First NameLast NameYour message to the Trudeau government about Roberts Bank Terminal 2CityEntry Date
EoghanMoriarty

Roberts Bank is a critically important habitat for wildlife and building an additional container port there would further threaten the area.

There is no business case for building T2 and the facility would be mostly automated anyway if it were built.

The stress on local rail infrastructure and communities from this expansion would be enormous and the facility in Prince Rupert makes more sense in every way.

Don't allow Port Metro Vancouver to flood the lower mainland with all of these containers that should be handled by Prince Rupert. Why should our roads be clogged with container trucks when an inland rail terminal makes more sense.

I am opposed to the building of this facility and in fact the Westshore Terminals coal port should be repurposed to do something besides shipping 18th century pollution overseas to be burned.

Delta2016-10-27 01:55:39
BevYaworski

I oppose the building of Roberts Bank Container Terminal 2.
There are too many risks to people and wildlife from increased contaminants to sediments, plant life and fisheries at Roberts Bank and along the Ladner Fraser River – ie: potential higher levels of arsenic, cadmium and selenium into the food chain.

The dredging and filling will negatively impact the entire area ecosystems changing tidal flats, water flows, habitats and species dependent on the unique biomass formed where the fresh water flows into the sea.

South Delta has had to absorb far too much of recent developments & industrialization with projects such as Hwy 17, the Tsaw First Nations Mall, increased traffic l and loss of valuable farmland. Our quality of life is suffering! It's time to halt this unbridled expansion & deterioration of our beautiful natural landscape.

Delta2016-10-27 10:09:00
DeirdreWhalen

There is no need for a Terminal 2. Shipments are down, operations are slowing. A second terminal will wipe out important and dwindling species of migrating birds as well as the biofilm they feed on.

A better solution is to have an inland terminal and transport goods by rail. Ashcroft BC is perfectly set up to take shipments and wants this industry in their area. They are also located where the two inter-continental train lines meet.

Do not allow Roberta Bank to build Terminal 2!

Richmond2016-10-27 10:57:06
GretaBorick-Cunningham

The expansion of Roberts Bank Terminal 2 must stop immediately. There is too much at stake here. It is not needed nor does it look like it will be needed in the foreseeable future. There are huge risks to the environment inlcuding the Roberts Bank ecosystem which is a major habitat area for wildlife and biodiversity.

Please protect Roberts Bank for future generations and the reverse the diastrous decision to build Terminal 2.

Vancouver2016-10-27 11:09:11
StephenRees

The business case for the new terminal relies on old trends continuing. The Port seemingly has not noticed that the Chinese are no longer interested in our natural resources - especially fossil fuels - or continuing to expand their shipments of consumer goods to North America. Since consumers' real incomes here are either static at best but mostly falling, the Chinese are now concentrating on better serving their home market. This also has the important benefit of keeping more money at home and stemming the loss of funds to foreign investments. Projections based on simply extrapolating from the past ignore these secular changes.

Canada's Environmental Assessment process has never been up to international standards and was deliberately crippled by the last government. The present government does not seem to be in a hurry to correct it. The Port is unfit to be a guardian of the environment since it is solely concerned with expanding its business no matter what the impact. The loss of species in the Fraser River delta is a singular warning which has been too long ignored.

Vancouver2016-10-27 11:34:49
wendyturner

As a member of the Fraser River ;Coalition and others focussed on the health of the Fraser River and its Estuary, I remember attending a meeting about this proposal over 20 years ago. The meeting was held at the offices of the Federal government in Delta. The proposal was for this expansion of the Port at Roberts' Bank. AND here we are in 2016 forwarding a proposal to expand the coal port etal as per the past.

I am opposed to this project for the same reasons presented 20 years ago.

Why expand for. coal export? Why provide for Montana or other providers i.e. B.C. coal when Washington and Oregon will not allow coal export from their shores?
Why expand for MORE container traffic with the arrangements at Vancouver and Surrey Fraser Docks already in place? Are these outlets in competition with each other?
ENOUGH

My affirmative statement:
This project provides too much potential for impacts on the Fraser River Estuary. Loss of habitat is so extreme and this just adds to the cumulative impacts.

I say NO to this expansion.

I urge elected officials to stand up for 21 Century decision-making - Turn this project down.

Yours, sincerely, Wendy Turner

victoria2016-10-27 11:43:58
KEVINWASHBROOK

I write today to express my opposition to the proposed marine fill project on the Fraser Estuary, Roberts Bank Terminal 2.

As many have already pointed out, the business case put forward for this project by the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA) is highly questionable.

Further, I am deeply worried about the impact that this massive marine fill project will have on the sensitive Fraser River estuary, which has already been dramatically and irreversibly impacted by the existing Roberts Bank terminal and causeway and the BC Ferries Terminal and causeway.

As you are aware, ECCC has reported that impacts from the proposed project on sensitive biofilm on nearby mudflats will likely be immediate and irreversible. (ECCC submission filed at http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/documents/p80054/115840E.pdf)

ECCCs conclusions on this matter are striking and worth repeating in whole:

"ECCC concludes that there is a risk of significant adverse environmental effects to biofilm and consequently, migratory shorebirds in particular Western Sandpiper. Resultantly, the predicted
effectiveness of the proposed monitoring and follow-up program is insufficient.

Changes to biofilm composition at Roberts Bank have the potential to affect nutrient availability at Brunswick Point during the key spring migratory period, which could have species-level consequences to
migratory birds. ECCC would consider species-level impacts to migratory birds to be significant."

The biofilms found in the Fraser Estuary are of global significance to migratory bird populations, and the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority will not be able to habitat bank its way out of this problem.

ECCC's submission makes clear that this project will result in SAEE to critical, globally significant migratory bird habitat and bird populations. The proponent, and the federal government, cannot in any way legitimately claim that those SAEE are justified.

I would ask you to give the same consideration to SAEE on endangered southern resident killer whale populations, which also make use of this important estuarine habitat.

The Fraser River estuary -- and the marine life that inhabits it -- have suffered significant insults from development over time. I urge you not to engage in some false search for balance between protecting the environment and growing the economy, or any other form of equivocation, in order to argue that the adverse effects of this project are somehow justified in support of Canada's role as a trading nation.

Surely you can agree that we are past that point. Too much harm has been done to this sensitive environment already. Too much has been lost. Please deny an environmental assessment certificate for this project.

Regards,

Kevin Washbrook
Vancouver

Vancouver2016-10-27 13:14:54
caroljerde

stop it!!!

vancouver2016-10-27 13:31:38
SharonMacGougan

I am OPPOSED to the building of Roberts Bank Terminal 2. The Fraser River Delta, a wetland of international significance (Ramsar Convention), should be protected for our future generations; human and wildlife. There is a lament increasing heard today—of habitat loss, environmental degradation, species loss—and this is exactly how it happens. Against all good stewardship of the land, decisions are made and projects go ahead, that destroy forever that which is crucial to everyone's well being. We are interconnected with the world around us. Sandpipers and other wildlife have a place in that world. I am very disappointed that the environment is always at the bottom of the list of government priorities. This is NOT good business and is is short-term thinking.

Richmond2016-10-27 13:57:18
CatherineMacDonald

There are many valuable arguments against this project. Please stop!

LAngley2016-10-27 14:39:08
michael turner

Hi,

At this point, all I can do is beg, and plead; Please think of your own kids. Consider what the continuation of this destruction will do for their future. That's all I have. I'm exhausted, we're all exhausted and I just hope you have some human left in you to make the right decision.

Vancouver Bc2016-10-27 15:50:13
JimWright

Members of the Review Panel,

The 15 million cubic metres of unclean fill that would be dumped into the Fraser estuary for the RBT2 land mass is incomprehensible in size and risk. However, for this purpose I suggest that it is important to somehow comprehend it.

So here’s how I’ve tried. I thought a while with a little help (Thanks, Wikipedia!) and realized that 2.5 million cubic metres of unclean fill would be a mound that is larger than BC Place Stadium. Now I can at least picture it: six equally massive mounds of unclean fill, most of it at least laced with PCBs, each mound larger than BC Place Stadium.

Then I envisioned it as a mound with the footprint of BC Place Stadium but six times the height. That made the mound 372 meters high, a little higher than Burnaby mountain but with sheer cliff sides all around. Wow! And the 15 million cubic metres that the project info states is probably just for the land mass of the main artificial island. In that case the causeway widening would make the figures and images considerably larger. No doubt the dredging aspect would be massive too.

Panel Members, you have already received many comments—such as those from Environment and Climate Change Canada and Susan Jones—that clearly and expertly express the nature of the Terminal 2 problem. To go with that, I've tried to express the terrible immensity of the problem.

For me, visualizing the mountain of unclean fill that the RBT2 Project would dump into the estuary was helpful in itself, but unfortunately it made me too upset to continue. Now that I’m back facing it again, I hope it will be helpful for you.

On behalf of all the affected life within and beyond the Fraser Estuary, including us sentient human organisms, please reject Roberts Bank Terminal 2 as environmentally scandalous. By working with natural deep water ports up the coast—the superb Port of Prince Rupert and the emerging Port of Stewart—and perhreaps also the inland port of Ashcroft, the Port of Vancouver can easily meet British Columbia’s container-port needs.

Sadly, the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, in its various identities, has flaunted its supremacy over Metro Vancouver and the Agricultural Land Reserve, and it seems to show the same lack of respect toward the estuary and toward the BC ports that would most likely be very willing to work together.

The project deserves an outright rejection. Since you mee aof th Review Panel embers likely made up of nice people (i.e., typical Canadians), perhaps you could also give them a bit of kindly advice about getting along with nature and others for the common good.

Richmond2016-10-27 16:52:11
MaitreyiSalmon

We do not need additional container capacity on Roberts Bank, nor the train and truck congestion it would bring. Price Rupert is a much better alternative all round.

Delta2016-10-27 18:37:08
JimWright

Besides commending ECCC for being thorough and firm about the biofilm and migratory birds, I ask the Review Panel to stand firm. The proponent seems to have a low-standard view of compensation. It seems to me that the needed compensation is undiminished availability of the migratory birds needed food, which is the biofilm, in the place where they need it.

Richmond2016-10-27 19:47:43
SeanMoriarty

I think this expansion is unnecessary, and will threaten our eco system, with little to no long term benefit to our society.

Vancouver2016-10-27 20:00:27
Richardter Borg

The Robert's bank causeway has already caused significant disruption to the Fraser River estuary environment, a major flyway for birds and one of the greatest salmon rivers in the world. This project may be incremental but together with former development it is very damaging. We will regret it in the future but it will be too late. This natural environment can not be recreated.

Richmond2016-10-27 20:34:13
KathleenWhipp

This proposal would be catastrophic to the Pacific Flyway and have huge impacts on other wildlife including salmon and our precious limited farmland that we need to feed our growing population in a time of climate crisis. If we have any conscience, we must prevent this proposal.

Delta2016-10-27 21:35:11
JaneKilthei

As someone concerned about the damage we are doing to migratory Bird habitat and the decline of migratory bird species I am especially concerned about the risks posed to the Roberts Bank ecosystem by the proposed second container terminal on Roberts Bank. I believe that consturction of T2 will result in irreparable harm to one of the most important areas of wildlife abundance and biodiversity in the whole of North America. The T2 project would cause damage to, if not outright destruction of, a number of bird species, especially the Western Sandpiper. It will also cause further disturbance to fish and crab habitat, and to areas critical to the survival of marine mammals, especially the already endangered Orca whale population. The risks are severe and the impacts will be immediate, irreversible and cannot be mitigated.

The $3.5 billion plus second container terminal on Roberts Bank is not needed – now nor any time in the foreseeable future. With expansion planned for existing Vancouver terminals plus at Prince Rupert's container port, there is more than adequate capacity to handle Canadian container volumes for many years to come without building Roberts Bank Terminal 2.

The T2 proposal, with its seriously flawed business case, will result in huge risks to the Roberts Bank ecosystem – the most important ecosystem in Canada in terms of its abundant wildlife and biodiversity.

T2 is unneeded and will be hugely destructive. I am writing to ask that you bring sober second thoughts to consideration of this project. I needs to be rejected because of the irreparable damage it would do to the ecosystems we value and depend on, as well as to the social and economic well being of local human communities and agricultural lands.

Cowichan Bay2016-10-27 22:27:38
RobertaOlenick

I say NO to building the unneeded and significantly environmentally destructive Roberts Bank Terminal 2.
Here are my reasons: http://terminal2.realhearings.org/environmental-considerations/

Vancouver2016-10-27 22:34:46
paulMagnus

This project is the wrong project, at the wrong place, at the wrong time. Two major risk are apparent which make this the case:

1) Container traffic has peak and will not increase now going forward. This is the case for a number of reasons. A major one is Climate Action.

As nations start to implement their Paris commitments via Carbon Taxes, tariffs and direct regulation etc, global trade will be curtailed. Has to be curtailed. This expansion does not make sense in the light of Canadian and world climate action.

2) Environmental risks are not acceptable. This project is sited in the Fraser estuary and will contribute to the collapsing salmon population, as will all new industry on or around the river mouth.

The salmon returns are being especially impacted by global warming and may not recover for the for seeable future. Many ecosystems are collapsing around the world right now. This year, much of the Great Barrier Reef has died off. Adding another significant negative impact will hasten the demise of BC's already precarious pacific salmon.

I implore you to review this project with a clear, evidence based lens; reject it on the basis that it is not needed, especially bearing in mind that the environmental risks are unacceptable.

Best regards,
Paul Magnus

richmond2016-10-27 22:40:17
AllanCrawshaw

Protect Robert Banks

Victoria2016-10-27 22:43:02
SandraCurrie

Let's start cleaning up the messes we've already made, not create new messes.

Vancouver2016-10-27 22:49:18
josettewier

I am opposed to the Robert Bank Terminal 2 project:
-the terminal is not needed
-the risks to the Robert Banks ecosystem are too high
-the economic benefits are problematic with inflated benefit analysis
-it will destabilize the well being of existing communities
-too dangerous for endangered orca populations

Smithers2016-10-27 22:51:55
SusanStout

We can't afford to lose any more bio-diversity. Please don't expand the Roberts Bank Terminal!

North Vancouver2016-10-27 22:59:44
JaneGibney

Please rethink this plan. This area cannot be recreated and placed elsewhere . Let's leave it for our future generations!

Vancouver 2016-10-27 22:59:54
NicoleBoon

I oppose the building of Port Metro Vancouver's Roberts Bank Container Terminal 2 because it really isn't needed due to the fact that all of British Columbia’s container ports have capacity to handle Canadian container volumes for many years to come.

The T2 proposal has a seriously flawed business case and will result in huge risks to the Roberts Bank ecosystem – the most important ecosystem in Canada in terms of its abundant wildlife and biodiversity.

Please do not allow T2 to be built. I do not want the unneeded and hugely destructive Terminal 2.

Maple Ridge2016-10-27 23:29:57
SteveGarnett

You are going in the wrong direction by proposing another terminal. For a bloody moment consider the environment and future generations…without wildlife.

Cowichan Bay2016-10-27 23:41:55
MarcKaiser

I am tired of living in a society which puts economic growth ahead of all other considerations, Just today I read in the Vancouver Sun that it is now thought that 7 out of 10 animal species in the world will be extinct by mid-century. Do the people who promote such projects have absolutely no regard for what the are contributing to? Future generation will hold us in reproach for what we have done. Consultation processes are always nothing but a sham. This project will harm the ecosystem of the area, and should therefore be opposed.

North Van2016-10-27 23:43:00
raymondwall

Please consider the concerns of local and native citizens.

New Westminster2016-10-27 23:45:51
DebbieMcBride

I have read the proposed mitigation measures that have been proposed by Port Metro Vancouver to justify the building of Terminal 2 at Roberts Bank ( Delta MP Qualtrough, please let me know you have read this, since previous emails to you about this subject have gone unanswered) and have found them wanting.
The mitigation plans seem to be based on the Disneyland and Las Vegas version of reality. Sort of seems real and pretends to be what it's not. PMV is empire building and there are viable alternatives which would be welcomed in other areas of BC. Inland ports need to be considered and could be used as longterm economic drivers in areas that already have underused infrustructure in place. Inland ports are being used very successfully in Washington and Oregon States. Land prices are cheaper and have allowed home ownership to successfully thrive. Ports are used to transit and store products. The vaunted use of the "logistics" term merely masks the use of the word warehouses. Warehouses are what PMV builds on farmland and is now willing to build on and destroy a very sensitive, rare and ecologically significant foreshore.Other vastly more suitable areas should be considered. .here in Delta we are now seeing ever increasing stacks of abandoned and unused containers being warehoused on land far more costly than needs be.. Think outside the box to Prince Rupert as well. The Lower mainland doesn't need Terminal. 2 and just because the executives prefer to be around their big city culture, is no reason to block the expansion of inland ports and ports like Prince Rupert. Do not support the unneeded T2 project

.Delta2016-10-27 23:51:14
BradJones

The T2 development is likely to cause significant environmental issues and the degradation of Roberts Bank.

Roberts Bank continues to gain recognition, within Canada and internationally, for its natural abundance and wildlife diversity. This recognition stems from its importance to a wide range of wildlife including: bird species, marine mammals, fish, crustaceans, and shellfish. Regrettably it is also now classified by Birdlife International as an Important Bird Area in Danger, as a result of the industrial development that has already taken place as well as projects in the planning stage.

The largest and most damaging of these projects is Port Metro Vancouver (PMV) plans to build a huge man-made island in the Georgia Strait covering almost 300 acres (one third the size of Stanley Park – Vancouver BC), for a second container terminal (T2) on
Roberts Bank, next door to the existing three-berth Deltaport Container Terminal. This is slap-bang in the middle of the Fraser Estuary. Roberts Bank is a dynamic estuarine environment, the very fulcrum of one of the top ten “Most Important Bird Areas” in the
world and the ecological crucible of the Fraser Estuary.

The environmental issues are extensive and include: negative impacts to migratory birds and shorebirds; population level declines or outright destruction of the Western Sandpiper species; impacts to salmon, especially juveniles, as well as herring and other fish; elimination of areas important to crabs and reduction of crab harvesting; impacts to marine mammals – southern resident killer whales in particular which are listed as an endangered species.

Here are the facts about Roberts Bank and its importance:
• Recognized both in Canada and internationally as a critical ecosystem and one of the richest and most important areas in terms of biodiversity and abundant wildlife on the West Coast.
• Identified by Bird Life International as one of the top sites under the Global Important Bird Area designation.
• Recognized internationally under the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network as a site of hemispheric importance. Only eight of these sites exist in the whole of North, Central and South America.
• Designated by the British Columbia Government as a Wildlife Management Area (WMA), wherein they state: “Roberts Bank WMA provides crucial wintering grounds for the highest number of waterfowl and shorebirds found anywhere in Canada”.
• Immediately adjacent to the recently designated Fraser Estuary Ramsar site under the Ramsar Convention, an international treaty for the conservation and sustainable utilization of wetlands. In fact there are proposals to expand the designation to include Roberts Bank.
• A vital stop on the Pacific Flyway (extending from Panama to Alaska) for Migratory Birds. There are only six stop over sites and this one is of major importance.
• Provides a nursery environment for five species of juvenile salmon during their seaward migration.
• Critical habitat for the Southern Resident Killer Whales (Orcas) which are listed as an endangered species under Canada’s Species at Risk Act (SARA) whose purpose is to prevent wildlife species in Canada from disappearing. The Southern Resident Killer Whale (Orca) population consists of three pods that are in real danger of extinction unless their habitat is protected.

Previous studies and Panel Reviews have concluded that the whole area of Roberts Bank is an incredibly important ecosystem and must be protected. The 1979 Panel review for port development concluded that: “From the point of view of estuarine ecology, the Panel has concluded that the potential impacts on the Fraser River estuary, of which Roberts Bank is part, are too great to recommend that the port expansion be approved as proposed. The extent and ecological significance of the Fraser River estuary, particularly its use by fish and wildlife, make it unique in North America. A major salmon fishery depends on it preservation as do hundreds of thousands of migratory birds.”

The same panel discussed mitigation and concluded that: “Mitigation measures such as eelgrass transplants and provisions of new habitat have not been proven in practice on a large scale and, therefore, cannot be accepted as compensation for existing fisheries
habitat.”

These recommendations are as relevant today as they were when first made – perhaps even more so given that much more is now known about the importance of Roberts Bank. Yet Port Metro Vancouver chooses to ignore these important Panel conclusions, preferring instead to put Roberts Bank, one of the richest and most important ecosystems for migrant and wintering waterbirds in Canada, at risk from its push for container terminal expansion whose economics are questionable.

Damage to the Roberts Bank ecosystem has been ongoing since the original construction of the pods for the Westshore Coal Terminal, Deltaport Container Terminal and the associated port causeway.

Originally the rich ecosystem that supported millions of shorebirds extended all the way along the foreshore. But when the original causeway and pods were built it essentially created a “dead zone” between the port causeway and the BC Ferries causeway (known as the intercauseway). Construction of that port causeway and original terminal had unforeseen habitat impacts that were not identified at the time of construction. Because the causeway did not have culverts it prevented tidal flushing of the intercauseway. As a result there has been a rapid expansion of tidal channels in the intercauseway area and it is therefore unstable, with shifting dendritic channels. Equally there was some diversion of the Fraser Plume and it reduced the wave action, interrupted longshore drift and diverted the Fraser plume resulting in increased salinity. On more than one occasion there have been algae blooms.

Shorebirds Trends

The end result is that the productive shoreline and intertidal areas for wildlife have shrunk and become concentrated north of the port causeway in a much smaller area than originally existed. One result of this can be seen in the reductions of bird populations, for example Western Sandpipers (Peeps). The population of Peeps has declined significantly and if T2 goes ahead further decline will be severe, perhaps leading to outright destruction of the species.

T2 becomes the tipping point, because:
• It is located well out into Georgia Strait and therefore impacts tidal flows across the intertidal area closer to shore that is so important to wildlife
• It will impact on the Fraser River Plume and result in changes in the mudflats supporting biofilm
• The expanded port causeway covers over a significant area of biofilm
• The man-made island covers crab habitat
• It has the potential to turn the area north of the causeway into something similar to what the intercauseway (between the port causeway and the BC Ferries causeway) has become – an area of lesser abundance, not much used by shorebirds, prone to
algae blooms, with dendritic channels that are constantly changing thus moving the flats and sediment around.
The negative impacts from T2 range across shorebirds, migratory birds, marine mammals, fish and other species.
Shorebirds (including Migratory Birds)
Scientists have established the crucial nature of biofilm on Roberts Bank5 as a food source for Western Sandpipers, as noted on the BC Government’s websites and backed by the published, peer-reviewed scientific literature. What we now know – from academic and government biologists – is that T2 presents significant risks to, and could destroy, the biofilm on Roberts Bank. The nightmare scenario is that No biofilm Equals No Shorebirds.

Here is what we know about Roberts Bank and its unique importance to the Western Sandpiper:
• The entire world population of Western Sandpipers (the most numerous shorebird on the Pacific Coast of North America) numbers in the millions and migrates along the coast of North America through the Fraser River Delta, enroute to their Arctic breeding grounds. The Fraser River Delta and Roberts Bank is one of only six major stopover sites for refuelling during this breeding migration.
• On Roberts Bank a small area of the mud surface contains biofilm, produced by diatoms and bacteria that settle out of the seawater and binds to the mud, providing extraordinary amounts of nutrient rich forage for huge flocks of migrating sandpipers.
• The “Science and the Environment Bulletin, April/May 2001” revealed that Western Sandpipers are dependent on the unique conditions of the mudflats at Roberts Bank. Due to tidal currents and nutrients flushing out of the Fraser River, the mudflats at Roberts Bank are unusually rich in a biofilm coating which the sandpipers suck up with specialized beaks. The migratory stopover at Roberts Bank is crucial to the survival and sustainability of this tiny shorebird.
• Most of the entire Western Sandpiper species (80-85 percent of the species) stop to feed on Roberts Bank during their spring and fall migrations with as many as 500,000 appearing on a single day. The majority of their diet is biofilm and they feed on little else during their migration.
• Published research shows that Roberts Bank provides a superior type of biofilm for shorebirds that is not found in Boundary Bay, Sturgeon Bank or Sidney Spit, areas, hence the reason that there are more shorebirds on Roberts Bank than at the other sites.
Why is the Roberts Bank Biofilm so Important?
One of the many failures in Port Metro Vancouver’s Environmental Impact Statement for Roberts Bank Terminal 2 is its incomplete and flawed analysis of the potential impacts on the unique biofilm that is present on Roberts Bank.

