual Resources

Physical and Cultural Heritage

Land and Water Use

Human Health


SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROPOSED VALUED COMPONENT

Purpose:

Overview of the services and infrastructure proposed VC and feedback on VC selection

39



SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROPOSED VC - BASIS FOR SELECTION

40

Local Gov't, the public and stakeholders

•Cost of infrastructure and maintenance

•Revenues to local government

Aboriginal Groups



Assessment of increased demand to local services and infrastructure to include:

• Housing • Emergency and health services • Municipal infrastructure




SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROPOSED VC - BASIS FOR SELECTION

41


• Potential increase in demand for and associated maintenance and cost of local services and infrastructure


•Housing supply, demand, values, developments

• Emergency, health and municipal infrastructure:

•Service levels and costs

•Resources

•Capacity utilization

•Service and infrastructure development plans



SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROPOSED VC - COMPONENT LINKAGES

42

Noise and Vibration


VC


Labour Market

VC

Population Demographics

IC



• LAA: Corporation of Delta

• RAA: Metro Vancouver

Rationale:

• Effects are linked to direct project demand and in-migration.

SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE VC - PROPOSED ASSESSMENT AREAS

43


OUTDOOR RECREATION PROPOSED VALUED COMPONENT

Purpose:

Overview of the outdoor recreation proposed VC and feedback on VC selection

44



OUTDOOR RECREATION PROPOSED VC - BASIS FOR SELECTION

45


• Access to and use of nearby recreation sites/amenities

• Nuisance or safety hazards

Aboriginal Groups

• Influences of noise, air quality, light, and ship traffic on enjoyment of recreational activities

Outdoor Recreation

Assessment of outdoor land and marine based recreation




OUTDOOR RECREATION PROPOSED VC - BASIS FOR SELECTION

46


• Marine based construction activities

• Terminal construction activities linked to displacement, noise and visual

• Terminal operations linked to vessel movement, noise and visual


• Recreation areas, features, amenities and sites

• Recreational users by area

• Location of yacht, paddling, fishing and outdoor clubs and their membership

• Visitation numbers

• Compatibility with outdoor recreation management and development plans



OUTDOOR RECREATION PROPOSED VC – COMPONENT LINKAGES

47

Noise and Vibration

Marine Commercial

Use

Outdoor Recreation

VC

Human Health VC


Marine Water Quality IC


Marine Fish VC

Marine Mammals VC

Coastal Birds VC

Ongoing Productivity of CRA Fisheries VC

Visual Resources VC and Noise IC

Land and Water Use VC



LAA: Corporation of Delta and Tsawwassen First Nation

RAA: same as LAA

Rationale:

• Potential area experiencing access, displacement, safety, nuisance effects.

LAND-BASED OUTDOOR RECREATION VC - PROPOSED ASSESSMENT AREAS

48



LAA: Marine Fish LAA

RAA: Marine Fish RAA

Rationale:

• Effects on recreational fishing is the potential Project related effects on marine fish.

MARINE-BASED OUTDOOR RECREATION VC - PROPOSED ASSESSMENT AREAS

49


VISUAL RESOURCES PROPOSED VALUED COMPONENT

Purpose:

Overview of the visual resources proposed VC and feedback on VC selection

50



VISUAL RESOURCES PROPOSED VC - BASIS FOR SELECTION

51


•Visual disturbance from physical structures and lighting: degraded scenic quality

Aboriginal Groups

•Visual disturbance from physical structures and lighting: degraded scenic quality

•Effect of light on cultural practices

Visual Resources

Assessment of visual resources to include: • Changes to local viewscapes • Additional light trespass • Sky glow




VISUAL RESOURCES PROPOSED VC - BASIS FOR SELECTION

52


• Physical structures and lighting during operation phase


• Visibility of additional ship-to-shore, rail-mounted and rubber tire gantry cranes

• Visibility of container ships at berth

• Visibility of light trespass and sky glow from terminal and additional causeway lighting



VISUAL RESOURCES PROPOSED VC - COMPONENT LINKAGES

53

Noise and Vibration

Visual Resources

Use

Visual Resources VC

Outdoor Recreation

VC

Human Health VC

Light IC



• LAA: Areas that have an unimpeded view of the proposed Project footprint and occur within 30km from the proposed Project site.

• RAA: The area extending beyond 30 km to a maximum of 40 km from the proposed Project.

VISUAL RESOURCES VC - PROPOSED ASSESSMENT AREAS

54


PHYSICAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE PROPOSED VALUED COMPONENT

Purpose:

Overview of the physical and cultural heritage proposed VC and feedback on VC selection

55



PHYSICAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE PROPOSED VC - BASIS FOR SELECTION

56



Aboriginal Groups

•Cultural importance of land, water, and resources

•Shoreline erosion and exposure of resources

Physical and Cultural Heritage

Assessment of: • archaeological resources • paleontological resources • historical sites (cultural landscapes) • architectural resources Key interests and issues raised:



PHYSICAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE PROPOSED VC - BASIS FOR SELECTION

57


• Ground disturbance during construction and operation phases


• Number of recorded archaeological sites present within Project area

• Area of previously undisturbed land with medium or high potential for unrecorded archaeological sites



PHYSICAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE PROPOSED VC - COMPONENT LINKAGES

58

Noise and Vibration

Marine Commercial

Use

Coastal Geormorphology

IC

Physical and

Cultural Heritage

VC

Human Health VC



PHYSICAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE VC - PROPOSED ASSESSMENT AREAS

59

• LAA: The Project footprint plus a 100-m buffer as well as areas that may be indirectly disturbed by the Project.

• RAA: The LAA combined with a 4 km buffer.

.


LAND AND WATER USE PROPOSED VALUED COMPONENT

Purpose:

Overview of the land and water use proposed VC and feedback on VC selection

Summary of the land and water use assessment approach

60



LAND AND WATER USE PROPOSED VC - BASIS FOR SELECTION

61


• Loss of agricultural land

Aboriginal Groups

• None received to date

Land and Water Use

Assessment of land and water to include: • Land ownership and jurisdiction • Land use planning designations • Land and water uses




LAND AND WATER USE PROPOSED VC - BASIS FOR SELECTION

62


• Potential changes to land and water use related to construction activities, and physical footprint of the Project


• Consistency with land use designations

• Compatibility with adjacent or proximal land use designation

• Area of existing land use (includes submerged land)



LAND AND WATER USE PROPOSED VC - COMPONENT LINKAGES

63

Noise and Vibration

Land and Water Use

VC

Outdoor Recreation

VC



LAA:

• Land - A 1-km radius from the eastern end of the Roberts Bank causeway.

• Water - Marine area within the Corporation of Delta from the Canada-U.S.A. border to Canoe Passage.

RAA: Corporation of Delta

LAND AND WATER USE VC - PROPOSED ASSESSMENT AREAS

64



RAIL TIE-IN WITHIN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL RIGHT-OF-WAY

65

Track M5



LAND AND WATER USE EFFECTS ASSESSMENT APPROACH

• Considerations for Land and Water Use Assessment:

• Land Ownership and Jurisdiction

• Crown federal, Crown provincial, municipality (Corporation of Delta), the Tsawwassen First Nation, and private owners

• Land Use Plans

• Federal, provincial, Aboriginal and local government plans and strategies that direct the existing and future uses of land and water

• Land and Water Use

• Several land and water uses are addressed as individual VCs and in other sections.

• Focus is on Crown tenures, agricultural, port and marine industrial, protected areas



LAND AND WATER USE - OWNERSHIP AND JURISDICTION

67

PRELIMINARY INFORMATION SUBJECT TO REVISION




LAND AND WATER USE – EXAMPLE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS

68





QUESTIONS?

69 Working Group #4 – June 17, 2014.


LUNCH




Meeting #4

June 17th, 2014

Afternoon Session

(NOTE: contains preliminary information subject to revision)

ROBERTS BANK TERMINAL 2 WORKING GROUP


HUMAN HEALTH PROPOSED VALUED COMPONENT

Presenters:

• Erin Bishop, Socio-Economic Project Manager, Hemmera

• Doug Bright, Health Risk Assessment Specialist, Hemmera

• Marla Orenstein, Health Impact Assessment Specialist, Habitat Health Impact Consulting Corp.

Purpose:

• Overview of the human health proposed VC and feedback on VC selection

• Summary of the human health assessment approach

2



HUMAN HEALTH PROPOSED VC - BASIS FOR SELECTION

3

Human Health use

Assessment of human health includes:

• Human health risks related to:

• Changes to air and noise emissions, from ship, road and rail traffic within the Project area

• Potential shellfish contamination

• Human health effects related to stress and annoyance, employment, and food security.



