comments on the coal export eiaPublic comments were submitted to members of the Port Authority Project Review Committee and cc’d to the Premier; the Provincial Ministers of Health, Environment and Mines; and the Federal Ministers of Environment, Health and Transportation.

You can review these comments in the searchable database below.

Keep sending your comments in – we will continue to send them on to key decision makers. To write to the Port with your comments on their EIA, go here.

 

Comments submitted by the December 17th deadline:

  • 3397 submitted/posted through RealPortHearings.org – see below
  • 67 comments sent directly to the Port
  • approximately 3500 public comments to the Port in total.
  • public comments expressing support for this project: six

As of December 30 at 9:44 pm, 3495 comments submitted through this website.

NameSubjectComment 
Robin Houston MDcoal development and shipment to ChinaMontana and our town will be affected by coal development and transport to West Coast ports for shipment to Asia (primarily China). I understand that the coal market is not robust even in China because of global pressure to reduce pollution. Hence this is a short-term investment with long term ecologic and demographic consequences. I urge you to consider stopping this endeavor on the part of coal companies the will provide short term profits for them at the expense of water quality in Montana, safety (due to increased train traffic for coal transport) and environmental quality for millions of people. Thank you. Robin Houston
Amina BrandtNo coal overseasHere in Washington state we were given the option by our utility company to voluntarily pay extra money every month to a renewable resource fund. Ultimately we could wean ourselves of our need for coal and find alternate energy sources. My wife and I contributed to the cause for several years and cheered at the closing of the last coal burning power plant in our state. Now "Big Money Coal" thinks they will just sell the coal to China instead, and use Canadian ports (since we are completely refusing them here in Washington and Oregon). Please do not allow them to treat Canada as a simple money making tool.
Vancouver CitizenPORT EXPANSIONMORE CARGO = PORT EXPANSION = MORE JOBS = QUALITY OF LIVING = PROSPERITY RISING TIDE = CAVE MAN
Glen AndersonCoal export -- FULLY STUDY the FULL SCOPE of impacts and problems!TO Vancouver Fraser Port Authority: If coal is mined and shipped through our region, my local environment (air, water, etc.) and the health of people in my local area would be affected. Also, burning coal ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD would hurt the climate, which is already suffering unprecedented damage! I STRONGLY OPPOSE expeanding the coal port at Fraser Surrey Docks. For only minimal economic benefit to a small number of persons, YOU WOULD BE HURTING MANY, MANY PEOPLE ALL ALONG THE ROUTE WHERE THE TRAINS WOULD GO, AND YOU WOULD HURT THE ENTIRE WORLD'S CLIMATE. You would hurt some of Canada's precious areas, including the northernmost parts of Canada, which are already suffering terribly, and glaciers throughout the west. DO NOT ALLOW FURTHER DESTRUCTION AND DAMAGE! I call on you to start the process anew with a FULL SCOPING ANALYSIS, so your actions can be fully understood, and the full costs can be analyzed and understood. I believe careful up front study of such a project can save the public and private sectors much grief and costly mistakes. Sincerely, Glen Anderson, Lacey WA
Pierrette VezinaNo coal exports via the Fraser.Think of the future.
Lynda CunninghamCoal ExportI think the Port Authorities reacted prematurely in siding with their rich coal friends in approving coal facility here. They are making their rich coal baron friends richer at the expense of citizens health, permanent damage to environment and quality of life over all. Shame on them. We deserve a thorough impact study be done! Please keep it honest and transparent. Thank you.
Edward GreischCoal contains uraniumCoal contains: URANIUM and all of the decay products of uranium, ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY, Antimony, Cobalt, Nickel, Copper, Selenium, Barium, Fluorine, Silver, Beryllium, Iron, Sulfur, Boron, Titanium, Cadmium, Magnesium, THORIUM, Calcium, Manganese, Vanadium, Chlorine, Aluminum, Chromium, Molybdenum and Zinc. There is so much of these elements in coal that cinders and coal smoke are actually valuable ores. We should be able to get ALL THE URANIUM AND THORIUM WE NEED TO FUEL NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS FOR CENTURIES BY USING COAL CINDERS AND SMOKE AS ORE. Unburned Coal and crude oil also contain BENZENE, THE CANCER CAUSER. We could get all of our uranium and thorium from coal ashes and cinders. The carbon content of coal ranges from 96% down to 25%, the remainder being rock of various kinds. The uranium decay chain includes the radioactive gas RADON, which you are breathing. Radon decays in about a day into polonium, the super-poison. If you have cancer, check for benzene in your past. See: http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html or http://clearnuclear.blogspot.com in case the ORNL site does not work. Make coal fired power plants meet the same requirements for radiation release that nuclear power plants have to meet. Chernobyl released as much radiation as a coal fired power plant releases EVERY 7 years and 5 months. You get 100 to 400 times as much radiation from coal as from nuclear. Natural gas can contain radon.
Norman HillNo to increased coal exports!I am deeply opposed to increasing exports of coal through the Port of Metro Vancouver or the Surrey Docks. Coal is the most greenhouse gas intensive fossil fuel and we need to stop burning it, not facilitate its increased use. When climate experts agree that we are close to catastrophic climate change, the last thing we should be doing is moving more coal through our ports. Please cease all plans to export more coal through the Port of Metro Vancouver.
Amy MowerCoal Export EIATO Vancouver Fraser Port Authority I am writing from the region where coal would be mined and shipped by rail for export markets, through the proposed coal port expansion at Fraser Surrey Docks. The economic and environmental effects of expanding coal export capacity at Fraser Surrey Docks are far-reaching, extending back through main streets and cities, farms and ranches and sensitive environmental areas such as Glacier National Park, Lake Pend Oreilles, and the Columbia River Gorge. The impacts on affected U.S. communities from increased rail traffic and coal mining must be assessed during the Fraser Port Authority's review of the project. Such a decision should be fully studied prior to making large investments in infrastructure. I call on you to start the process anew with a full scoping analysis, so your actions can be fully understood, and the full costs can be analyzed and understood. I believe careful up front study of such a project can save the public and private sectors much grief and costly mistakes. Sincerely,
Page AtchesonPlease consider impacts to MontanaPlease consider the impacts this project would have from mine to port. Many Montanans would be greatly affected by this project -- from ranchers and farmers whose land would be strip mined (resulting in water depletion, air pollution, social impacts, etc), and all the way along the rail route (causing emergency vehicle delays, health impacts from diesel exhaust, expensive infrastructure upgrades, etc). Please also conduct a thorough analysis of how this project would contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. Thank you.
Mary Fermshipping coatTO Vancouver Fraser Port Authority I am writing from the region where coal would be mined and shipped by rail for export markets, through the proposed coal port expansion at Fraser Surrey Docks. The economic and environmental effects of expanding coal export capacity at Fraser Surrey Docks are far-reaching, extending back through main streets and cities, farms and ranches and sensitive environmental areas such as Glacier National Park, Lake Pend Oreilles, and the Columbia River Gorge. Such a decision should be fully studied prior to making large investments in infrastructure. I call on you to start the process anew with a full scoping analysis, so your actions can be fully understood, and the full costs can be analyzed and understood. I believe careful up front study of such a project can save the public and private sectors much grief and costly mistakes. Sincerely, Mary Ferm
Allithia ReidNo to Fraser Surrey DocksTo Port Metro Vancouver, I say NO to Fraser Surrey Docks, NO to your sham review process, and NO to dirty coal. If you approve the project, I pledge to take to the streets to stop Fraser Surrey Docks from being built. Your review of the Fraser Surrey Docks project is fundamentally flawed, and the environmental impact assessment currently open to public comment has been criticized by everyone from health officers to local governments to impacted communities. It’s biased because it was carried out by consultants hired by Fraser Surrey Docks. It’s undemocratic because there are no public hearings, and the comments submitted won’t be made public. It also seems to me like it’s already a done deal because 8 days in to the comment period, your CEO said he was satisfied with the assessment. And finally, the assessment doesn’t take climate change into account! I am aware that the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks (FSD) Coal Facility would handle up to 8 million metric tonnes of coal annually, and pump about 17 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere each year. Coal dust and diesel particulates from coal trains would negatively impact community health. I do not want Greater Vancouver to be the largest coal exporter in all of North America! I want to keep coal in the ground, and its pollution out of our lungs and away from the climate. Sincerely,
Phil Le GoodFraser Surrey Dock’s Environmental Impact Assessment - Proposed Coal Port FacilityTo Whom It May Concern:

After reading the proponent Fraser Surrey Dock’s (FSD) proposal as well as the rather large volume of pages constituting the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) I am amazed at how many questions I still have.

I am going to take a rather larger view of FSD’s proposal and Port Metro Vancouver’s (PMV) EIA.

First, the assumption made by PMV on community concerns conveniently leaves out a very important 21st century issue, that of climate change and the impacts to our planet’s shared atmosphere from the 19th century use of coal as a source of energy for development and growth. Secondly I am going to comment in this submission on how PMV has limited the scope of the EIA in the narrowest of manner. And thirdly I question the entire proposal in its current form as making no sense to someone who has been involved in coal port activities for more than two decades.

Powder River Basin (PRB) coal has been touted as a low sulphur fuel for use in a coal-fired power plant. The USGS conducted a study looking at trace elements of metals and other toxic elements in the Powder River Basin prior to the rapid development of this area for coal extraction (mining). Core samples were taken throughout the area where coal is economically concentrated. The USGS from 1974-1994 analyzed samples of coal from the Powder River Basin area (Wyodak-Anderson Study) for major, minor and trace element contents. The results indicate that some areas of the Powder River Basin coal field have “high” levels of arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel and uranium. The authors of this study indicated in 1999 that there were no guidelines established for these elements of environmental concern (hazardous air pollutants – HAP’s). *Coal Quality and Geochemistry, Powder River Basin, Wyoming and Montana USGS Professional Paper 1625-A, By G.D. Stricker and M.S. Ellis. I could find no heavy metal or radioactive material evaluation of the actual coal that is proposed to handled at FSD in PMV’s EIA. Why not? Fugitive particles of some of these elements even in very small concentrations can lead to cancer.