It appears from the work that Port Metro Vancouver (PMV) carried out in this area that they identified the outcome that they wanted to portray and then built a series of hypotheses to support that outcome.

The many PMV failures in carrying out a robust assessment of the importance of the Roberts Bank biofilm are becoming all too clear. Notably a number of submissions to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) on the RBT2 environmental
assessment identify and document a flawed and incomplete environmental assessment. Perhaps one of the more important submissions (June 15 2015) comes from Environment Canada: (http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/documents/p80054/101866E.pdf)
who state: ”… that recent work on Roberts Bank by international scientists has provided new information on the nature of the intertidal diatom community at the time of the spring breeding migration of Western Sandpipers. The global population of Western Sandpipers, a migratory bird, is dependent on the habitat found in the Roberts Bank area. This new information may better explain why these shorebirds (and likely other migratory bird species) concentrate at this site, as opposed to other sites in the Fraser River delta. Further, the occurrence, abundance and nutritional value of these diatoms may have broader implications across trophic levels in relation to ecosystem productivity of the Fraser River Estuary. This new information casts reasonable doubt on some of the Proponent’s key conclusions with respect to biofilm and migratory birds as presented in the EIS.”

Furthermore Environment Canada notes that: “It is unclear how changes in coastal geomorphological processes relating to tidal currents and sedimentation rates over the upper intertidal of Roberts Bank will affect biofilm productivity including in relation to the recently identified diatom”.

Not only that but in reviewing the PMV-created Environmental Impact Statement the Port appears to have lumped diatoms into “marine” and “freshwater”, which based on other research papers that are available seems to greatly oversimplify the complexities of the Roberts Bank system and is a further indication that their analysis is incomplete.

From the published material of the Port Metro Vancouver Technical Advisory Groups (TAG) reports and presentations it would appear that Port Metro Vancouver set out to “prove” that no damage will be done to critical feeding areas on Roberts Bank. The messaging and content of these TAG reports are controlled by Port Metro Vancouver. This is not independent and credible science. Their reports indicate that they are not tackling the key issues and the impact of the T2 man-made island, specifically:
• How is the Roberts Bank biofilm maintained and what changes will result from the T2 man-made island?
• Will T2 alter the predominant tidal current in Georgia Strait, causing it to move closer inshore and impact the biolfilm that is unique to Roberts Bank?
• What are the impacts of destroying a significant portion of that biofilm altogether by widening the causeway?
• What are the impacts on the Fraser River plume – a major contributor to the biofilm?
• What negative impacts will occur as a result of footprint scour, and channel formation?
• What about indirect impacts such as sediment distribution and sediment grain size?

Port Metro Vancouver knows about these impacts, but appears to downplay them.Many of these issues were identified by the Port’s own working groups but then brushed aside. One of their technical working groups, commenting on assessment of potential impacts on shorebird populations, went as far as to state that it was not feasible to carry out such an assessment. They have been told that their approach is not a satisfactory method of understanding the potential for biofilm destruction. Studies which Port Metro Vancouver conducted in the early 2000s, when T2 was first advanced (and then withdrawn), showed that changes in tidal currents and flows could indeed have a negative impact on the Roberts Bank biofilm.

Port Metro Vancouver appears to be trying to downplay the importance of Roberts Bank. In its research reports the importance of biofilm is minimized, implying that it is peripheral and that there are other food sources. They also state that the Sandpipers can go elsewhere to alternate feeding areas and alternative food sources. The Roberts Bank biofilm is a different composition from other biofilm found in lesser abundance nearby; it is scientifically preposterous to suggest that the Sandpipers could switch to alternative food sources.

Their reports suggest that the environmental focus should be on the overall productivity of Roberts Bank. This is a false assumption. Biofilm makes up only 10 percent of the area on Roberts Bank; therefore looking at overall productivity is an invalid approach. The biofilm is close in to shore. On a falling tide the Western Sandpipers feed out to the edge of the biofilm – about 300 metres – but no further. They do not feed on the invertebrates that exist further out and this is proven by the fact that 80 percent of their stomach content is made up of biofilm. The Port Metro Vancouver experts state that “ …. Biofilm can be compared to the salad that accompanies the meat and potatoes”. This is untrue. For Western Sandpipers biofilm is the whole meal.

Recent research papers support these concerns. In one: “Intertidal biofilm distribution underpins differential tide-following behaviour of two sandpiper species during northward migration” http://www.sfu.ca/biology/wildberg/NewCWEPage/papers/JimenezetalECSS2015.pdf published in the “Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science Journal” – an international multidisciplinary journal – the research shows the critical importance of Roberts Bank in supporting internationally significant populations of migratory shorebirds and Western Sandpipers in particular.

Key points in the paper include:
• Western sandpipers and dunlin follow ebbing tides while foraging on stopovers.
• Tide following foraging behaviour is stronger for dunlin than western sandpipers.
• Western sandpiper foraging distribution matched biofilm availability. (meaning that this is their preferred food despite other options being available)
• Biofilm, an energy source for shorebirds, merits conservation consideration.
As the paper documents, shorebird species rely on habitats like Roberts Bank, yet these species are becoming increasingly threatened by industrial development, such as the massive Port Metro Vancouver Terminal 2 development.

In another: “Biofilm Consumption and Variable Diet Composition of Western Sandpipers (Calidris mauri) during Migratory Stopover” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4397082/ it notes that major estuarine stopover locations supporting biofilm are often strategic places for transport and other industrial developments (as of course is the case for Roberts Bank). The paper goes on to note that there are a number of important factors to be considered where biofilm is known to exist, because biofilm is such an important food source at key stopover and feeding sites. It is therefore critical to identify the impacts on these important feeding sites in terms of what further industrial development means and indeed whether it should even be allowed.

According to the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network the number one cause of shorebird decline is habitat loss and degradation – hence the reason T2 is the tipping point. This is one of the reasons that Birdlife International lists this as an Important Bird Area in Danger. Advances in understanding biofilm and its importance to shorebird feeding have progressed significantly in recent times and the longer term impacts relating to the status and availability of biofilm were simply not known. Neither – until very recently – were the unique nature of the biofilm on Roberts Bank, its properties and importance to shorebirds. Therefore any changes resulting from the existing port complex – facilities built before anyone recognized the global ecological significance of the area and its biofilm – were simply not known, only that Western Sandpipers and certain other species were in decline.

We also know that the Western Sandpiper population has been in decline. It is ranked as ‘High Concern’ in the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan and of ‘Moderate Concern’ in the Canadian Shorebird Conservation Plan. We simply cannot afford to risk the
destruction of migratory and shorebird feeding grounds on Roberts Bank by development of a second container port.
Marine Mammals
Six marine mammal species (southern resident killer whales – orcas, transient killer whales, harbour porpoise, humpback whales, fin whales and grey whales) are frequent users of the waters surrounding Roberts Bank as well as the shipping channels used by
vessels calling at terminals on Roberts Bank (as well as other PMV terminals).

These mammals use the deeper waters off the banks and river channels to feed on herring, salmon and eulachon during spawning migration runs. Orcas reside in the area year round and are listed as an endangered species. PMV admits in their Environmental
Impact Statement that the orcas are likely to be further endangered by T2, but then preposterously suggests that T2 impacts are of no consequence since the orcas are already listed as endangered.

Not only will T2 impact marine mammals’ abilities to access food sources (especially orcas that depend on Chinook and chum salmon), but in addition they are increasingly impacted by both physical disturbance and noise from port vessels that both transit the
precise area where they tend to reside as well as when they are at dock. T2 will increase the number of vessel transits – 520 additional transits per year – and thus the noise will be much worse. The noise has been shown to impact the whales’ ability to both communicate and navigate.

The Centre for Whale Research found an increase in the population of Southern Residents over last year to 81 from 79 in its most recent census of killer whales. Whilst this is a small amount of good news, underlying trends are a cause for concern:
• Between 1998 and 2015, the Southern Resident Orca population has declined by about 20% (from almost 100 down to 81).
• During the same period, there have been 40 births and 61 deaths or disappearances. (http://www.orcanetwork.org/Main/index.php?categories_file=Births%20and%20Deaths)
• Threats to the Orcas include lower reproduction; general pollution and contaminants; depleted food sources and vessel traffic scaring off their food sources; contact with vessels; acoustic disturbance from vessels and construction noise. See https://georgiastrait.org/orca-our-endangered-killer-whales/
The Fraser River Estuary and its importance for Fish and other Species
The Estuary is British Columbia’s greatest estuary; the Fraser River is the largest stream in British Columbia. It has global recognition as a wetland of international significance. It is the largest on the Pacific coast of North America (21,703 hectares) and the intertidal wetlands, alone, cover roughly 17,000 hectares. The freshwater flows from the river are so great that, technically the entire southern Strait of Georgia is an estuary.

There are about 80 species of fish and shellfish that spend at least part of their life cycles in the estuary along with 300 species of invertebrates. Juvenile salmon spend days, weeks or months in the estuary before going to the ocean.

Salmon

Key to the productivity of salmon utilizing the Fraser estuary is the large, shallow tidal flats that are abundant in the estuary but especially at Roberts Bank —fish production is reduced when the young salmon are partially or completely restricted from these rich
feeding grounds. Juvenile salmon in particular use the area around the current Deltaport for feeding and refuge. Port Metro Vancouver refused to install culverts in the port causeway, thus causing the juvenile salmon to have to swim around the terminal. This situation would become even worse if T2 were to be built as the salmon would then have to also swim around the T2 man-made island.

T2 will make a bad situation for salmon rearing even worse, not only because of the obstruction of the terminal but also with the destruction of eelgrass beds that are used by the salmon when feeding and to hide from predators. T2 will increase the loss of
shallow-water areas for feeding of juvenile salmon and further block access of fishes to feeding grounds to the south. T2 and its expanded causeway is effectively a dam across the estuary. That coupled with the T2 man made island will force the juvenile salmon out into the deeper waters of Georgia Strait.

Herring

Forage fish, such as herring and sand lance, have declined in the Georgia Strait and around Roberts Bank in recent years. They are an important prey for many seabirds. A corresponding decrease in diving birds that predate on forage fish has also been noted.
This decline is as a result of industrial development and T2 will only make matters worse. Herring are important as a food source for many species and their decline is likely to have cumulative impacts on a number of bird, fish and mammal species that rely on them for food.

Crabs

The area around Roberts Bank used to be one of the best for crab habitat and crab harvesting. Previous port development on Roberts Bank has negatively impacted the crab habitat. However the T2 development will destroy and further displace crab habitat by paving over part of the remaining habitat, with little likelihood that the crabs will be able to sustain this level of damage to their habitat.

Crab harvesting in the immediate vicinity is important to both First Nations as well as to commercial operators. The changes that result from T2, both in construction as well as in operation are likely to cause significant disruptions. Of equal concern is the likelihood of increased vessel traffic causing sediment disturbance that contains coal dust. It is known that considerable quantities of coal dust sit on the ocean floor adjacent to the Westshore Coal Terminal. If this sediment is disturbed it will further impact the crab habitat and their potential to breed.

Eelgrass, Sandflats, Mudflats, and Marshes

The habitat types that make up Roberts Bank are all inter-connected by the fluvial processes originating in the Fraser River and the marine processes that are brought onto Roberts Bank with each tide change.

Eelgrass is prevalent in the lower sandflats and mudflats and is a highly productive habitat that traps sediment and provides direct feeding for waterfowl and invertebrates as well as providing large inputs into the detritus based food web. The eelgrass beds also provide refuge and nursery areas and physical attributes that protect the shoreline.

Sandflats are washed by marine waters from the Georgia Strait during flooding tides, bringing in marine plankton, fishes and fresh water from the Fraser that are rich in nutrients. Whilst submerged at high tide these sandflats provide feeding and resting areas for water birds such as ducks, diving birds and gulls.

Mudflats occur from the middle to upper tidal zone and are less exposed to wave action. Exposed to longer periods of sunlight they are productive and support a diverse range of food sources for invertebrates fish and water birds. They are also important feeding areas for shorebirds, especially the Western Sandpiper due to the presence of nutrient rich biofilm.

Marshes provide shoreline protection from storms and are sources of nutrients to other habitats. They also provide direct grazing areas for ducks, geese and swans.

If the T2 man-made island is ever built it will have huge negative impacts on the interconnectivity of these various habitats. Such a massive construction will alter tidal flows, change the Fraser River plume and alter the whole area thus reducing its overall productivity. It is also likely that the area on the north side of the causeway will develop attributes similar to those now found in the intercauseway, which has much lower environmental values.PMV continues to ignore the communities and municipal councils who are concerned about the negative impacts of the Terminal 2 development.

Local councils, community and environmental organizations and residents have repeatedly raised concerns with PMV including:
• Increased air pollution from more truck and train traffic and their health impacts.
• Traffic congestion and gridlock caused by increases in port truck traffic and resulting in increased travel times and costs for residents.
• Port expansion puts increased pressure on valuable agricultural lands.
• The far reaching impacts of the Terminal 2 project on land use, transportation and the environment in the region.
• Increased noise pollution, light pollution and light spill.
• Property values threatened by loss of natural areas and impacts of industrial development.
• Increased tax dollars spent on port-related infrastructure and services.
• Need for a comprehensive cumulative impacts assessment that addresses the effects of all projects in the region.
• Effects of increased marine shipping on wildlife and residents of the islands along shipping routes.
• Fuel burning and pollution from increased number of vessels in ports and along shipping routes
• Failure to consider the 2008 Federal Government study that recommended developing container capacity in Prince Rupert before making further investments in port infrastructure in Vancouver.

PMV has repeatedly taken the position that it is not responsible for any impacts beyond the immediate port footprint and thus refuses to even discuss many of these issues.The first phase of the Prince Rupert Fairview container Port opened in late 2007, and now, with a capacity of 850,000 Containers (TEUs), is handling over 750,000 containers per year. Work is underway on the Phase 2 North expansion which will add another 500 – 600,000 TEU capacity and will be completed in 2017. The Phase 2 South expansion is in the planning stage and once it is completed – in about 2020 – this will give the port a capacity of about 2.5 million TEUs. Further expansion is also being contemplated so that Prince Rupert would be capable of handling up to 4.5 million TEUs in the future.

With that kind of capacity coming on stream, Canada’s west coast will never be short of container terminal capacity.

Why is Prince Rupert a more logical place for a container terminal than Roberts Bank:

It is two sailing days (one inbound, one outbound) closer to the major exporting countries in the Asia/Pacific, than any of the Port Metro Vancouver container terminals
It’s a natural deep sea harbour that requires no dredging, unlike Deltaport.
It’s an easier shipping route – straight in via Hecate Straight – unlike the Port Metro Vancouver terminals, where the ships have to pass through the narrow Juan de Fuca straight and up through Orca Pass.
There’s much less of an environmental impact – unlike the proposed Roberts Bank T2 project, that risks destroying the globally significant Roberts Bank ecosystem.
Excellent transportation infrastructure – CN Rail link already in place – unlike the Port Metro Vancouver terminals that rely on a rail route through the already congested Fraser Canyon.
Up to 70 percent of the containers handled by Port Metro Vancouver are destined for Eastern Canada and the US. The rail route to these eastern markets from Prince Rupert is significantly shorter than the route from Port Metro Vancouver.
Less pollution from dirty, diesel burning trucks, unlike Port Metro Vancouver and the proposed T2.
Less pollution – ship emissions will be lower because the route into port is significantly faster.
The Prince Rupert community wants the container port – Delta residents are strongly opposed to T2 and adamant that T2 not be built.When PMV first contemplated the T2 project back in 2007, they forecast that Vancouver container throughput would hit a massive 6 million TEU (Twenty Foot Equivalent Units) by 2020. However, based on mid 2015 figures1, the annual handling in the port will only be about 3.05 million TEU (and that is with significant diversions in 2015 of US container traffic to Vancouver area ports due to US labour issues).

This repeated over-estimation of future volume forecasts is not limited to the 2007 bid for T2. When PMV was seeking approval for Deltaport’s 3rd Berth Project, they forecast that throughput would reach 4.3 million TEU by 2015, whereas it will likely only just surpass 3 million TEU this year. And since PMV started reconsidering the T2 project, back in 2011, they have issued four separate forecasts each of which has failed to come close to actual throughput development. A 2011 study by Worley Parsons overestimated 2015 throughputs by almost 500,000 TEU, and even the latest June 2014 study by Ocean Shipping Consultants (OSC) will likely be wrong by over 100,000 TEU just one year later in 2015.

On average, the forecasts prepared on behalf of PMV over the past 4 years will have overestimated 2015 container throughput by a massive 250,000 TEU, or almost 10%.2 The chart below clearly shows PMV’s repeated pattern of over-estimated demand in Vancouver:Why is it then that the container forecasts consistently exceed the actual performance?
Issues with the forecast include:

PMV appears to underestimate the potential of Prince Rupert’s port:

The 2014 Ocean Shipping Consultants (OSC) study forecast that Pacific Gateway volumes would reach 6 million TEU by 2025 and that Vancouver would handle 5 million TEU of that, leaving Prince Rupert with just 1 million TEU of throughput in 2025
With Prince Rupert3 on track to handle about 800,000 TEU in 2015 (based on May YTD statistics), with its Phase-II North expansion definitely available by 2017, and with the Phase-II South expansion likely complete by about 2021 or 2022, it will have at least a 2 million TEU capacity.
What appear to be overly optimistic GDP growth figures for Canada are used (+2.51% in 2015, for example, versus 1.1% in the latest Bank of Canada forecast), together with factoring in high Chinese growth assumptions (7.5% in 2015, versus Goldman Sachs recent estimate of 6.8%) that then generate higher container volume forecasts in the short term, which then get compounded in future years growth projections. The GDP / throughput multiplier of 1.7 times GDP is also optimistic given that there is little conversion of break-bulk to containers still to occur.

PMV focuses on very strong container growth forecasts over the coming 5 years (2015-2020), including “rail additions”, in order to increase the base volumes and justify the need for T2. OSC projected growth of over 6% in 2014 (the actual was 3.1%) and growth exceeding 5% every year up to 2020. Although the Vancouver Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) has been about 6.6% since 2000, this included a period of rapid growth in containerization and trade with China, which has now slowed dramatically. For the period 2006-2015 the CAGR has been a much lower 3.7%.PMV’s Assumptions on Effective Capacity are Questionable
PMV introduces a term described as “effective capacity” (defined as 85% of actual capacity) as a maximum operating basis for terminals. For example, in a market with 5 million TEU of capacity, this assumption of “effective capacity” serves to artificially improve the demand-supply scenario by about 750,000 TEU. Is this a means to demonstrate that T2 is not creating excess capacity?

Current operating conditions in Vancouver, Prince Rupert and many other terminals around the world do not support the assumption of an 85% effective capacity. For example Prince Rupert is operating at close to 95% utilization, despite being in the middle of a major expansion project.

In a real-world environment where terminals are able to achieve virtually 100% capacity utilization (as opposed to the 85% used by PMV and OSC), the 2014 OSC forecast shows that 2023 throughput would be about 4.5 million TEU against capacity of about 7 million TEU (or just 64% capacity utilization). PMV has announced intentions to phase in T2 capacity deployment, which would help reduce this massive over-capacity, but also not considered is that OSC’s traffic forecasts appear to be optimistic, so actual throughputs closer to 4.0 million TEU in 2023 are more likely.
PMV Has Accelerated T2 Timelines Despite Slower Than Projected Growth
In 2007 when PMV first promoted the T2 project, they projected average annual growth of about 7.5% per annum, with a resultant growth of throughput from 2.3 million TEU in 2007 to 6 million TEU in 2020; it was envisaged that T2 would be delivered to the market by about 2018 (9 year development timeframe) in order to meet that projected demand of 6 million TEU in 2020.

In the intervening period between 2008 and 2014, the actual throughput growth rate (CAGR) in Vancouver has been just 2.6%, far below the 7.5% originally envisaged by PMV. Such a low growth rate would naturally suggest that the need for T2 would be deferred for decades, if not forever. And yet, PMV is planning to have T2 delivered to the market by 2023, in spite of the fact that the port’s container growth forecasts have been more than double the actual container growth since 2007.

And whereas PMV originally envisaged that T2 would commence operations when throughput was reaching 6 million TEU (during the 2007 tender process), PMV now plans to introduce T2 in 2023 when even OSC’s optimistic forecasts suggest that volumes will be less than 4.5 million TEU.

There appears to be no explanation as to:
• Why, whereas previously T2 was forecast to be required when volumes approached 6 million TEU, PMV now claims that T2 should be delivered to market when volumes will be only 4.5 million TEU, despite significantly lower observed growth rates.
• Why additional capacity created by Deltaport’s Terminal Road and Rail Improvement Project (DTTRIP) and the proposed Centerm expansion (over 1 million TEU additions in total) has not deferred the need for T2, but instead advanced that requirement to when throughput is projected to be just 4.5 million TEU. Intuitive logic would suggest that the trigger for T2 should actually have increased to closer to 7 million TEU.
• Why the rapid market acceptance, throughput growth, and planned multiple expansion phases of Prince Rupert (that will likely have more than 2 million TEU of capacity before 2023) has not further reduced the need for T2.

Given the questionable economic rationale for the T2 project, why is it then that PMV is continuing to promote the T2 project? Is there a concern that Prince Rupert is capturing a share of container traffic that might otherwise have been handled in Vancouver? Why is PMV continuing to ignore the reality that Prince Rupert, coupled with the Vancouver terminal expansions, provide sufficient capacity to satisfy Canada’s trading needs without ever building T2?
Rail Issues
CN / CP Rail Capacity in Southern British Colombia
Recent years have repeatedly demonstrated the constraints facing rail capacity in the Southern BC corridor from Vancouver through the Rockies. In this region, CN and CP already collaborate to run eastbound trains on one railway’s line and westbound trains
on the other railway’s line in order to maximize utilization levels, and yet congestion is a perennial problem. While congestion is often caused by natural factors such as adverse winter weather, at many times this congestion has simply been due to excess
demand for rail service.

Until the recent downturn in oil markets, movements of oil by rail had grown exponentially, and resulted in squeezing out of both grain and container movements. While the government intervened in terms of grain movements, little was done to ensure adequate capacity for container handling.

The T2 project, with its projected 2.5 million TEU of additional capacity, would create additional rail demand for about 2 million TEU of additional rail volumes (for cargoes moving both to Eastern Canada and the US), given that a large percentage of the incremental traffic would have to come from US traffic. Ignoring peaking factors and assuming 800 TEU per train, it would imply a need for an additional 7 trains per day (3-4 in each direction) just to accommodate T2. After considering peaking factors and the fact that not all trains will move fully loaded, it is likely that T2 would generate an additional 4-5 trains per day in each direction. Where are the PMV studies to show that there will be sufficient rail capacity to handle this demand without causing the entire rail network to collapse? Can CN and CP railways handle this additional capacity?
T2 Only Needed for US Rail Movements
2015 will be a milestone year for Canada’s west coast ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert, with US rail volumes expected to surpass 1 million TEU, which equates to over 25% of total West Coast container volumes. While Prince Rupert’s exponential growth
can be attributed to its high levels of efficiency, uncongested rail line, and strong support from CN, much of this US rail growth in Vancouver has been related to the 2014 / 2015 labour unrest in the main USWC ports of LA / LB, Oakland and Seattle-Tacoma. Seattle-Tacoma handled 3.4 million TEUs in 2014. Their proposed improvements, to be completed by 2020, will increase capacity to 6 million TEUs. Hence there will be more than enough capacity in the Pacific Northwest for years to come and no justification for the T2 project that is almost entirely dependent on poaching more U.S. bound cargo.