• Health as related to air quality, noise and vibration, quality of life, and community well-being

Aboriginal Groups

• Health as related to air quality, noise and vibration, quality of life, and community well-being



HUMAN HEALTH PROPOSED VC - COMPONENT LINKAGES

4

Noise and Vibration

Human Health Use

Human Health VC

Air Quality IC

Noise and Vibration IC

Population Demographics IC


Marine Fish VC

Coastal Birds VC

Labour Market VC

Outdoor Recreation VC

Visual Resources VC

Physical and Cultural Heritage VC



• Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA)

• Health Impact Assessment (HIA)

HEALTH EFFECTS ASSESSMENT TOOLS

5

Human Health Assessment

HHRA

Noise

Air Quality

Shellfish Consumption

HIA

Social & Economic

effects

Bio-Physical Effects



• Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA)

• Predicts risk of potential health effects quantitatively, based on:

• What toxicants and stressors people may be exposed to;

• How much exposure they’re likely to experience; and

• Whether exposure estimates may exceed threshold levels for potential adverse health effects.


6

Change in Environment

Types & quantity of exposure

Exposure level

Thresholds

Risk of Health Effects



• Health Impact Assessment (HIA)

• Predicts potential health effects qualitatively

• Addresses social, economic and environmental influences on health


7

Change in Environment

(Social, Economic, or Biophysical)

Change in social

Determinants of Health

Potential Health Effects


QUESTIONS?

8



RBT2 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT (HHRA)

Presenter:

• Doug Bright, Health Risk Assessment Specialist, Hemmera

Purpose:

• Summary of Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) rationale, methodology, and scope

9



• Appropriate analytical tool for assessing influence of changes in environmental quality (including acoustic environment) on those health conditions for which people routinely seek medical interventions

• Focussed on identifying risk management needs by defining key contributors and exposure pathways

• Explicitly deals with uncertainty and intentionally errs on the side of caution

HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT - RATIONALE

10



HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT - METHODOLOGY

11

1. Problem Definition: What are the issues that need to be evaluated?

2. Exposure Assessment: How much are individuals and groups exposed

to?

3. Development of Exposure Thresholds:

How much can individuals and groups safely withstand?



HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT - METHODOLOGY

12

4. Risk Characterization

How high are exposures likely

to be in comparison with known thresholds

of effects?

5. Uncertainty Analysis: How certain are we

about the information we

are using to characterize

risks?

6. Risk Management Recommendations



HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT - SCOPE

13

HHRA Scope Includes

• Air Quality

• Noise

• Shellfish Consumption



• The scope of the HHRA was informed by:

• Issues raised through consultation with public and Aboriginal groups

• Input from scoping activities with Tsawwassen First Nation

• Issues identified through a noise and vibration social survey

• Input through an Air Quality Scoping Study

• Input from federal and provincial regulatory bodies


14



HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT - PROPOSED ASSESSMENT AREAS

• LAA: Area where air quality, noise, and sediment quality changes are assessed.

• RAA: Residences within Tsawwassen First Nations lands and Delta.

Rationale:

• Established at a sufficient distance from the emissions and noise sources that people and communities beyond the LAA and RAA boundaries could not be subjected to project-related incremental exposure.

15

Noise: Land and Water Air Quality:

16km x 19 km (blue box)



Baseline Health Status

• Community and regional health studies:

• populations in the local assessment area, B.C., Canada, Washington State

• Data obtained from:

• Fraser Health Authority, British Columbia Ministry of Health, Statistics Canada, Health Canada and Washington State Department of Health

• Health indicators potentially affected by air quality:

• Cancer (all forms), lung cancer, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, including chronic bronchitis and emphysema), hypertension, cardiovascular disease (including ischemic heart disease and congestive heart failure), and respiratory systems disease (general).


16



HHRA SCOPE - AIR QUALITY

Project Emissions: Diesel exhaust and other traffic-related

sources

Local Airshed: Gaseous air pollutants

Particulate Matter (fine, coarse)

Chemical Deposition: Sediments

Soil -> Animals Plants -> Animals

Indirect Human Exposure:

Ingestion (soil, plants, animals)

Dermal Contact (soil)

Direct Human Exposure: Inhalation



• Extensive engagement on air quality study scope

• Stakeholders/Regulatory Agency Representatives

• Purpose of the Air Quality Scoping Study:

• To determine which air quality elements need to be included in the RBT2 air quality assessment

• Discuss spatial and temporal boundaries

• Identify and review data sources and the methods (models) that will be used to complete the assessment

HHRA SCOPE - AIR QUALITY

18

• Port Metro Vancouver • Tsawwassen First Nation

• Metro Vancouver • Corporation of Delta

• Environment Canada • B.C. Ministry of Environment



Receptor Types:

• Tsawwassen First Nation

• Farmers

• Healthcare Facility

• Delta Hospital

• Residents

• Canada – Ladner, Boundary Bay, Tsawwassen

• U.S. (Point Roberts)

• Recreationists

• Beach Grove, Boundary Bay GVRD Park, Reifel Bird Sanctuary, English Bluff Beach, South Arm Marsh

• Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal

HHRA SCOPE - AIR QUALITY RECEPTOR SITES

19 PRELIMINARY INFORMATION

SUBJECT TO REVISION Working Group #4

June 17, 2014.



HHRA SCOPE – NOISE AND VIBRATION

Changes in noise from the

port during construction and

operation

Noise transmission

through the air

HUMAN RECEPTORS

Nearby communities/

residences

Indoor/ outdoor

Stress and hypertension

Sleep disturbance

Other

Marine areas




21

Noise related issues included in HHRA Scope

• Audible noise

• Transient and impulsive noise

• Low frequency noise

• Ground vibration



Noise Effects Criteria

World Health Organization, Health Canada, U.S. Federal Inter-agency Committee on Noise (FICON)

• Maximum increase in %Highly Annoyed of 6.5% (Schulz curve).

• Impulsive, tonal characteristics of source noise accounted for by adjustments to %HA calculations.

• Nighttime sound level (Ln) of 30 dBA (indoor) or 45 dBA (outdoor) as a threshold for sleep disturbance.

• In schools and preschools, target for mitigation is a daytime sound level (Ld) of 35 dBA (indoor) or 50 dBA (outdoor) during class time.


22



HHRA SCOPE - SHELLFISH CONSUMPTION

Coal dust in sediments from

historical release

Sediment re-suspension during

construction

Uptake by crabs, cockles, clams,

mussels

HUMANS

Shellfish consumption

Dungeness

crabs, Cockles and clams

Ship, train, vehicle emission: deposits

on tide flat



HHRA SCOPE – SHELLFISH CONSUMPTION METHODS

24

• Focal species

Cockles Little-neck clams Macoma clams Oysters Mussels Dungeness crabs

• Collected at Roberts Bank and Reference Site (Boundary Bay or

Sturgeon Bank

• Edible tissues analyzed for contaminants of potential concern


QUESTIONS?

25

Working Group #4 – June 17,2014.


RBT2 HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT (HIA)

26

Presenter:

• Marla Orenstein, Health Impact Assessment Specialist, Habitat Health Impact Consulting Corp.

Purpose:

• Summary of a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) rationale, scope and methodology



• Port Metro Vancouver’s interpretation of “human health” in the EIS Guidelines

• Addresses community expectations

• Good business practice

• Informs mitigation of potential adverse effects

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT - RATIONALE

27



• Scope of the RBT2 HIA was informed by:

• Meetings with Health Canada, Fraser Regional Health Authority, First Nations Health Authority

• Meetings with Tsawwassen First Nation

• Input from community consultation meetings

• Information from Aboriginal groups

• HIAs of similar projects

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT - SCOPE

28



Issues included in the HIA

• Economic-related health effects

• Food security

• Stress and annoyance

• Marine, road and rail safety

• Health equity





• Potential employment related effects:

• Direct, indirect and induced employment and income provision

• Effects on health outcomes

• Positive and negative health effects

• Vulnerable sub-populations

30




• Potential Food Security Effects:

• Income-related effects on food security

• Changes in availability, access, acceptability, and sharing of traditional food

• Effects on adjacent agricultural production

31




• Potential stress and annoyance effects:

• Stress and annoyance related to:

• Noise

• Light

• Visual environment

• Cultural or heritage resources

• Other project-related changes

32




• Potential safety related effects

• Injuries related to marine, road, and rail traffic within PMV jurisdiction

33



HEALTH EQUITY

• Differences in health that are distributed unequally across population groups and are deemed avoidable and unfair.

• Not a health topic per se, but a lens through which to view the effects of the project on all health-related areas.

• Vulnerable populations


34



• LAA: Tsawwassen First Nation, Musqueam Indian Band, and the Delta area.

• RAA: Metro Vancouver and areas currently used for traditional purposes by other Aboriginal groups, where subsistence activities may be affected.

Rationale:

• LAA: areas that have the greatest potential to experience potential changes in community health and wellbeing indicators.