We know that when coal is burned it releases some of these elements, mainly mercury. It is also known that on the west coast of Canada, mercury has been present in our atmosphere directly attributed to the burning of coal in Asia. China alone has indicated that it intends on building more than 375 new modern and large coal-fired power plants and this will mean that its consumption of coal as a means of generating electricity will not be reduced in the immediate future (several decades). It is well documented that the burning of fossil fuels is contributing to climate change which has been determined to impact global economies in a negative way and impact livelihoods and human health across the planet.

PMV has cooperated with both the Metro Vancouver and Fraser Valley regional districts in reducing its impact on the local air shed by employing shore electrical power to cruise ships while they are in dock. PMV is to be congratulated for their part for improving air quality in the region. However, with the expansion of both local coal ports, Westshore at Robert’s Bank and Neptune Terminals in North Vancouver, it appears PMV is going backwards.

It is interesting to note that both Westshore and Neptune when they were first proposed were much smaller operations handling much less coal than theycurrently or will soon be handling. It appears that no EIA or concerns from local residents were taken into account that allowed both of these ports to expand. Fraser Health and Vancouver Health Authorities have asked for a health impact study (HIS) for the FSD proposal, however, all activities, including transportation, at all the coal ports in the region should be included in a HIS. At a recent meeting in Tsawwassen residents were asked if they ever experience coal dust on their residential property. All hands went up! Despite decades of denial from Westshore that the dust from their coal operations was not landing on residential property in Tsawwassen they have stated they intend on adding more spray dust suppression at their facilities; water cannons feebly being called, Big Berthas.

One of the authors of the SNC Lavalin prepared EIA for FSD indicated that the level of coal dust for FSD meets provincial worker standards for exposure. Standards for levels of exposure meet the most basic of requirements and without a study following the health impacts to workers in BC who are exposed to coal on a daily basis there is no basis for making any conclusion that the exposure to coal dust by residents of Tsawwassen or even retired workers of Westshore should not be of any worry.

A recent visit to a respirologist by myself to determine my own exposures to a brew of toxic elements during my work career found that even with proper personal protective equipment, face masks with appropriate filters, worn to reduce or “eliminate” exposure workers are still being adversely impacted by the “acceptable” exposure limits set by experts who never venture out into the working environment they know so well of. My recommendation for those who study and are deemed “experts” in this field, even though their own exposure to toxic elements is limited to their ivory tower cocoons, is to expose themselves to decades of exposure to coal dust and other toxic elements then tell me what is acceptable.
It always appears appropriate to quote government standards in regards to worker exposure to toxic elements in the workplace but very little studies have been conducted in this province on long term exposure to workers at the three present coal terminals. From my 32 years of experience in numerous industrial environments, pulp mills, refineries, mines, port terminals I have never been asked to provide any details regarding my respiratory or other health matters to government agencies. The only required testing for workers in BC is an annual hearing test.

The co-author of the SNC Lavalin EIA happened to have written an opinion piece in the Vancouver Sun showing his full support of coal port activities in the Metro Vancouver region month’s before being contracted by SNC Lavalin to write the PMV EIA. What does this tell me about the integrity and impartiality of this assessment?It appears to me that this author has been embraced by the coal industry created organization now headed by a former news media personality massaging the message for palatability much like any other salesperson intent on having the public buy the proposal.

I am not sure if those who conducted the “environmental impact assessment” knew anything about commodity train shipments. To reduce or eliminate coal dust it is assumed that there would be no “temporary” stock pile of coal at FSD. I am wondering then why in one of the appendices there is still mention of “emergency stockpiles”. I am not sure how to comment on this contradiction. We know barge movements in the Georgia Strait can be difficult due to ocean conditions and at times can halt those movements. If one train per day as per FSD’s proposal is correct then where will the coal be stored if barge shipments are halted due to weather and ocean conditions? We know that the rail corridors along the BNSF corridor in the US and here in the region are significantly taxed requiring sidings to move trains aside for other trains heading in the opposite direction. Rail companies make money by ‘moving’ their trains not placing in limbo until weather conditions improve. So where will the proposed coal destined for FSD be stored. From my experience unloading coal rail cars is conducted in as quick a manner as possible at the coal handling port facilities in BC and equipment improvements are based on lowering dumping and stacking times so more coal can be handled. No rail carrier would deliberately allow a train to stand idle for a long period of time without being unloaded. For rail carriers such as CN, CP or BNSF the game is to keep the trains moving carrying goods. Rail carriers do not get paid for empty cars nor cars full of commodities sitting idle. So for the public to believe that coal will not be stockpiled at FSD would require suspension of reality.

Westshore has made significant noise that its “Big Bertha” water cannons should eliminate most of the coal dust disbursing throughout the lower fraser valley airshed? If coal dust is not a problem as is implied by SNC, Westshore and PMV, even with the battery of numerous water cannons already in existence on site, then why the Big Berthas? Would the Big Berthas been able to eliminate the significant dust release from Westshore last spring?

As I have stated earlier previous coal port activities in BC have always started out shipping smaller quantities of coal than they currently handle. Will FSD be limited to shipping only 4 million tonnes of coal per year for the foreseeable future, say 10 years, or will the public soon learn that FSD intends to increase their capacity to handle more coal similar to Neptune, Westshore and Ridley Terminals? Since the proposal lacks any economic sense let alone environmental sense just when can the public anticipate full coal port facilities at FSD like Neptune Terminals? And why hasn’t the EIA taken this into account? The EIA has limited its scope to a very short time span. Why, when the intention is to remove the tunnel so coal port activities at FSD can increase well beyond 4 million tonnes per year and does have the area to conduct full coal port activities well beyond 10 million tonnes per year.

The following media release by PMV on September 28, 2012 when PMV stated:
“Port Metro Vancouver has been encouraging the BC Government to take action to address the long standing concern that the GMT presents a barrier to continued growth in the Fraser River terminals, in particular to Fraser Surrey Docks. The single biggest challenge that the GMT represents to ocean going vessels is related to ship ‘draft’, the depth of water required in order for those vessels to transit the Fraser River.
“The BC Government’s new commitment to replace the GMT sends a strong message that this Port and this province are open for business and ready to seize opportunities resulting from continued growth in Asian economies,” said Robin Silvester, President and Chief Executive Officer, Port Metro Vancouver. “A modernized crossing will further expand trade opportunities for the Fraser River terminals, like Fraser Surrey Docks, well into the future, which in turn supports a strong economy and good local jobs for many years to come.”
One has to wonder just what is being planned for FSD when the tunnel in 2017 is removed and the lower Fraser River is dredged to accommodate the largest bulk commodity ships operating in the Pacific Ocean. What fantasy cooked up by PMV and FSD is the public being asked to believe?
It appears PMV quickly issued a statement to the media soon after the provincial government announced plans to study the removal of the tunnel and construction of a bridge. PMV has expressed its approval for this and stated that the tunnel was an impediment to shipping traffic in tidal portion of the lower Fraser River. It doesn’t take a genius to understand what PMV is thinking. From what I have learned PMV has been purchasing and/or taking options to purchase property along the banks of the Fraser River from New Westminster to the mouth of the Fraser River on both the Richmond and Delta sides of the river. The tunnel limits the size of ship than can navigate up the Fraser River to FSD. Without the tunnel in place there is no limit to the size of the ship than can navigate up the river to FSD. When this becomes reality will FSD be able to increase the coal handling capacity of its operations? It appears there is ample room for FSD to increase their coal handling capacity similar to that of Neptune Terminals in North Vancouver. Shouldn’t the EIA not only look at the current FSD proposal but also what impacts FSD would have if it was similar in handling capacity as Neptune? And just how has PMV colluded with the provincial government in the planning of removing the tunnel? Is PMV on record, either public or ‘private’, prior to its September 28, 2012 media release in having the tunnel removed?

It is imperative for PMV to come clean on all its future schemes for the south arm of the Fraser River to Pitt Meadows so the future 3 million inhabitants of the Metro Vancouver region can fully assess how this will impact their health, the environment and the rest of the dominant economy of the region. In the meantime PMV needs to address its intentions to see rapid expansion of FSD after 2017 which must include impacts from 15 million tonnes of coal handling and not just 4 million tonnes per year at FSD operating with conventional coal port handling equipment.

I also want to address in this submission the diesel particulate emissions from trains and tugs used to haul coal to and from the proposed FSD facility. Has PMV ever conducted air quality testing for diesel particulate along the BC Rail corridor from Colebrook to the Westshore facility for both coal dust and diesel particulate when trains are operating and traveling through this corridor? Has PMV conducted air quality testing at the Hwy 17 Westshore junction in the last 3 years? Has PMV conducted air quality testing for diesel particulate along the Knight Street-Clark Drive corridor in Vancouver within the last 3 years? Despite rapid growth due to PMV’s “Gateway” initiatives I have not been able to find studies to determine direct health impacts from the growth of truck and train traffic in the region. Some of the emission control measures taken to “reduce” diesel particulate have found to only reduce the size of the particulate and not eliminate it. The smaller the size of the particulate the more harmful it is to human health. At 15 million tonnes per year of coal being delivered to FSD the impacts of diesel particulate greatly increases.

In regards to particulate concentrations, if PMV has conducted diesel particulate air quality tests in the Lower Fraser Valley in the last decade does PMV have hourly measurements rather than 24 hour averages?

It appears from the letter written by the Health Authorities in the Fraser and Vancouver regions that SNC Lavalin used a more than two decade old questionable studies to indicate little or no evidence of human health impacts from train or port activities. The SNC report provides little confidence to someone who has worked at all of the port facilities along the coast of BC and has personally witnessed large quantities of diesel particulate from trucks and ships anddust from grain and coal handling. SNC should have looked harder for scientific references and research conducted on airborne coal dust from other parts of the world rather than limit themselves to reports which would show there is no health issues with coal dust near coal ports. And if the EIA was conducted in real world time rather than rushed to meet FSD’s (Mcquarrie’s) objectives then PMV should have had in place for years air quality monitors throughout the entire path of wind-borne coal dusts and diesel particulates from Westshore and Neptune to determine the real impacts on human health.