Whatever the reasons, a number of things are clear:
• Given that Canada’s economic growth has been stalled for much of the past 12 months, the 2015 YTD growth in PMV’s container handling is virtually all accounted for by US Rail volumes
• At the port’s last AGM, Robin Silvester, President and CEO of PMV, claimed
“Canada’s trade is growing … Our job, as a port authority, is to respond to that growing demand and make sure the port is ready to handle it.”
o In fact, most of the growth at PMV (and Prince Rupert) has been due to increased share of US rail volumes – 1-2% domestic economic growth will NEVER justify the proposed 2.5 million TEU of new capacity at T2
o PMV has failed to provide any updated breakdowns of US Rail traffic. Would this show that T2 is purely required to handle US volumes?

Even based on 2015 statistics, Canada’s West Coast gateway ports (Vancouver and Prince Rupert) have about 1.5 million TEU of spare capacity to handle Canada’s trade requirements today (over 1 million TEU of US Rail, plus spare capacity in the existing
terminals in Vancouver and Prince Rupert). Prince Rupert Phase-II North will add up to 800,000 TEU of new capacity, while expansion projects in Vancouver will add a further 1 million TEU by 2020 at latest. All told, there will be 3.3 million TEU of available West
Coast capacity by 2020 (ignoring growth between now and 2020). T2’s 2.5 million TEU of capacity simply is not required to meet “Canada’s growing trade”. It can only be justified based on funneling US Rail traffic through Vancouver, despite the fact that US West Coast ports are upgrading so that they can handle these US containers.

The demand-supply analysis below clearly demonstrates this point; in 2023, the year that PMV claims that T2 will be required to handle Canada’s growing trade, it is estimated that there will be over 3.2 million TEU of spare capacity to handle Canada’s domestic trade (without considering T2) once US Rail volumes are excluded.

Extrapolating demand for Canadian container handling at 3% (a reasonable growth estimate), the same analysis clearly demonstrates that T2 would not be required until 2046 (a full 30 years from now). In that intervening period, a host of structural or market changes (increased productivity of existing terminals, other expansion projects, new ports in Northern BC etc.) could further delay or negate the requirement for T2.

PMV claims on their website that “Our mandate is to facilitate Canada’s trade objectives, ensuring goods are moved safely, while protecting the environment and considering local communities.” It would appear that the T2 project fails to meet any of the key points of their own mandate:
• T2 is clearly not required to “facilitate Canada’s trade objectives”, unless Canada’s objective is to be a major gateway for US containers;
• T2 not only doesn’t protect the environment, but may wreak significant environmental damage on Roberts Bank; and
• T2 is opposed by the local communities, due to environmental concerns and the intrusive increase in road and rail congestion, as well as the light, noise and air pollution effects.

The catastrophic environmental damage that T2 may wreak on the fragile Roberts Bank environment is unjustifiable even to handle Canadian trade growth given the capacity alternatives that exist at Prince Rupert. However, when considering that the Pacific
Gateway would need to handle 2-3 million TEU of US Rail traffic in order for T2 to even possibly be commercially viable (virtually the same capacity as T2), inflicting this type of environmental harm on Roberts Bank simply to handle more US Rail cargo would be an absolute travesty.
PMV Admits 0% Growth in Canadian Traffic Through Vancouver
In a recent media statement by Robin Silvester, President and CEO of PMV, he admitted that in 2015, 25% of total Vancouver container movements will be for US Rail traffic. (see http://business.financialpost.com/news/port-metro-vancouver-expects-toretain-
business-following-u-s-ports-labour-dispute)
Based on annualized volume (Jul YTD) of 3.06M TEU, this would imply US Rail volumes of 765,000 TEU and Canadian volumes of 2.295M TEU. By comparison, the 2014 OSC Market Study4 prepared for PMV indicates that Vancouver handled 2.344M TEU of
Canadian traffic back in 2008. Between 2008 and 2015, there has been ZERO GROWTH in Canadian container traffic through Vancouver (that growth has gone to Prince Rupert), and yet Mr. Silvester claims that 2.5 million TEU of new capacity is needed to handle Canadian container growth at Vancouver.In the same statement, Mr. Silvester claimed that Canadian container volumes through Vancouver have been growing at 4%, but has failed to provide any other statistics to prove this. While Vancouver may have achieved 4% (or greater) growth in Canadian traffic prior to 2008, the combined effects of i) lower economic growth levels postcrisis , ii) limited additional conversion of break-bulk to containers, and iii) strong market acceptance for Prince Rupert have all conspired to drive the growth rate for Canadian containerized cargo (through Vancouver) down to ZERO PERCENT over the past seven years. In conclusion, there is simply no business case to require T2 to handle Canadian container traffic in Vancouver, particularly when the existing Vancouver terminals already have over 2 million TEU of spare capacity (between current spare capacity, planned expansions, and current US Rail movements).
T2 Only Needed for US Rail Movements
2015 will be a milestone year for Canada’s west coast ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert, with US rail volumes expected to surpass 1 million TEU, which equates to over 25% of total West Coast container volumes. While Prince Rupert’s exponential growth can be attributed to its high levels of efficiency, uncongested rail line, and strong support from CN, much of this US rail growth in Vancouver has been related to the 2014 / 2015 labour unrest in the main USWC ports of LA / LB, Oakland and Seattle-Tacoma. Seattle-Tacoma handled 3.4 million TEUs in 2014. Their proposed improvements, to be completed by 2020, will increase capacity to 6 million TEUs. Hence there will be more than enough capacity in the Pacific Northwest for years to come and no justification for the T2 project that is almost entirely dependent on poaching more U.S. bound cargo.

Whatever the reasons, a number of things are clear:
• Given that Canada’s economic growth has been stalled for much of the past 12 months, the 2015 YTD growth in PMV’s container handling is virtually all accounted for by US Rail volumes
• At the port’s last AGM, Robin Silvester, President and CEO of PMV, claimed
“Canada’s trade is growing … Our job, as a port authority, is to respond to that growing demand and make sure the port is ready to handle it.”
o In fact, most of the growth at PMV (and Prince Rupert) has been due to increased share of US rail volumes – 1-2% domestic economic growth will NEVER justify the proposed 2.5 million TEU of new capacity at T2
o PMV has failed to provide any updated breakdowns of US Rail traffic. Would this show that T2 is purely required to handle US volumes?

Even based on 2015 statistics, Canada’s West Coast gateway ports (Vancouver and Prince Rupert) have about 1.5 million TEU of spare capacity to handle Canada’s trade requirements today (over 1 million TEU of US Rail, plus spare capacity in the existing
terminals in Vancouver and Prince Rupert). Prince Rupert Phase-II North will add up to 800,000 TEU of new capacity, while expansion projects in Vancouver will add a further 1 million TEU by 2020 at latest. All told, there will be 3.3 million TEU of available West
Coast capacity by 2020 (ignoring growth between now and 2020). T2’s 2.5 million TEU of capacity simply is not required to meet “Canada’s growing trade”. It can only be justified based on funneling US Rail traffic through Vancouver, despite the fact that US West Coast ports are upgrading so that they can handle these US containers.

The demand-supply analysis below clearly demonstrates this point; in 2023, the year that PMV claims that T2 will be required to handle Canada’s growing trade, it is estimated that there will be over 3.2 million TEU of spare capacity to handle Canada’s domestic trade (without considering T2) once US Rail volumes are excluded.

Extrapolating demand for Canadian container handling at 3% (a reasonable growth estimate), the same analysis clearly demonstrates that T2 would not be required until 2046 (a full 30 years from now). In that intervening period, a host of structural or market changes (increased productivity of existing terminals, other expansion projects, new ports in Northern BC etc.) could further delay or negate the requirement for T2.

PMV claims on their website that “Our mandate is to facilitate Canada’s trade objectives, ensuring goods are moved safely, while protecting the environment and considering local communities.” It would appear that the T2 project fails to meet any of the key points of their own mandate:
• T2 is clearly not required to “facilitate Canada’s trade objectives”, unless Canada’s objective is to be a major gateway for US containers;
• T2 not only doesn’t protect the environment, but may wreak significant environmental damage on Roberts Bank; and
• T2 is opposed by the local communities, due to environmental concerns and the intrusive increase in road and rail congestion, as well as the light, noise and air pollution effects.

The catastrophic environmental damage that T2 may wreak on the fragile Roberts Bank environment is unjustifiable even to handle Canadian trade growth given the capacity alternatives that exist at Prince Rupert. However, when considering that the Pacific Gateway would need to handle 2-3 million TEU of US Rail traffic in order for T2 to even possibly be commercially viable (virtually the same capacity as T2), inflicting this type of environmental harm on Roberts Bank simply to handle more US Rail cargo would be an absolute travesty.
Alternative Capacity Creation
Existing PMV Terminals Have Cheaper Capacity Expansion Opportunities
When Deltaport added its third berth it increased its capacity to 2.1 million TEUs, according to Transport Canada’s Pacific Coast Container Terminal Competitiveness Study, 2008. Now Global Container Terminals’ (GCT) DTTRIP project at Deltaport, to be
completed imminently, will add about 600,000 TEU of capacity at an estimated cost of C$250 million, or $417 per TEU of capacity created. This will increase Deltaport’s total capacity to between 2.4 and 2.7 million TEU. The project is being achieved without any land reclamation or berth extensions, and together with the currently ongoing expansion at Prince Rupert, will handle market growth for many years to come.

GCT’s other terminal in Vancouver, Vanterm, also has medium-term expansion capability. Although today it is constrained on both sides by other terminals, there are plans over the medium term (i.e. mid 2020s) to expand this facility, although details
have not yet been released to the market.

Finally, PMV has announced plans to expand DP World’s Centerm facility in cooperation with the operator. The expansion would potentially increase capacity to about 1.3 million TEU, again at a much lower cost per TEU than the proposed T2 facility (similar
to the DTTRIP cost). Furthermore, if Centerm can replicate Vanterm’s high (92%+) utilization level, Centerm could add about 150,000 TEU of effective capacity to the market without any additional investment.

These projects and efficiency improvements will add combined capacity of about 1.25 million TEU of capacity in Vancouver alone over the next 3-5 years, with an average cost of far less than $500 per TEU.
Prince Rupert P-II South is Cheaper, Quicker to Market and Not Locally Opposed
In addition to the 750,000 TEU Phase-II North expansion already underway, Prince Rupert’s Fairview Terminal has the capability to add a 3rd berth at significantly lower cost and in a much quicker timeframe than PMV’s T2 project. This 3rd berth, which would increase Prince Rupert’s capacity to about 2.5 million TEU, has already been environmentally permitted, and the new operator is likely to start the planning process within the next 3-6 months.

With a construction period of just 2-3 years, and a cost (on a per TEU of capacity basis) that is a fraction of PMV’s T2 project, this further capacity will be delivered to the market well before T2 could ever be built, will be able to compete for market share much more effectively (given the much lower development costs), and is strongly supported by the local community because it does not have the same potential negative environmental impacts as T2.
Prince Rupert has Even More Cheap Capacity for the Future
Prince Rupert Port Authority (PRPA) has announced plans to develop another terminal at Kaien Island for handling break-bulk traffic expected to be generated by large-scale projects in the energy sector in BC and Alberta over the next 5-10 years. The site would have over 1,000 meters of berth and 95 hectares of storage area, with drafts alongside of at least 20 meters.

While it is not clear whether this terminal will be developed in the short term, its longterm development plan (15-20 years) would inevitably involve converting some or all of it to handle containers once the major demand for energy-sector project cargo has been satisfied. A terminal of this size could add a further approximate 2.5 million TEU of capacity to the West Coast Canada market. While the cost of developing this terminal is not yet known, it will inevitably cost less (both in dollar terms and environmental impact) than the T2 project proposed by PMV.
Cheaper, Long-Term Potential Capacity In Vancouver
Whilst in no way supporting more container terminal facilities on the Fraser River,should there ever be a requirement in the long term future, (if demand were ever to materialize over the next 30-50 years), then there are better and much less destructive alternatives than T2, which has the potential for damaging the fragile ecological systems at Roberts Bank, For example PMV themselves have identified potential plans to develop the Fraser Richmond site that is currently used for nonmarine container activities. This site has on-dock rail connectivity, nearby highway, about 1,300 meters of waterfront for berth development, and over 100 acres of land area. A facility of this size could probably handle close to 2 million TEU and would almost certainly cost less than $1 billion to develop (less than $500 per TEU of capacity).

Whilst we also strongly believe there is no business case to require the construction of another terminal on the Fraser River, in order to meet long-term Canadian demand for container handling, the presence of this potential terminal clearly demonstrates that there are other alternatives.
Project Structure and Risks
Questionable Concession Fees for T2
Assuming over $2 billion to be spent between PMV (approx. $300 million for approvals) and the Infrastructure Developer (ID) on the project, the concession fees that the Terminal Operator will have to pay to PMV would appear to be questionable from a financial perspective.

If we assume, conservatively, a $1.5 billion investment by the ID at a simple return of 7%, this would require annual payments to the ID of $105 million. PMV requires a minimum return of 10% on any investments they make, which would imply that PMV would seek further payments (either concession fees or a share of wharfage) amounting to about $30 million per annum, for total annual concession fees of about $135 million. These fees will almost certainly have to be structured as a fixed fee, particularly in respect of amounts to satisfy the ID’s payments. Fees would obviously be subject to inflation escalation.

With initial start-up volumes of about 1 million TEUs, that would equate to a fee of at least $135 per TEU, against current revenue levels of about $250 to $300 per TEU in the market. The Terminal Operator (TO), who would separately be making an investment of about $500 million to $1 billion in the facility, would be required to share close to 50% of gross revenues with PMV as concession fees. These levels of concession fees are questionable in any business environment, perhaps more so with one with high investment and operating costs.

Even at full utilization, and ignoring inflation in fees, the TO would be paying close to $60 per TEU (over $100 per box) in concession fees to PMV, or about 25% of revenues. Of course, these calculations assume that the sudden influx of new capacity into the market would not have an adverse impact on revenue levels.
Labour Market Disruptions
T2, if ever developed, would likely be the first partially or fully automated container terminal in Canada, and would cause a massive disruption in what has been (for the past years) a very calm labour environment on the Canadian West Coast, free of the type of disputes that have plagued the US West Coast ports.

Given that in the early stages, most of T2’s volume might simply be cannibalization from existing PMV terminals, the introduction of T2 would effectively result in a transfer of container handling from more labour intensive, non-automated terminals, with resultant job losses.

When containerization first appeared on the Canadian waterfront over a half century ago, the unions demanded (and secured) increased pension contributions to compensate for the job losses on the waterfront that would inevitably result from the conversion from break-bulk to container handling of cargoes. Today, the terminal operators are still burdened with those extra costs. Will the Terminal Operator at T2 have to face similar demands from the unions as a cost of implementing an automated system at T2?
Risky Project Structure with an Unreliable Intermediary
The proposed structure, with the Terminal Operator paying significant fixed concession fees to PMV (of over $100 million per annum) and then PMV paying a portion of those fees to the Infrastructure Developer as a lease for availability of the infrastructure
appears to introduce substantial risks, including:
• The ID will be required to commit to investing well over $1 billion in an infrastructure project without any certainty that the Terminal Operator will actually perform:
o Is there a risk that the successful bidder will withdraw from the project after being selected as the preferred bidder? In the previous attempt to tender this project, the successful bidder withdrew from the project after being selected as the preferred bidder.
o The list of global operators that have withdrawn from projects after successfully bidding / winning a project is extensive, and includes projects in Greece (Thessaloniki), Ecuador (Manta and Posorja), India (JNPT), United States (Virginia and Port Everglades), Netherlands (Amsterdam), and the UK (Port Yarmouth). Could this happen at T2?
o No amount of performance bonds, etc. can protect the ID from this risk. Can PMV back-stop the risk by guaranteeing payments to the ID?
• The annual payments from PMV to the ID will approximately equal or exceed PMV’s entire annual profitability. Can PMV guarantee payments to the ID?
• If demand for container traffic does not meet PMV’s projections and the TO abandons the project, there are virtually no other possible uses for the terminal (and certainly none that would justify the massive investment made in the site).
Inadequate Environmental Permitting
In their filings before the CEAA in 2015, PMV has sought to limit the scope of the Environmental Assessment to the areas directly under the “care and control of Port Metro Vancouver”. In seeking this limitation, PMV would be excused from evaluating the environmental impacts of the project on i) waterways used by ships to approach T2, ii) impacts on the Fraser Delta outside of the actual project site, iii) road traffic in the surrounding communities, or iv) rail movements throughout the lower BC mainland.

This limitation that PMV has sought from CEAA appears to be unprecedented in terms of Environmental Assessments in Canada. For example, when the Northern Gateway project went through the same process, the review area extended from the proposed port facilities in Kitimat about 150 kilometers out to open water beyond the outer islands. Even if the CEAA ignores their own precedent and exempts PMV from the norms for these types of reviews, it is almost certain that such an environmental permitting process would fail to meet the requirements of the Equator Principles for financing a project that may well inflict such significant environmental damage on the area.
Investment Costs
T2 – The Most Expensive Port Project in the World?
PMV’s T2 project looks to have the dubious distinction of being one of the most expensive port projects ever contemplated in the world.

The T2 project is forecast to cost C$2.5 to C$3 billion (this estimate was prepared before the C$ declined precipitously in the past year), and would create about 2.5 million TEU of capacity. This massive greenfield investment would be spread over a period of 5-6 years, thereby introducing significant Interest During Construction costs during a period with no revenues. Even ignoring these factors plus the inevitable cost over-runs with a project of this magnitude, the gross cost could be over C$1,000 per TEU of capacity created.

Some recent indicative greenfield and brownfield (expansion) transactions include:
• APM Terminals
o $1.5 billion in a 3.5 million TEU facility in Tema, Ghana ($428 per TEU of capacity)
o $40 million in a 125,000 TEU expansion in Mobile, Alabama ($320 per TEU)
o $1.3 billion in a 2.1 million TEU facility in Abidjan, Ivory Coast ($620 per TEU)
• DP World
o $200 million in a 800,000 TEU facility in Mumbai, India ($250 per TEU)
o $850 million in a 4 million TEU facility in Jebel Ali, Dubai ($212 per TEU)
• ICTSI
o $600 million in a 1.2 million TEU expansion in Puerto Cortes, Honduras ($500 per TEU)

The question has to be asked – why would experienced global port operators / investors, that deploy their capital around the world based on the relative attractiveness of competing port investment opportunities, choose to invest in the T2 project?
T2 Investment Cost is Mis-Aligned with Recent Canadian & Australian Market Transactions
The DP World/Maher transaction for the Fairview Terminal has established a clear valuation benchmark for port projects in Western Canada. Under that transaction, DP World acquired the existing 800,000 TEU facility (plus the Phase-II works already underway that will expand capacity to about 1.6 million TEU) for consideration of C$580 million. Assuming about $200 million for the P-II expansion, the effective purchase price was $780 million to acquire about 1.6 million TEU of brownfield container capacity in Canada, or $488 per TEU of capacity.

At over $1,000 per TEU, T2 is more than double the cost that DP World paid for its investment in Prince Rupert, and with the added disadvantage of being a greenfield project with no revenues for the first 5-6 years. How will T2 be able to compete with existing Pacific Gateway terminals given this cost differential?

Another relevant market transaction is the Brookfield acquisition of Asciano in Australia. The Ports & Logistics business represented 19% of Asciano’s EBITDA, which would imply a valuation for that business line of about C$2.2 billion (19% of the $11.6 billion purchase price). Even ignoring the value of the logistics business, this $2.2 billion valuation for a business with 3.9 million TEU of existing capacity would imply a valuation of C$564 per TEU of capacity. If possible to account for the value of Asciano’s logistics business, the core container terminals would have been valued at less than C$500 per TEU, yet again less than half the cost of the proposed greenfield T2 project. Would an astute investor such as Brookfield then turn around and invest in a greenfield project such as T2 at double the cost of their recent Asciano purchase?

It is incomprehensible how any rational investor contemplating an entry into the Canadian container port market would have foregone the opportunity to outbid DP World in its offer for Prince Rupert that equated to about $500 per TEU for a low-risk brownfield project, and then instead pursue a greenfield T2 project in Vancouver at double the cost. Likewise, Brookfield’s recent Asciano transaction reconfirms this benchmark valuation of less than $500 per TEU for brownfield (not greenfield) capacity in developed markets.

Given that PMV is committing tens (if not hundreds) of millions of dollars to seek approvals for a project whose economic feasibility is questionable and whose prospects for success are doubtful at best, one has to wonder why PMV senior management continues to push T2. What is their rationale?

Edmonton2016-10-28 00:02:51
AnnelieseSchultz

A livable BC and Canada?

Then please refrain from approving the Roberts Bank Container Terminal 2 proposal, which:

- is clearly flawed from an economic standpoint,
- would pose irreversible threats to the environment, wildlife and habitat,
- would be a major threat to the well-being of residents in many communities, and
- is clearly a dangerous, ill-considered and unnecessary fancy on the part of the Port of Vancouver, which has demonstrated that it listens to no one.

Trusting in your will to truly safeguard our environment, I thank you.

Richmond2016-10-28 00:33:10
DianneDunn

Please be advised that I am completely against any further industrial usage of the area known as Robert's Creek. We must protect this sensitive area which is home to many species.

Thank you.

Surrey2016-10-28 01:06:04
PhyllisRuthven

I am writing to state my objection to the T2 project being allowed to to go forward.
The deleterious effects on our estuary have not been fully acknowledged by the proponent , if not just ignored.The biofilm will be affected and this will result in the most important feeding area for migrating sandpipers and other sea birds being demolished or at best rendered less nutritious. a small ell grass area that the proponent is attempting to plant will not mitigate the environmental loss this project will cause.
Our Salish Sea is habitat for a pod of endangered whales. They depend on salmon and other fish from the Fraser River to survive. The Fraser River is the world's richest salmon river in the world, T2 will have a serious effect on their continued survival.
Add to that the land impacts, meaning some of the best agricultural land in the area will be turned into industrial land to support Port expansion.Another impact will be the salt water level in the river being moved futher upriver. This will impact soil and make water used for irrigation unusable.
Our local food source must be protected as world population and climate changes and disasters can leave us food deficient if we rely on food imports , to say nothing of food quality and food safety of imported foods.
Further expansion of the Port will have health impacts , as more pollutants will be spewing into our air corridor from more trucks and ships sitting spewing dirty bunker fuel smoke as they sit in port.
The Port trys to say that it will mitigate that by installing land hookups. They fail to tell the public that the majority of chips are foreign owned and do not have or intend to install equipment for said hook ups. They try to charm us with ads saying they currently have this working at the cruise ship dock in Vancouver. what they fail to mention is that if the berthing space available is on the side of the ship without a hookup that is not possible. Cargo ships I am assuming would present the same problem.
As to the need for expansion, the new Panama Canal opening will surely impact volumes to the Port. Economic downturn at present has definitely brought the volumes down. Maybe efficiencies should be explored rather than expansion.
I can assure you from personal experience that port pollutants affect health. I have to close my bedroom windows at night because the diesel particulate affects my breathing and impacts COPD. More ships and more truck traffic will only increase this. The amount of air pollution and particulate matter has increased drastically since I moved here 20 years ago. More trucks and more ships will only exacerbate the problems.
if you want to consider economic, fresh locally grown food and fresh fish from our river are invaluable for our sustained economic growth as well as health and well being.
Please think hard and deep before allowing this expansion to go forward. Paris 2016 and the survival of our way of life will be impacted by your decision. Think Deeply.