• RAA: area where effects of the proposed Project may overlap with the effects of other current and proposed projects.

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT – PROPOSED ASSESSMENT AREAS

35



Issues included in other

sections

• Exposure to environmental contaminants

• Visual aesthetics

• Noise

• Recreational opportunities

• Health care services

Issues included in the HIA

• Economic-related health effects

• Food security

• Stress and annoyance

• Marine, road and rail safety

• Health equity

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT - SCOPE HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT - SCOPE



Existing Conditions

Changes from the Project

Recommendations

37

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT - METHODOLOGY




Existing Conditions

1. Describe existing conditions

2. Identify vulnerable sub-populations

38





3. Develop a logic framework

4. Seek out evidence

5. Characterize the effect



Existing Conditions

39




Existing Conditions


3. Develop a logic framework

4. Seek out evidence

5. Characterise the effect



6. Develop recommendations for mitigation and enhancement

Mitigation

40


QUESTIONS?

41

Working Group #4 June 17, 2014.


BREAK



PROPOSED ROBERTS BANK ECOSYSTEM VALUED COMPONENT

Presenter:

• Derek Nishimura, Senior Biologist - Ecosystem Productivity, Hemmera

Objective:

• Overview of the proposed Roberts Bank Ecosystem VC and feedback on VC selection

• Summary of the Roberts Bank Ecosystem assessment approach


OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED ROBERTS BANK ECOSYSTEM VC

Purpose:

• Basis of selection

• Component linkages

• Assessment area



ROBERTS BANK ECOSYSTEM PROPOSED VC - BASIS FOR SELECTION

45

Ecological basis

Provides spawning, rearing, feeding, refuge and migratory habitat for wide variety of fish and birds

Stabilizes sediment • buffers against wave erosion • important in nutrient cycling • carbon sink

The public and stakeholders

•Health of marine ecosystem

•Changes to species populations and distribution, and habitat

Aboriginal groups

•Health of marine ecosystem

•Access to land and resources currently used for traditional purposes

•Changes in the ability of Aboriginal groups to use for traditional purposes




ROBERTS BANK ECOSYSTEM PROPOSED VC - COMPONENT LINKAGES

46

Noise and Vibration

Marine Commercial

Use

Roberts Bank Ecosystem

VC

Ongoing Productivity of

CRA Fisheries VC

Marine Commercial Use

VC

Outdoor Recreation VC

Human Health VC


Sediment Characteristics IC

Marine Water Quality IC

Marine Vegetation and Biofilm VC


Marine Fish VC

Marine Mammals VC

Coastal Birds VC



• Roberts Bank, from the north side of the B.C. Ferries causeway to Canoe Passage and from high water mark to -100 m depth CD.

Rationale:

• Area where project-related effects are expected to occur.

• Area of highest productivity for other marine VCs (vegetation and biofilm, invertebrates, fish and birds).

ROBERTS BANK ECOSYSTEM - PROPOSED LOCAL ASSESSMENT AREA



• The Fraser River Estuary, from Boundary Bay to Sturgeon Bank from the high water mark to -100 m CD Rationale:

• Provides ecological context.

• Contains similar habitats to those of the LAA.

ROBERTS BANK ECOSYSTEM - PROPOSED REGIONAL ASSESSMENT AREA

48


SUMMARY OF THE ROBERTS BANK ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT

Purpose:

• Summary of Roberts Bank Ecosystem assessment approach, rationale, scope, and methodology



• Ecosystem based model that measures ongoing productivity of the ecosystem based on:

• Change in biomass (tonnes/km2)

• Change in productivity (tonnes/km2/year)

• Ecosystem based model informs:

ROBERTS BANK ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT - APPROACH

Effects Assessments for

Biophysical VCs and focal species

Roberts Bank Ecosystem Proposed VC

Ongoing productivity of CRA Fisheries Proposed VC

Mitigation Strategy

Estimate net change in productivity of study area (pre vs post-construction)

50



• Avoids challenges of focusing assessment on small number of species

• Complements VC / species focused approach

• DFO Science Advisory Secretariat:

• For major projects, advice is to use:

• an ecosystem approach; and

• A productivity-based approach that evaluates impacts

ASSESSMENT APPROACH - RATIONALE

51



Productive Capacity Technical Advisory Group (TAG):


Name Affiliation Expertise

Juergen Baumann Baumann Environmental

Services (former PMV) Roberts Bank Ecology

Dr. Sean Boyd Environment Canada (CWS) Avian Ecology & Habitat

Dr. Steve Macdonald Fisheries and Oceans Canada Aquatic Habitat Biology

Brian Naito Fisheries and Oceans Canada Fish Ecology & Habitat

Dr. Terri Sutherland Fisheries and Oceans Canada Roberts Bank Ecology

Dr. Rob Butler Independent (former CWS) Avian Ecology & Habitat

Patrice LeBlanc SENES (former DFO) Habitat Policy & Practice

Dr. Carson Keever Hemmera PC Methodologies

Scott Northrup Hemmera Habitat Biology

52



Productive Capacity (PC) TAG Objectives

• Provide technical direction in order to:

1. Identify Focal Species

• i.e. species that are ecologically linked to many components of the ecosystem

2. Ongoing Productivity Assessment Method


PMV’s planned

EA studies

TAG feedback

High-quality

EA

53



• PC TAG Outcome #1: 25 Focal Species Identified

• PC TAG Outcome #2: Identified Ongoing Productivity Assessment Method

• Reached consensus on using an ecosystem approach to assessing Ongoing Productivity (including birds & fish)

• Selected ecosystem based model as the preferred assessment method to assessing changes in Ongoing Productivity at Roberts Bank

• Acknowledged that Port Metro Vancouver approach is in-line with evolving regulatory framework

ASSESSMENT APPROACH - METHODOLOGY

54



METHODOLOGY: ECOSYSTEM BASED MODEL

55




56

Food Web Example

Image Courtesy of:

Speak Up For Blue

http://www.speakupforblue.com/



57 PRELIMINARY INFORMATION SUBJECT TO REVISION


Sample Data

ECOSYSTEM BASED MODEL OUTPUT – FOOD WEB

Marine vegetation / biofilm

Inverts

Fish

Marine mammals

Coastal Birds KEY:




58




59




60

Handout




• Integrates Physical ICs and Biophysical VCs to understand the multiple linkages in the ecosystem

• Informs Socio-ec VCs

• Summarises changes to the ecosystem for all Biophysical VCs

• Estimates productivity changes pre- and post- construction

• One of the tools in assessing potential changes to the ecosystem

ROBERTS BANK ECOSYSTEM PROPOSED VC – SUMMARY

61



QUESTIONS?

62



WRAP-UP AND NEXT STEPS

Facilitator: Malcolm Smith, Hemmera

63



• Distribution of WG Information:

• The draft meeting record will be distributed for input prior to finalization

• Copies of the presentations will be distributed after the meeting

• A summary report that will be shared with working group members for input prior to posting on the CEAA registry website

FOLLOW UP FROM WG#4

64



• Feedback on WG #4

• Today’s Q&A

• Via hardcopy feedback form (provided)

• Via Email: [email protected]

• Or to Malcolm Smith via Email: [email protected]

• Please include “Follow Up To WG # 4” in the subject line of your emails

FOLLOW UP FROM WG #4

65

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



• Meeting with Aboriginal groups on Proposed Valued Components scheduled for July 3, 2014.

• July meeting with Aboriginal groups concludes the first phase of the Working Group Process.

CONSULTATION WITH ABORIGINAL GROUPS

66



• Summer 2014

• Regulatory – Issues specific engagement

• Aboriginal groups – Ongoing Aboriginal Consultation

• Local Government – Technical Liaison Committees & Elected Round Table

• As-and-when needed follow up with WG

• Fall 2014

• Ongoing Aboriginal Consultation

• Consultation with the Public & Aboriginal groups on Mitigation

• Early 2015 - Post-EIS Submission

• Overview of EIS Submission

•

LOOKING AHEAD

67



QUESTIONS?



THANK YOU


Summary of the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 (RBT2) Working Group – Workshop#4 (WG#4)

June 17, 2014 Page 1 of 21

ROBERTS BANK TERMINAL 2 (RBT2) PROJECT WORKING GROUP

Workshop #4

June 17, 2014

Summary of the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Working Group – Workshop #4 held

Tuesday, June 17, 2014 at the SFU Harbour Centre, Room 2270, 515 West Hastings Street,

Vancouver, British Columbia.

ATTENDEES

David Grace, B.C. Environmental Assessment Office (Project Assessment Manager)

Robyn McLean, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

Debra Myles, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (Panel Manager)

Analise Saely, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (Senior Policy Advisor)

Neonila Lilova, City of Richmond

Amarjeet Rattan, City of Richmond (Director, Intergovernmental Relations and

Protocol Unit) (arrived 1:50 p.m.)