PMV makes reference to the use of surfacants to limit stray coal dust during handling. Could PMV explain why employees handling PRB coal at coal ports in BC don personal face masks fitted with high quality particulate filters while not using this form of PPE when handling other types of coal being delivered?

There have been several revisions to the handling machinery in the FSD proposal. The current version indicates the coal will be dumped from rail cars that unload from the bottom of the cars. These types of cars are a rarity and are non-existent in these parts. All the cars currently carrying coal to the ports in BC are side dumpers that produce significant amounts of dust during unloading. Even with water spraying and vacuum type suppression systems significant dust escapes from these dumping activities. Even the bottom dumping cars produce dust during unloading and given the strong prevailing winds that travel up the river to the river bend in this area one can presume that coal dust will travel up the Delta and Surrey slopes. What is most disturbing about bottom unloading coal cars is, according to BNSF, their tendency to ‘leak’ coal along the entire rail corridor while in transportation. The surfactants used at present only deal with coal at the top of the coal car and do not address the issue of coal leaking from the bottom of the coal cars.

I also take issue with the loading times stated and the claim that no coal will be stored on site. From what I can gather the train unloading procedure is lengthy, well beyond current standards of unloading of aluminum cars with modern dumpers. The proposal states that loading barges would take up to 6 hours to fill. This is more than 4 hours longer than an average length coal train takes to unload at most modern coal port facilities. Where will this coal be stored if the conveyor systems are unable to directly move the coal from train car to barge? The current proposal makes no economic sense for the port, the coal carrier (BNSF, CN or CP). To suggest trains will take 3, 5 or even 6 hours to unload “direct” to barges without storage is just hard to believe. I know of no rail company that enjoys having its coal cars sitting idle for any length of time. When it comes to rail companies the saying “time is money” is most apt. To suggest storage will be only in emergency cases is disingenuous at best. Also, there appears to be no provision for storage if ocean conditions do not allow for barge travel. What is the longest time Lafarge has been prevented from operating their limestone transportation from Texada Island to their Richmond facility? Reports from PMV have indicated that no coal would be stockpiled however there is mention of stockpiling in the EIA report.

I have not witnessed any dust suppression system at any coal port facility in BC to be 100% effective. The spray systems associated with the dumper unloading system at Ridley Island has shown to be less than effective especially for workers performing dumping activities! As well, adjacent machinery and equipment, including operator booths are covered in coal where spray and vacuum dust suppression systems are in place. What % of dust do these suppression systems actually contain? Any studies?

Dust suppression during the “6 hours” of barge loading on the barges themselves is non-existing as is the case at all the other 3 coal port facilities in BC where it has been observed can contribute to a large amount of fugitive coal being released into the air shed adjacent to these facilities.

The report makes mention of two ASHROSS RUMig unloading pits and associated equipment. This system usually unloads bottom-dumpingrailcars, which according to BNSF in a recent Surface Rail Transport case release more coal during transport than side dumping cars now prevalent in the industry. In fact, bottom-unloading cars are non-existent in our area. From an industry video of operations of the claimed dumping system coal dust even under suppression is still released. As well, this system is extremely slow compared to other side dumping systems and is usually used where coal is unloaded and transferred directly to coal-fired power station boiler operations.

Conveyor spill trays – how will the port facility clean the spill trays of coal as the build-up can be significant especially with wet Powder River Basin coal. From my experience the coal build-up on spill trays can load the conveyor infrastructure with weights not designed for. From my experience this coal is washed out of the spill trays with fire hoses. How will FSD remove the excessive coal build-up on its conveyor spill trays? Or as FSD puts it, “site cleaning”.

Fire suppression systems – tower sprinkler systems may be somewhat helpful in reducing some of the coal dust in piles at other coal port facilities but water towers by themselves are notsufficient in dealing with coal fires. There has been no mention of specific handling of Powder River Basin coal to eliminate spontaneous erupting fires that appear likely with this coal.The EIA fails to address this issue. Why? Burning coal with no emission controls in place will unleash the harmful elements contained in the coal besides CO and CO2.

There also appears to be no meaningful mention of the accumulation over time of coal deposits in water bodies adjacent to coal port loading facilities. Every coal port has this problem and it appears it is ignored and overlooked by public oversight agencies especially here in BC by our federal agencies, DFO and Environment Canada.I am also concerned about how FSD would eliminate any possibility of coal dust or particles entering into the Fraser River. How will this coal accumulation be prevented at FSD? I see no assurances that coal will be 100% prevented from entering the Fraser River or the Strait of Georgia. There appears to be no effective method of eliminating coal from entering the water bodies adjacent to coal ports.The report states: “Coal particles may also settle on the riverbed and become a component of the sediments “ however it does not indicate that the particles contain a variety of heavy toxic metals that can accumulate up the food chain.

Diesel particulates – even though construction equipment are to have filters to remove some of the particulates it doesn’t specify what size particulate these devices are to filter. It is known that some filters actually break down the particulate size and release finer particulate that is more dangerous to human health. There is no mention of particulate filters on the train locomotives.

Water usage and treatment – the report indicates that this aspect has yet to be adequately addressed. There are no specifics other than it is to be developed later. This is not acceptable in any form of an environmental assessment. The report mentions Chitosan however in Washington State they found that Chitosan can have a “green burst” effect due to the high concentration of nitrogen in Chitosan. Have studies been conducted to see how high concentrations of nitrogen would impact the environment? Washington State found the use of Chitosan “not yet considered a best management practice”. They also found that during rain showers the effect of Chitosan is “not capable of infiltrating additional water during those times”. However, there is no mention that all water used on site will be infiltrated and not discharged to any surface waters like the Fraser River nor is there any mention of the high amount of “sludge” generated by this type of treatment that would have to be handled the same as a “hazardous material”. Given that the Fraser River is one of the most important Salmon spawning and rearing rivers on the west coast of North America why is this type of port activity being proposed?If FSD was to operated as a closed system and the cost associated with this type of system where does the economics of using this port for coal handling make sense? There appears that an inevitable consequence of handling coal at port facilities would be a release of coal into the adjacent waterways.
I would like to address the process that PMV uses to pretend that they conduct public consultation in a meaningful manner. The way Robin Silvester views public consultation unfortunately is similar to what most governments and their agencies declare that they have consulted the public. If you attend a meeting of PMV then you have been consulted! PMV states that through the “public consultation” only seven (7) items were to be addressed by those conducting the EIA. None of these seven items concerned themselves with the impacts burning coal will have on climate change nor how all activities associated with coal extraction and transportation has and will have on climate change even though this was a significant concern of the public attending meetings conducted by PMV and meetings conducted by community groups throughout the effected areas where coal port activities are taking place in the region.

What Mr. Silvester fails to acknowledge is that most of the public do not support the FSD coal proposal but to Silvester it matters not as he can declare he has consulted the public.
Given the time frame it takes in the US to examine and assess the coal port proposals down (more than 3 years) how does Silvester rationalize his dubious assessment and appraisal of FSD's proposal in less than 3 months? In the US the public directly determines the broad scope of the assessment not the proponent nor the proponent’s authority, PMV. It appears in Canada we conduct EIA differently with the proponent’s land owner determining scope and approval. Shameful practice not representing a country operating in a democratic fashion.
And given the time frame for any potential approval for coal ports in Washington and Oregon State it is erroneous to assume FSD's proposal will be limited to 2 million tonnes per year or even 4 million tonnes of shipments. Powder River Basin coal mines want their product delivered to Asian markets NOW!
Rather than pretend the coal shipments at FSD will be 2 million tonnes per year and within 5 years 4 million tonnes per year it is more than likely we will witness a full scale coal port in 5 years handling more than 10 or even 15 million tonnes a year.
But, the real proposal hidden from public view is the one that FSD (McQuarrie Bank) and PMV really want; a full fledged 3rd coal terminal in Metro Vancouver filling the largest commodity ships for markets elsewhere.
This 'proposal' and the EIA is more like a sales pitch from a door-to-door vacuum salesperson getting their foot in the door. Once the George Massey Tunnel is removed there will be no impediments to the largest bulk commodity ships in the world arriving at FSD.
Port Metro Vancouver has been encouraging the BC Government to take action to address the long standing concern that the George Massey Tunnel presents a barrier to continued growth in the Fraser River terminals, in particular to Fraser Surrey Docks. The single biggest challenge that the GMT represents to ocean going vessels is related to ship ‘draft’, the depth of water required in order for those vessels to transit the Fraser River.
Again, I am truly of the belief that this proposal will change to a completely different ‘animal’ if approval is granted. It will not remain for long a 2 million tonne a year facility and more than likely will resemble Neptune Terminal coal handling facility when the George Massey Tunnel is removed.
From the start, an appointed body not answerable to the 2.4 million inhabitants of the Metro Vancouver region, has progressed in an arrogant manner with disregard for the livability of those same inhabitants. It’s approach in regards to public consultation has been meager and not meaningful. Its attempt to hurry the process in favour of the applicant, in collusion with the applicant and its industry supporters has created yet another region resident demanding for the removal of the directors of the Port and a limitation of its authority and impacts on the more significant economy of the region.
The port did nothing to increase barge traffic of containers to the regions rail company inter-modal yards instead relying on truck traffic which is costing the taxpayers billions of infrastructure dollars that could be used for more productive public purposes that benefits all the residents and not the global supply chain corporations and manufacturers.
The port did nothing to decrease dangerous goods movements and dangerous goods production at its port lands despite increases in human population in those areas. Elsewhere in developed nations where ports are adjacent to dense urban populations these facilities are being moved closed to where those hazardous goods are used.
PMV has taken the position that its powers to impose its policies and proposals on more than 2.4 million of Metro Vancouver’s human inhabitants supercedes the regional local government’s planning and the provincial health officials. I for one would be more than willing to see some of my tax dollars go to challenge PMV’s perceived authority and imposition into the region’s planning and future in the highest court in the land.
If PMV has not noticed the year is 2013 not 1867! The time for autocratic agencies and corporations to operate unimpeded in the 21st Century needs to end.
Sincerely
Phil Le Good