Delta2016-10-28 01:30:11
DianaLeung

Please reject Terminal 2. It’s not worth the ecological risk and harm to the Fraser Estuary.

Richmond2016-10-28 02:29:16
Theodore Nikiforuk

Stop the insanity. Once it's gone it's gone.think about it

Grande prairie 2016-10-28 02:45:04
sandymcnamee

T2 will result in irreparable harm to one of the most important areas of wildlife abundance and biodiversity in the whole of North America. The T2 project is likely to cause damage if not outright destruction of bird species, especially the Western Sandpiper. It will cause further disturbance to fish and crab habitat, to areas critical to the very survival of marine mammals, especially the already endangered Orca whale population. The risks are severe; the impacts will be immediate, irreversible and cannot be mitigated.

white rock2016-10-28 03:08:12
AbeLevy

Protection of the environment and wildlife habitat is more important to Canada's future than a second container terminal in this location.

Bonita Springs2016-10-28 03:17:00
RobertBlair

The container port is not needed. Building a container port on some of the best farmland on the planet is criminal. Not building the container port would also negate building the multi-billion dollar new bridge monstrosity to accomodate ever larger ships.

Surrey2016-10-28 03:40:45
WilliamSchuss

I now live in Cloverdale, for the last 19 years after leaving the Tsawwassen home I built and lived in and raised a family for 25 years .I served in the Scouting movement, and was a part time fireman in hall 2. While living there, I saw a progressive increase of coal dust in my gutters, which I also detect on my sun-deck on My Southern Gulf Island cottage on Mayne Island. I used to recreational fish these waters and have stopped due to the absence of any worthwhile prize catch. The train traffic through this region has also increased to a point of sleep disruption,and now at my age of 78, need all that I can get. Truck traffic also disruptive from the terminal, all the way to my now bedroom community of Cloverdale. Also because of all the crap, which should be manufactured in Canada coming in from Asia. I do not purchase any of that short lifetime products. The Port is big enough, and It should never been built there in the first place.No to expansion. Now with head shaking idiotic plans for L.N.G.TERMINAL on the Fraser. A massive Retail Mall at the Ferry terminal. I feel the entire area is not a place for further development.Wildlife is suffering because of mans filthy interfearance. Stop expansion now.

Surrey2016-10-28 04:35:59
ElizabethBradbury

Please oppose the destructive and pointless Roberts Bank Terminal project.

The $3.5 billion plus second container terminal on Roberts Bank is just not needed – now nor any time in the foreseeable future. With expansion planned for existing Vancouver terminals plus at Prince Rupert’s container port, all of British Columbia’s container ports have capacity to handle CANADIAN container volumes for many years to come, – WITHOUT BUILDING ROBERTS BANK TERMINAL2.

The T2 proposal has a seriously flawed business case and will result in huge risks to the Roberts Bank ecosystem – the most important ecosystem in Canada in terms of its abundant wildlife and biodiversity.

Yours sincerely.

WEST VANCOUVER2016-10-28 04:56:36
MeredithRodger

Just what the World Wildlife Fund ordered!

Once more Canadians prove that they are indeed happily shortsighted and do not truly care for their environment anyway!

We love "wild BC" but it seems to be going fast.

Ottawa2016-10-28 05:10:56
ABonvouloir

The $3.5 billion plus second container terminal on Roberts Bank is just not needed – now nor any time in the foreseeable future. With expansion planned for existing Vancouver terminals plus at Prince Rupert’s container port, all of British Columbia’s container ports have capacity to handle CANADIAN container volumes for many years to come, – WITHOUT BUILDING ROBERTS BANK TERMINAL2.

The T2 proposal has a seriously flawed business case and will result in huge risks to the Roberts Bank ecosystem – the most important ecosystem in Canada in terms of its abundant wildlife and
The projections for future growth appear to be highly inflated. The assumptions of effective capacity of existing West Coast container terminals and the potential for their expansion are not correctly portrayed. There are significant rail issues. There are huge potential risks for the financing of the project. If built it would have the dubious distinction of being one of the most expensive port projects in the world.
I believe that there is a real danger that T2 will result in irreparable harm to one of the most important areas of wildlife abundance and biodiversity in the whole of North America. The T2 project is likely to cause damage if not outright destruction of bird species, especially the Western Sandpiper. It will cause further disturbance to fish and crab habitat, to areas critical to the very survival of marine mammals, especially the already endangered Orca whale population. The risks are severe; the impacts will be immediate, irreversible and cannot be mitigated.
There are many more reasons not to build this monstrosity than to build it. Who gets the money, both in the government and in the construction? That trail in and of itself should be reason enough to call a halt to the T2 Terminal.

Sunnyvale2016-10-28 05:43:32
LushaZhou

I support John ter Borg's comments on the importance of the Roberts Bank ecosystem:

"The importance...
The Fraser River Delta is a Wetland of International Significance (Ramsar Convention). The estuary is a nursery to one billion Pacific salmon. The delta is a critical migratory stopover along the Pacific Flyway and a natural buffer against climate change.

Estuaries are among the most biologically productive ecosystems on Earth. They are comparable to rain forests and coral reefs, and more productive than both the rivers and the ocean that influence them. As a result of the smallest return of Fraser River sockeye salmon on record, there will be no food, social, ceremonial, or recreational fishery this year.

The history...
In the 1970s and 1980s, large causeway developments off Roberts Bank in the Fraser Estuary interrupted the migration patterns of juvenile salmon as a result of flawed designs for fish passage. A few years after the construction of these large causeways, Harrison River Chinook stocks collapsed—and have never recovered. The impacts of Roberts Bank Terminal 1 are still not largely understood and, where understood, have not been properly compensated for.

A reminder...
Canada's current environmental protection laws (Fisheries, Navigable Waters Protection, Species-at-Risk, and Environmental Assessment Acts) have been gutted and are legally and scientifically flawed. They have not yet been restored by the Trudeau federal government as was promised."

Also, I am not clear on significant economic impacts that would offset and provide the necessary funds (and plan) to mitigate impacts on health, fisheries, agricultural lands, and the ecosystem.

Surrey2016-10-28 05:48:06
jenniferdyck

$3.5 billion container terminal on Robert Banks is not needed !!
I know that for sure, the company I work for has containers shipped daily with never big delays . It is just your tax give away to the contractor that gave you a kick back. Stop this corruption and leave the coastal ecosystem alone which is giving back to the people 100 %.
Where is the integrity of public service?? Stop,you will be exposed.

Victoria2016-10-28 06:01:03
AFredette

We do not need this terminal
protect the environment

Victoria2016-10-28 06:06:12
Robin Del Pino Ferries

I am opposed to any development at Roberts Bank Terminal 2.
I believe this location to be a valuable natural habitat, full of biodiversity found only here and that it is a treasure to be protected.

We are experiencing the sixth mass extinction, caused by human activities, such as overdevelopment.

Therefore, I ask that Roberts Bank Terminal 2
be protected as it currently is, in its entirety, for future generations.

Thank you.

Vancouver 2016-10-28 06:15:39
Dianavan Eyk

The $3.5 billion plus second container terminal on Roberts Bank is just not needed – now nor any time in the foreseeable future. With expansion planned for existing Vancouver terminals plus at Prince Rupert’s container port, all of British Columbia’s container ports have capacity to handle CANADIAN container volumes for many years to come, – WITHOUT BUILDING ROBERTS BANK TERMINAL2.

The T2 proposal has a seriously flawed business case and will result in huge risks to the Roberts Bank ecosystem – the most important ecosystem in Canada in terms of its abundant wildlife and biodiversity.

Please do not allow T2 to be built. It's unnecessary and destructive.

Nelson2016-10-28 06:29:13
carolday

The Port Roberts expansion should be scrapped and we should instead consider revamping our port system to include Inland Shipping .

Port Metro Vancouver has a fiduciary responsibility to use their port land efficiently but when it comes to sharing the wealth they do not seem to be interested. On any day you can see containers stacked to the sky on port properties and if just a small portion of those containers where moved by train to an inland terminal like the Ashcroft terminal we would have less incentive to destroy farm land. PMV bought the Gilmore farms in Richmond as a study area because it was next door to industrial land. In my opinion, the richest farm land in Canada cannot become warehouses. The Ashcroft terminal is 340 kilometres away and they have both the CN and CP lines running though their 320 acres. If containers where removed directly from the ships to trains there would be less trucks on the road, less pollution and less motivation for speculators to buy farm land.

The Inland shipping option works because the rail lines have direct links to the east coast, America and the Gulf of Mexico. Would we need the 3.5 Billion dollar MEGA Massey bridge if 10 % of trucks were off the road and rail cars where used instead?

Ports all over the world have options to use inland shipping and many are taking advantage of using those facilities for sorting and moving containers. The creator of FEDEX had the same idea, use a central location for distribution of goods and it works.

The more we learn about the options available to move our goods and keep Canada economically healthy the more we realize that getting creative, sharing the business and working towards partnerships will be the future. I just wish Port Metro Vancouver spent less time trying to re-brand themselves and instead implemented real change with modern solutions for a more positive future that put as much important on being able to feed ourselves as the all mighty dollar.

https://www.biv.com/article/2016/5/inland-options-could-relieve-looming-vancouver-por/
--
Best regards,
Carol Day
Richmond City Councillor

Richmond2016-10-28 06:54:39
CatherineDawson

our natural world is more important; time to start looking for alternatives to our destructive practices, rather than continue to blindly build them, heedless of the irreparable consequences; be brave in your actions and don't let this terminal be built in this fragile eco-system

Richmond2016-10-28 07:14:09
PennyCharlebois

We don't need another tanker terminal at Roberts bank.
Does this government care for our environment at all?
All these Environmentaly damaging projects being pushed through. Really we not supposed to be an example for others, do we not have environmental standards to be met.
What a waste for such a sensitive and pristine area. Once we kill off ours animal species, we will be next.

DO not build I still terminal!

Richmond 2016-10-28 07:14:36
StephanieSamila

Dont allow T2 to be built, it is not needed! And its too great of a destructive risk to take, please I want to save this earth for future generations .

Richmond2016-10-28 07:23:05
DIANEKASTEL

Environment Impacts of T2

In reviewing the values of the Roberts Bank ecosystem we believe that there is a real danger that T2 will result in irreparable harm to one of the most important areas of wildlife abundance and biodiversity in the whole of North America. The T2 project is likely to cause damage if not outright destruction of bird species, especially the Western Sandpiper. It will cause further disturbance to fish and crab habitat, to areas critical to the very survival of marine mammals, especially the already endangered Orca whale population. The risks are severe; the impacts will be immediate, irreversible and cannot be mitigated.

WHEATON2016-10-28 07:27:28
LindaChinfen

Terminal 2 will forever destroy land needed to keep our wildlife in balance amongst other things. This affects Delta as well as all the surrounding municipalities. There is is absolutely no need for this terminal at this time. The money could be well used for other more pressing infrastructure needs. The wilful disregard to properly assess the harm this does long term, begs one to wonder the more, less public, craven motives behind this manoeuvre.

Vancouver 2016-10-28 07:31:50
Frances ECruise

Protect our waterways. Don't build the Roberts Bank project. There is no way to thoroughly remediate after a spill. The world does not need to burn more fossil fuels.

Vancouver2016-10-28 07:33:14
NMBryant

Plse when will it stop...life and the right to live, needs to be first and foremost consideration when industrialization is being contemplated. Death and destruction cannot be acceptable in any decision. All the money in the world cannot protect the right to life and the living...Of course there is never a mention of what future generations will inherit. Imagine your grandchildren asking you why we destroyed so many things we should have held dear. Not lead these things to their destruction, but should be celebrating the life and lives we inherited instead.

Sooke2016-10-28 07:37:23
petermeissner

Please PROTECT ROBERTS BANK. And STOP TERMINAL 2!!!

cambridge2016-10-28 07:40:39
DaphneKelgard

The World Wildlife Report of yesterday gives a better reason than any I could develop independently why the CEAA should deny the application to build the Container Terminal 2.

Echoing the words of the year-old Federal Government, we need to be future oriented and spending billions to build more old technology is not. As with the pipelines, if we were to do that, then the demand to keep making buggy whips and their equivalent would make stopping the destruction of the world's environment and therefore the ruin of the world's living things, human included, a thousand times harder than it seems to be now. And that in spite of the overwhelming evidence.

Thank you for your attention.

Daphne Kelgard, Phd

Cranbrook2016-10-28 07:44:43
GrahamMulligan

Dear politician,

Firstly, the environmental project review processes set up by governments are often lacking in transparency, unfairly restrict public input or happen too quickly for the public to provide input.

Then there are the issues that affect the local environment and quality of life. This must be considered in conjunction with the bigger picture we now have of anthropogenic interference with Nature.

There are, of course, economic arguments. But the challenge to sustainability and the deliberate exclusion of 'externalities' always make the economic argument collapse.

Graham

Surrey2016-10-28 07:44:59
AmyJones

I am completely opposed to the building of Port Metro Vancouver's Roberts Bank Container Terminal 2.

Please do whatever you can to stop this project. I live in Tsawwassen. I feel like my community is under siege. I have chosen to live here and brave a hideous commute to work every day because of the open spaces, the farmland and the wildlife. I am horrified by the black dust that settles on my back deck and my plants. I am overwhelmed by container trucks every time I am on the road. I ride my bike every day in my community and I can tell you there are lovely lovely creatures who live here who need protection. Owls, woodpeckers, deer, orcas, scores of amazing birds. Please stop this project. Please don't let Port Metro Vancouver destroy our community any further. I drive all over the city for work and I can assure you there is no place like this anywhere else in Metro Vancouver. Please help us to keep it that way.

Thank you for listening.

Delta2016-10-28 07:52:13
JacobDennison

I am opposed to the expansion of the Port. It is a terrible source of pollution. I have always liked living here because it is peaceful and calm and it feels like it is away from the city. This project will change our community for the worse. I like that we are surrounded by farmland and wildlife. The mall and the container trucks are awful. Please don't let Port Metro Vancouver make it any worse.

Delta2016-10-28 07:57:20
JamesKneesch

The $3.5 billion plus second container terminal on Roberts Bank is just not needed – now nor any time in the foreseeable future. With expansion planned for existing Vancouver terminals plus at Prince Rupert’s container port, all of British Columbia’s container ports have capacity to handle CANADIAN container volumes for many years to come, – WITHOUT BUILDING ROBERTS BANK TERMINAL2.

The T2 proposal has a seriously flawed business case and will result in huge risks to the Roberts Bank ecosystem – the most important ecosystem in Canada in terms of its abundant wildlife and biodiversity.

Not only will adversely effect Roberts Bank, but also the Delta agriculture base.

Delta2016-10-28 08:02:30
Mr. RafeSunshine

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 is the wrong expansion in the wrong place as there is a delicate ecosystem endangered by such increased terminal activities. The case for expansion is dubious at best as many international shipping companies are finding increased trade tariffs and slower international trading is lessening the need for this over-expansion of port facilities. There are more important matters to consider: affordable housing, homelessness, food security, climate change, lowering GHG emissions and clean energy technologies to make our province a more beautiful and safer place to live.

Victoria2016-10-28 08:11:12
AngelaMellor

We don't need this expansion - companies with vested interest want this - not the people of BC

Whistler2016-10-28 08:14:38
EsmeDennison

I like living in Delta because it is not busy and congested like it is in Vancouver. I like that we can see snow geese flying over our house. I like the open farmland and the fields of pumpkins because it is beautiful and peaceful.

I am against Port Metro Vancouver being allowed to expand the port at Roberts Bank. We don't want any more trucks in our community. We don't want any more coal dust on our houses or in our backyards. We like the wildlife and the birds and we want our area protected for them as much as possible.

Delta2016-10-28 08:25:03
MarionJolicoeur

It's time that humans recognize their philosophy of constant economic growth has been responsible for the demise of so many other species - we will never know how those no longer in this world could have contributed to the overall health of the planet.....please do not allow the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project to go ahead....it will only satisfy the greed of a society that is already wallowing in excess.

Roberts Creek2016-10-28 08:27:23
LynnShepherd

Independent analysis of the T2 proposal demonstrates that the project is not an economically viable project for the lower Mainland. Residents of Delta and the lower Mainland will have to deal with lower property values, increased taxes, prospects of more pollution and traffic congestion with so few benefits that on balance, the project makes no sense.

The project also poses major threats to marine and migratory bird populations with ramifications well beyond BC. Degradation of this ecosystem by expansion of a container port that has dubious economic benefits for Delta or BC is guaranteed to have long-term irreversible effects.

The T2 proposal is flawed and members of the public who are aware of its ramifications need to be heard. Please take ALL of the economic, social, and environmental consequences into account. They are very real for lower Mainland residents.

Vancouver2016-10-28 08:30:21
EdidePencier

We have to stop treating the environment and the wildlife that rely on it for their lives like they don't matter. Money is not the only thing in the world that matters. In fact, it is the least important. We can't eat it, drink it or breath it. The damage that is being inflicted on this province in the name of a dying industry can't be reversed once it is done. The "hearings" that have been done have not been honest and the government owes a responsibility to the people who rely on it to protect them.

Surrey2016-10-28 08:37:39
cw

No

Delta2016-10-28 08:38:24
TheresaHood

The economic health of our country seems to always have priority over the health of our environment. Since 1970 we have lost 67% of the worlds wildlife. That's on us. As citizens of the Earth we have destroyed an enormous amount of the Earth's habitat. We fear economic collapse so drive forward with short sighted plans in the hopes that we won't have to face the fact that we are running out of time.

We need to radically alter our economic systems so we can balance our need for constant growth with our need for a healthy environment.

Let's make the really hard decisions now. Let's protect our environment now.

nanaimo2016-10-28 08:44:37
ann mcivor

The $3.5 billion plus second container terminal on Roberts Bank isnt needed. Besides, the Roberts bank area is gaining recognition internationally for its natural abundance and wildlife diversity: bird species, marine mammals, fish, crustaceans, and shellfish...and its classified by Birdlife International as an Important Bird Area in Danger, as a result of the industrial development that has already taken place as well as projects in the planning stage. The T2 proposal has a seriously flawed business case and will result in huge risks to the Roberts Bank ecosystem – the most important ecosystem in Canada in terms of its abundant wildlife and biodiversity. WE DONT NEED THIS. It is time to look at whats important, and it is not corporate profits. Water, food..air. TIme to wake up and do the right thing.

Port Alberni2016-10-28 08:46:22
Hans-UlfSchellhase

The extension of Roberts Bank Terminal (T2) has the potential to ruin the most important food resource for millions of shore birds that rely on it on an annual basis.

It is not enough to designate a site internationally a "Ramsar" site and pay lip service by recognizing its importance. Ramsar is not an international, environmental law, it has no law - enforcing power, it is only a recognition, in this case, that this site, Roberts Bank, needs internationally protection.

Direct municipal, provincial and federal decision making is required that legally implements protection of the site, otherwise you are "wind-chimes" that are ineffective, --- and I am sorry that you got to political power with my help (as a voter)!

Hans-Ulf
(retired scientist)

Delta2016-10-28 08:51:17
PatriciaKealy

As a resident of White Rock living near the rail line that connects to the Roberts Bank Terminal I certainly oppose any expansion of the Terminal if it means more rail traffic carrying coal or oil from the U.S. The U.S. has turned down the coal company that is now going to come through Canada. What Patsy's we are for the U.S.

White Rock2016-10-28 08:55:04
TrinaCooper

The $3.5 billion plus second container terminal on Roberts Bank is just not needed – now nor any time in the foreseeable future. With expansion planned for existing Vancouver terminals plus at Prince Rupert’s container port, all of British Columbia’s container ports have capacity to handle CANADIAN container volumes for many years to come, – WITHOUT BUILDING ROBERTS BANK TERMINAL2.

The T2 proposal has a seriously flawed business case and will result in huge risks to the Roberts Bank ecosystem – the most important ecosystem in Canada in terms of its abundant wildlife and biodiversity.

Seattle2016-10-28 08:55:05
CAROLCOLLINS

The environmental cost of T2 is too great.

The $3.5 billion plus second container terminal on Roberts Bank is just not needed – now nor any time in the foreseeable future. With expansion planned for existing Vancouver terminals plus at Prince Rupert’s container port, all of British Columbia’s container ports have capacity to handle CANADIAN container volumes for many years to come, – WITHOUT BUILDING ROBERTS BANK TERMINAL2.

The T2 proposal has a seriously flawed business case and will result in huge risks to the Roberts Bank ecosystem – the most important ecosystem in Canada in terms of its abundant wildlife and biodiversity.
In reviewing the values of the Roberts Bank ecosystem we believe that there is a real danger that T2 will result in irreparable harm to one of the most important areas of wildlife abundance and biodiversity in the whole of North America. The T2 project is likely to cause damage if not outright destruction of bird species, especially the Western Sandpiper. It will cause further disturbance to fish and crab habitat, to areas critical to the very survival of marine mammals, especially the already endangered Orca whale population. The risks are severe; the impacts will be immediate, irreversible and cannot be mitigated.

The first phase of the Prince Rupert Fairview container Port opened in late 2007, and now, with a capacity of 850,000 Containers (TEUs), is handling over 750,000 containers per year. Work is underway on the Phase 2 North expansion which will add another 500 – 600,000 TEU capacity and will be completed in 2017. The Phase 2 South expansion is in the planning stage and once it is completed – in about 2020 – this will give the port a capacity of about 2.5 million TEUs. Further expansion is also being contemplated so that Prince Rupert would be capable of handling up to 4.5 million TEUs in the future.
With that kind of capacity coming on stream, Canada’s west coast will never be short of container terminal capacity.

Please do not to allow T2 to be built. I do not want the unneeded and hugely destructive Terminal 2.

Dover2016-10-28 09:11:19
melaniethompson

PLEASE start respecting and preserving our precious environment, find other ways to do things that are not destructive. Put your resources to finding better methods, move forward not backward.

salt spring island2016-10-28 09:12:20
DianneBurditt

Terminal 2 is not needed; do you know something as to why this Terminal is needed that you have not disclosed to the public?? Look at the environmental impact statements...............everything isn't always about money and trade..........especially to countries that have Human Rights Violations. Sure would be nice to be listened to for a change.

Delta2016-10-28 09:16:57
peter thompson

COAL, especially coal used to generate electricity, is one of the main causes of global warming. Even without the p[potential environmental damage to the area approving this expansion just to put a few more bucks into JP's pocket makes no sense and essentially denies the existence of global warming.

kelowna2016-10-28 09:21:41
JaneWelton

Don't do it. The value (both economic and environmental) of doing no further damage in the Roberts Bank area far outweighs the value of proceeding with this project. Our long term economic success as a country can be secured through the tourism generated by having abundant wildlife and abundant natural areas. It does not rest in the long term on resource extraction and transport of those resources across oceans. Therefore preserving Roberts Bank as it is makes the most economic sense. (Check out the statistics on birding-millions of people do it worldwide and it is the fastest growing hobby worldwide. The Roberts Bank area is an internationally recognized Important Bird Area.) The fact that BC Ferries terminal is right beside Roberts Bank brings tourists to this area, all the more reason why this area should continue to have natural beauty and wildlife.