Polly Ng, City of Surrey

Mike Brotherston, Corporation of Delta

Goran Krstic, Fraser Health Authority

Derek Debiasio, Golder Associates Ltd.*

Roxanne Scott, Golder Associates Ltd.* (Socio-Economic Technical Lead)

Marla Orenstein, Habitat Health Impact Consulting Corp.* (Health Impact

Assessment Specialist)

Erin Bishop, Hemmera* (Socio-Economic Manager)

Doug Bright, Hemmera* (Health Risk Assessment Specialist)

Tanya Hebron, Hemmera* (Project Coordinator)

Kim Niggemann, Hemmera* (Project Director)

Derek Nishimura, Hemmera*(Ecosystem Productivity)

Pamela O’Hara, Hemmera* (Senior Project Manager)

Joe Truscott, Hemmera* (Socio-Economic Technical Director)

Claire Williams, Hemmera*(Technical Integration Specialist)

Alan Grove, Hwlitsum First Nation (departed 3:00 p.m.)


June 17, 2014 Page 2 of 21

Kathleen Johnnie, Lyackson First Nation

Eric Aderneck, Metro Vancouver

James McQueen, Metro Vancouver

Kathy Preston, Metro Vancouver (arrived 1:00 p.m.)

Francis Ries, Metro Vancouver

Shelina Sidi, Metro Vancouver

Donna Underhill, Metro Vancouver (arrived 2:15 p.m.)

David Crozier, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure

Earl Strueby, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure

Myrus James, Penelakut Tribe (departed 3:00 p.m.)

Jody Addah, Port Metro Vancouver (Sustainable Development Specialist

Infrastructure Development)

Sharleen Dumont, Port Metro Vancouver (Senior Legal Counsel)

Rhona Hunter, Port Metro Vancouver (Director, Infrastructure Sustainability)

Michelle Lachmann, Port Metro Vancouver (Regulatory Engagement)

Cindy McCarthy, Port Metro Vancouver (Manager, Project Communications

Community and Aboriginal Affairs)

Sarah Pilgrim, Port Metro Vancouver

Kyle Robertson, Port Metro Vancouver (Manager, EA & Permitting, Container

Capacity Improvement Program)

Erika Schade, Port Metro Vancouver

Jemma Scoble, Port Metro Vancouver (Aboriginal Consultation)

Debbie Walker, Port Metro Vancouver

Dan Hrebenyk, SENES* (arrived 1:00 p.m.) (Air Quality Specialist)

Gina Aitchison, Transport Canada (Senior Environmental Officer)

Clint Carl, Transport Canada

Catherine Galbrand, Transport Canada

Madhvi Russell, Transport Canada

Andrew Bak, Tsawwassen First Nation

FACILITATION / MEETING SUMMARY

Malcolm Smith, Hemmera* (Corporate Sponsor)

Carrie Peacock, Recording Secretary, Raincoast Ventures Ltd.

(* Attending on behalf of Port Metro Vancouver)


June 17, 2014 Page 3 of 21

CALL TO ORDER

The Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project Working Group – Workshop #4 was called to order at

10:29 a.m.

1. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS

Kyle Robertson, Environmental Manager, Port Metro Vancouver (PMV), welcomed

participants to the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 (RBT2) Project Working Group – Workshop #4

(WG#4) and acknowledged that the workshop was being held on the traditional land of the

Coast Salish peoples. Prior working groups were noted to be helpful in guiding PMV’s work in

preparing for the environmental assessment process including identifying issues and

interests raised by meeting participants. Mr. Robertson introduced Malcolm Smith,

Hemmera, to facilitate the Workshop.

Malcolm Smith, Facilitator, welcomed participants, before leading the meeting in a round of

self-introductions.

2. RECAP OF WORKING GROUP PROCESS TO DATE

Mr. Smith reported that comments received at Working Group – Workshop #3 (WG#3)

included: an overview of the issues scoping process for candidate valued components (VCs);

overview of the cumulative effects assessment methodology; proposed intermediate

components (ICs); proposed biophysical VCs and a summary of proposed social VCs.

Following feedback received from WG#3, WG#4 has been planned to provide for discussion

on all proposed social VCs, with an increased focus on: marine commercial use; land and

water use; and human health. In addition, WG#4 would include an overview of the

conceptual methodology used to assess changes in “ongoing productivity” associated with

the Roberts Bank ecosystem.

Participants were informed that: the meeting record of WG#3 had been distributed to

participants; and, the meeting record for the working group process (and the overhead

presentations provided) would be available on the Canadian Environmental Assessment

Agency (CEA Agency) website at the end of the working group process.

The goals and objectives of the working group were reviewed. These include:

Goals:

▫ Increase awareness and understanding of the work being undertaken by PMV for

the RBT2 Project environmental assessment; and

▫ Solicit input to be considered in the development of the EIS.


June 17, 2014 Page 4 of 21

Objectives:

▫ Share approaches and methodologies;

▫ Inventory key interests of regulators and government agencies and Aboriginal

groups; and

▫ Consider WG feedback in advance of the EIS submission.

Mr. Smith reviewed the outcome of discussions at previous working groups and confirmed

the objective of WG#4 was to discuss: the proposed social and economic VCs; assessment

tools and approaches supporting the proposed human health VC; and the conceptual

approach to assessing ongoing productivity of the Roberts Bank ecosystem.

As additional WG engagements may continue in the fall and into early 2015, participants

were invited to submit discussion topics and to seek responses to any specific questions in

the interim.

3. PROPOSED SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC VALUED COMPONENTS

Roxanne Scott, Socio-Economic Technical Lead, gave an overview presentation on the

proposed social and economic VCs being considered for the Project.

Comments were provided by working group participants on the basis for selection,

component linkages and proposed assessment areas related to the following proposed VCs:

Labour Market; Economic Development; Local Government Finances; and Marine

Commercial Use.

Discussion Session

Questions and comments from WG members are summarised below, with responses from

PMV representatives (or those attending on PMV’s behalf) in italics.

1) There have been effects (to Aboriginal groups), of a deterioration of the marsh area

since the 1980s, on the harvesting of salmon, sturgeon and crab. Chiefs in the area

have informed PMV that this is an important spiritual and cultural centre. Will the

deterioration of the marsh be addressed?

The effects of previous development will be considered as part of the description of

existing conditions for biophysical VCs. This was touched on, as part of the overview

of the EIS methodology at WG #3. The EIS will also consider areas, identified by

Aboriginal groups, as being of cultural importance.


June 17, 2014 Page 5 of 21

2) With respect to Marine Commercial Use, the issue of “jobs” is often a lower priority

than “spiritual and cultural issues” for many First Nations communities. As stewards

of the environment, Aboriginal groups want to ensure the Project is safe to go

forward. These are key values of the First Nation communities that I represent.

There are two aspects to marine resources being assessed: firstly, commercial

harvesting and secondly, the current use of traditional resources, which is looked at

in the context of the EA and potential effects of the Project (i.e., marine resources,

cultural impacts). We will make note of the link to the aspects you are bringing

forward in relation to your community. The current use of traditional resources will

not be discussed today. There is another stream of engagement with Aboriginal

groups, at which some of these discussions will be captured.

3) Our Aboriginal communities have a total of approximately 7,000 people. They have

not been consulted on cultural areas and traditional use.

It is important to hear these comments, even if they are also addressed elsewhere

under different headings. Current uses for traditional purposes are being addressed

in a separate area of the EIS and consultations on this topic are underway.

If there are issues and interests that have not been identified through consultation

undertaken to date by PMV, follow up meetings will be planned to provide for this.

4) Can you clarify why you have chosen to discuss only three areas of socio-economic

importance to cover today?

We chose to review in detail, three of the ten identified socio-economic areas as

those topics received the most interest based on feedback at WG#3. However we

can spend as much time as needed on any of the ten areas. If we do not have

enough time today, we will find other opportunities to do so, to the depth

participants feel comfortable. There is a follow up session scheduled with First

Nations representatives, on July 3, 2014. There will be ample opportunities for

discussion.

5) Aboriginal groups’ first concerns relate to the environment and health of the marsh.

Thank you. You have shared comments that PMV needs to be aware of and to

consider with respect to your community.

6) I am interested in the skills and training requirements referenced. Most of our

aboriginal villages have an 80% unemployment rate. Who is the contact person for

the type of training required for any of the jobs available at PMV?

This is the kind of issue that will be considered under the proposed labour market

VC, and PMV is interested in discussing this in more detail. A discussion is needed

on the importance of flagging training relevant to upcoming Project-related jobs.

Jemma Scoble is the PMV contact person to connect with on this. We are aware of

the importance of giving communities time to prepare for employment opportunities.