White Rock, BC

Cayley Jane WesternFossil fuels are not the answerThe people of British Columbia do NOT want the Fraser Surrey docks - nor do we want coal exports! Short term profit for huge long term environmental disadvantages - no thanks!
tim mathesongrowthIf the goal is to expand the capacity of the Port then you are missing the impact of that intention. There are significant damages made to the areas of development in Delta which carry much further than the physical space they take up. Displacing the habitat of migratory birds is just the tip of the iceberg. Efficiencies may be a better way to begin but there should be an effort to work within the natural systems while you are developing rather than just paving the world into a convenient place to move consumer products. We have begun the change to correct our destructive habits. You need to catch up with this awareness.
Warren WalkerAccountability We're accountable to our children and grandchildren for shaping the future. I'm one parent who doesn't want to make excuses for poor judgement in 2013. Put an end to the insanity, please, by standing up to people who look for short term profits at the expense of others who live here.
Andrew FallFraser Surrey Docks proposal: EIATo Port Authority board, The process taken for the proposed coal export plans at Fraser Surrey Docks has major flaws and must be done properly if public interest is to be upheld. There has been no health impact assessment, as demanded by health authorities. There has been inadequate open public process, despite significant changes to the proposal during the review process. The EIA claims to cover the proposal all the way up Georgia Strait to Texada Island (outside the jurisdiction of the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority), but does not address coal dust impacts on the marine environment, or on residents along the proposed route. Coverage of health and environmental impacts of coal dust are inadequately addressed in the EIA, in particular from loaded barges once they have left the dock. This process should respect the votes by the majority of local municipalities and regional districts. Given the long list of flaws, and the public opposition to this project, I request that you reject this proposal. Sincerely, Andrew Fall
Graham StarsageCumulative health concerns Hi, I would like to see more information regarding the binding and surprising agents. I live on the proposed barge route and have concerns about the long term effects of airborne coal dust, both on the marine environment and human health. The EIA in my opinion made the argument that the binding agents work because GE says so.. isn't that in GE's interest to say, as it is their product that will be used. Has the binding agent been tested with interactions in saltwater environments? Perhaps it does completely work and is benign, can you show me? My children and I swim and play on these beaches. I am not worried about effects from this year. But 10 years. 20 years? It says in the EIA that using tarps won't work because they deteriorate? Why? Please try to find alternative solutions to containing the dust. Thank you for your consideration, Graham Starsage
Marilynn KingFraser Surrey Docks coal terminalI oppose Port Metro Vancouver approving the Fraser Surrey Docks coal terminal and also oppose any U.S. Thermal Coal being shipped or transported from/through our community. There are many reasons why and the majority in my opinion have to do with health issues and the impact on our environment including fish and wildlife.
Valerie OlafsonNot good enough Port Metro Vancouver, The environmental assessment process is flawed and makes you look really bad!!! I'm not going to get into specific details but when the mayor of a town which will be majorly impacted and which relies heavily on tourism and which is heavily populated is not even consulted you've got a problem! White Rock, Ocean Park and Crescent Beach residents will all be directly impacted by coal trains in their neighbourhoods. Decisions based solely on monetary gain are not good decisions. The USA is desperate to get this coal to market before the market dries up particularly in China. Over the coming years the Chinese will bephasing out coal as they are suffering the effects of air pollution big time in places like Bejing due to the burning of coal. The Chinese have recognized this and are taking steps like eliminating coal and switching to cleaner fuels. Citizens are aware of the responsibility of all to address climate change and it is time for the Canadian government and industry to respond to it's citizens concerns. Sincerely, Valerie Olafson
Greg HeltenCoal exportsThe Port should put a moratorium on coal export expansion and commit to working with key stakeholders to conduct proper health and environmental impact assessments. I think also that If the port can't or will not properly assess the potential impacts of coal exports, it should deny the Fraser Surrey Docks permit and suspend any further expansion of coal exports.
Tyla Crowea second review is necessary To Port Metro Vancouver, I am in disagreement to Fraser Surrey Docks and find the review process inadequate. The assessment doesn’t take climate change into account and the environmental impact assessment currently open to public comment has been criticized by everyone from health officers to local governments to impacted communities. It’s biased because it was carried out by consultants hired by Fraser Surrey Docks. It’s undemocratic because there are no public hearings, and the comments submitted won’t be made public. I am aware that the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks (FSD) Coal Facility would handle up to 8 million metric tonnes of coal annually, and pump about 17 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere each year. Coal dust and diesel particulates from coal trains would negatively impact community health. I do not want Greater Vancouver to be the largest coal exporter in all of North America if it is not done sustainability and with people’s health as a main focus. Sincerely, Tyla Crowe
janine bandcroftcoal is so 19th century really, you want to absolutely destroy canada's wilderness with coal exports, not to mention the other ridiculou$ stuff you're doing to be the next energy superpower? tarsands goo and fracked natural gas and coal is where you want canada to go? the extent of your hubris is epic. if future generations survive your destruction, they'll remember your selfish greed as unprecedented in human history. let's get on with simplifying lifestyles, starting with consuming plant based foods which are kinder, healthier, and generate at least 20% fewer greenhouse gases than the horrible and cruel carnivorous habits you no doubt engage with. and how about alternative energy sources that may not make you a ton of money, but will offer an intelligent solution to future generations. but you want to export coal. unbelievable.
wendy wulffI do not approve of the environmental reviewLet me add my name to the hundreds of others who do not believe that the so-called environmental review which was released about this expansion of the port facilities is comprehensive enough to assess the whole impact of the proposals on the people and the environment of what is left of this beautiful province. Most sincerely. Wendy
Lawrence TonitaCoal export EIASince your first EIA study into this matter was severely flawed and incomplete, I call upon all, let me stress ALL, stakeholders to conduct a new and complete assessment. This should include, but not be limited to, the areas adjacent to the proposed facility, a comprehensive assessment of all the risks including wind borne dust,noise, and possible polution with it's impact on people, animals and the environment we all share. I would also urge you to accomplish this in a transparent and open manner. Thank you
MNO to Fraser Surrey Docks Just wanted to say NO to your sham review process and NO to dirty coal. Thank you, ...not a "radical" just a concerned BC resident
Suzanne DesrochersNo coal exportsThere is no way this belongs in Canada! How can coal pollution possibly be justified in the 21at century??? We have moved far beyond Dickensian London. An absolute NO to this plan.
Michael T SchmittNo to Fraser Surrey Docks!Please do not approve Fraser Surrey Docks!
Michael GoldbergEnvironmental impact study flawedThe environmental study of coal shipment from Surrey to Texada Island is very incomplete. We all need to see scientific evidence of the possible impact to the fish as coal makes its way by barge to Texada. I have been a recreational fisher in these waters since 1971 and would not want to see the hard work at attempting to recover this recreation fishery damages once again.
lianne payneNo to Fraser Surrey Docks I say NO to Fraser Surrey Docks, NO to this inaccessible review process, and NO to dirty coal. Your review of the Fraser Surrey Docks project is fundamentally flawed, and the environmental impact assessment currently open to public comment has been criticized by everyone from health officers to local governments to impacted communities. It’s biased because it was carried out by consultants hired by Fraser Surrey Docks. It’s undemocratic because there are no public hearings, and the comments submitted won’t be made public. It also seems to me like it’s already a done deal because 8 days in to the comment period, your CEO said he was satisfied with the assessment. And finally, the assessment doesn’t take climate change into account! I am aware that the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks (FSD) Coal Facility would handle up to 8 million metric tonnes of coal annually, and pump about 17 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere each year. Coal dust and diesel particulates from coal trains would negatively impact community health. I do not want Greater Vancouver to be the largest coal exporter in all of North America. I want to keep coal in the ground, and its pollution out of our lungs and away from the climate.
Alison TherriaultNo Coal exportsI am against the expansion of coal export at Neptune Terminals.
Janine MacLeodFraser Surrey Docks project To Port Metro Vancouver, I am writing to you to express my strong opposition to the proposed Fraser Surrey docks project. The review of the Fraser Surrey Docks project is fundamentally flawed, and the environmental impact assessment currently open to public comment has been criticized by everyone from health officers to local governments to impacted communities. It’s biased because it was carried out by consultants hired by Fraser Surrey Docks. It’s undemocratic because there are no public hearings, and the comments submitted won’t be made public. I am also deeply troubled to learn that the review process has not considered the project's potential impact on the global climate. It is no longer acceptable to evaluate potential infrastructure projects like the Fraser Surrey docks project without taking climate change into account. The impacts of expanding fossil fuel extraction and transport are global in scope; any review process must consider the broader implications of a given project. We have had sufficient warning from the global scientific community at this point. The responsibility to shift our economies away from dependence on fossil fuels like coal is abundantly clear. Whether we consider the fate of populations facing water shortages downstream from receding glaciers in the Himalayas, the Andes, or the Alps, or think about people dealing with the ravages of coastline floods and catastrophic storms, deadly heat waves, forest fires, and drought, or whether we turn our attention to the oceans and note that they are becoming increasingly acidic as they absorb greater concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide, the idea of expanding fossil fuel infrastructures at this historical juncture seems like utter lunacy. However, we do not even need to look at this critical global context to know that turning Greater Vancouver into North America's largest coal exporter is an incredibly bad idea. The local public health implications of this proposed development are simply unacceptable: we know that coal dust and diesel particulates from coal trains will result in illnesses in the local community. The proposed Fraser Surrey Docks (FSD) Coal Facility would handle up to 8 million metric tonnes of coal annually, and pump about 17 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere each year. For these reasons, I urge you to reject this proposed development. Sincerely, Janine MacLeod