Environmental impacts of the Roberts Bank extraction will reduce bird populations and other species populations and decrease biodiversity in general. As well as destroying our best hope for a sustainable economic future, our planet is at the point of extreme fragility where continued cumulative environmental destruction will destroy the planet and everything on it. If we want ongoing quality of life or even just life, we cannot proceed with environmentally destructive projects. This proposed project is not only environmentally destructive while being constructed. The production and transportation of goods to it will be environmentally destructive as will the transportation of goods from it and the uses those goods will be put to. In fact, those goods aren't "goods", they are "bads". We will never reach our greenhouse gas emission reduction targets if we keep on doing these kinds of projects.

Don't do it! This is 2016, not 1950!

Victoria2016-10-28 09:23:58
ElaineHughes

It appears that this terminal is not needed, now or in the foreseeable future.

There must surely be a better place to spend $3.5 billion! How about homes for the homeless??? Winter is coming . . .

ARCHERWILL2016-10-28 09:25:08
Jenny Shaw

I am so distressed at the way our environment is being abused. The new terminal will be a disaster and IS NOT NECESSARY>

Sechelt2016-10-28 09:33:04
HollyArntzen

Please do not give approval for the Roberts Bank Container Terminal 2 to be built. The project would be hugely destructive and threatens an important and endangered ecosystem. It is time for our society to make investments in a sustainable economy and future. We already have more than enough port capacity. We do not need Terminal 2.

Surrey2016-10-28 09:39:32
Dr. DavidHendrickson

To Whom It May Concern:

The $3.5 billion plus second container terminal on Roberts Bank is not a prudent use of resources.

Since Vancouver terminal and Prince Rupert's container port is expanding British Columbia’s container ports have sufficient capacity to handle Canadian container volumes for many years to come, without Robert's Bank Terminal 2.

The T2 proposal has a seriously flawed business case and will result in huge risks to the Roberts Bank ecosystem – the most important ecosystem in Canada in terms of its abundant wildlife and biodiversity.

I would appreciate a written response explaining your rationale for Terminal 2.

Sincerely,

Vancouver2016-10-28 09:44:36
JaniceWilson

This terminal is being built in a critical stopover for thousands of migrating birds. It is also winter habitat for thousands of ducks, geese and shorebirds.
It makes no sense to put the Fraser Delta at risk when the expansion is not needed, especially when price Rupert offers an excellent alternative.

The Liberal Party is proving to be a great disappointment for Canada's economy and environment. And I need not say the BC Liberals are worse.

North Vancouver2016-10-28 09:47:35
KellyMcConnell

There is a real danger that T2 will result in irreparable harm to one of the most important areas of wildlife abundance and biodiversity in the whole of North America and it's NOT NEEDED or wanted. The risks are severe; the impacts will be immediate, irreversible and cannot be mitigated.

The T2 proposal has a seriously flawed business case and will result in huge risks to the Roberts Bank ecosystem – the most important ecosystem in Canada in terms of its abundant wildlife and biodiversity.

Not only is T2 not needed, there are significant rail issues and there are huge potential risks for the financing of the project. If built it would have the dubious distinction of being one of the most expensive port projects in the world.

Please LISTEN TO US. We the People of British Columbia do not want the unneeded and hugely destructive Terminal 2.

Pender Island2016-10-28 09:49:59
PaulChristensen

We don't need this terminal now or for some decades to come. Iy is going to hamper/put at risk conservation efforts in this area. Do not go ahead with this project as is.Of we need a terminal in the future then build it some where else. Up grade existing or use ports to the north
The wild life in my province is far more important to me than importing crap that will just wind up in a land fill.

Prince George2016-10-28 09:51:40
KatherineMaas

The $3.5 billion second container terminal on Roberts Bank is not needed – now nor any time in the foreseeable future. With expansion planned for existing Vancouver terminals plus at Prince Rupert’s container port, all of British Columbia’s container ports have capacity to handle CANADIAN container volumes for many years to come, – WITHOUT BUILDING ROBERTS BANK TERMINAL2.

The T2 proposal has a seriously flawed business case and will result in huge risks to the Roberts Bank ecosystem – the most important ecosystem in Canada in terms of its abundant wildlife and biodiversity.

Victoria2016-10-28 09:54:14
LauraBenson

Dear CEAA and MP Beech,

For nearly two decades the port authority and industry interests have been trying to saddle Canada with this destructive, unneeded mega-project.

After originally proposing Terminal 2 as an expansion package with the Deltaport berth 3 project, port officials conspired with other federal departments to pretend to drop plans for the Terminal 2 portion in order to avoid a more comprehensive assessment of the devastating cumulative environmental, social, health and climate effects of expanded import and export activity throughout the lower mainland.

By the time the Terminal 2 plan was "revived," the Conservatives' gutting of environmental assessment legislation and regulation was complete and has allowed the project to escape the scrutiny, democratic process and comprehensive scientific study that Canadians deserve when facing such hugely impactful proposals.

It is time for the federal government to stand up for Canadians, our environment and the climate and reject this project--or at the very least require far better assessment of its impacts on air, land, water, habitat, community health and safety, indigenous rights and climate change.

And it is high time the federal government stop allowing the rogue port authority to get away with violating public trust and democracy.

Burnaby2016-10-28 09:56:30
SaraRoss

Hello,
As an avid bird watcher and lover, I am by extension a protector of bird habitat. I am deeply concerned that this proposal will have negative impacts on the micro-local ecosystem, and as a Very Significant Bird Area for migratory birds this local impact will impact birds that depend on the site for international, actually even circum-polar migration.
With my fullest heart I implore you to reject the expansion proposal, and to align yourselves and our region together in support of the lives of millions and millions of creatures: the birds.

Vancouver2016-10-28 10:26:21
EricBoucher

To Whom It May Concern,
The $3.5 billion plus second container terminal on Roberts Bank is just not needed – now nor any time in the foreseeable future. With expansion planned for existing Vancouver terminals plus at Prince Rupert’s container port, all of British Columbia’s container ports have capacity to handle CANADIAN container volumes for many years to come, – WITHOUT BUILDING ROBERTS BANK TERMINAL2.

The T2 proposal has a seriously flawed business case and will result in huge risks to the Roberts Bank ecosystem – the most important ecosystem in Canada in terms of its abundant wildlife and biodiversity.

Therefore, I simply can't support such so-called development, I don't want it, it is simply too destructive for us all.

Thank you kindly for taking the time to red and consider my opinion on the subject.

QUEEN CHARLOTTE2016-10-28 10:31:56
JeanettePaisley

I am truly concerned that so little consideration is being given to the wildlife that depend on this area. There is so much scientific data out there that I don't think I need to reiterate it here. But suffice it to say that, if this terminal is built, there will be a severe decline in many shore birds that rely on the biofilm produced in this area during their migration. We have lost so many species because of human encroachment onto lands that are necessary for species development. It would be a shame for BC to be the cause of more devastation to our wonderful wild life.

Some other things to consider:

The T2 project is likely to cause damage if not outright destruction of bird species, especially the Western Sandpiper. It will cause further disturbance to fish and crab habitat, to areas critical to the very survival of marine mammals, especially the already endangered Orca population. The impacts will be so severe that they may be totally irreversible.

Do we want to be known as the people who destroyed the Western Sandpiper, who endangered further the Orca, who disrupted the habitat of fish and crab and marine mammals? If this is what you want as our heritage, then go ahead and build the terminal. But if you care for the biodiversity of the region, take a long, hard look at what will be lost and decide if it will be worth it.

I am not an expert, merely a concerned citizen, but from what I read, it would appear that there is no immediate need for this port expansion. Furthermore, local councils, community and environmental organizations and residents have repeatedly raised concerns with Port Metro Vancouver including:

• Increased air pollution from more truck and train traffic and their health impacts.
• Traffic congestion and gridlock caused by increases in port truck traffic resulting in increased travel times and costs for residents.
• Port expansion puts increased pressure on valuable agricultural lands.
• Increased noise pollution, light pollution, and light spill.
• Property values threatened by loss of natural areas and impacts of industrial development.
• Increased tax dollars spent on port-related infrastructure and services.
• Need for a comprehensive cumulative impacts assessment that addresses the effects of all projects in the region.
• Effects of increased marine shipping on wildlife and residents of the islands along shipping routes.
• Fuel burning and pollution from increased number of vessels in ports and along shipping routes

It appears that Port Metro Vancouver has repeatedly taken the position that it is not responsible for any impacts beyond the immediate port footprint and thus refuses to even discuss many of these issues. But we, the people, have to live with the results of this expansion, whether it be noise pollution, light pollution, air pollution, destruction of biodiversity, etc.

I strongly urge you to reconsider allowing this expansion. It would appear from the literature that there are other solutions. Do not allow the destruction of wild life habitat or the environment in which we, the people, have to live.

Langley2016-10-28 10:55:46
MelissaHafting

You will destroy critical bird and wildlife habitat please do not make a mistake you will regret for the climate and wildlife in this area

Richmond2016-10-28 10:57:15
HelenIble

My main concern here is the tremendous risk to migratory birds and the local ecosystem if this needless facility is built. Very expensive. Unneeded. Prince Rupert today and with expansion there underway make further growth in Roberts Bank redundant.
Let's not do it please!

Sechelt2016-10-28 10:57:54
Nicole MacRae

Please do not pass this project. We need to protect the shore birds habitat and this project would have a disastrous impact on the population of birds that migrate through the area every year.

Vancouver 2016-10-28 11:03:05
WayneSavard

We must save our deteriorating coastline from further abuse. Stop this insanity.

Wayne Savard

Nelson2016-10-28 11:03:06
CaitlanRead

We cannot afford to destroy any more habitat that supports migratory bird species. You must acknowledge that impacts at one level of the ecosystem cascade to affect the entire system. This project will put further strain on the food sources of resident orca whales. If the people who form our government are to honour their own commitment to protect endangered species under the Species At Risk Act, they must reject industrial projects which threaten them. Reject this project as unnecessary and destructive to this precious ecosystem.

Vancouver2016-10-28 11:03:43
RozIsaac

At a time when the organizations like the World Wildlife Fund and numerous other reputable, science-based organizations are warning of the dire threat to wildlife, it is imperative that we try and CONSERVE the little remaining habitats in the Lower Mainland, and NOT develop it with unnecessary industrial facilities like a port.

As adults, we won't experience the full negative results of the disturbance to so many species in their habitat, but future generations will. We owe it to them to cease and desist.

Please take this and the myriad other reasons not to proceed.

Thank you for your consideration.

North Vancouver2016-10-28 11:05:19
SheilaHall

There seems to be no consideration of the impact on nature with this proposal. This terminal will cause irreversible damage to essential migratory bird habitat and to whale habitat. We depend on the network of nature for our food and living.
Please do no further damage to our environment and thus our children's lives by destroying this part of the nature network.
What good is the possible trade if life is destroyed?

Do NOT allow T2 to be built.

Vancouver2016-10-28 11:07:48
SusannaKaljur

The evidence shows that the T2 Roberts Bank Expansion is not needed and too costly. The risks are too high for the Roberts Bank ecosystems which is considered to be Canada's most important ecosystem.
Financial gains claims are dubious except in costs they will surely rise. Projections of growth are widely over stated.
There are other alternatives to this expansion which make more sense both fiscally and environmentally.

Courtenay2016-10-28 11:26:42
AlisonGillis

Terminal not needed. Will be bankrupt in less than 20 years. Bad investment . Disastrous ecologically.

Courtenay2016-10-28 11:48:34
Judy EmilyWilliams

The Fraser River Coalition, the Shore Spawners Alliance of British Columbia, and the Wreck Beach Preservation Society as well as the Boundary Bay Conservation Committee represent well over 50,000 members in the Lower Mainland opposing the construction of Terminal 2 at the expense of so much environmental habitat concerns.

The Western Hemisphere's entire population of Western sandpipers migrate through this area to slurp up the bio-film on the tidal flats, not only in the proposed location of T-2 but also along the tidal flats in the North Arm where Port Metro also proposes to dump over 100 acres of contaminated river bottom to create habitat banking in order to justify T2. Not only will this jeopardize sandpipers, but it will also encourage large populations of snow geese in these newly-created marshes which Vancouver International Airport has tried to tell PMV, who refuses to listen to top VIA administrators. NO WAY!!!

Expansion of the existing Vancouver terminals and at the Prince Rupert terminal, is NOT needed!! The multiple eco-systems that would be impacted would jeopardize juvenile salmon, our resident killer whales, and migratory birds. This area is not only an IBA, but is recognized in the RAMSAR designations. The infrastructure necessary to service this new terminal would jeopardize the ALR lands necessary to provide food for future generations in the Lower Mainland.

Economics should factor in the human element which the T2 expansion does not do any more than it factors in the multiple environmental ecosystems that would be impacted and destroyed by such an expansion.

PLEASE ABANDON PRESENT OR FUTURE PLANS TO IMPACT ROBERTS BANK BY THE MEGA DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTED BY T2!!!

Judy Emily Williams, Co-Chair, Fraser River Coalition;
Chair, Wreck Beach Preservation Society;President, Shore Spawners Alliance of BC, and Member, Boundary Bay Conservation Committee

(604)-856-9598 (Home)
(604)-308-6336 (Cell)

Bradner,2016-10-28 11:51:56
AnnGrant

I am opposed to the building of Port Metro Vancouver's Roberts Bank Container Terminal 2

The $3.5 billion plus second container terminal on Roberts Bank is just not needed – now nor any time in the foreseeable future. With expansion planned for existing Vancouver terminals plus at Prince Rupert’s container port, all of British Columbia’s container ports have capacity to handle CANADIAN container volumes for many years to come, – WITHOUT BUILDING ROBERTS BANK TERMINAL2.

The T2 proposal has a seriously flawed business case and will result in huge risks to the Roberts Bank ecosystem – the most important ecosystem in Canada in terms of its abundant wildlife and biodiversity.

Vancouver2016-10-28 11:56:34
LesleyClark

T2 makes no sense at all. Canadians are concerned about the enviroment above all other issues. Stand with the citizens and block this unnecessary and destructive project.

Nanaimo2016-10-28 11:58:00
WendyProthero

I am so hoping this project will be rejected by my government. As someone who has been a birder for many years I am aware of what an important area this is in migration and generally for bird species. Do you realize that by 2020 three years from now scientists have calculated we will be losing two thirds of all wild species! We must do all we can to protect all species not just the human species! Good luck!

Comox2016-10-28 12:02:18
PennOyama

"BECAUSE WE CAN" is NOT a reason to continue with this absolutely UNNECESSARY terminal expansion! On the contrary, there is EVERY REASON NOT to, most of them environmental!!!
DO NOT APPROVE THIS PROJECT!!!

Burnaby2016-10-28 12:06:50
DonPaulsen

I have previously sent in a submission to the review panel stating my objection to the T-2 project proposal at Roberts Bank. No one knows the exact extent of the negative environmental impact on this project but it will be substantial. You can not create a man-made island in the mouth of the Fraser River Estuary of this magnitude without serious consequences on our fisheries, shell fish, killer whales, migratory sea birds and wildlife in the region.

The Port of Vancouver's offer to create a man-made marsh in front of T-2 is rediculious and should have no place in this discussion. The proposed habitat banking by the Port of Vancouver has no place in the environmental review process and would also likely have a negative environmental impact on the Estuary.

I urge you to turn down the Port of Vancouver's environmental application for this project based on the negative impact on the Fraser River and the Estuary. In addition, the business case and forecasts put out by the Port and their consultants must be considered bogus. The business case and forecasts by other experts show that T-2 is not needed and cannot be justified at this time. Current capicity and expansions on the south coast and at The Port of Prince Rupert will easily handle container business requirements for Canada for the next 20 years.

Don Paulsen - Delta, BC

Delta2016-10-28 12:11:56
PaulSimpson

Please make the right decision and stop the expansion of this facility. The local ecosystem is already under tremendous pressure, with the current level of industrialization here. Recently alongside this we have seen hundreds of acres of foreshore paved under with the new Tsawwassen Mills and Commons, along with housing developments on the TFN lands. Now it looks like hundreds of more acres of habitat is being buried under tons of more concrete for more industrial development.
Building even more capacity will ultimately result in more and more land being given up for the storage and transportation of these containers probably stacked as high as apartment buildings.
This body of water and surrounding lands have been irrevocably changed, all with a huge impact on all the local wildlife that use to frequent this habitat. Not only have local populations been eradicated but all the migratory waterfowl species challenged to still make this a viable place for their food and rest so desperately required for their success.
Back in the 1980's I would cycle through the lands of this region and enjoy the abundance of species like coyote, Great Blue Heron, Raptors, waterfowl and numerous songbirds, but alas they are all gone.
With each new project we hear all these things they say that tend to minimize the effect of these changes but bit by bit when you look at the cumulative effect it is now huge.
Sad how people who never saw what an area was like decades ago can always justify just a bit more development. It is time to stop the desecration of this area and allow what little animals and birds remain to continue to populate these regions.
So it should come as no surprise that over 50% of all wildlife has been wiped off the face of this earth since 1970, our Federal and Provincial governments along with big business has certainly got a lot of blood on their hands and it needs to stop. What will the world look like in 2050, with no wildlife, coral reefs etc, all I can say is I am glad I will be dead but pity my grandkids!

Delta2016-10-28 12:20:50
ToryRussell

Two thirds of the world's wildlife could be gone, extinct, by 2020, according to the World Wildlife Fund.

The Roberts Bank ecosystem matters now, and for future generations.

There is no crisis in Canada's west coast container port capacity to justify the proposed environmental impacts ... there is no economic case to justify this development either ... and there certainly is no social license.

These are the reasons I oppose the building of Port Metro Vancouver's Roberts Bank container Terminal 2.

Do not allow this unnecessary infrastructure project go ahead for the reasons cited above, and also because there are so many more urgently needed infrastructure projects our communities need.

Whitehorse2016-10-28 12:21:59
HilaryKnight

No reasonable case can be made for Roberts Bank Terminal 2. Canada doesn't need the extra capacity, and the environmental harm is indefensible.

When will we learn? STOP THIS LUNACY!

Victoria2016-10-28 12:22:02
SHEENADEVOTA

Please reconsider this initiative for further study and deliberation. I am concerned about permanent irreversible impact to the environment.

Richmond2016-10-28 12:23:20
ChrisRose

I object to any extensions of the coal port facilities. I firmly think that, coal production must be stopped in order to avoid major climate change devastation in the world.

Quathiaski Cove, Quadra Island2016-10-28 12:35:41
LauraJones

There is no need for a second terminal at Roberts Bank. It's time to put our ingenuity to work to lessen the impact that the movement of goods causes around the world. Our high consumption is greatly impacting our biodiversity. Global capital is out of hand.

New Westminster2016-10-28 12:43:00
Ronvan der Eerden

We keep looking at the environmental mistakes of previous generations and repeating them. It is doubtful that we really need this terminal for our economic well being but if we need the port space we can do it smarter and place it where it's not just another big huge spike in the coffin of our important coastline.

Our parents may not have been as aware of the damage they were doing but we do know.

Our kids deserve better.

Stop this project now.

Vancouver2016-10-28 12:45:17
PaulBiedermann

The $3.5 billion plus second container terminal on Roberts Bank is just not needed – now nor any time in the foreseeable future. With expansion planned for existing Vancouver terminals plus at Prince Rupert’s container port, all of British Columbia’s container ports have capacity to handle CANADIAN container volumes for many years to come, – WITHOUT BUILDING ROBERTS BANK TERMINAL2.

The T2 proposal has a seriously flawed business case and will result in huge risks to the Roberts Bank ecosystem – the most important ecosystem in Canada in terms of its abundant wildlife and biodiversity.

Delta2016-10-28 12:48:29
Chloe Boynton

I am a Masters student at Simon Fraser University and I have been studying juvenile Barn Swallow habitat use and survival in the Ladner area for the past two summers. I have personally observed a variety of Barn Swallows and other swallow species foraging in the area where the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 is being proposed, as well as shorebirds, which has already been highlighted. I observed Barn Swallows foraging in this area for most of July, suggesting it is an important area for Barn Swallows to feed, including juveniles, which are a vulnerable part of the population. Especially as the Barn Swallow is currently listed as Threatened by COSEWIC, and soon to be listed under the Species at Risk Act, it is important to conserve potential foraging habitat for this species (in addition to the other swallow species and shorebirds that frequent this area).

Surrey2016-10-28 12:55:05
SimonValdez

To whom it might concern.

As a bird watcher and as a professional biologist I oppose the Terminal 2 expansion as It imperils critical habitat, not only for local wildlife, but for millions of migratory birds that rely on this habitat for their long migrations.

The type of infrastructure proposed, a marine fill, is largely behind the cause of the demise of Asian migratory shorebird populations. Canadian migratory birds are already in decline, it would be a shame to let their populations even further for a project that could be built in a less sensitive area.

Burnaby2016-10-28 13:01:59
JohnPrentice

i am against this $3.5 billion plus second container terminal on Roberts Bank is just not needed – now nor any time in the foreseeable future.

With expansion planned for existing Vancouver terminals plus at Prince Rupert’s container port, all of British Columbia’s container ports have capacity to handle CANADIAN container volumes for many years to come,

– WITHOUT BUILDING ROBERTS BANK TERMINAL 2. ?????

WHY ???

The other values of this area have NOT BEEN ADDRESSED

Huge risks to the Roberts Bank ecosystem – the most important ecosystem in Canada in terms of its abundant wildlife and biodiversity.

White Rock 2016-10-28 13:04:58
BetteChadwick

I find it hard to reconcile the Federal Government's supposed committment to effect climate change and at the same time promote the expansion of fossil fuels by committing to infrastructure that will ultimately be a stranded asset.
Vancouver ports already have suffcient infrastructure to facilitate the export of coal. We do not need Terminal 2at Roberts Bank. If this terminal goes ahead there will be huge risks to the Roberts Bank ecosystem, one of the most important in Canada to wildlife and diversity. The recent report by the WWF indicates that extinction of many species is accelerating at an unprecedented rate due to the impact we humans are making on the planet;, degrading ecosystems, polluting the air and contributing to climate change.
Coal is one of the most toxic and carbon intensive fossil fuels and in our changing world, the business case for building this terminal is highly inflated as coal continues to decline in value.
Consider the future of the children of Canada and your own , and do not approve this project. If we are to survive as a species we need to protect the diversity that we still have.
Sincerely,

Sechelt2016-10-28 13:12:21
SusanTanco

I am extremely opposed to this development and the further environmental degradation it will create. Making bigger and bigger profits for corporations does not grow our community in a healthy way. We need to start taking care of the environment and people and get our priorities straight.

Richmond2016-10-28 13:29:33
ElizabethKeenan

Re: ROBERTS BANK TERMINAL2.

I can't understand why this needs to be built, or even considered. The destructive capacity of this is just far too great! Any government body should be protecting our precious wildlife from the demands of industry. Don't allow our natural resources to be obliterated by greedy businesses. PLEASE don't build this Terminal 2. You're all humans with brains, so find a better solution!

Toronto2016-10-28 13:38:44
FionaOld

Dear CEAA & Diane Watts MP,
I request that you do all possible to stop Terminal 2 and to protect Roberts Bank. Let's protect our future, not contribute to it's destruction.

Sincerely,
Fiona Old

White Rock2016-10-28 13:41:52
RichardO'Neill

The CEAA must take a firm stand against the expansion of Roberts Bank Terminals . This Terminal 2 will increase Climate Change effects, it will destroy essential habitat for hundreds of species, and increased the production of climate destroying gases around the world

It is time for Canada to keep its commitment for real change.

Roberts Creel2016-10-28 13:48:34
TaliaGarber

Please start putting the health of our environment before financial greed. Wildlife and bird species loss is the equivalent of the canary in the mineshaft
If we lose habitat for wildlife we diminish our world in uncountable ways. Please don't be a government that does not care about and for our environment. Once destroyed there is no going back.