We want communities to have sufficient time to prepare.


June 17, 2014 Page 6 of 21

7) Are these economic issues from the Provincial input/output model? Has a cost benefit

analysis been done? Benefits and costs should be shown, not just the potential

impacts. Impacts should be relative to the costs when determining the best use of

public funds. There are a lot of public goods at stake here. Although this is my first

working group meeting, there seems to be a methodological gap.

We are using the Provincial input/output model to determine effects. Goods and

services impacts are considered. This Project will be financed with private financing.

8) A cost benefit analysis is needed on various components. Although private capital is

used, this is a collective project. The public good is being affected.

We are including a high-level discussion on benefits in the EIS. It is not included in

the impact assessment part, but at the front-end where we discuss alternatives and

the business case for the Project. A high level cost benefit analysis was done during

the early planning for this Project.

9) Do you have a willingness to pay and accept on cost analysis? Is a cost analysis

required? A full cost benefit is needed. Private entities, Aboriginal groups and other

Canadians will have their own perspectives.

The EIS Guidelines, developed by CEA Agency, are available for review and describe

the specific information to be provided including economic aspects of the

assessment. There is a lot of information in the EIS that speaks to the economic

aspects of the Project. The benefits to Canadians are at a higher level than what you

are describing. Your comments are appreciated and have been noted.

Follow up response provided by D. Myles, CEA Agency: There are specific

requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA 2012) that are

laid out in the guidelines. The CEAA 2012 is focused on getting answers to whether

or not a project would cause significant adverse environmental effects. There is a

requirement to look at benefits to Canadians. If there are any adverse effects (this

could include indirect socio-economic effects due to changes caused by the Project)

cabinet could determine that the effects can be justified. They would consider

benefits to Canadians at a high level. Port Metro Vancouver will include in its EIS,

information needed for the Project however, not all the information submitted will be

utilised in the federal decision making of the EA.

10) The input/output model is generally: “garbage in garbage out”. Are you talking about

the input/output model assessing net benefits for the region, or incremental benefits

of the Project only? For example, are you only looking at what this Project will add in

terms of jobs or will you consider how it will impact the labour market within the

container movement industry? Is this the net effect or incremental growth? Usually

input/output models consider other levels. Is this part of this?

The “economic impact” work for this Project will look at several indicators, including

employment and GDP. The modelling effort and analysis will look at net incremental

impacts for the region, province and certain industries, including the container

terminal industry. There are different ways to analyse a project from an economic


June 17, 2014 Page 7 of 21

perspective. We are doing an economic impact analysis, which is appropriate for EAs,

as it looks at the distribution of benefits whether geographically or between sectors.

The analysis we are doing is typically done within an EA context as it provides effects

estimates at the regional and industry levels, as well as at the provincial level.

11) We have met with PMV (Jemma Scoble and Sharleen Dumont), and we have

provided them with our traditional harvesting patterns. Any loss of habitat would

impact our food for traditional and ceremonial purposes, and commercial use. If we

take out active harvesting habitat, there will be a detrimental impact on Aboriginal

groups.

Your comments have been noted. Information is being broken down into different

categories in the EIS (i.e., marine commercial use, current use of traditional

resources). Your comments have been heard and will be reflected in the EIS.

12) Information from the Tsawwassen First Nation (TFN) is still forthcoming.

Due to the physical requirements of the Project, will there be an economic impact on

things that may be considered “public good” (i.e. dredging)? Where within the EIS

will there be an examination of cost and value of impact on public goods? For

example, through construction there will be an area which will be filled with sand

dredged from the Fraser River. Other groups could be interested in gaining access to

that material (i.e. for building dykes). An economic analysis of this would be helpful.

An important element of the Project is the creation of land in offshore waters and

this will require the acquisition of fill and aggregate materials from regional and non-

regional sources. The Project’s demand for these materials and the regional supply

capacity will be examined within the EA’s consideration of the economic development

implications of the Project.

13) Coastal harvesting is an important economic activity for our community. How are you

categorising that? Aboriginal groups will typically prefer you deal with food and

ceremonial fisheries first. There is an important economic component to that.

Aboriginal groups rely significantly on fisheries. In future, the first call under

“resources” should be Aboriginal.

We appreciate you flagging topics that you want to see covered in the EIS.

Post Meeting Note: Coastal harvesting as it relates to food and ceremonial uses will be

covered in the assessment of Current Use of Land and Resources

for Traditional Purposes.

14) It would be helpful if PMV illustrated that they are aware of impacts on Aboriginal

groups’ food and ceremonial requirements.

Another series of meeting will be held with Aboriginal groups in the fall, after some

preliminary findings have been compiled. We are seeking feedback on the proposed

valued components. We are currently just proposing topics we will be looking at


June 17, 2014 Page 8 of 21

further. Collectively, the effects on marine resources for Aboriginal groups are being

assessed in relation to food and social / ceremonial purposes. We are also looking at

commercial uses by Aboriginal groups. We do understand there is a holistic context

that Aboriginal groups want us to see.

Post Meeting Note: These topics will be covered in the assessment of Current Use of

Land and Resources for Traditional Purposes.

Erin Bishop, Socio-Economic Project Manager, continued the presentation on proposed social

and economic VCs. Comments were offered on the basis for selection, component linkages

and proposed assessment areas related to the following proposed VCs: Visual Resources;

Physical and Cultural Heritage; and Land and Water Use.

Discussion Session



1) We are talking about value components, but will air quality be an intermediate

component of the Visual Resources VC?

Visual quality is not one of the aspects of the air quality assessment, and air quality

is not taken into account in the proposed Visual Resources VC. It is acknowledged

that this topic was previously raised and discussed with Metro Vancouver at the last

Working Group meeting.

Post Meeting Note: Please see Q&A document from Working Group meeting #3 for a

response.

2) Note: Tsawwassen First Nation will have some comments on changes in marine use.

Information from the TFN is forthcoming.

Noted.

3) Could you provide further information on the archeological assessment you referred

to in the presentation?

The “Archeological Overview Assessment” report that was undertaken will inform the

environmental assessment.

Post Meeting Note: This document was provided to Aboriginal groups in draft for their

review and comment in December 2013. Comments received from

Aboriginal groups were provided to the author of the draft

Archaeological Overview Assessment and where appropriate,

revisions were made to the report. The revised Archaeological

Overview Assessment was provided to Aboriginal groups in May

2014.


June 17, 2014 Page 9 of 21

4) Hwlitsum First Nation would like to have a copy of the “Archeological Overview

Assessment”. The heritage registry recognises a cemetery on Westham Island. None

of the Cowichan communities were contacted and should be. We are currently

harvesting in the area. Could you expand the survey for land and water use?

This question is in relation to the Archaeological and Heritage Resources VC, rather

than Land and Water Use. There is a discussion on sites and historic uses in the

areas outlined in the presentation Hwlitsum First Nation, along with all other

Aboriginal groups, including the Cowichan Nation Alliance (CNA), were provided with

the draft Archaeological Overview Assessment (AOA) for comment. Port Metro

Vancouver received feedback from the CNA on the draft and the document was

revised by Millennia. These groups were also provided with the revised AOA.

5) You have referred to a number of issues PMV plans to get to in the fall. Aboriginal

groups need time to reasonably react. You should contact us immediately so we will

not be an obstruction.

We will be compiling a list of issues you have mentioned and follow up at the

appropriate forum.

6) I am assuming this information will (also) be presented at the Aboriginal groups

session on July 3, 2014. I appreciate what the presenters are doing, however I would

appreciate having a greater understanding. I am feeling like you are speeding

through this and I am having difficulty following. It helps to hear about what experts

are talking about. When experts do not have a chance to finalise their comments, it

is difficult for me to process their information. Please allow them time to have

dialogue. That is the primary reason I am here. I would have liked to have

commented on a few issues earlier, but I could not formulate my thoughts quickly

enough.

Efforts are being made to get through all of the information today at some level. We

do have time and could stay later to answer questions.

7) In an earlier slide, you referenced Aboriginal groups and indicated which groups you

consulted. We were not consulted on items you referred to as receiving “Aboriginal”

feedback on. Please indicate which groups you consulted with.

The purpose of today’s discussion is to carry forward what we have heard. Your

comments are valued and will be brought back as we prepare for the July 3, 2014

meeting. The next iteration for this July 3rd meeting will include a broader spectrum

of information. Port Metro Vancouver is aware that a group-by-group engagement is

needed with Aboriginal groups on a number of issues raised. Port Metro Vancouver

will work towards addressing those. The presentation is only a high level summary

outlining the types of issues raised by Aboriginal groups to date. The summaries

indicate some of the issues we have heard about. More detailed information will be

provided in the EIS.

8) Please do not generalise when referring to Aboriginal group consultation. We can

take ownership of our own positions.