jason HerzTexada Coal Shippments RE: SUNSHINE COAST CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION’S PUBLIC COMMENT ON FRASER SURREY DOCKS’ “ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE DIRECT TRANSFER COAL FACILITY” (NOVEMBER 2013) The Sunshine Coast Conservation Association (SCCA) is a registered charity (1997) whose mandate is to protect biodiversity values within the Sunshine Coast Forest District and adjoining marine waters. Our membership is broadly based consisting not only of individuals and families but also of local conservation and community groups. Currently, with respect to the marine environment, the SCCA has received federal funding to participate in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency transitional comprehensive study for the Burnco Aggregate Mine Project. In addition, the SCCA is actively working with a stakeholder group seeking protection for the globally unique glass sponge reefs recently discovered in the Strait of Georgia. The Sunshine Coast Conservation Association has grave concerns regarding the climate change implications of the Direct Transfer Coal Facility (Project). We will however restrict our comments to our mandate and hence to the Strait of Georgia portion of the Project as identified in the scope of the Environmental Impact Assessment for the Project: the barge transport of coal from the Project site to Texada Island (page ii, Volume I). Transhipping the coal from barge to freighter at Lafarge Canada’s site on Texada Island was first brought to the SCCA’s attention in June 2013 during a public presentation on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012 hosted by the SCCA. A letter requesting an extension of the review period for Texada Quarries (Lafarge Canada) application for an amendment to Permit M-66, File ref. no.14745-20, was subsequently sent to the Ministry of Mines in August 2013. The letter further identified environmental concerns, not only with the Texada Quarries, but with the transportation of the coal both by barge and by ship in the Strait of Georgia. The appropriate transportation concerns are reiterated below. In reviewing the Environmental Impact Assessment for the Direct Transfer Coal Facility, November 2013 (EIA), the SCCA commends Fraser Surrey Docks (FSD) for so quickly, since June 2013, implementing enhanced risk mitigation measures. Specific to this submission is the measure for dust suppression of barged coal in which dust suppression agents will be added to the coal surface immediately prior to barge transfer. However, the SCCA is both disappointed and alarmed that the barging of the coal along the Strait of Georgia has not received a similar level of assessment as the FSD facility and the Fraser River portions of the Project. The SCCA believes that an environmental assessment must be conducted for the Sunshine Coast portion of the Project as there will be coal dust released during the life of the Project and to provide for a more effective emergency response to an unexpected greater loss of either dust or of the coal itself. It is understood that FSD will, with its barge partner Lafarge, mitigate fugitive dust during marine transit by profiling the coal so as to reduce wind erosion and turbulence, the barges will only be filled to 85% capacity and will not be operated in winds that are greater than 40 km per hour that are sustained for more than five minutes. Due to variable wind conditions this will present some difficulties. It is further stated that the coal will be coated with both a binding and a surfactant during loading; and if required, additional suppressing. However, there is no documentation that the chemicals have been tested on barges in the marine environment. The supplier, General Electric, states in a letter dated November, 2013 that their products were 90% effective on train cars.1 Will the addition of salt water spray during transport diminish the effectiveness of the treatment. The barges, once unloaded will still likely contain significant amounts of residual coal. How will this be prevented from entering the environment during transport as the empty barges are neither covered or treated for dust control? Without testing for the loss of coal dust in actual marine conditions with uncovered barges, and based on the experience of train transport, it would not be unreasonable to assume that there will be losses with each loaded barge movement. This amount could be significant over the lifetime of the Project. The Project, as described, is expected by Year 2 to be transporting 4 million metric tonnes of coal per year, with the potential of 8 million tonnes per year being barged by Year 6.2 The corresponding loaded barge movements in the Strait of Georgia would likely increase from 2 per day to 4 per day (640/year to 1280/year). Documentation appears to be lacking for how the treated coal dust might be dispersed in the air and marine waters and how once settled it might interact with the local ecosystems. If the identified method of barging proceeds, the SCCA requests that a detailed environmental assessment be conducted similar to that granted to the other portions of the Project. Such an assessment would include, but not be limited to, effects including cumulative, mitigation, residual effects and proposed monitoring for air quality, marine sediments, including shoreline; fish and fish habitat, vegetation and wildlife including marine and shoreline ecosystems. Cumulative effects need especially to consider the existing coal operation at Texada Quarries. In addition bio-accumulation and bio-magnification of the heavy metals (e.g. mercury) and particulate matter associated with the source Powder River Basin coal on receiving ecosystems must be evaluated. The Vananda Creek Stickleback Pairs (Gasterosteus spp. 16 & 17) residing on the Sunshine Coast were identified in the EIA as “Species of Concern”. Many other species of plants, animals and ecosystems of the Sunshine Coast and Strait of Georgia were not. For example: among federally identified animals Northern Abalone (Haliotis kamtschatkana), Olympia Oyster (Ostrea lurida), Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), Great Blue Heron supspecies fannini (Ardea herodias fannini) and the Killer Whale Northeast Pacific West Coast Transient population and Southern Resident populations (Orcinus orca). It is recommended that the South Coast Conservation Program and the BC Conservation Data Centre, be contacted to obtain a complete list of species and ecosystems, both flora and fauna, marine and terrestrial of the Sunshine Coast/Georgia Strait region which are identified federally and/or provincially. The route as indicated in the EIA (page 5, Volume I) shows the tugs and barges travelling between the west side of Texada Island and east side of Lasqueti Island through Sabine Channel. Areas of special concern in this region are Jedediah Island Provincial Park, South Texada Island Provincial Park, Squitty Bay Provincial Park and Sabine Channel Marine Park. Further special areas recognized in other legislation such as Rockfish Conservation Areas and others not yet specifically protected such as the world unique Glass Sponge Reefs must be identified, mapped and assessed in the Strait of Georgia. In addition, coastal ecosystems, such as estuaries are recognized as one of the most productive ecosystems on earth and must especially be protected to preserve their function as barriers against the effects of climate change. For example, eelgrass meadows excel in sequestering organic carbon especially in sediments below the meadows. Such ecosystems must be identified, assessed, monitored and plans made for ensuring that any accidents and or malfunctions involving the barging of coal be quickly contained to avoid potential damage and destruction. The EIA states “... the effects of and on climate change have been excluded from the scope of this assessment” (page ii, Volume I). If Port Metro Vancouver does give approval to the project as described the effects of climate change on the Project must be identified and planned for. Specific to the concerns of the SCCA is the phenomenon of storminess. Aside from the predicted sea level rise of 1 meter in the near future; it is understood that the weather patterns themselves will become more unpredictable and severe. It is likely that winds will more frequently reach beyond the 40 km/hr mark in the Strait of Georgia. The winds and the waves generated from them will at the very least have an impact on the barging schedules. Operating procedures must be developed that reassures the public that towing speeds and wind levels will not be increased to make up for lost delivery times. The concern on the Sunshine Coast for marine accidents involving barges is based on the recent experiences. In July 2009, a tug towing equipment within the Skookumchuk Rapids of Sechelt Inlet was flipped over and in May, 2005, a barge containing limestone from Texada Island was accidently beached on the community beach at Davis Bay near Sechelt. Both of these incidents represent the potential for an environmental marine disaster. In spite of a lack of consultation with the public and major stakeholder the shishálh Nation by FSD, interest in this Project is growing on the Sunshine Coast. On November 23, 2013 the SCCA, the Council of Senior Citizens’ Organizations – Sunshine Coast Branch and Alliance 4 Democracy - Sunshine Coast co-hosted a panel forum on coal and this Project at the Sechelt Indian Band Hall. Invited speakers included a medical doctor, scientist, professor, provincial politician, researcher and community activists. The media reported 150-200 participants. With such interest in the Project and lack of information on the possible impacts on the the Strait of Georgia and nearby coastline ecosystems, the Sunshine Coast Conservation Association recommends that Port Metro Vancouver not approve the current version of the Fraser Surrey Docks Environmental Impact Assessment for the Direct Transfer Coal Facility (November 2013). To assist in communicating with our members and local citizens, we request that a copy of Port Metro Vancouver’s decision and rationale be sent to [email protected] Sincerely, Jason Herz Chair Cc realporthearings.com SIB MLA MP SCRD CEO of Fraser Surrey Docks Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communitities Chief Medical Health Officer Minister of the Environment DFO Nanaimo Environment Canada
mark lynchNo coal transportNo coal transport through BC. The risks to health don't justify our financial benefit.
Larry HildesCoal export EIAAnother coal port is simply unacceptable! You must consider the effects of climate change, the effect of mining and burning the coal, all of the impacts of the entire process from the moment the land is cleared and destroyed, and the coal scraped out, until the moment it blows back in toxic rain and clouds. You must look at the impact of the coal that falls off the train, the coal that pollutes the water when it blows in or falls in during loading, the effect of the extra shops on marine life. You can claim technology will prevent these impacts; there is no scientific or practical evidence to support that. We urge you to reject this pan.
Zach RuiterCoal ExportMuch like Quebec continued to export Asbestos once it was banned domestically - the export of Coal when it is known to be a global threat to human survival is not in anybody's interests. Please accept this as my outright opposition to this project/plan. Zach Ruiter
Tamara HermanI say NO to Fraser Surrey Docks To Port Metro Vancouver, I say NO to Fraser Surrey Docks, NO to your sham review process, and NO to dirty coal. If you approve the project, I pledge to take to the streets to stop Fraser Surrey Docks from being built. Your review of the Fraser Surrey Docks project is fundamentally flawed, and the environmental impact assessment currently open to public comment has been criticized by everyone from health officers to local governments to impacted communities. It’s biased because it was carried out by consultants hired by Fraser Surrey Docks. It’s undemocratic because there are no public hearings, and the comments submitted won’t be made public. It also seems to me like it’s already a done deal because 8 days in to the comment period, your CEO said he was satisfied with the assessment. And finally, the assessment doesn’t take climate change into account! I am aware that the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks (FSD) Coal Facility would handle up to 8 million metric tonnes of coal annually, and pump about 17 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere each year. Coal dust and diesel particulates from coal trains would negatively impact community health. I do not want Greater Vancouver to be the largest coal exporter in all of North America! I want to keep coal in the ground, and its pollution out of our lungs and away from the climate. Sincerely, Tamara Herman
Victoria PitchfordComments on the Proposed Fraser Surrey Docks Transfer Coal FacilityI deserve a full independent hearing on the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks coal facility, as has been afforded to citizens of Washington State by regulators assessing coal terminals this year.
I deserve a comprehensive health impact assessment of the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks coal facility, as publicly recommended by Health Authority officials.
I am concerned about the climate impacts currently being experienced in Canada and throughout the world, which are exacerbated by the export and consumption of fossil fuels.