Vancouver2016-10-28 13:55:35
Pam Price

I am against the Roberts Bank Terminal 2.
It means huge risks to the Ecosystem. If we stop using the Roberts Bank to send US coal etc, we shouldn't need another terminal for many years, hense saving the ecosystem and the cost.
Let the USA send their coal through their own ports.
Thanks,
P Price

richmond2016-10-28 13:59:50
Christine Knowlden

Debra Myles

PLease protect Roberts bank, this is an amazing sanctuary for birds, especially the Western Sandpiper and so many other species of wild life thrive here ,,including marine life.You can never go back once you have destroyed this valuable ecosystem

We do not need TERMINAL 2, as plans are underway to expand PRINCE RUPERT'S CONTAINER PORT.Also many other ports across Canada can handle all goods for many, many, years to come.

We, as tax payers are putting our trust in you, that you will preserve our planet for the next generations.

Most Sincerely Christine Knowlden.

Please forward to Debra Myles
panelrbta2ceaa.ga.ca

Delta2016-10-28 14:01:38
MaryTyrrell

I oppose the building of Port Metro Vancouver's (PMV) Roberts Bank Container Terminal 2 because 1) it is superfluous to needs since there is already expansion planned for existing Vancouver terminals in addition to that at Prince Rupert and 2) its location is right in the middle of an extremely important ecosystem in terms of wildlife and biodiversity.
Recent research reports a dramatic decline in invertebrates amongst our wildlife population. Please do not hasten this by such a precipitate undertaking.

Thank you.
Mary

Vancouver2016-10-28 14:03:54
JaniceRider

The Vancouver area, in spite of being a city, has amazing opportunities for wildlife viewing, and Roberts Bank is one of these areas. Roberts Bank is, in fact, one of the most important areas for biodiversity and wildlife abundance in all of North America. It is a particularly important site for birds and, worldwide, birds are struggling. To build a second container terminal here would be a huge mistake. It could spell the end for species like the Western Sandpiper. As well, water habitat will be impacted, affecting species such as fish like salmon, crabs, and marine mammals, including the Orca whale. Salmon populations and the southern Orca whale population are already struggling. It would take very little to tip things in the wrong direction for these wonderful sea creatures.

Already, there are plans to expand existing Vancouver terminals as well as Prince Rupert's container port. We cannot afford to keep sacrificing plants and animals to expansion. T2 must not be built.

Please consider what the future holds for people as a species if we do not start protecting the living things we share the planet with.

Calgary2016-10-28 14:15:14
ColinMcKenzie

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 seems to be ill-conceived. Unnecessary. Not worth the risk to environment. How many people have to say don't build it? I add my voice to theirs.

New Westminster2016-10-28 14:23:02
MarionSmith

The Roberts Bank area is a vital stopover for migrating wildfowl. While the shipment of goods is important, so is protecting this unique wildlife area. We cannot destroy this area in order to build a new terminal. I encourage all involved to find a creative, innovative solution to the problem.

Richmond2016-10-28 14:34:51
TorSvanoe

Dear Carla Qualtrough and the CEAA,

I woke up this morning to several thousand snow geese adjacent to my
Ladner home. Don't they see how important this area is?
I have followed these industrial development proposals in Ladner for many years and I'm truly ashamed how the government just keeps trying to destroy these vital lands and water we have here for
never ending development and habitat destruction.
I have seen a great deal of land in my life as a helicopter pilot and Delta's Fraser River estuaries are an extremely limited resource in BC
So many species of birds and fish depend on these areas for their survival and it's time to put an end to this expansion!!
I was very upset at the means used to delay and prevent the Brunswick
Point Wildlife Area lands from being included into the recent Ramsar
protected areas as they were obviously some of the most significant wetland habitat on the west coast of North America.
Please do your part to reject any further destruction of this unique ecosystem. Please stop this damaging project and add this unique area to the protected Ramsar areas as it so obviously should have been done years ago!

Thank you.

Ladner2016-10-28 14:44:16
SandraCurrie

Too dangerous, too insane.

Vancouver2016-10-28 14:50:38
Niels Holbek

For the sake of wildlife and agriculture, container handling should go to a different location. The recent study on the loss if global biodiversity caused by people should be a wake up call to all and cause us to re-evaluate our behavior.

Black Creek2016-10-28 14:53:48
NachikoYokota

I am opposed to the building of the Port Metro Vancouver's Roberts Bank.
I have learned that this container terminal will result in huge risks to
Roberts Banks ecosystem which has an abundant wildlife and biodiversity. Once an ecosystem is destroyed it will never come back.
PLease stop building this container terminal and have a vision for the
future. We need a healthy ecosystem and not a container terminal.

North Vancouver2016-10-28 15:04:07
Kim PatrickO'Leary

Don't you people care about anything but money???!!!

You should be ashamed of your supreme selfishness and ignorance of all the life around you... that you want to destroy.
I repeat - you should be ashamed of yourselves and what you are going to leave for your, and our, children.

If destruction of the planet for the gain of a few.

Burnaby2016-10-28 15:04:57
BonnieHubert

As a citizen of Delta for over 35 years, I am opposed to the expansion of Roberts Bank Terminal 2. Do not allow this T2 to be built. It is imperative that The Roberts Bank ecosystem with its abundant wildlife and biodiversity be protected. I do not want the unneeded and destructive Terminal 2. Do not allow this to proceed now or in the future. Thank You Bonnie Hubert

Delta2016-10-28 15:12:42
LauraCornish

Roberts Bank Terminal2 is not necessary. It has a flawed business case , and in addition, would create huge risks to to the Roberts Bank ecosystem.

The business plan has a highly inflated projection of growth, and we've already seen how poorly that works out in the case of the Port Mann Bridge.

There is a real danger that T2 will result in irreparable harm to one of the most important areas of wildlife abundance and biodiversity in the whole of North America.

As a pregnant daughter with a young mother, I'm also extremely concerned about local air quality and pollution.

New Westminster2016-10-28 15:17:17
Marilynn King

I am opposed to any expansion at Deltaport; there is no proven need for a second terminal. Canada has an international obligation to protect the Fraser River estuary for the salmon and it is the prime migratory bird stopover on the Pacific Coast. The orcas that frequent these waters are already an endangered species and the noise, potential for spills and pollution from ships burning bunker fuel would only expedite their demise.

The health of residents of Metro Vancouver would be impacted significantly from the increased air pollution and noise from port activity.

Any past mitigation and/or compensation for expansion of the port has failed!

Sincerely,
Marilynn King
25 Georgia Wynd, Delta, B.C.

Delta2016-10-28 15:17:47
PaulineMaloney

We are supposed to help the environment worldwide by discouraging the burning of fossil fuels. Surely building a second terminal is not the way to do this!

Surrey2016-10-28 15:22:59
LarryColero

As with the Third Berth project before it, the environmental assessment for Terminal 2 is fatally flawed in that it does not adequately assess the cumulative effect of all industrial projects in the region, current and planned. Without a thorough cumulative analysis, the net effects of Terminal 2 alone will have little meaning compared to the proposed terminal's impact in combination with the reality of multiple projects planned or now under development.

As a concerned citizen, I am not nearly as interested in the impact of one project or another, as opposed what they will all in combination do to the quality of air we breathe, the marine and shore ecosystems, and so on. Until someone takes a wholistic approach to assessing impacts from industrial development in this region, there can be no justification for the anticipated economic benefits. The decision to build or not cannot be undone once the project is underway, and it's likely that any damage to our natural environment could not be undone.

Please expand this narrow assessment to the impact of Terminal 2 in combination with other industrial development in the region.

Delta2016-10-28 15:25:00
michaelkrisinger

I am eminently opposed to the building of Port Metro Vancouver's Roberts Bank Container Terminal 2

The $3.5 billion plus second container terminal on Roberts Bank is just not needed. It only serves the vested interest of companies - certainly not the people of BC, certainly not the environment. Stop this nonsense!

vancouver2016-10-28 15:29:19
RichardMathias

This is an unneeded and dangerous proposal. Unneeded in terms of current and planned caqpacity and uneeded in an environmentally sensative area.

Langley2016-10-28 15:39:34
AgnesJackson

I doubt that we need a terminal 2 at this time or in the foreseeable future. Should another container terminal be needed, then it should not be here in this wildlife endangered spot.

Tsawwassen2016-10-28 15:45:29
MikeGildersleeve

Dear members of the CEAA,
I am writing to you as I have serious concerns about this Roberts Bank Terminal 2 proposal, and the many negative and significant impacts it will have on the Roberts Bank Ecosystem.
I am concerned about the irreparable harm to one of the most important areas of wildlife abundance and biodiversity in all of North America.
This project would be located in the Fraser River Estuary which is a critical migratory bird stopover for millions of migrating birds on the Pacific Flyway. This estuary is well recognized as a Ramsar Wetland of International Importance, and a Provincial Wildlife Management Area.
I would expect that we apply the precautionary principle for a project of this scale and in this location.
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) fails to provide proper cumulative effects assessment on the marine environment and the marine species at risk, especially the endangered Southern Resident Killer Whale.
I am respectfully urging you to reject this proposal.
Sincerely,

Mike Gildersleeve

Mission2016-10-28 15:48:52
WayneGoin

Review of the commercial and financial considerations re: the RBT2 research shows that there are significant issues with the business case for T2. The projections for future growth appear to be highly inflated. The assumptions of effective capacity of existing West Coast container terminals and the potential for their expansion are not correctly portrayed. There are significant rail issues. There are huge potential risks for the financing of the project. If built it would have the dubious distinction of being one of the most expensive port projects in the world.

In reviewing the values of the Roberts Bank ecosystem we believe that there is a real danger that T2 will result in irreparable harm to one of the most important areas of wildlife abundance and biodiversity in the whole of North America. The T2 project is likely to cause damage if not outright destruction of bird species, especially the Western Sandpiper. It will cause further disturbance to fish and crab habitat, to areas critical to the very survival of marine mammals, especially the already endangered Orca whale population. The risks are severe; the impacts will be immediate, irreversible and cannot be mitigated.

The potential for further disruption to surrounding communities will result in increased air pollution; further traffic congestion; greater pressure on valuable agricultural land; and increased noise and light pollution.

The first phase of the Prince Rupert Fairview container Port opened in late 2007, and now, with a capacity of 850,000 Containers (TEUs), is handling over 750,000 containers per year. Work is underway on the Phase 2 North expansion which will add another 500 – 600,000 TEU capacity and will be completed in 2017. The Phase 2 South expansion is in the planning stage and once it is completed – in about 2020 – this will give the port a capacity of about 2.5 million TEUs. Further expansion is also being contemplated so that Prince Rupert would be capable of handling up to 4.5 million TEUs in the future. With that kind of capacity coming on stream, Canada’s west coast will never be short of container terminal capacity.

The $3.5 billion plus second container terminal on Roberts Bank is just not needed – now nor any time in the foreseeable future. With expansion planned for existing Vancouver terminals plus at Prince Rupert’s container port, all of British Columbia’s container ports have capacity to handle CANADIAN container volumes for many years to come, – WITHOUT BUILDING ROBERTS BANK TERMINAL2.

The T2 proposal has a seriously flawed business case and will result in huge risks to the Roberts Bank ecosystem – the most important ecosystem in Canada in terms of its abundant wildlife and biodiversity.

Montrose2016-10-28 15:54:21
MarthaChesluk

This terminal is not needed! It is hugely destructive to shore bird and marine mammal habitat. PLEASE MAKE A CHOICE FOR LIFE and do not built this terminal.

Vancouver2016-10-28 15:59:00
KatherineBoylen

To CEA;
With the dwindling abundance of suitable habitat, most birds and their migratory byways are in serious decline.
To build the proposed Roberts Bank Terminal 2 isn't justifiable to the cost of important habitat loss. Vancouver is expanding its terminals along with Prince Rupert, and the existing terminals we already have can handle the container ships that already come into Canada.
The proposed terminal expansion will do irrepairable harm to one of the most bio diverse locations in Canada.
Please let this area continue to be one of the prime biodiversity areas in our beautiful province. Let it exist in peace.

Coquitlam2016-10-28 16:04:10
GayleNeilson

I do not think the proposed expansion of the terminal on Roberts Bank is needed at this time and furthermore will hugely compromise the important and fragile ecosystem there. There is already a lot of capacity.

Canada's biodiversity is under growing threats and with tourists more and more likely to make Canada a destination, it is not container ships they are here to see but the wildlife and natural beauty that we still have. With recent news of the collapse of many species, how can it be justified to interfere even further in the ecosystem that migrating and indigenous birds rely on? Deleterious construction in this sensitive area will compromises shore and marine life. Most Lower Mainlanders do not want this.

Please do not allow this destructive and unnecessary terminal to be built.

Sincerely,

Gayle Neilson

Gibsons2016-10-28 16:57:32
LindaWall

This terminal is NOT necessary and will disrupt so much of the sensitive ecosystem during its construction and beyond.

Kamloops2016-10-28 17:03:04
MikeBothma

Protect the things that need protection. It is not feasible to sell everything- at some point nothing is left.

Gibsons2016-10-28 17:04:13
LouiseTaylor

I am writing to oppose the proposed Roberts Bank terminal primarily for environmental reasons. The Robert Banks ecosystem should not be put at risk for the proposed terminal: it is a very biodiverse ecosystem with abundant wildlife.

The economics of the proposed terminal do not make sense given that other ports can handle the container volumes. In the face of climate change, container traffic will decrease drastically which will preclude the need for this terminal.

Thank for not permitting this project which is driven by short term greed and flies in the face of climate change reality, which are elected officials are failing to address to the peril of all Canadians.

Pemberton2016-10-28 17:07:47
Jennifer ISullivan

Dear Sir or Madam,

I write regarding the proposed Roberts Bank Terminal 2 expansion.

The $3.5 billion plus second container terminal on Roberts Bank is just not needed – now nor any time in the foreseeable future. With expansion planned for existing Vancouver terminals plus at Prince Rupert’s container port, all of British Columbia’s container ports have capacity to handle CANADIAN container volumes for many years to come, – WITHOUT BUILDING ROBERTS BANK TERMINAL2.

By looking at the commercial and financial considerations the research shows that there are significant issues with the business case for T2. The projections for future growth appear to be highly inflated. The assumptions of effective capacity of existing West Coast container terminals and the potential for their expansion are not correctly portrayed. There are significant rail issues. There are huge potential risks for the financing of the project. If built it would have the dubious distinction of being one of the most expensive port projects in the world.

In reviewing the values of the Roberts Bank ecosystem I believe that there is a real danger that T2 will result in irreparable harm to one of the most important areas of wildlife abundance and biodiversity in the whole of North America. The T2 project is likely to cause damage if not outright destruction of bird species, especially the Western Sandpiper. It will cause further disturbance to fish and crab habitat, to areas critical to the very survival of marine mammals, especially the already endangered Orca whale population. The risks are severe; the impacts will be immediate, irreversible and cannot be mitigated.

The potential for further disruption to surrounding communities will result in increased air pollution; further traffic congestion; greater pressure on valuable agricultural land; and increased noise and light pollution.

In view of these points, I beg you to discard this proposed second container terminal.

Thank you,

Burnaby2016-10-28 17:08:31
RobieLiscomb

This should never happen. Use and transport of thermal coal should be banned everywhere. Continuing to use coal is like continuing to poison one's children and grandchildren after learning that you are feeding them poison.

Victoria2016-10-28 17:11:45
YvonneBell

I am firmly against building the proposed Terminal 2 on Roberts Bank. It is not worth the ecological risk and harm to the Fraser River Estuary. The Fraser River Delta is recognized as a wetland of international importance. The estuary is a nursery to one billion pacific salmon. The delta is a critical migratory stopover along the Pacific Flyway and a natural buffer against climate change. Canada's current environmental protection laws have been gutted by the previous Conservative government. When is the Trudeau government going to restore our environmental laws, policies, and safeguards as promised? Please think of the salmon, bird and whale populations in this area. You will surely wipe them out if you add Terminal 2 on Roberts Bank to the growing list of proposed industries your government wants to build close to the Fraser River Estuary. This is not what the residents of Richmond thought would happen when this Liberal government got into power. Turn down Roberts Bank Terminal 2.

Richmond2016-10-28 17:30:04
RogerEmsley

I refer to a newsletter, put out by Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA) and concerning the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project, seemingly not in the public domain, that appears to have been sent to government agencies.
Whilst I question the ethics of a newsletter like this going out to government agencies during a panel review, I will not comment on that aspect at this stage any further.
What I will focus on is the content of the newsletter which purports to address claims made by persons not identified concerning the RBT2 project and so called FACTS provided by VFPA.

VFPA claims RBT2 is commercially feasible and there is a business case.
Despite the VFPA claim that the project is commercially viable nowhere have they provided the analytics and proper business justification that a corporate entity would be required to produce to demonstrate it is both commercially and financially viable. They claim that forecasts they commissioned show continued growth over the long term. What they do not mention is that actual performance over the last seven years has demonstrated that not one of their recent forecasts has come close to reaching projections.

VFPA states that they will finance the construction of the RBT2 land mass. This is a significant change from the project description whereby an infrastructure developer was to finance that part of the construction. What happened to the infrastructure developer?
This is well over a billion dollars, for a project that has a very doubtful business case. Where does VFPA think it will find the funding. I hope they are not looking to the taxpayer. VFPA needs to provide information as to how this project will be financed.

VFPA claims that terminals can only operate at 85 percent of capacity. That is a statistic that current operators have proven to be false. Both terminals within the VFPA jurisdiction and at Prince Rupert have proven they can operate close to capacity.

VFPA now claims that its US destined containers only amount to about 15 percent. The VFPA last year stated it was 25 percent. Furthermore the volume declines seen in the last year - down 6 percent over 2015 - are as a result of US ports taking that business back.

VFPA claims that the RBT2 project will not result in irreparable damage to the ecosystem. That claim runs counter to what Environment Canada has stated in their recent report.

VFPA continues to mislead. Roberts Bank Container Terminal 2 is not commercially or financially viable. There is adequate capacity from current west coast terminals together with additional expansion already in the pipeline to satisfy Canada's trading needs for many years to come.
The project will do irreparable damage to one of the most important ecosystem in North America and a top Important Bird Area. The damage will be immemediate, irreversible and can't be mitigated.

Delta2016-10-28 17:53:04
TroyTaylor

I am fully opposed to the building of Port Metro Vancouver's Roberts Bank Container Terminal 2. There is so much noise already from the existing terminal and it is a detriment to the birds that migrate and breed in the area, not to mention a noise nuisance to those that live in the surrounding area.

In addition, I would like to see our different levels of government stop billing the taxpayers for infrastructure developments like this when it clearly directly benefits big business far more than it does the local economy and workforce. I see unnecessary projects going on like this across the country and it is not okay. You politicians that are doing this will pay eventually. The Canadian people will not tolerate this any longer.

It's time to separate business from our governing bodies, and this Terminal expansion is just another example of that.

Again, I am fully opposed to this project on Roberts Bank.

Vancouver2016-10-28 17:54:56
LeslieStanick

DO NOT BUILD ANOTHER TERMINAL AT ROBERT'S BANK.

Dear MP Serai,

Robert's bank is abundant with natural and wildlife diversity, and is being recognized due to its importance to bird species, marine mammals, fish, crustaceans, and shellfish. It is now classified by Birdlife International as an Important Bird Area in Danger, as a result of the industrial development that has already taken place, as well as future projects which are now in the planning stages that will destroy wildlife and habitat in the area.

Furthermore, we don't need another terminal now , or in the foreseeable future. We already have the capacity to deal with Canada's container volumes for decades into the future.

Roberts Bank ecosystem is one of the most diverse and abundant in wildlife diversity. Do not destroy this irreplaceable living Canadian, and BC treasure. Protect Roberts Bank and stop the unnecessary Port Metro Vancouver's Roberts Bank Container Terminal 2. We just don't need it!

In addition: projections for future growth of shipping in the area is grossly inflated. We don't need this expensive and damaging container terminal. The economics don't add up.

In addition, environmentally, the impacts are devastating for sensitive habitat for some bird species, as well as crab, fish and other marine life, including marine mammals, and our beloved orcas. Please do not put them at risk of ship strikes, oil and gas spills, noise pollution and many other issues.

The port will also put more pressure on roads, communities and agricultural land. Poor air quality from increased traffic will further degrade ecosystems. Please stop this port expansion....it will be hugely expensive and one of the most costly in the world. We don't want it, and don't need it Thank you for your consideration.

Surrey2016-10-28 18:11:33
EdwardNygren

Please do not allow the construction of a 2nd container terminal on Roberts Bank. The destruction of wildlife habitat is just not worth it. I've worked in BC as a wildlife ecologist since 1986 and I know how valuable the area is to many birds and marine animals. Environment Canada has concluded that building the terminal will cause immediate and irreversible harm to wildlife.

The World Wildlife Fund has just come out with a report that 2/3 of the worlds wildlife could be lost by 2020! The terminal expansion will just make that worse. It is not needed.

Thank you.

Edward Nygren

Vancouver2016-10-28 18:29:45
BarryMonaghan

Too many people, too much consumerism!

We don't need this boondoggle or any of these other silly projects such as site c dam.

Solution: In the short term make more efficient use of the existing terminal without expanding it or building any new one.
For the longer term we need to reduce our populations through one child families and drastically cutting down our consumerism.

Get with the program!

Vancouver2016-10-28 18:45:15
DarcyKaltio

Please protect Roberts Bank.

Powell river2016-10-28 18:47:00
Bruce Brandhorst

As a retired biology professor and naturalist I am well aware of the critical importance of the Roberts Bank ecosystem. It value has broad international recognition. It is inconceivable that the proposed T2 expansion of the Roberts Bank Terminal can be done without serious impacts on migratory birds, especially the sandpipers that depend on its biofilm, as well as the broad diversity of life supported by the bank. I am not aware of any kind of monitoring and mitigation efforts that would eliminate the extreme risk to the environment posed by T2. Now is time for the new Canadian government to demonstrate to the public that it has restored a credible environmental assessment process for such proposals. The public interest should be placed ahead of corporate and Port interests. That review process must be science based including a consideration of all relevant literature, not just that selected by the proponent's consultants, who are in a clearly biased position. Moreover, the decision must be based on the well established precautionary principle. It should up to the proponent to prove that its proposal will not harm the Roberts Bank habitat and the animals that depend on. I know that task would be impossible, so the proposed terminal should be rejected.
It appears is clear that BC (and Canada) has sufficient container capacity for many years. If capacity ever needs to be increased based hard data rather than inflated estimates, it should not done in such an environmentally sensitive area.
Roberts Bank has already been badly impacted by industrialization, with negative impacts not only on the fauna, but also on the local residents. What remains should be incorporated into a Marine Protected Area, residing next the the highly productive Agricultural Land Reserve.

Port Moody2016-10-28 19:32:28
DorothyYada

Please do not allow a second container terminal to be built on Roberts Bank.
This expansion will cause irreparable damage to a unique ecosystem with abundant wildlife. particularly birds, fish and marine mammals such as Orca whales.
There will also be a major increase in air pollution affecting nearby communities and agricultural land caused mainly by increased traffic.
It appears that this expansion is not even necessary at this time.

Vancouver2016-10-28 19:51:59
HuiSim

I AM FULLY OPPOSED TO THE PROJECT ON ROBERTS BANK. The construction of Port Metro Vancouver’s Roberts Bank Container Terminal 2 on a critically important migratory bird and wildlife habitat will do nothing but endanger the wellbeing and future of all wildlife--native and migratory--and increase noise and light pollution, the chance of fuel spills (as evidenced by the recent massive diesel spill in Bella Bella, where the response was at best, extremely inadequate and, at worst, nearly non-existent and inept), and other harmful emissions, not to mention exacerbate other health issues for all of us who live and work here.