June 17, 2014 Page 10 of 21

Noted.

9) Questions appear in my mind while the speakers are presenting, however they

quickly move forward. As I have only had a brief one-day workshop on socio-

economic impacts, the information that experts here can provide can help me

understand better. If I had printed copies of the information in front of me I would

write notes on it and report back to my community. On several levels, I am uncertain

what you are talking about.

Efforts will be made to let the conversations go further throughout the day. We are

still very early in EIS development. At a later date, we will reach a point where

everyone can have actual documents in front of them to refer to.

Break: The Workshop recessed at 12:00 p.m. and reconvened at 1:00 p.m.

4. ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED HUMAN HEALTH VALUED COMPONENT

Erin Bishop, Socio-Economic Project Manager, gave an overview presentation on the

proposed Human Health VC. Comments were offered on the basis for selection, component

linkages and proposed assessment areas for the human health proposed valued component.

Additionally, comments were offered on health effects assessment tools.

Doug Bright, Health Risk Assessment Specialist, gave a presentation on one of the tools

(human health risk assessment, or HHRA) used to support the assessment of the proposed

Human Health VC. Comments were offered on the rationale, methodology, scope, and

proposed assessment areas related to the HHRA. The presentation included information on

the scope of the related air quality, noise and vibration, and shellfish consumption studies.

Discussion Session



1) Can you provide an example of a social determinant of health? Could there be

economic impacts derived from change?

Employment is a potential social determinant of health. Social determinants of health

and environmental determinants of health can influence health outcomes. Examples

of determinants of health include housing, our communities, the environment around

us and infrastructure. A lot of the effects on the health side are not direct – they go

through intermediate pathways, which we refer to as “social determinants of health”.

2) About six to ten times a year, when the wind blows northeast, members of our

community living along Canoe Pass will have coal dust on their cars. Would that be

considered in this study? Is that considered air quality particulate?

This Project will not contribute to coal dust, as the Project is a container terminal

(and does not transport coal). We will, however consider coal dust from Westshore


June 17, 2014 Page 11 of 21

(the existing coal terminal at Roberts Bank) in considering existing conditions and

cumulative effects. Coal dust from these other sources will be included in our

dispersion modelling of ambient air quality conditions. We will take into account

estimated normal emissions from normal operations. What we cannot do, is estimate

emissions from episodic periods (i.e., isolated events).

3) At the first meeting, it was noted that there would be no coal in the new Project.

With that in mind, will the percentage of coal increase at Westshore?

There will be no additional coal ships coming in as a result of the Project. The

proposed Project will not influence coal shipments one way or the other. If this

Project does not proceed, Westshore’s proposed expansion could continue

regardless.

4) Will the coal dust issue be included in the EIS?

Yes. This will be considered in the existing conditions and cumulative effects analysis

of the air quality assessment. This will be presented in the EIS as two different

scenarios: “with” or “without” the Project.

5) There are a lot of end points coming out of the air quality model. Are you using a

maximum of one hour, annual amounts, 24-hour amounts, or 98th percentiles? Is the

maximum predicted in the area or at the receptor sites?

Details about the toxicity reference values that will be used, including summary

statistics that will inform the Human Health Risk Assessment will be provided in the

EIS. The intent for this WG meeting is to provide a higher level overview.

For annual exposures, the average predicted exposure value is the primary metric

used. The decision to use an average, 98th percentile or maximum predicted air

concentration for predicting human exposures depends on the contaminant of

potential concern, and the underlying scientific basis of the ambient air quality

objective or equivalent toxicity reference value.

6) Will you use the maximum predicted?

The deterministic exposure prediction statistic used depends on which contaminant

of potential concern is being addressed. The maximum is not uniformly the most

defensible approach.

7) Will you look at the draft Canadian Air Quality Standards for NO2 and SO2?

We are aware that the scientific thinking about thresholds of effects for both NOx

and SO2 are in a state of flux. We will consider the most appropriate guidance on

these Criteria Air Contaminants (CACs) as we develop the Environmental Impact

Statement.

8) I am seeing levels of 25 to 65 ppb NOx per hour.

This EA considers conditions a number of years into the future. We are doing our

best to anticipate and keep abreast of regulatory changes and take those into

account in our assessment methodology. The EIS assumes a 5.5 year construction

period. We will include comparisons of today and future points in time that are


June 17, 2014 Page 12 of 21

informed by our understanding of the current regulatory framework.

9) If you look at the “air quality receptor sites” slide and Brunswick Point – we have a

fish wharf there where a number of our people work regularly. We have not been

interviewed about this. The only fish wharves in the vicinity are controlled by

Hwlitsum. Will our people be canvassed about their opinion on air quality?

The point of having receptor locations is that based on patterns of dispersion, there

are a number of areas where exposures are likely to be greater than the locations

you have identified. We will make judgments about the landscape and the discrete

receptor areas. Those kinds of predictions will extend to other areas of the

landscape.

10) Aboriginal fishermen are exercising their rights in their routine business daily. It is

necessary that you talk with them about air quality. There is an adverse impact and

we should know what level it is at.

The model includes the Brunswick Point area, and will provide air quality assessment

information on this area. The human health assessment will discuss potential health

effects for these areas in the LAA.

11) Port Metro Vancouver could provide details on acute short and long term durations

and assessments. There are ways of determining predicted concentrations. You could

identify a particular area, and determine what levels of pollution are anticipated.

We can get data for any point. Your request for details on the difference between

chronic and acute effects has been noted.

12) There may be little if any, contamination of shellfish, assuming vessels are working

properly, and operations go as they should. However, at some point there needs to

be an assessment of a potential marine spill.

Risk of marine spills will be covered under “accidents and malfunctions”.

13) You talked about the contamination of crustaceans and clams. I do not see anything

in regard to contamination as a result of bilge pumps, from ships anchored in the

waters. There can be a lot of damage from discharge from those pumps. Why is

nothing included in the report about this? What about ships with sewage effluent

holding tanks?

The reason bilge pumps are not referenced here is that there are regulations

currently in place that prevent the discharge of bilge water in PMV jurisdiction.

Similarly, vessels that enter PMV jurisdiction are not permitted to release raw

sewage effluent. If required, untreated sewage can be discharged at least 12 miles

(19.3 km) from shore with the ship moving faster than 4 knots. If sewage is

comminuted (i.e. blended or pulverised), discharges can take place 3 miles (4.8 km)

from shore. For ships equipped with approved treatment plants there are also limits

to the permissible coliform counts.

14) Despite regulations there is a concern that the various measures in place might lack

adequate enforcement.


June 17, 2014 Page 13 of 21

Noted.

Post Meeting Note: Port Metro Vancouver has a bilge water protocol to prevent any oil

or other liquids containing oil from being discharged into PMV

waters. Information surrounding the discharge of liquids from

vessels, including distances offshore and areas where such

activities may be permitted, can be found in the Vessel Pollution

and Dangerous Chemical Regulations within the Canada Shipping

Act (CSA 2001).http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-

2012-69/page-1.html

Transport Canada is the responsible agency in regard to ballast

water in line with international regulations through the IMO. For

further information: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/tp-

tp13617-menu-2138.htm

http://www.imo.org/ourwork/environment/ballastwatermanageme

nt/Pages/Default.aspx

Port Metro Vancouver’s Ballast Water Management Regulations

(2004) place the following obligations on vessels calling at the Port

of Vancouver: 1) Vessels must have on board a ballast water

management plan; 2) Vessels intending to discharge ballast water

within port limits must carry out mid-ocean ballast water

exchange. All commercial deep sea vessels are required to carry

out a ballast water exchange prior to entering Canadian waters,

which is 200 nautical miles (370 km) outside the exclusive

economic zone in water deeper than 2000 m. An official ballast

water exchange report must be completed and filed to Marine

Communications and Traffic Services (Coast Guard) at least 96

hours prior to entry into Canadian waters. In addition, an official

entry must be made in the deck log book recording the time and

position of the ballast water exchange. By requiring vessels to

complete this ballast ’flush’ well outside our waters, the aim is to

prevent any foreign organisms from entering into our local eco-

system.

15) At the WG#2 I asked about the effects of noise on birds. Under the Migratory Bird

Act there should not be disruptions in the bird habitat area. We get concerned when

we see a lot of the birds congregating, and overgrazing. I need to see a study on the

effects of noise on birds. Birds may tolerate a lower noise levels than humans.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-2012-69/page-1.html

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-2012-69/page-1.html

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/tp-tp13617-menu-2138.htm

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafety/tp-tp13617-menu-2138.htm

http://www.imo.org/ourwork/environment/ballastwatermanagement/Pages/Default.aspx

http://www.imo.org/ourwork/environment/ballastwatermanagement/Pages/Default.aspx


June 17, 2014 Page 14 of 21

We have noted your request that the potential effects of Project-related noise on

birds be addressed in the EIS.