I urge you to deny Fraser Surrey Docks a permit for its proposed coal facility, and to start taking responsibility for the climate damage that will result from the growing export of fossil fuels from Metro Vancouver ports.

Victoria Pitchford
Toronto, ON
Karen WeillPort Authority EIA on Coal Export Dear Sirs: I am writing as a U.S. citizen who will be heavily impacted by the decision you make on the coal export proposal. I live in Bellingham, where those trains will be coming through. I believe that the health impacts from the trains will affect me heavily, including my air, water (from coal dropping off the train -- see the studies on how it has affected the Columbia River), and land use, both in terms of pollution, the ability of emergency vehicles to get through, and the impact on the standard of living, just to name a few effects. This is not just the coal but also the diesel particulates and other pollution associated with the increased number of trains. The comments I've seen so far also don't seem to mention another factor: the Orca whales and other marine life. There has been at least one study I'm aware of that states that even a 17% increase in shipping traffic could affect the whales negatively and severely. These animals are icons of the Salish Sea, they affect tourism and help to maintain the ecosystem. In addition to which, they are endangered and protected under U.S. law. We need to be looking at providing alternatives that focus on renewables. We could switch to renewables ourselves and produce many thousands of times the jobs that the rail and coal companies are offering, with a huge boost to the economy. These are the kinds of products that we should be looking to export, not the fossil fuels that are destroying our planet. Sincerely, Karen Weill
James CrostyFraser Surrey Dock ProposalTo Port Metro Vancouver, Please place my name as opposed to the expansion of Fraser Surrey Docks along side many others including every elected city council surrounding the terminal location being considered for the export of US coal. The reasons are well known and do not require repeating in my submission. As a resident of New Westminster I find it undemocratic and oppressive that you would consider this proposal based on the inadequate findings from SNC-Lavalin. Additionally that PMV board has chosen not to provide any independent public consultation with regard to this proposal. The public and PMV asked for a comprehensive review from the US boarder to the Texada Island coal terminal and this has not been included in the report. The lack of due diligence alone should move the PMV board decision to oppose the expansion on grounds that Fraser Surrey Docks did not follow directions, a simple result. I was fortunate enough (and the only person allowed) to have met with the Governor of Wyoming, Matt Mead when his team visited PMV and various ports including Fraser Surrey Dock. It was thru this frank discussion we discovered he was not made aware of the sensitive areas (like Burns Bog) that coal trains and barges would be traveling through to arrive at Fraser Surry Docks and then onto Texada Island via the Fraser River. Governor Mead stated, “You have to involve all of the stakeholders — those who have concerns, those who are supportive — because there’s no plan forward that I see where you try to force this on anybody,” (Gordon Hoekstra, Vancouver Sun 06/13/2013). Further he states, “I reiterated the need for railroads and coal companies to address concerns of citizens by providing data, and to the extent there is no information or baseline data, then industry should be prepared to collect it. Empirical data is necessary for sound decision making and problem solving. We need to look for ways - not to create roadblocks - but to find solutions to problems, and data is helpful” (Office of Governor Matt Mead 06/17/2013). So once again, I emphasis that FSD has not accomplished this basic requirement as noted by the United States Governor who may well be the customer wishing to export from Canada. I remind PMV that currently FSD is not able nor has it demonstrated the ability to contain agricultural dust as it loads container ships from its port. This is problematic in and of itself with unknown consequent for the general public and other industries along the river. However, until such time as they can demonstrate complete containment of products being loaded onto barges the proposal to ship coal should not even be considered. If the expansion for coal is postponed until this is accomplished it provide time for a Health Impact Assessment to be completed and a tangible bench mark for FSD to even remotely consider the export of coal. Additionally I would ask that PMV publicly state and respond with the answer to the following question - has FSD purchased and is currently storing on site equipment required for the expansion as proposed prior to the approval from the PMV board? Thank you for considering my letter and requests in opposition to this proposal to export coal from Fraser Surrey Dock. Sincerely, James Crosty Past President Quayside Community Board New Westminster, BC
David ThomsonEnvironmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksAs a resident of North Vancouver I am deeply troubled by the manner in which coal export and port expansions are being rammed down the throats of lower mainland residents. This mirrors a growing trend of anti-democratic, heavy-handed approach by unaccountable governments and institutions that is going to backfire - just as the federal government's attempts to ram pipelines through the coast has backfired.
Metro Port Vancouver has barely given lip service to serious concerns raised my medical professionals about the range of adverse health effects of coal dust. The Port's environmental impact assessment is wilfully blind on issues such as the impact on the larger lower mainland and Georgia Strait - not to mention the critical issue of coal and climate change. Both the federal and provincial governments are ignoring climate change as an issue related to coal exports while saying they care about the issue - a deeply hypocritical and irresponsible stand that my children and their children for generations will pay the price for, in the name of political expediency. Merely miles away, the Port of Bellingham has chosen to include the impact of climate change in their environmental assessment - I am ashamed that Canada, once seen as a leader on environmental issues, is such a dinosaur now under the Clark and Harper governments.
Two things need to happen here: a truly independent, broad and thorough environmental impact assessment needs to be done, and the lack of accountability of Port Metro Vancouver to the millions of people who live near and are impacted buy its operations needs to change - the laws governing the Port need to be amended so that local citizens are able to hold the Port accountable.
Jan LaurieMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksIt has been proven that storing and transporting coal is very hazardous to human health, not to mention burning it and adding to environmental degradation world wide. On behalf of the people who would be directly affected on the west coast, I urge the Port of Vancouver to listen to the warnings of the chief medical officers and deny the permit for this massive coal export scheme that will only add to the environmental burden and result in more health problems in the Lower Mainland. Making money should never outweigh damaging the environment and shortening lives!
Heide BrownMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksI can't believe people are still making decisions to burn coal when so many alternatives are available that won't kill the planet we live upon. We need to be an example, and keep answering the difficult questions until there are none left to answer. Yes, I live on a Gulf Island, and you might say I'm worried about my own backyard, but that is NOT the issue, or the only thing at stake. Our entire planet is at stake. Please, consider the concerns of our chief medical officers, conduct a proper public hearing about the coal export proposal, and deny the permit for Fraser Surrey Docks.
mark campbellMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksIncreasing coal exports without a more detailed environmental impact study or proper public consultation is unfair to the people of BC. As a parent I am greatly concerned with the future health impact on people and the environment. Please do not grant a permit for Fraser Docks application.
Veronica KeuchelMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey Docks According to our medical officers, the EIA does not meet “even the most basic requirements of a Health Impact Assessment.”
The EIA does not assess impacts of coal transport on White Rock, Surrey, Delta, Texada Island and the waters and islands along the coastal shipping route.
Unlike the assessment for a proposed coal port just across the border near Bellingham Washington, Port Metro’s EIA does not assess the greenhouse gas impacts of the end-use burning of coal.
If the port authority won’t start over and provide a proper assessment, it should deny the Fraser Surrey Docks permit and stop expanding coal exports.
Lynda GagneMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksYour commissioned environmental impact assessment is entirely inadequate as a result of omitting most of the deleterious life cycle aspects of coal mining, transport, and burning. Research by prominent economists has already demonstrated that air pollution damages of coal alone are sufficient to make the industry unviable from a public policy perspective. Once other externalities such as GHG emissions, coal dust, and the destruction of land are taken into account, the use of coal turns into a complete economic disaster with significant intergenerational equity consequences. As the world comes to grips with the threat of climate change, and carbon budgets are inevitably put in place, coal will quickly be replaced by renewable energy and the port expansion will have been a very poor investment. Rather than behaving like lemmings, Port Metro Vancouver should resist the temptation of making quick and risky short term cash gains and work on securing social license.
Wendy WaidsonMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksPlease do not grant a permit for Fraser Surrey Docks. Transporting coal through the Lower Mainland could have serious effects on the health of people in this area. A proper assessment of the risks has not been done yet.
M JansenMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksWe are vehemently opposed to the plan to deliver coal through BC. Our health is at risk due to your failure to conduct a proper health assessment. This needs to be done immediately.

It is imperative that you not issue a permit for the Fraser Surrey Docks' application.
Nancy HoferMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksI am a young citizen of this beautiful province and I dedicate my career and volunteer time to working towards a sustainable and prosperous future because I know that a prosperous future necessarily has to be sustainable. Coal export, LNG, bitumen pipelines and the like (i.e. fossil energy industries) are NOT sustainable. Please help me in my efforts to contribute to a sustainable, healthy and resilient future by NOT supporting the EIA for this project. It's a hard time of transition for all of humanity - weaning ourselves off of fossil energy. I understand why it's SO enticing to consider it for our short-term economic development. But it will only postpone the inevitable - which is that we have to find ways to transition away from this finite energy source. AND the risk to public health and the ecosystems on which we depend is NOT WORTH IT. So it's a lose-lose when you think of the issue more comprehensively and on a longer time line. I know - I am going off on a more general theme here, but it all relates to specific projects such as the Metro Port. Please reconsider this application and deny it unless the proponent can demonstrate that there will be no risk to public and ecosystem health - a tall order.
DD. DrobenaMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksWe need more thorough and comprehensive assessments to safeguard our coastal environment.
Neil SvendsenMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksStop putting the citizens of this planet at risk for profits!!! It's an ugly business model of parasitic nature, all puns intended!!!
Susanne JacksonMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksAs a citizen of Canada and BC I want you to deny the Fraser Surrey Docks application. I want to remind you that you work for us, not companies that would benefit financially from granting this application. Climate change is a global problem and the actual cost of a project has to factor in the environmental cost when determining the economic benefit, and this cost is too high. The burning of
this coal over there will affect us here as well. If our medical officers do not feel a proper assessment of the health impact has been done then I believe their assessment not someone who has a vested interest. Remember whose interests you should be most concerned about. Ours.
Bridget DonaldMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksThis proposal for coal export disregards the health and well being of our local communities. Further, it makes a mockery of any Canadian commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. What is the point of our efforts to reduce emissions when we are supplying the dirtiest source of fuel to the most populous nation in the world and fouling our own air and water in the process?