There has already been far too much poorly planned re-allocation of industrial lands within Metro Vancouver (moving it from Vancouver to Delta farmland) in the past 15-20 years, often at the expense of greenspace and those who either have no voice, or those whose voices are ultimately ignored by the Powers That Be. Moreover, financing this project with hard-earned taxpayer money above the objections of taxpayers for the short-term gains of special interests, is an insult to both the ideals and aims of Canadian democracy, and Delta’s environmental initiatives and motto, “Ours to Preserve by Hand and Heart.”

North Burnaby2016-10-28 20:01:06
WendyNichols

I am writing to express my opposition to the building of terminal 2 at roberts bank. We don't need it due to expansion at prince Rupert and the existing Vancouver port. Even if we did, delta is the wrong place becpause of it's importançe to wildlife and farming. Delta should be put on a pedestał, not treated as a doormat!
Sincerely,
Wendy

Vancouver2016-10-28 20:11:21
RobertMcCroskey

Please do NOT do any more development at Roberts Bank!
This land important to the environment and wildlife.
YOU HAVE NOT EVEN CONSIDERED that ALL YOUR DeltaPort facilities will be under 20 feet of water by 2050, AS YOU BUILD A GLORIFIED VERSION OF THE PAST!
Just stop it PLEASE!

Surrey2016-10-28 20:12:19
JoPhillips

The Robert Banks Terminal 2 is not needed and too environmentally costly. We are killing off wildlife at an alarming rate by destroying their habitats. This is crazy. Please do not allow the T2 to be built.

sooke2016-10-28 20:21:21
Jaycee Clarkson

To my local, provincial, and federal government,

I strongly urge you to take a precautionary approach when approving projects such as the Robert Banks Terminal 2. Is the Terminal really necessary? Currently, we have the capacity to handle Canadian container volumes. The health, communities and environment of future generations are at stake. A huge project such as the T2 proposal also has great potential to impact the surrounding ecosystem in a negative way putting stress on wildlife and biodiversity that call Roberts Bank home.

Please consider saying "no" to the Roberts Bank Terminal 2.

Many thanks,

Jaycee Clarkson

Vancouver2016-10-28 20:23:55
BrunoVernier

please stop any plans to build T2 on Roberts Bank

Please use the Port in Prince Rupert instead

Richmond2016-10-28 20:26:07
ShellyBrunelle

To the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency

I oppose the building of Port Metro Vancouver's (PMV) Roberts Bank Container Terminal 2.
The $3.5 billion plus second container terminal on Roberts Bank is just not needed – now nor any time in the foreseeable future. With expansion planned for existing Vancouver terminals plus at Prince Rupert’s container port, all of British Columbia’s container ports have capacity to handle CANADIAN container volumes for many years to come, – WITHOUT BUILDING ROBERTS BANK TERMINAL2.
The T2 proposal has a seriously flawed business case and will result in huge risks to the Roberts Bank ecosystem – the most important ecosystem in Canada in terms of its abundant wildlife and biodiversity

Richmond 2016-10-28 20:26:22
GregHelten

The huge risks to the Roberts Bank ecosystem – the most important ecosystem in Canada in terms of its abundant wildlife and biodiversity - are not justified by this project, this as we witness the sixth great extinction event on earth!

Vancouver2016-10-28 20:35:13
GaiCotter

The Roberts Bank Terminal 2 proposal has a seriously flawed business case and will result in huge risks to the Roberts Bank ecosystem – the most important ecosystem in Canada in terms of its abundant wildlife and biodiversity.

We must protect the fragile natural systems that support all life. Governments and Corporations must listen to the science and the will of the population that does not want the unneeded and hugely destructive Terminal 2..

West Vancouver2016-10-28 20:43:42
susanmuraja

The Roberts Bank ecosystem will be in real danger and T2 will result in irreparable harm to one of the most important areas of wildlife abundance and biodiversity in the whole of North America. The T2 project is likely to cause damage if not outright destruction of bird species, especially the Western Sandpiper. It will cause further disturbance to fish and crab habitat, to areas critical to the very survival of marine mammals, especially the already endangered Orca whale population. The risks are severe; the impacts will be immediate, irreversible and cannot be mitigated.
There are no significant economic benefits to out weigh the environmental damage that T2 will cause as well as causing further disruption to surrounding communities, such as increased air pollution; further traffic congestion; greater pressure on valuable agricultural land; and increased noise and light pollution.
So please say NO to T2 IT IS NOT NEEDED.
Sincerely,
Susan Muraja

surrey2016-10-28 20:48:42
MargaretMeggy

The environmental costs of port expansion are unacceptable to Canadians. Port Metro Vancouver, in its quest to industrialize one of the world's great fish spawning rivers, intends to destroy both agricultural land, which is badly needed by Canadians to feed ourselves & control our own food supply, and bird habitat, which sustains bird life in their great migration.

When will the destruction of our environment end? Only when the governance of Port Metro Vancouver
Is changed so that the port is accountable to Canadians, rather than being allowed to arrogantly dismiss citizen concerns about the lower quality of life resulting from the port's operations in our communities

Delta2016-10-28 20:57:00
EoinFinn

Any application of the precautionary principle to this sensitive, and vitally important, ecosystem would preclude its use as a port facility. I do not approve of this unwise and destructive proposal.

Vancouver2016-10-28 21:12:10
cg

The $3.5 billion plus second container terminal on Roberts Bank is just not needed – now nor any time in the foreseeable future. With expansion planned for existing Vancouver terminals plus at Prince Rupert’s container port, all of British Columbia’s container ports have capacity to handle CANADIAN container volumes for many years to come, – WITHOUT BUILDING ROBERTS BANK TERMINAL2.

san diego2016-10-28 21:12:16
MandyL

please save the areas from being further developed.

the birds , migrating birds and waterfowls need a place like Robert Bank to make a stopover and get food in order to continue their flights.

they have equal rights as we do to use this planet.

we human should share our space with other species instead of taking over everywhere.

it's a crime to destroy mudflats and to replace them by cement.

such kinds of crime have been happening along coast of Asian countries.
we would hope Canada might have ben more civilized and less greedy.

we can survive without another huge port, but the birds cannot make it without a considerable large area of mudflats.

please try to look at it from the creator’s angle, from God s eyes, instead of from human centered $’s eye.

Thanks

Vancouver2016-10-28 21:24:58
ShirleySamples

It is not well known that this proposal is being promoted. My concern has mainly to the risk that increased shipping will have on the Salish Sea. This part of the world is special, I personally feel that the West Coast of B.C. is a "National Treasure" and should be protected as such. We live in a very special place, a place to be appreciated. The world mega corporations don't care about the creatures or our environment. I believe that there are some things do not have a monetary value. If we only make decisions based on corporate bias and greed, we will not have a coastline with all its treasures, (too many to mention) we can pass onto our children and grandchildren without regret.
Sincerely,

Vancouver2016-10-28 21:39:34
WilliamChase

STOP THIS MADNESS!!! BC and the West Coast are gaining fame as tourist destinations, we love the clean everything, try think of us, let the Multinationals go somewhere else. Coal cannot get exported through American Ports. Why? Because COAL IS UGLY, the Americans won't put up with their own companies, why should we?

ENOUGH already of Container Ports! All that is s formerly North American JOBS coming back as CHEAP made in China Trash

Fort St John2016-10-28 21:40:51
SheilaPratt

Very briefly:
The second container terminal on Roberts Bank is simply not needed - not now or in any time in the foreseeable future. With the planned for expansions, BC already has the capacity for all CANADIAN container volumes.

The business case is seriously flawed. Projections for future growth are overstated; who will pay for this project when the need for it does not materialize?

The Roberts Bank ecosystem, full of wildlife and biodiversity, will be threatened. Birds, fish, crabs, sea mammals, including Orcas, will all be affected.

The social impacts - air pollution and traffic congestion, moist and light pollution, and most of all, destruction of agricultural land - will be severe.

Finally, I doubt that those who will be directly affected are participating in this "public consultation"; Canadians are busy with their lives, and astonishingly, thought the last election would make it unnecessary to participate in these consultations. When will our governments put public consideration ahead of corporate interests?

Maple Ridge2016-10-28 21:42:14
tsmith

NO to this please.

Gabriola2016-10-28 21:48:27
MarkDalton

Dear CEAA,
Please register this email as notice of my opposition to the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project. First of all it is not required as the projections of the increase in shipping traffic stated by Port Metro Vancouver in justifying this project have been shown to be incorrect. Secondly the proposed location is a very important feeding ground for migratory birds, especially the Western Sandpiper. Thirdly, the increased shipping traffic will have negative effects on aquatic life. There is just no reasonable justification for this terminal.
Best regards,
Mark Dalton

Surrey2016-10-28 22:00:30
TracyTran

Please do not go forth with the T2 expansion. We need to protect the little land and wild life we have here in BC.

Burnaby2016-10-28 22:11:30
LizWalker

If you honestly and with integrity examine the state of our environment there is no way to justify approval of this project.

The Living Planet Report 2016, produced by WWF in collaboration with the Zoological Society of London, reports that global wildlife populations have declined by 58% between 1970 and 2012. To extrapolate from that data the expectation for global wildlife populations is to decline even further to more than two-thirds by 2020…that’s only 3 years away and it is a result of human activities.

How does this report intimately relate to the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project? The report brings into focus that freshwater ecosystems face immediate threat and freshwater life is dropping at an alarming rate. This observation is very timely given the very recent concerns about our coastal Orca population starving as Pacific salmon populations continue to diminish.

How can this be happening? Obviously the oversights we have been employing to date have not been effective. It is noted that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this project does not provide proper cumulative effects assessment on the marine environment and marine species at risk, especially the endangered Southern Resident Killer Whale.

“The Project is located in the Fraser River Estuary which is a critical migratory bird stopover for millions of migrating birds on the Pacific Flyway. The estuary is recognized as a Ramsar Wetland of International Importance, a Provincial Wildlife Management Area, Canada’s Number One Important Bird Area, and a Migratory Bird Sanctuary. The area is of international significance due to a combination of interdependent marine, estuarine, freshwater, groundwater, and agricultural habitats.” You’ve likely read a statement similar to this before but it is well past the time that it be seriously acknowledged.

We must change our ways!

We must protect our environment, habitats which in relation to this project include river, estuarine, wetland and marine habitats. We must employ assessments that include cumulative impacts from all developments and proposed developments along our marine shores, along and within the Fraser river ecosystem…that means a review that takes into account how developments together will impact the habitats that provide us and wildlife a means of social, economic, environmental and physical well-being.

Given the current dire state of the global environment we can no longer accept business as usual and therefore it becomes incumbent upon you to deny the further expansion of Roberts Bank Deltaport Terminal 2 as the EIS does not provide for a cumulative effects assessment and common sense dictates further stresses on this ecosystem will only serve to bring us closer to the Living Planet Report 2016 prediction for 2020.

Thank you for your attention. A reply, to keep one informed, is always appreciated.

Naturally yours,
Liz Walker

Surrey2016-10-28 22:35:11
LisanKwindt

Please do everything in your power to stop the irreversible destruction of the precious ecosystem that would be caused by building Roberts Bank Terminal 2. The economics don't justify the project. The habitat, plants, and animals that will certainly be lost forever if this project is allowed to go through deserve better. The environment is our future, building more concrete and plastic monstrosities is certain death for all of us as inextricable part of a living planet. Stop this madness.

Vancouver2016-10-28 22:39:27
joyceflemig

The risk to human health and the ecosystem is to great.
Please take this into consideration when deciding about the Roberts Bank expansion

SURREY2016-10-28 23:19:20
Johnter Borg

October 28, 2016

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 EIA
for CEAA Review Panel and BC EA Office – Comments

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
22nd Floor, 160 Elgin Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3
Email: [email protected]

by John ter Borg B.Eng. MLWS, LEED AP
Richmond

I am strongly opposed to the proposed Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project. My reasons for rejecting the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project in the Fraser River Estuary include:

The importance... The Fraser River Delta is recognized as a wetland of international significance (Ramsar Convention). The estuary is a nursery to one billion pacific salmon. The delta is a critical migratory stopover for millions of birds along the Pacific Flyway, and a natural buffer against climate change. The area is of international significance due to a combination of interdependent marine, estuarine, freshwater, groundwater, and agricultural habitats.

Estuaries are among the most biologically productive ecosystems on Earth. Comparable to rain forests and coral reefs, and more productive than both the rivers and the ocean that influence them. We have lost approximately 85% of what were historically the Fraser River wetlands.

The history... In the 1970's and 1980's large causeway developments off Roberts Bank in the Fraser Estuary interrupted the migration patterns of juvenile salmon as a result of flawed designs for fish passage. A few years after the construction of these large causeways, Harrison River Chinook stocks collapsed and has never recovered. The impacts of Roberts Bank Terminal 1, a serious disruption to fish movement, are still not largely understood and, where understood, have not been properly compensated for.

As has been stated “…this continuing loss and erosion of mudflat, biofilm and eelgrass features is a de facto port development artefact… With respect to the dendritic channels, we realize it has been agreed that historic port development accountability has been discounted and cumulative effects generally of all port development apparently seem to be of similar prospect.”

A reminder... Canada's current environmental protection laws (Fisheries (Habitat), Navigable Waters Protection, Species-at-Risk, and Environmental Assessment Acts) have been gutted and are legally and scientifically flawed, including the removal of habitat protection from the Fisheries Act (2012) and the avoidance of habitat enforcement work by DFO. They have not yet been restored by the Trudeau federal government as was promised.

The Proposal
This project is a failure and it must not go ahead. The broken system, the vacuum of science, the absence of responsible public oversight and planning will not save it. This project fails on its own merits.

It is not appropriate to have the public design the environmental process through their comments and concerns, to do the leg work in the place of government and regulatory bodies, to hold the proponent to account. It is not the role of the CEAA Review Panel and the BC EA Office to get the project from a ‘no’ to a ‘yes’ decision.

At this stage we are merely commenting on a proposal. There is no urgency and this is not an all or nothing game. In our society today we do have the collective social, environmental, and economic wisdom and expertise to make decisions that are healthy for regional and national interests, that also support sustainable development and international trade. Unfortunately, this misguided proposal has demonstrated what happens when evidence-based and informed decision making has been ignored.

It is not acceptable to say that this proposal is the beneficiary of a broken process and that we can get it right next time. There is only one Fraser River and we must get it right every time.

Cumulative Effects
The EIS cumulative effects assessment is incomplete, marine environments (Gulf Islands, international shipping lanes) and marine species at risk (endangered Southern Resident Killer Whale) are missing.

Assessment of past, current and planned projects (CEAA requirement) have been omitted. The proposed Terminal 2, the Massey Tunnel replacement, new Fraser River terminals, and the opening of the Fraser River to larger tanker and coal transport for the first time in history must be considered within the impacts to environmental components within the Fraser River Estuary.

Container Shipping
The business case as presented by the proponent does not reflect reality. Actual port capacity is understated and forecasted growth is overestimated in order to fabricate a need for a second container terminal.

The Port’s desire to develop habitats and farmland for future industrial purposes is bound to negatively affect those renewable resources. This new and aggressive approach by Port of Vancouver lacks input from local communities and regional cooperation.

There are legitimate economic alternatives to what is proposed by the industrial lobbyist focused Pacific Gateway Strategy. A significant number of container trucks can be removed from the lower mainland’s roads, easing traffic congestion. Developing inland terminals for the 90% of goods movement not destined for the lower mainland is a sensible step. Buying up the province's highest quality farmland (Class 1) for cheap warehousing and container storage is not a sustainable strategy.

There is no value added to Canadians by sacrificing the Agricultural Land Reserve and local food security.

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 Project
The proposed 180 hectare new fill area would have an impact that extends well beyond the physical dimensions of its footprint. Including 80 foot dredging depths, increased noise, light, air, water pollution, and ongoing disturbance from shipping, trucking, and train activities at all times of the year which will have significant impacts on valuable migratory fish and bird habitat on Roberts Bank.

Fraser River Salmon
For all intents and purposes Sockeye salmon, like most salmon species should be considered endangered. Salmon are an iconic Canadian species and provide important social, economic, recreational, environmental, and cultural values to communities (First Nation and otherwise) along the entire coast of BC, crossing the entire province and reaching the Rocky Mountains. As a result of the smallest return of Fraser River sockeye salmon on record, there will be no food, social, ceremonial, or recreational fishery this year. The environmental impact statement fails to appreciate the breadth and depth of what a healthy Fraser River ecosystem means to the collective identify of British Columbians and Canadians.

Ecological Loss
The project will destroy a vital Dungeness crab area which cannot be duplicated. There will be significant adverse environmental effects to biofilm which threatens the survival of migratory shorebirds, in particular the Western Sandpiper. Loss of the nutrient-rich biofilm at this site cannot be replaced so millions of sandpipers, and other wildlife, will lose their source of food.

The bottom line is this proposed habitat loss simply cannot be mitigated or replaced as comparable habitat does not exist in the Fraser Estuary. Compensation is simply not possible because the ecological losses are irreversible.

Coal expansion
The proposed T2 fill area is largely storage for shipping containers. With the world turning away from coal, and space becoming available at Fraser Surrey Docks and Delta Port, additional capacity will be available to container storage in the short and long term.
It is bizarre that the Port of Vancouver is actively promoting more coal exports when both the BC provincial and federal governments have publicly committed to the legally binding 2015 Paris Climate Agreement and to cutting green house gas emission from the use of fossil fuels. These conflicting messages are irreconcilable.

It seems that federal interests and Port of Vancouver interests are out of step, and this might be explained by the way that many federal government projects have not been reviewed under CEAA but instead delegated for environmental review by Port of Vancouver.

Declining container shipping activity and the obsolescence of coal will free up considerable storage capacity within Delta Port, Fraser Surrey Docks, and the natural deep water ports of Vancouver's Burrard Inlet and Prince Rupert.

Habitat Banking
The ‘habitat enhancement’ work, offsite mitigation habitat built on existing habitat, proposed and conducted by Port of Vancouver is not scientifically defensible. The ‘clean up’ of existing habitat, log removal (Boundary Bay) does not constitute habitat creation and is not a ‘net gain’. Similarly, infilling on mudflats (Sturgeon Banks) with riprap and sand to create unnatural marshes is as scientifically questionable as it is unsustainable. Marsh habitat is not the only habitat that is lacking and needed within the Fraser River Estuary.

Even if this trade-off made environmental sense it instead would be needed to contribute to the already 250 ha of erosion that the Port of Vancouver has caused by historical scouring, dredging, and jetty construction along the Main Arm of the river. The loss of this natural buffer against storm surges and climate change has not been accounted for, and takes priority over any new development, such as the loss of 180 ha from T2 at Roberts Bank.

The Port’s ‘habitat banking’ program is not rooted in science. Destroying an existing habitat and replacing it with ‘another habitat' is at best an experiment and at worst quite damaging and would include a component of habitat destruction.

The respected, developed and tested DFO ‘no net loss’ policy has been compromised by the extreme conflict-of-interest that allows the Port of Vancouver to administer environmental reviews and approve projects they will profit from. The defensible concept of ‘no net loss’ now applies in name only and we are left with a steady frittering away of estuary habitat in the long run.

The Port of Vancouver’s ability to give itself ‘credit’ to destroy habitat by simply cleaning up, altering, or converting (building on top of) existing habitat is offensive to anybody interested in maintaining estuary productivity in the long term. For the Port of Vancouver’s habitat banking program to be meaningful it needs independent oversight, similar to what was provided by the dismantled Fraser River Estuary Management Program (FREMP) entity that existed since the 1980‘s for exactly these reasons.

Richmond2016-10-28 23:21:42
P.Caraher

The $3.5 billion plus second container terminal on Roberts Bank is just not needed – now nor any time in the foreseeable future. With expansion planned for existing Vancouver terminals plus at Prince Rupert’s container port, all of British Columbia’s container ports have capacity to handle CANADIAN container volumes for many years to come, – WITHOUT BUILDING ROBERTS BANK TERMINAL2.
The T2 proposal has a seriously flawed business case and will result in huge risks to the Roberts Bank ecosystem – the most important ecosystem in Canada in terms of its abundant wildlife and biodiversity.
Terminal T2 should not be built. We do not want the unneeded and hugely destructive Terminal 2.

Vancouver2016-10-28 23:32:09
DianeKehoe

I cannot believe that our Federal Government would consider going ahead with their plans to double the size of the Roberts Bank Container Terminal.
The first terminal was a bad idea and yes, I was living in Delta when the 'Roberts Bank Coal Port' was approved and built. Now the coal it was built to carry is mostly a bad memory and the towns that were going to expand to make BC rich have been closed and are returning to the wild.
Container Ports will do the same thing. We do not need to destroy the seas of the world with massive ships creating noise and pollution. We do not need to destroy areas of worldwide importance to wildfowl species who live on the biofilms of Roberts Bank. We do not need to put the final nail in the coffins of the Fraser River Salmon runs and the local Orcas who hunt Salmon over Roberts Bank.
Between the Federal Government and its Container Terminal and the Provincial Government and its massive new bridge, we will be able to watch the destruction of a world famous Important Bird Area. That which kills the biofilms and the salmon smoults and birds that live off of them will widen out to destroy the mammals who live in our sea, and eventually, the climate that we all depend on.
The last election was supposed to welcome in "Sunny Days". Was that just a way to warn us of additional Climate Change? I heard the suggestion that the damage to Roberts Bank could be mitigated if the government funded the creation of additional marshes at the mouth of the Fraser River. How dumb do you think we are? The marshes do not provide our migratory species of birds with the biofilm they need to carry them from the South to the Arctic where they breed and raise their young.
I feel like I am watching 'magic' performed by a 'Flim-Flam Man' who pulls Loonies out of our noses and ears, Loonies he has already stolen from us.
"Give me your treasure and I'll replace it with coins from your ears".
We need marshes but we need the biofilms of Roberts Bank as well, and waters that provide a nursery for the young salmon for the Orca to eat. If the waters of Coastal British Columbia are not healthy enough for the largest mammals on the earth to survive how long will it be before we begin to fade away too? J - Pod is shrinking every year and now it is losing its mothers and grand-mothers not just its young male calves.
"Oh, you say that Climate Change has already begun, that 2016 was our hottest year ever." There's your answer. If we just keep ignoring the future that is just a little bit beyond the next election, we can look as if we'd like to do something, like we plan to do something to save the Salmon, the Orcas, The Western Sandpipers - but we just won't see these changes in time.
Time is the essence of the problem. We have been living on borrowed time for the last 50 years at Roberts Bank and now "time is up" and we have to stop despoiling this most important area, not just for the birds, the Orca, the Salmon, the micro species that create the biofilm of Roberts Bank, but for the people of British Columbia, Canada, and the World.
We hold Roberts Bank in trust for the whole Earth. It is a jewel we must preserve and the only time we can do it is now. There can be no excuses that a new container port would be good for the economy of the Lower Mainland, of British Columbia, of Canada. We heard that all before when the very first Coal Port was built here and when we were told that if we planted a little bit of Eel Grass and sprayed water on the coal to keep down the dust, all would be well and we would all be enriched by BC Coal. Well it is true that some people got very rich but they didn't pass their wealth on to the Salmon, the Orca, the Western Sandpipers or to the 'little people of the world" who are watching their climate being destroyed.
Are you old enough to remember the old saying that summed up the horrors of the Second World War?
"When they came for the Jews, the Gypsies, etc...who will be left to help you when they come for you?"
Please stand up and say "No" to the expansion of the Robert's Bank Container Terminal. You will be doing it for all of us - the birds, the fish, the whales - and yes, for the people of Delta, British Columbia, Canada and the World. The time for action is now.

Delta2016-10-28 23:43:42
KarenWonders

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency must oppose Port Metro Vancouver's (PMV) Roberts Bank Container Terminal 2.