16) Our community harvests crabs in the area. The crabs often come up with coal dust,

so harvesters have to throw away the contaminated ones, and harvest more. Will

this be addressed in the EIS?

We have sampled and analysed tissues from crabs in the area. We did not see crabs

with coal dust in their gills. We will take this into further consideration.

Marla Orenstein, Health Impact Assessment Specialist, gave an overview presentation on

the health impact assessment (HIA), which is one of the tools used to support the

assessment of the proposed Human Health VC. Comments were offered on: RBT2 HIA

rationale, scope, proposed assessment areas, and methodology.

Discussion Session



1) Our community has the only two fishing wharves in the area outlined in the

presentation. As no one has talked to us about the area, reporting on the fishing

wharves makes me question the reliability of your report.

This is still just a plan. We have not reported yet. There are a number of First

Nations groups that will be consulted including: Tsawwassen First Nation, Musqueam,

Semiahmoo, Tsleil-Waututh, Cowichan Tribes, Lake Cowichan First Nation, Hwlitsum

and others. Port Metro Vancouver will be speaking with these groups to understand

how Aboriginal groups may be affected. Research is being done on current use of

land and resources for traditional purposes. Reports of traditional resources have

been requested and received from some Aboriginal groups. Interviews may not have

been held yet with all groups. We will follow up on this.

Post Meeting Note: Interviews related to current use of land and resources for

traditional purposes are requested in cases where there is not

sufficient written information available. Therefore, interviews will

not necessarily be requested with members of each First Nation if

studies have already been carried out and reports provided to PMV

for use in the assessment.

2) How will the results of both of the HIA and HHRA assessment processes presented be

combined, to consider their significance?

We will do the assessments in parallel. The HHRA stands out differently. With the

HHRA we have thresholds for significant adverse effects. When you get into the HIA

realm, the assessment is qualitative, not quantitative. The HIA will consider

frequency, diversity and will clearly define “high”, “medium” or “low”. Both the HHRA


June 17, 2014 Page 15 of 21

and HIA are technical inputs to the health value component. Socio-Economic effects

identified through these studies will go through the traditional methodology for

determining significance as part of the proposed human health VC.

3) If there is an ambient air quality issue, how will that feed through?

Any ambient air quality issues would feed into the HHRA “threshold of exposure”. We

would talk about those affected by the exceedance and how it could affect chronic

health outcomes. Duration and intensity will be considered.

4) It would be useful to receive in advance, the methodology for determining

significance, with respect to Human Health VC. I am also interested in what the

threshold is going to be for PM, and that sort of thing.

We have noted this request and will follow up to discuss our methodology in more

detail.

5) From an Aboriginal groups perspective, there is potential for adverse impacts to

communities and people. Your reports should identify this potential, so we can make

an assessment on the risk factors to human health.

Noted.

6) Which contaminants will be studied for direct or indirect exposure?

The mobile source air toxics are derived from a list of US EPA priority contaminants.

An item of concern on the list is formaldehyde. There are no metals included in the

US EPA update.

7) In Washington State they are able to put a lock on a ship’s bilge pump or other

devices. There are huge issues with ships releasing their bilge along Vancouver

Island (i.e., Clam Bay). This is a way to remedy this.

The EIS will include a description of the mechanisms in place, including those where

PMV has influence, to manage bilge discharges from vessels calling at PMV facilities.

Within PMV jurisdiction, ships are not allowed (by regulation) to release bilge water.

Post Meeting Note: There is no dumping of noxious liquid substances, including bilge

water, allowed within PMV jurisdiction and Canadian waters, as

regulated by the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, and the Vessel

Pollution and Dangerous Chemicals Regulations, SOR/2012-69.

Port Metro Vancouver has a bilge water protocol to prevent any oil

or other liquids containing oil from being discharged into PMV

waters. No vessel is allowed to illegally discharge any pollutant into

the water within the Port of Vancouver. To help protect vessels and

the environment from the accidental discharge of oil or oily (bilge)


June 17, 2014 Page 16 of 21

water, PMV Harbour Master’s Patrol Staff seal the engine room

bilge overside discharge valve(s).

8) It may not be a PMV issue, but it is a Crown-First Nation issue. The Crown is asking

Aboriginal groups to allow an increase in tankers into the Salish Sea. While

comments may not be directed at PMV, they may influence this. PMV is responsible

for certain areas of waters. Please do not wash away our concerns with “PMV does

not have authority to address this”. Please flag our concerns and note them.

Noted.

9) There were six ships seen recently between Chemainus and Ladysmith (a 12 km

stretch). Ships were situated north of Thetis Island, and at the south end of

Penelakut Island. We have never seen so many ships anchored there. We guessed

they were waiting to come to PMV to load up. Our Chemainus neighbours were

concerned about the impacts on the shellfish in the area. There are very few

harvesting areas due to pollution. Clams cannot be harvested on half the island. This

Project could impact our food source. Elders are concerned about the increased

number of ships coming into the territory.

Thank you for your comments.

Break: The Workshop recessed at 2:25 p.m. and reconvened at 2:43 p.m.

5. ONGOING PRODUCTIVITY OF ROBERTS BANK ECOSYSTEM

Derek Nishimura, Senior Biologist – Ecosystem Productivity, continued with an overview

presentation “Summary of the Roberts Bank Ecosystem Assessment”.

Comments were offered on the Roberts Bank ecosystem assessment, and the related

approach, rationale, methodology, ecosystem based model output, food web, proposed VC,

component linkages, and proposed local assessment area.

Post Meeting Note: Productive capacity definition: The maximum natural capability of

habitats to produce healthy fish that are safe for human

consumption, or to support or produce aquatic organisms upon

which fish depend. This term is superseded with “ongoing

productivity” (productivity) in the RBT2 environmental impact

statement (EIS), as defined by the Fisheries Protection Investment

Policy.”


June 17, 2014 Page 17 of 21

Discussion Session



1) Can you clarify “nutrient cycling” and “carbon sink”?

Silt can carry nutrients. The silt, sediments and particulates that settle in the Fraser

River on tidal flats provide food for different animals that live in sediment and for

animals that feed on those animals. There are a number of plants that grow in the

marsh. Nutrient cycling refers to the nutrient uptake throughout this process. Carbon

sink refers to the growth of plants and animals, and sequestration of carbon,

throughout this process.

2) What is the “blue carbon” that occurs in the marine environment?

I have not heard this term – this may be a sequestration of carbon in a natural

system. All organisms are made of carbon, and add nutrients back to the system.

3) Can you comment on some of the terms referenced in the presentation, such as

“nutrient cycling”?

Organisms could include plants that live in the sediment that use up nutrients (i.e.

phosphorous, carbon, and potassium). Organisms dying in the area return the

nutrients. Nutrient cycling refers to the accumulation of nutrients in the area.

4) Elders say when the water is at a reduced level, the nutrient cycling will not go

throughout the whole area.

There are a lot of nutrients in the Fraser River, and a lot of other factors that

influence their movement within Roberts Bank.

5) In the EIS, we can look at the effects of the assessments, and predict change. What

does the ecosystem model do differently?

The ecosystem model is a tool to illustrate inter-linkages between species and what

will happen with or without the Project. It is important to complement the

assessment of proposed VCs.

6) I am not certain what you are talking about. Are you referring to changes in

biomass? How can that be assessed?

Yes, the ecosystem model helps us understand potential changes in biomass

generated by the Roberts Bank ecosystem, as a result of the proposed Project, as

well as how individual species may be affected.

7) This is a perfect area for traditional knowledge to be encapsulated. We have an Elder

in the community who could add a lot here. He has fished for many years, and lived

in the same area. Elders have harvested and know the waters well.

There are opportunities to participate. Consultations are ongoing and Aboriginal

groups are part of this process.

Post Meeting Note: Aboriginal Traditional Knowledge workshops were held with TFN

and MIB Crabbers and Fishers.


June 17, 2014 Page 18 of 21

8) Could you explain “focal species”?

“Focal species” refers to species with societal, economic or traditional purposes.

Focal species were selected from a list of many species that are known to occur at

Roberts Bank, as described at WG#3.

The “food web” (on the slide) shows sample data and is provided to illustrate the

relationships between focal species at Roberts Bank and the relative amount of

biomass associated with specific species. This could be populated with information on

existing conditions to describe the current state (productivity), prior to development.

The model can then be run to model how changes in physical conditions (i.e. salinity,

depth, velocity, and wave height) as a result of a project might result in changes to

the food web and the productivity of the ecosystem. When this tool is used to

support the environmental assessment of the Project, model results will be shown in

the EIS “with” and “without” the Project in place.

9) Could the model test mitigation strategies?