Please listen to the concerns of the thousands of local residents and their elected officials. Reject the Fraser Surrey Docks' application.
David GriffithsMoney over the environmentCoal has huge environmental costs from the point it's mined to the point it's burned.

In the Southern US, the tops of mountains are blown off to access the coal. It's then shipped by rail, spreading coal dust through all the ecosystems it passes. And when it reaches the end of it's journey, and is used by a power-plant, it does it's most egregious damage of all. CO2, particulate, and mercury are released into the atmosphere.

Enough of the coal.
Anne AnsonMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksWhat's the hurry? If there are no problems, why not take the time to do the studies right and alleviate peoples' concerns? And if there ARE problems, why are we doing it?
The years of mindless expansion are over.
Be part of the solution.
Don't you have children, or grandchildren?
Jordan SoetMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksI would like to oppose the grant of a permit for Fraser Surrey Docks application for expanded coal terminal facilities for the following reasons:

According to our medical officers, the EIA does not meet “even the most basic requirements of a Health Impact Assessment.”

The EIA does not assess impacts of coal transport on White Rock, Surrey, Delta, Texada Island and the waters and islands along the coastal shipping route.

Unlike the assessment for a proposed coal port just across the border near Bellingham Washington, Port Metro’s EIA does not assess the greenhouse gas impacts of the end-use burning of coal.

If the port authority won’t start over and provide a proper assessment, it should deny the Fraser Surrey Docks permit and stop expanding coal exports.
Robin IsbergMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksI want to express my objections to the biased and incomplete Environmental Impact Assessment for this project. How can the health impact of transporting coal through a populated area be ignored? A permit should not be granted for this project until a complete and unbiased assessment is done.
Kim SirenMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey Docks I can't imagine why the Port of Metro Vancouver would want to shut out public input or ignore the Chief medical officers concerns.
Unless of coarse they have something to hide? Maybe all the coal dust is clouding your vision, common sense and ethics.
I have to strongly recommend against granting a permit for the Fraser Surrey
Docks application.
Regards, Kim Siren
Margaret VallinsMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksQuite apart from the adverse environmental impact the action of Metro Port Vancouver will have, it makes no long term economic sense to me. The people of Vancouver, B.C. & Canada will be paying the cost of resultant health & environmental damage for years to come.
Will visitors still flock to Vancouver to see the "breathtaking natural beauty"?
Why not be sensible , listen to the advice of medical officers & environmental experts who are opposed to the plan & invest in a good future?
Malithi WijayathilakaMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksPlease open Fraser Surrey B.C docks coal transportation initiative for research before implementing any part of the project, since any adverse effects that are detected can be prevented and methods of making the project safer to citizens can be discussed. More research will also allow us to find more alternatives and safer technologies. The coal line is not an exception to Canadian health regulations and should have to meet the same public safety standards before it can be carried out.
Louisa CameronMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksAs a resident of Vancouver, I strongly oppose the transport of coal and its storage in the Lower Mainland. It is time to stand up to for health and the environment over greed. A team of physicians, who studied health impacts of the transportation and storage of coal, have concluded that coal in the Lower Mainland has a significant negative health impact. I therefore urge you to reject granting a permit for Fraser Surrey Docks' application.
Rob AtkinsMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksWe need to stop our addiction to coal and other forms of energy that are destroying our health and environment. I strongly urge you to reject Fraser Surrey Docks' application for a transport and storage permit for coal in the Lower Mainland.
L. RobertsMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksWith so much at stake for our health and environment, it is shocking that the environmental impact assessment is so inadequate.

It is the people of the greater Vancouver area that will be affected; their concerns need be heard, respected and incorporated into any consideration around coal exports through our communities.
Michael PericMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksDear Sir/Ma'am,

Please reconsider the decision to expand coal exports in granting a permit for Fraser Surrey Docks. Your office must have received numerous letters against this move. This is obviously unsafe as the health impacts, nor the impacts for coastal shipping, have not been properly addressed. It is certainly undemocratic as it clearly deserves more due process.
Donna VandekerkhoveMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksI'm feeling more and more apprehensive lately about what I see as local and provincial governments' total disregard for concerns raised by BC residents. Yes, proper testing should be done. Protocols must be followed. But, more importantly, citizen input MUST be considered. Not just for this objective, but any objective that may put health and safety at risk. Later is too late.
Jan WillisMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksCoal should be obsolete!!! Ontario has taken the right approach---BAN IT!!
Let's find some other way to make our economy work, rather than servicing China with materials that annihilate our planet.
Give your heads a shake and start brainstorming about more progressive visions of making money! Anyone can see the climate change has already begun, but if people desperate for money keep putting their heads into the ground like a herd of ostriches, they are going to make our future unlivable.
Jan Willis
Daniel H. PhelpsMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey Docks10:30 a.m., December 17, 2013

Port Metro Vancouver

Hello,

Thank you for asking for our comments regarding a proposed coal port at the Fraser Surrey Docks.

Before this project is considered considerable additional and independent assessments must be done.

1) A detailed assessment of the potential health effects of all aspects including transport from source to final use of the coal. This should be done Chief Medical Health Officers from Vancouver Coastal Health and Fraser Health.

2) An assessment of coal dust, etc. on the aquatic environment and the very important Fraser River salmon.

3) An assessment of the effects of burning additional thermal coal on climate change and on the people living close to where this will occur.

Thank you for including this in you considerations. Would you please acknowledge receipt of this;

Sincerely,

Daniel H. Phelps

91 West 14th Avenue
Vancouver, BC
V5Y 1W7
SHARON LAMPMANMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksTo Port Metro Vancouver,
In regards to transporting U.S. thermal coal for Asia through our province it is time for Port Metro Vancouver to go back to the drawing board and comply with the demands of our medical officer's, study the full scope of impacts and conduct a proper consultations with full public hearings. You need to do a new entire environmental assessment and be transparent in results. I recommend against granting a permit for Fraser Surrey Docks application. Your current impact assessment does not even meet the most basic requirements of a health impact assessment. IT IS TIME TO DO THE RIGHT THING FOR ALL BRITISH COLUMBIANS.
Janet V. PhelpsMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey Docks10:50 a.m., December 17, 2013

Port Metro Vancouver

Hello,

Thank you for asking for our comments regarding a proposed coal port at the Fraser Surrey Docks.

Before this project is considered substantial and additional and independent assessments must be done.

1) A detailed assessment of the potential health effects of all aspects including transport from source to final use of the coal. This should be done Chief Medical Health Officers from Vancouver Coastal Health and Fraser Health.

2) An assessment of coal dust, etc. on the aquatic environment and the very important Fraser River salmon.

3) An assessment of the effects of burning additional thermal coal on climate change and on the people living close to where this will occur.

Thank you for including this in you considerations. Would you please acknowledge receipt of this;

Sincerely,

Janet V. Phelps

91 West 14th Avenue
Vancouver, BC
V5Y 1W7
David AllenMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksLimiting the assessment of this project to its immediate environs is like testing for bone cancer by examining somebody's toe. It is imperative that the scope of the study encompass climate change, a pre-eminent puiblic health issue. I hope you will agree.
Sarah WeberDo not grant permit for Fraser Surrey Docks coal applicationTo Port Metro Vancouver,

I am deeply concerned to hear about the dubious quality of the EIA for the Fraser Surrey Docks coal expansion application. I understand that impacts along the shipping route have not been assessed and the greenhouse gas impacts of the end-use burning are not considered (unlike for a similar proposal near Bellingham). Of great concern is also the shutting out of health officials from the decision process. The port needs to act in the public interest and put a priority on public health. A proper EIA needs to be conducted that includes a thorough health impact assessment, in cooperation with independent medical officers.

Sarah Weber
Squamish, BC
Lee HainesMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey Docks According to our medical officers, the EIA does not meet “even the most basic requirements of a Health Impact Assessment.”
The EIA does not assess impacts of coal transport on White Rock, Surrey, Delta, Texada Island and the waters and islands along the coastal shipping route.
Unlike the assessment for a proposed coal port just across the border near Bellingham Washington, Port Metro’s EIA does not assess the greenhouse gas impacts of the end-use burning of coal.
If the port authority won’t start over and provide a proper assessment, it should deny the Fraser Surrey Docks permit and stop expanding coal exports.
Krisdy ShindlerMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksAs a public citizen of the city of Vancouver I ask you to please re-consider granting permit to the Fraser Surrey Docks to export Coal until we have had proper public hearings on the matter and had a comprehensive and independent health impact assessment. I am also adamantly against any further coal export expansion in the lower Mainland. Please listen to the people!!!
Marion OrserMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksAs a resident of New Westminster, BC I am very concerned about Coal exports and especially the increase in coal exports as planned by Fraser Surrey docks.
The environmental assessment that was done was very narrow in focus so my concerns are to the surrounding communities and the health of the people in those communities and to the impact on the Fraser River and Ocean marine life.
Also the study must assess the impact of burning the coal for the people in China and overall to the impact on the environment and the increase in CO emissions world wide.
Marilynn MarkhamMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksI am in total disagreement with the plans of Port Metro Vancouver and the Fraser/Delta Port; or any other terminals on the BC coas that will transport any fossil fuels out of the country by ship. In particular, I don't agree with shipping U.S. coal exports through our ports. I live in Surrey and am opposed to this venture for public health and safety reasons. I also wish to save the BC Coast and Salish Sea from ocean exporting ventures to other countries (China). Thank you.
jake wolfMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksAs a disabled person who lives in the lower mainland with lung disease I am opposed to granting a permit for Fraser Surrey Docks. I live in sub.poverty as a result of my disability. What am I supposed to do? Die in order for a.profit to be made or just relocate to some area Fraser Surrey Docks deems undesirable to their financial gains? Neither is going to happen. Over my dead body.
Janet Hinton-MannHow can you deny us clean air?I would like to recommend that you do not grant a permit for the Fraser Surrey Dock's application.

Since moving to the Lower Mainland 6 years ago, my family has been suffering through allergies due to the reduced air quality. All of us have frequent sinus infections, and my chronic bronchitis is constantly flaring. Now you want to further strain our lungs...and our hearts, lungs, and brains...with coal particles?