The $3.5 billion plus second container terminal on Roberts Bank is unnecessary and will result in huge risks to the Roberts Bank ecosystem – the most important ecosystem in Canada in terms of its abundant wildlife and biodiversity.

Commercial and financial issues associated with port expansion have not been accurately presented. The Port Authority is a discredited body which appointed an outsider CEO from London, Robin Silvester, as president to work for the big corporations. He puts corporate profit in first place and knows nothing about the ecological integrity and history of the Fraser Delta. Fire him and appoint someone creditable who will protect the biodiversity of the Fraser instead of destroying it.

The T2 project is likely to cause damage if not outright destruction of bird species, especially the Western Sandpiper. It will cause further disturbance to fish and crab habitat, to areas critical to the very survival of marine mammals, especially the already endangered Orca whale population. The risks are severe; the impacts will be immediate, irreversible and cannot be mitigated.

The potential for further disruption to surrounding communities will result in increased air pollution; further traffic congestion; greater pressure on valuable agricultural land; and increased noise and light pollution.

Given that ECCC and others indicate that the changes that will result from RBT2 will be immediate, irreversible and cannot be mitigated, VFPA must terminate its flawed and corrupt plan to build a second container terminal.

Victoria2016-10-28 23:47:44
MonecaYardley

Please don't kill the land. The sensitive land to turn it into shit hole. Ecological catastrophe for #7generations.
Respectfully
Moneca Yardley.
Vancouver bc Canada.

Vancouver 2016-10-28 23:49:24
Lynter Borg

I oppose the proposed application for the following reasons:
Extinction can never be justified with habitat offsets
The Roberts Bank T2 project is not something that can be approved without major changes to the overall plan. We can never justify intentionally destroying ecologically sensitive and irreparable areas and be satisfied we have traded extinction of species for habitat offsets elsewhere. The idea of port expansion may be deemed necessary but the size and scale of the causeway and massive loading island must be redesigned to better fit within the environmental restraints. The Port has to come back with a better plan. In fact the existing causeways need to be redrawn as a bridge like structure that allows unrestrictive intertidal flows to nourish and replenish the mudflat foreshore. Most of the storage and staging of containers need to be land based and a new configuration developed for loading and unloading containers to significantly decrease the size of the berthing island. T1 has grown to four times the size initially proposed and originally approved and has resulted in devastating environmental impacts. The gigantic new T2 as proposed dwarfs T1.
I worked as a fisheries biologist in the 1970's and back then in hindsight it seems we had reasonable oversight on the Fraser River estuary, as well as strong wild salmon enhancement and habitat protection programs. Much has slid off the table since then with funding cuts and changes of mandates. The Internatiional Pacific Salmon Commission has been emancipated to a group only concerned with a bilateral division of the dwindling salmon runs.

Where is the oversight for the whole body of the Fraser River Estuary?

In March 2013 the offices of the intergovernmental partnership established to coordinate the environmental management of the Fraser River Estuary (FREMP) were closed permanently and the Port, at that time, announced it was taking over as the lead contact for directing environmental assessments of all development projects related to the Fraser River and Burrard Inlet. The Port was to take on this role only for a short term basis. The Port spokesperson himself acknowledged it had the appearance of the " fox in control of the hen house" and gave assurances the role would be short term and a new management partnership for co-ordinating multidisciplinary oversight would be in place shortly.

Three and a half years later, the Port is still solely in charge of leading and directing the review of their own major projects and all activity in the lower Fraser River estuary, Roberts bank to the north arm as well as Burrard Inlet. Over 250 projects a year need review. This is obviously too onerous a task, a conflict of interest exists and inherent bias arises from such control in selectively directing and reporting reviews of the Port’s own activities.

The Port recently has even had the temerity to declare no environmental assessment is required for it to be allowed to lay dredged river sand on Sturgeon Bank marshland!

There also should be a moratorium placed to also review the reasons why important recommendations of the Cohen Salmon commission specifically related to habitat protection have not been implemented.

The Fraser estuary from Roberts Bank north of the Sturgeon Bank must be assessed as a whole and not the sum of its parts. This massive ecosystem is intrinsically related and is showing tipping points already with the rapid degradation of the Sturgeon Bank marshlands among other areas. We need scientific data to assess the cause and effects of deeper dredging, proposed removal of the Massey tunnel, erosion, habitat destruction, changes to salinity, stagnation effects caused by the Roberts Bank causeways and man made island projections, and the Ports newest proposal to offset habitat with sand dumping on the Sturgeon Bank. These are all going to have a cumulative effect on the health of our fish, fowl, and food. Their impacts can not be assessed in isolation of each other.

There are red flags all over this T2 project and haste is going to make irreparable waste to our wild bird flyways and to our salmon runs.

The Port cannot evaluate their own responsibilities for mitigating habitat destruction with offsets that may create more problems than they solve.

We need leading scientists to conduct a holistic and multidisciplinary review of how all these competing forces can work together. We need a panel of experts submit their recommendations for what form of Port developments the region can actually support for the next 20 years. We need to study and provide the best solutions to balance natures needs with economic growth.

It is time to stand up for what is right not just what is expedient.

Richmond2016-10-28 23:49:43
Lucia Wong

I want to send in my opinion as a concerned citizen that I don't approve of the Roberts Bank expansion, and the congestion that it will bring.

Vancouver2016-10-28 23:58:56
John Hagen

This Roberts Bank Terminal 2 is not needed at this time.It can not be justified economically and in terms of the Roberts Bank ecosystem it's a c
catastrophe waiting to happen.It must be stopped.

New Westminster2016-10-28 23:58:59
Alex Altosaar

Please stop the expansion of the port. Roberts Bank ecosystem should be protected, not destroyed. Thanks a lot.

Argenta2016-10-29 07:48:41
paulMagnus

Local Orcas on verge of extinction.. mother n calf die

Pls do not allow this unnecessary expansion to go ahead.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/another-puget-sound-orca-dies-hope-dim-for-her-calf/

There comes a point where we have to say no to ecosystem degradation. Line in the sand.

richmond2016-10-29 08:03:21
CarrieReimer

Ladner I'd one of the few areas not destroyed by industry and pollution. there is no need for this and we will be losing precious habitat for our fish, birds and wildlife.
Enough is enough!!

Chilliwack2016-10-29 10:30:40
ClaudeRobert

The $3.5 billion plus second container terminal on Roberts Bank is just not needed – now nor any time in the foreseeable future. With expansion planned for existing Vancouver terminals plus at Prince Rupert’s container port, all of British Columbia’s container ports have capacity to handle CANADIAN container volumes for many years to come, – WITHOUT BUILDING ROBERTS BANK TERMINAL2.

The T2 proposal has a seriously flawed business case and will result in huge risks to the Roberts Bank ecosystem – the most important ecosystem in Canada in terms of its abundant wildlife and biodiversity.

Shefford2016-10-29 10:56:04
DebraHerst

*According to Environment Canada, this port expansion will cause IMMEDIATE and IRREVERSIBLE HARM to critical migratory bird habitat, resulting in species-level consequences for sandpipers.* As well,
it will have a serious impact on critical habitat for endangered resident Killer Whales*

"The Living Planet Report 2016 tells us that land-based wildlife populations have experienced a 38% decline. Ocean populations have declined by 36%. And freshwater populations have suffered a staggering 81% decline. Despite all our efforts, the trend is moving in the wrong direction and we have only ourselves to blame. The pressures on wildlife are human-caused: Habitat loss and fragmentation due to climate change, land-use decisions (such as this one) and pollution are some of the most significant drivers of wildlife decline."

So the question is WHY? Expansion of the Roberts Bank terminal is completely unnecessary, has a seriously flawed business plan and will result in the destruction of the Roberts Bank ecosystem which is the most important ecosystem in Canada in terms of its abundant wildlife and biodiversity.

Do you want to be the government responsible for that irreversible destruction?

Vancouver2016-10-29 11:43:28
RosemaryCornell

I am one of many who are opposed to the expansion of the port at Robert's Bank. It is already an eyesore and the expansion would harm the bank's avian and marine ecosystem. I am not convinced that additional port capacity is required for maintaining the economy of BC or Canada. Loss of wildlife, including further stresses on the resident orcas, is a serious issue, and one that I will continue to fight for the rest of my life.

Vancouver2016-10-29 12:27:27
DavidBradley

Extra development of the Robert's Bank terminal will cause irreparable damage to this fragile and crucial habitat to migratory sandpipers. As the Migratory Bird Act makes it illegal for anyone to cause harm to internationally important bird habitat, it is incumbent on the Liberal government to halt this expansion. Please act NOW to stop this!

SURREY2016-10-29 12:37:39
LeslieStanick

Hello,

I am deeply disturbed by the lack of time provided to people to comment on the proposed LNG terminal in Delta and the second container terminal on Roberts Bank. These are very important issues that affect the health and safety of all citizens in the lower mainland, as well as coastal areas. And further afield, the downstream impacts of increased fossil fuels on our atmosphere, wildlife, marine life such as our endangered orcas. I am shocked and dismayed that these issues were not explicitly described and all people contacted, to consider devastating impacts these projects will have on the Lower Mainland, and our waterways, from the Fraser through the Salish Sea, and along Vancouver Island, not to mention the resulting increase in CO2 and methane into our atmosphere from the production and burning of these dangerous fuels.

What happens in the event of a spill? One spill from an LNG container could see an enormous explosion that could devastate the Fraser River and all the farmland and housing near it. First through freezing the area with heavy cooled LNG, and the resulting expansion that would create a fireball.

Every single household should have been consulted. No homeowner or renter I know would want an LNG port anywhere they live. Putting an LNG port in the midst of Richmond, Ladner, Vancouver and Surrey is truly insane. Stop thinking through the eyes of the shipping companies and fossil fuel companies who will make billions, and think through the eyes of those of us living here, our incredible ecological diversity. and the First Nations whose home this land and water has been for over 13,000 years.

We are owed an explanation of the delay in sending out this critical information, and the invitation to participate in the decision. This is appalling.

I urge you to stop the process of deciding on these dangerous projects until ALL people in the Lower Mainland, all First Nations communities and wildlife specialists have been gathered to discuss the true impacts that these devastating projects will have. And what about an earthquake!

What would we do with LNG tankers loading up when an earthquake suddenly happens! THINK PEOPLE>>>THINK!

I would like to have a serious reply from you. Not just some PR pap. This is a very serious issue, and from what I have read, you folks are star-struck by the potential markets, but willfully blind to the dangers inherent in the LNG industry. Please, stop the project now, and we should have a plebiscite.

Sincerely,

Leslie Roxanne Stanick

Surrey2016-10-29 14:44:39
LaurelBeant

Same old same old . . . DESTRUCTION!!! Time for innovations and creativity - NOW - save our earth!!!!!

Maple Ridge2016-10-29 16:11:58
TasliShaw

According to Environment Canada, this port expansion will cause IMMEDIATE
and IRREVERSIBLE HARM to critical migratory bird habitat, resulting in
species-level consequences for sandpipers. The project will also cause detrimental losses to salmon habitat in which critically endangered southern resident killer whales rely on.

Richmond2016-10-29 22:27:14
MeganGreenberg

Please help protect and heal the Fraser river

Fraser, Fraser
Safety and free
From Source To Sea.

Robert's Creek 2016-10-29 22:48:48
LorraineFralin

I have lived in Vancouver, BC for almost 60 years and have witness the decline in environmental preservation along our coast and inland communities. It is outrageous that governments want to turn BC coast into ports one after another. This pristine area from the tip of the North to the bottom of the South is stunningly beautiful and home to whales, seals, otters and thousands of other marine life and vegetation. There was recently a diesel fuel spill of the coast of the Great Bear Rain Forest and Bella Coola and so far maybe 20% of 200,000 liters of fuel has been captured the remaining has already killed 1 whale, 1 seal and covered kilometers and kilometers reaching coastal areas where ducks, frogs and other smaller marine life will be effected. This is also a key area for the Aboriginal People that fish along this line as a food source that will not be able to provide for themselves for years to come. Ports are important I see that for the transporting of goods and services however not at the expense of wildlife and sensitive ecosystems. The people I speak too are fed up with the corporate take over of our water, land and air quality with the new coal port, current Kinder Morgan pipeline, LNG approved projects and then this port at Roberts Creek. Vancouver has an amazing port running smoothly and overall safely. Stop putting more areas at risk of disastrous accidents that will be irreparable. Think long and hard what you wish to leave as your legacy and for all future generations.

Vancouver2016-10-30 08:36:03
JaneWebster

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to express my concern regarding the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 container terminal.

Even if such a terminal were necessary, (which is highly debatable), the environmental consequences make going ahead an unconscionable proposition. We cannot add this to a legacy of destroying marine habitat and putting unbearable stress on wildlife populations. What are we without our wild oceans and landscapes and animals? There is no recovery and no mitigation of such a project. The harm is irreparable.

Please act responsibly for the animals, the oceans, and the people of this area, and put a halt to this proposed project.

Sincerely,

Jane Webster

Vancouver2016-10-30 09:13:23
MiriamLangley

This is the 21st century.

Use the money you are spending on a completely unnecessary terminal to do more research on alternate forms of energy.

We have the brains in Canada to do research, to build new. Let's consider how many jobs will be added to our economy.

We do not need Roberts Bank Terminal 2.

Oil is dead.

Think long term.

Halifax2016-10-30 13:36:05
Michaeljefferson

As a port worker at Delta-Port, I am opposed to the development of the Terminal 2 project and urge the Government of Canada to immediately "Stop" the development of Roberts Bank Terminal 2 for these following reasons;

1. The creation of this artificial port will disrupt the tidal flows, severely damage and further compromise the wildlife habitat of this most critical ecosystem.

2. The existing port operations and management of the Delta-Port Terminal are irresponsible as they allow for massive amounts/volumes of plastics, styrofoam (cups) and other marine contaminants to find their way into the ocean waters due to the unacceptable waste management policies and practices of the terminal operator: Global Container Terminals:Inc (GCT). GCT management shows a severe level of benign neglect in generating large volumes of plastic and other waste materials on the dock that blow into the ocean when the winds pick up. I fail to see how Terminal 2 will be any different.

3. Port-Metro Vancouver along with the Federal and Provincial governments are investing hundreds of millions of dollars in the various expansion projects that are currently underway at Delta-Port. These infrastructure projects are high carbon, high cost and low productivity investments that rely on over-the road truck transport of containers that result in huge volumes of street trucks serving the terminal and clogging the operations. Rather than invest in truck-rail multi-modal container terminals throughout the lowermainland and interior communities of BC, the above mentioned governments are
investing in moving street-trucks rather than containers and as such, render the current and future oprt operations unecomomic and non-competative and in very short order, these port operations will go out of business, but not before they destroy the lifestyles of the local communities and the irreplacable farmlands and habitat of Ladner and Delta.

For What It's Worth, Michael: Jefferson.

Mission2016-10-30 14:16:35
Michaeljefferson

As a port worker at Delta-Port, I am opposed to the development of the Terminal 2 project and urge the Government of Canada to immediately "Stop" the development of Roberts Bank Terminal 2 for these following reasons;

1. The creation of this artificial port will disrupt the tidal flows, severely damage and further compromise the wildlife habitat of this most critical ecosystem.

2. The existing port operations and management of the Delta-Port Terminal are irresponsible as they allow for massive amounts/volumes of plastics, styrofoam (cups) and other marine contaminants to find their way into the ocean waters due to the unacceptable waste management policies and practices of the terminal operator: Global Container Terminals:Inc (GCT). GCT management shows a severe level of benign neglect in generating large volumes of plastic and other waste materials on the dock that blow into the ocean when the winds pick up. I fail to see how Terminal 2 will be any different.

3. Port-Metro Vancouver along with the Federal and Provincial governments are investing hundreds of millions of dollars in the various expansion projects that are currently underway at Delta-Port. These infrastructure projects are high carbon, high cost and low productivity investments that rely on over-the road truck transport of containers that result in huge volumes of street trucks serving the terminal and clogging the operations. Rather than invest in truck-rail multi-modal container terminals throughout the lowermainland and interior communities of BC, the above mentioned governments are
investing in moving street-trucks rather than containers and as such, render the current and future oprt operations unecomomic and non-competative and in very short order, these port operations will go out of business, but not before they destroy the lifestyles of the local communities and the irreplacable farmlands and habitat of Ladner and Delta.

For What It's Worth, Michael: Jefferson.

Mission2016-10-30 14:16:40
PatriciaMcClung

Dear new liberal gov. people we hoped would act in respect for our common future

Roberts Bank is not an oil terminal it is our natural reserve for all marine animals!

Fossil fuels must not be extracted and used.

We must fund green sustainable energy projects.

Fund sustainable energy projects with the money you will not spend on the expansion of the Roberts Bank Terminal.

Do the right thing! Do not build the terminal and stop exporting fossil fuels.

Sincerely

Patricia McClung
Women are people because of my Great grandmother, Nellie McClung's efforts in 1929. Consider what life would be like without that right. Now give our future the right to sustain us.

With love for our common future.

North Vancouver2016-10-30 20:57:32
JAKEHODIE

So many of our waters have already been ruined by development, drilling, pollution, and humans.
Enough is enough!
Our waters are supposed to be a place of peace and quiet for us, and the fish and wildlife which live in them!
The animals are running out of places to live and be safe. Our fish and wildlife are under threat from so many angles. They desperately need to be protected, mainly from humans.
Life is hard enough for people, let alone the animals.
Can't we please offer them some much needed help?!
PLEASE save our waters for all future generations before they are permanently ruined. Some damage cannot be undone!

Thank you for your time.

Toronto2016-10-31 07:33:05
HisaoIchikawa

Our planet is already sick and many of us are sick because of it. We must protect our environment in order to live a healthy life. Clean air, , water, and soil are the essence of our survival. Please stop this dangerous expansion, so we can keep living without causing further damage to Mother Earth. Money can be made in many other ways without polluting home land.

Hisao Ichikawa

Vancouver2016-10-31 21:07:38
TeresaPhillips

This terminal expansion means going the wrong direction in Global warming and promoting the wrong industry for what? PLEASE stay the course of letting go of old fossil fuel ways and promote industry in renewable energy that does NOT put our environment at risk. This is not business we want!

Comox2016-11-01 07:45:15
RaymondAlava

As a professional engineer I strongly oppose the building of Port Metro Vancouver's Roberts Ban Terminal 2.

This project threatens the future of agricultural lands which are vital to the B.C. economy and human health. Marine habitat will be destroyed and altered from dredge-and-fill, spills, disposal at sea, noise, light, and air pollution.There will be cumulative health impacts to the Metro Vancouver area from noise and air quality due to increased volume of trucks, trains and marine vessels.
I do not believe that this project is needed and it is not in the best interests of the public. This hugely destructive project is out of line with the climate change goals that Canada should be promoting. Please do not support this.

Vancouver2016-11-01 22:03:43
OttoLanger

Dear CEAA RBT2 Public Panel:

Attached is my brief on this project. In addition I have also attached a separate paper to accompany and be part of this brief.

In that the Proposal of Port Metro Vancouver to build a large fill area and container handling facility directly on Roberts Bank – an integral part of the Fraser River Estuary, the associated environmental Impact Statement (EIS) consists of a massive amount of consultant studies. It would take hundreds of pages of critique to properly evaluate it.

Unfortunately this CEAA - BC EAO EIS review is being held in the middle of other projects urgently requiring public input including, an LNG EIS in the middle of the Fraser River Estuary, the EIS of a giant bridge across the Fraser River, further permit evaluations for the allowance of jet fuel tankers into the Fraser River, review of the CEAA legislation, review of the Fisheries Act legislation, the Petronas LNG EIS on the Skeena, etc.

The public does have limitations on their time and in all these urgent comment periods they simply do not have the time to be consulted properly. Consultations have to consider those being consulted and not just the perspective of the proponent. Government is aware of this problem and could have and should have issued a moratorium on certain projects so as to stagger their review and it was in the public interest and that of our living creatures, without a voice, to wait until environmental legislation is restored.

Accordingly I will only present a summary of my concerns.
When will I and the public have the opportunity to present our detailed comments and be able to question PMV and their consultants, DFO, EC-CWS and CEAA on this project? I realize the BC EA Office review is unidirectional and I will receive no feedback from them or an opportunity to be present at any EAO public review.

Otto E. Langer Fisheries Biologist

PS Port Metro Vancouver has clearly advised the public that they are now Port Vancouver. In that this EIS is in the name of PMV, what does this legally mean?

Richmond2016-11-01 22:54:54
paulMagnus

"A decade-long U.S. study published two years ago concluded the triple threats of pollution, vessel noise and the availability of food" to local Orcas.

Cumulative impacts in this area must be addressed.

Ships off the West Coast could be forced to yield the right of way to killer whales
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ottawa-says-killer-whale-protection-part-of-1-5-billion-marine-protection-plan-1.3151298

richmond2016-11-09 21:22:13
BruceBatchelor

Roberts Bank cannot assume any more environmental pressure. That goes for all the river and valley complexes of British Columbia

Langley2017-02-06 07:58:17
loraine prest

NO

whiterock2017-04-25 08:58:14
loraine prest

NO

whiterock2017-04-25 08:58:16
loraine prest

NO

whiterock2017-04-25 08:58:19
KarrenSmith

Ever heard of Roberts Bank?

Find it. Please protect it. The cost not to is too great.

No Terminal 2.

Respectfully yours,

Vancouver2017-05-03 03:02:04
    2017-05-15 02:33:07
AmyHuestis

To the Liberal Govt. of Canada,

Do not allow the expansion of Terminal 2 in the port of Delta, British Columbia.

It is a deep and unabiding shame to even consider the possibility of the environmental impact on this area, and to allow the Terminal 2 expansion in Delta, BC, considering that this is a very significant and globally important area for migrating shorebirds.

We know that the environmental assessment for this project was completely false and carried out in the interest of the Port, rather than in the interest of the public or with proper scientific study.

I am an artist, and walk on Roberts Bank every single day to see the unbelievable amount of birds there, including great clouds of Western Sandpipers and shorebirds. This is the feeding ground for MILLIONS of birds, and Canada simply cannot allow this port to further impact their habitat.

10 years ago this area was quiet and absolutely sublime, so beautiful, and now we have a hideous and rumbling port.

We as concerned citizens will fight this expansion every step of the way. Please do the same, and stop it .

Best,
Amy Huestis

Delta2017-05-27 16:39:31
AmyHuestis

To the Liberal Govt. of Canada,

Do not allow the expansion of Terminal 2 in the port of Delta, British Columbia.

It is a deep and unabiding shame to even consider the possibility of the environmental impact on this area, and to allow the Terminal 2 expansion in Delta, BC, considering that this is a very significant and globally important area for migrating shorebirds.

We know that the environmental assessment for this project was completely false and carried out in the interest of the Port, rather than in the interest of the public or with proper scientific study.

I am an artist, and walk on Roberts Bank every single day to see the unbelievable amount of birds there, including great clouds of Western Sandpipers and shorebirds. This is the feeding ground for MILLIONS of birds, and Canada simply cannot allow this port to further impact their habitat.

10 years ago this area was quiet and absolutely sublime, so beautiful, and now we have a hideous and rumbling port.

We as concerned citizens will fight this expansion every step of the way. Please do the same, and stop it .

Best,
Amy Huestis

Delta2017-05-27 16:40:30
Karenpotje

Mr. Trudeau - Please don't allow this environmentally destructive expansion to take place. Put the long term future of the natural environment ahead of short-sighted economic goals.

Karen Potje

Montreal2017-05-28 06:37:56
MarianneHuestis

Please keep this place safe for future generations.
The Port has been "under the line" in the past regarding environmental reviews - always just under the level for a full scale review.

Now, we are at such a critical point.
Please look beyond money to the area in yet another project.

Ladner, B.C.2017-05-28 21:40:56