The model can be used to help consider potential mitigation options, in the event the

Project impacts habitat. To do so, it is important to have an idea of the habitat

“before and after” so we can understand which species might benefit and which

might be adversely affected. If there are species that are adversely affected,

mitigation measures can be focused on those specific species to reduce or eliminate

the impact.

10) Due to noise factors, let’s say that orcas leave the area, how does the model adjust

for that? You have shown options “with RBT2” and “without RBT2”. How will that be

shown? Will there be an increase in other species in terms of biomass?

This tool can look at the ecosystem overall. The potential of noise impacts on

mammals will be looked at as well. Any potential effects can be assessed, and efforts

could be made to consider mitigation options.

11) Are you doing this on all 25 focal species?

Yes, for the biophysical species discussed at the WG#3. This is a complementary tool

to help provide greater understanding.

12) We have identified a number of VCs we are concerned with. Will invasive species be

included?

There are existing invasive species in the area. For example, there is one species of

eelgrass which is an invasive species and is component of the existing ecosystem. It

is included in the model.

13) Some of the invasive species could compete for resources. Aboriginal groups noted

that eelgrass could be pushed aside. This could increase biomass, but it may be

harmful to the crabs. Can invasive species be flagged?

Yes – invasive species can be flagged. We will identify potential effects to a range of

species (through the model) to understand what the offsetting needs are. If there is

an increase in invasive species, measures could be undertaken to address this effect.


June 17, 2014 Page 19 of 21

Port Metro Vancouver contracted a group at UBC to design, build and run this model,

for a number of uses. This model has been internationally recognised and used by

many countries to support fisheries’ harvesting plans and marine planning initiatives.

14) Would the ‘biomass balloons’ shown in the slides get larger or smaller? The eelgrass

‘biomass balloon’ is smaller than others.

The size of the circles (balloons) shown in the food web represents the amount of

biomass associated with a specific species. The model would be run without the

Project, then re-run with the Project in place. Changes in the size of any of the

balloons would illustrate the change in biomass (productivity) that would be

anticipated to occur. The information in the slide is based on sample data for

illustrative purposes, not results from the environmental assessment.

15) The food web could indicate the impact on species, if the Project proceeded.

A number will be calculated (using the model) indicating the total net productivity for

Roberts Bank. We will be able to see how it changes before and after development.

It could go up or down for individual species.

16) How do we deal with species that do not occur in the area every year (i.e. pink

salmon have a dominant cycle every second year).

These species would be included in a group of fish, which is averaged over a number

of years. The next slide shows environmental conditions (salinity, depth, velocity and

wave height) which are crucial to informing the assessment of proposed valued

components. Their levels could change depending on the scope of the Project and

the Project’s activities.

17) I would like to also see information on how temperature changes affect productivity.

The slide shows just an example of the conditions considered. There are many other

input conditions considered, including temperature. In addition, sediment grain size

is also considered as one of the variables. There is a website link of the model, which

offers information on the power of the tool (http://www.ecopath.org/about).

18) Is this a new system for measuring productivity? I do not think this was done with

the DP3 assessment. During the 1960s, they counted grams of carbon per cubic

metre. Could past data be brought forward?

Different measures have been used to measure productivity in the past. For

example, growth rates and nutrients present. Older computers did not have the

power to be able to run a model such as this. Habitat suitability models could be

used to consider the activity of specific species. They can incorporate information

that goes into other models. There is a suite of different tools that can be used to

make assessments.

19) Have climate change impacts on the ecosystem or marine habitat been considered?

Climate change could set the stage for changes, including to biological changes.

Effects of climate change, such as sea-level rise are taken into consideration in the

model.

http://www.ecopath.org/about


June 17, 2014 Page 20 of 21

6. GENERAL FEEDBACK AND QUESTIONS

Malcolm Smith, Facilitator invited participants to complete and submit the “Roberts Bank

Terminal 2 WG #4 Question Form” provided at the workshop.

Opportunities for further discussion in the fall, and in 2015 to receive an overview of the

content of the EIS, were identified assuming there was sufficient interest from Working

Group members. A meeting with Aboriginal groups on the proposed valued components was

scheduled for July 3, 2014. Additional discussions could be arranged during the summer

months, if needed.

Discussion Session



1) Can we get an update on the B.C. EA process?

Representatives from the province have attended every Working Group meeting with

colleagues from the Ministry of Transportation. Our approach to the assessment of

the Project has not been formalised. It is important to raise issues here that need to

be addressed by PMV as they move forward with the EA. A formal approach by the

Province will likely be announced later in the summer. (David Grace, B.C.

Environmental Assessment Office)

7. CLOSING AND NEXT STEPS

Kyle Robertson, Environmental Manager, Port Metro Vancouver, thanked attendees for their

participation and advised that the comments shared during WG#4 would be reviewed,

considered and compiled. He confirmed that engagement with regulatory agencies, local

governments and Aboriginal groups was valued by PMV and would continue. A public

engagement process is planned for the fall of 2014 which will focus on proposed mitigation.

Malcolm Smith, Facilitator, confirmed that the overhead presentations provided at WG#4

would be distributed along with the WG#4 meeting record. At the end of the process,

material from all the working group meetings would be synthesised into a summary

document and posted on the CEA Agency website.

Mr. Robertson concluded by noting that WG#4 was the last Working Group meeting

scheduled. Participants were invited to submit further comments on the feedback forms

provided, and thanked for their keen interest, participation and assistance to the PMV.


June 17, 2014 Page 21 of 21

CONCLUSION

The Roberts Bank Terminal 2 (RBT2) Project, Working Group – Workshop #4 concluded at

approximately 3:40 p.m.

INFORMATION PROVIDED

The following information items were provided at the meeting:

Agenda for the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project, Working Group (WG) Workshop #4

scheduled Tuesday, June 17, 2014

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Working Group #4 Question Form

RBT2 Working Group #4, June 17th, 2014 Follow up Inquiry Received from Metro Vancouver and City of Surrey

Inquiry Response

Transportation:

1. Please clarify why transportation related expenditures are not considered in Local Government Finances Valued Component (VC).

The Local Government Finances VC assesses the effect of the proposed Project’s physical infrastructure on local government finances. The proposed Project, as defined by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, is not likely to result in quantifiable changes related to municipal transportation expenditures. Port Metro Vancouver collaborates with industry, government agencies and stakeholders to improve goods movement and reduce transportation impacts on communities. Additionally, Port Metro Vancouver is working with government agencies and other stakeholders through the newly established Gateway Transportation Collaboration Forum to minimize impacts generated by the economic activity related to goods movement throughout the Lower Mainland. Similar collaborative initiatives have already contributed towards transportation infrastructure that support the improved movement of people and goods including, but not limited to, the Roberts Bank Rail Corridor Program, the North Shore and South Shore Trade Area projects, South Fraser Perimeter Road, widening of Westminster Highway and Nelson Road, improved intersections at Chester Road/Derwent Way, Chester Road/Cliveden Avenue, and Nordel Way at Brooke Road and at Shepherd Way, Ashcroft terminal expansion, and the Regional Transportation Management Centre.

Inquiry Response

Transportation and Traffic:

2. What is the proposed Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project impact on road and rail network and the traffic lands in region?

The road and rail traffic input, assumptions, and net change associated with the proposed Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project were presented in slides 37 – 49 of the “Container Movement at Roberts Bank” section of the morning presentation at Working Group #2. A complete rail and truck traffic report for the scope of the Project will be presented as part of the environmental impact statement.

RBT2 Working Group #4, June 17th, 2014 Follow up Inquiry Received from Metro Vancouver and City of Surrey

Inquiry Response

Land Use:

3. What is the proposed Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project impact on Metro Vancouver's industrial land demand and utilization?

The proposed Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project area is located primarily on submerged federal land that is managed by Port Metro Vancouver, and partially on provincial Crown land. The existing terminal is designated as Port Terminal under Port Metro Vancouver’s Updated Land Use Plan. The existing terminal is also designated as marine terminal (or industrial) by local government. Port Metro Vancouver manages approximately 3,600 acres of land, most of which is occupied, and only 200 acres of the remaining land is designated for future industrial development. Port Metro Vancouver recognizes that the growing demand for containerised goods creates a need for increased off dock services, which may result in industrial land absorption by industry partners in the container supply chain. In response to the growing demand for containerised trade, Port Metro Vancouver is increasing operational efficiency and infrastructure within existing lands, as well as proposing the development of the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project. Port Metro Vancouver is also promoting the establishment of an Industrial Land Reserve that would protect current land and look at ways to create new industrial land.

Documents

SFU Harbour Centre, 515 West Hastings Street, Vancouver ... · Malcolm Smith (Hemmera) Purpose: 2. 1. Seek feedback from Working Group on Socio Economic valued component selection,