We live in a crucial time. Right now those in power such as yourself can stand up and choose long-term health over profit. The Americans didn't want their dirty coal flowing through their ports; are we to be weak and allow it here? Surely there are principles involved. Do you have family? I'm sure you want to care for them first.

I understand you're under a lot of pressure to allow this permit. I'm sure there are good reasons for you to sign on the dotted line. But what about the reasons NOT TO?

Please think of the future, not in terms of financial health, but in the physical health of our Lower Mainland.
R. RyonMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey Docks
Both my husband and I and all of our friends find it impossible to believe that in 2013 our government is considering allowing a toxic, industrial-age fossil fuel in solid form to be transported through our pristine waters and to pollute our clean ocean air.

It is unconscionable. It is unreasonable. It is based on greed and greed alone.

We ask you not to allow this. It is a reasonable request. It is time for governments of every level to take positive action on the environment and the health of citizens. Focus on CLEAN ENERGY. Research and put effort into developing solar and wind power for everyone. There is no need to build more dams or burn coal! The sun and the wind (and the ocean waves) are available to be harnessed!

Please do NOT allow coal to be brought into our ports. Or tankers for that matter.

Just a few years ago, we could take our dogs down to the Indian Arm and let them swim. Not any more. The water has an almost constant slick of oil and pollution on it. We used to love going up to the North Shore mountains for a hike. Not any more. We look from Burnaby towards the North Shore and we can see the pollution hanging in the air. Our air quality—even in Burnaby—is often poor. And we rarely drive. So this is unacceptable to us. Doing anything that will cause even MORE POLLUTION is out of the question.

We citizens are at the end of our rope having to monitor and contact you government people. We hired you to DO THE RIGHT THING. It is obvious. The right thing is never based on greed and profit for a few corporate shareholders. The right thing is what helps the most people AND the environment at the same time. It’s not just our future, it’s the future of subsequent generations that you would be destroying if you allow coal, oil and other toxins to enter our waterways and our airways.

Show the U.S. and the rest of the world that Canadians are NOT FOR SALE. Tell them NO COAL IN OUR PORTS! NO OIL IN OUR PORTS!
Craig RunyanMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksIn light of the concerns
expressed by Medical Health Officers and First Nations, I urge you to not grant a permit for the current Fraser Surrey Docks application. It seems obvious that much more assessment of health and environmental concerns is warranted.
Thanks for your consideration of these concerns.
Irene HowardMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksA pipeline shipping crude through Metro Vancouver? through our delta farmland? through Marpole? I live in Marpole and I oppose this plan. The Vancouver Port Authority must do some work on this. How' is it going to affect the health of the people of Vancouver?
Keith GilleyMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksUnlike the anthracite coal shipping from Deltaport, the Wyoming coal is the bituminous variety, much softer, dustier and dirtier and far more likely to result in health problems among people living near to transportation corridors and storage sites. I oppose the importation of such coal.
Emily DechantMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksIt's with great concern I'm in favour that NO permit is granted for Fraser Surrey Docks.

Failing to meet basic requirements of a Health Impact Assessment is unacceptable & ignorant. The negative impact on communities, health and the environment are not worth the risk.
Beth Goulet-HillierMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksI am against the Fraser Surrey Docks application. I am concerned about the environmental impact and the impact on health as this will contaminate our waters. Enough is enough - Stop this now!
Rebecca AbernethyEnvironmental Impact Assessment for Fraser Surrey Docks - CommentsI am writing in response to the Fraser Surrey Docks' (FSD) Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

Like many other public and environmental health officials, I found the EIA to be lacking in many key areas, such as health impacts from noise, reduced access to emergency care due to blocked rail crossings, and other components specifically requested by the Fraser Health Authority.

Further, it is absolutely critical that such an assessment reveal the full implications of the end use of combustion of thermal coal, its greenhouse gas and other air pollutant emissions, and contribution to global warming. If Canada is going to have any role in transporting thermal coal in the years 2013 and beyond, such an archaic, dirty fuel strongly contributing to THE most pressing issue on planet Earth right now (climate change), the proponents absolutely must justify how their actions, or withdraw their application. The onus to prove that these activities is ok is entirely on the proponents, and they have wildly failed to do so in this case.

If the Port of Metro Vancouver does not require FSD to re-do their assessment, and to do a comprehensive job on it, is must deny them a permit.
Kathleen BeatonMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksI am appalled at the lack of care and concern by Port Metro Vancouver for the health of residents of communities bordering the river. How can you push ahead with your proposal to transport coal without doing a proper assessment? You are ignoring the request for an independent health impact assessment that is being made by our health officers. How do you expect us to accept and welcome the port in our community when you have this kind of attitude? You are definitely making this an "us against them" kind of issue by not working cooperatively with and on behalf of local residents. I demand that you carry out an independent health impact assessment so that we are all aware of the impact that coal transport will have. If this does not happen, then deny Fraser docks their permit and stop expanding coal exports!
Julian D.My comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksOh, how lovely! You're putting a few extra bucks above the safety and health of hundreds of families! That's just wonderful for the children, won't it be nice for them to grow up with asthma? And think of how many fantastic memories you're going to be creating, all those hospital visits where kids can watch their parents whither away and slowly asphyxiate in a hospital bed? And just think! Those extra bucks you'll be making, wow! On top of all the GREAT stuff above, you'll have enough money to FINALLY take that private jet to the Caymans! You guys are doing God's work over there, keep it up!
Seriously. Get your heads out of your asses and try to see something OTHER than dollar signs for a change.
Skye RichardsMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksWe need to make the shift away from dirty fuel and unhealthy energy source and in earnest subsidized the advancement of other power sources immediately! To build more infrastructure on these outdated energy sources is a real waste of money.
Nicola KozakiewiczMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksMy family is totally opposed to the Port Metro Vancouver coal transportation project as it is currently proposed. We are concerned with the 20 -fold increase in coal shipments to & from Texada Island with no studies or consultation having the taken place beyond the sand heads of the Fraser River. As it stands now, residents of Texada Island, Vancouver Island & the Sunshine Coast should have a voice as they stand to be
negatively impacted by the project. No agency is taking the lead in protecting the ecosystem of the Georgia St. or its coastline.
The Metro Port of Vancouver must provide a comprehensive, third party navigational risk assessment, environmental management plan, health impact assessment & hold full public consultations before any decisions are made to go forward with this project.
Shaun TyakoffMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksI'm very concerned that the environmental impact assessment does not meet the requirements of health impact assessment. I'm particularly concerned about the impact of coal dust blowing onto residential areas along the coastal shipping route. In addition, it is imperiative that any true environmental impact assessment include the affects of greenhouse gas emmissions of burning coal.
Alan DeanMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksI wish to draw your attention to the following concerns:

* According to medical officers, the EIA does not meet “even the most basic requirements of a Health Impact Assessment.”
• The EIA does not assess impacts of coal transport on White Rock, Surrey, Delta, Texada Island and the waters and islands along the coastal shipping route.
• Unlike the assessment for a proposed coal port just across the border near Bellingham Washington, Port Metro’s EIA does not assess the greenhouse gas impacts of the end-use burning of coal.
• If the port authority won’t start over and provide a proper assessment, it should deny the Fraser Surrey Docks permit and stop expanding coal exports.

What we need at this time of rapid change in both environmental and economic circumstances is the development of long-term sustainable practices. Only by such means can the economic and social future of BC be assured. Please consider carefully the clear negative economic and environmental consequences of dependence on coal and reject this development.
Joe LanteigneMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksVancouverites value the initiative to have Vancouver the greenest city in North America. Coal being the dirtiest form of energy and having this port promoting coalwould move Vancouver to be amongst the very dirtiest cities in North America. I am also a frequent visitor to Texada Island and I am horrified by this proposal.
Sayla ChristieMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksMore research needs to be done on the potential impacts. Canada already has a bad reputation on environmental protection and yet we have the most stunning environment to protect! Please for the sake of our heritage and future take the precautions to protect this place from hazards.
Linda YaukMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksI'm very concerned that there have been no public hearings on the proposal to export coal, and that the environmental impact assessment does not meet basic requirements for a health impact assessment nor does it assess the impacts of coal transport on the lands and waters along the coastal shipping route. Unless public hearings are held, and a more comprehensive EIA and health impact assessment are conducted, a permit should be not given to Fraser Surrey Docks (or any other company) for coal transport.
Larry KazdanMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksConduct a proper assessment and don't grant a permit for Fraser Surrey Docks' application.
Barbara DoerkenMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksI am frustrated as I choose to walk, but by doing so my health is at greater risk for breathing in particulates. THis is also a concern re: coal. The health of people living nearby coal trains is at higher risk.Coal is dirty, people in China are already suffering from the effects of coal burning. South Korea already has thick smog from China's coal burning.How can our salmon get upriver with huge boats in their way? How can the whales cope with all this extra traffic in the ocean? How can people live safely in areas like White Rock with a train downtown. Assessments must be thorough and realistic. Think Again. B
Ariel RossAn inadequate environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksHaving grown up in Tsawwassen BC, downwind from the Westshore coal terminal, with a powder blue coloured home consistently covered in a mixture of cedar sap and coal dust, I know a bit about the impacts coal transhipments can have on the well being of communities and people. In light of this, I sincerely urge you not to grant a permit for Fraser Surrey docks to transport thermal coal from the US through our communities for export. My plea is based on the abundant inadequacies in the assessment process that more than 3000 citizens have already brought to your attention. These are supported by the recommendations of our health authorities and many local governments. They are rightfully concerned about the potential impacts this project will have on community health as well as the health of our democracy. I recommend that you listen to the vast majority of people whose input you are seemingly asking for through this process. Deny the permit for the project and halt the expansion of coal exports through BC until thorough and independent environmental and health impact assessments have been conducted where all potential impacts, including climactic and socio-economic ones, are considered. As citizens of this province, we deserve a say in the projects that affect us. We deserve to have a role in the decision making process, as do our local leaders and health authorities. We have spoken, and we are overwhelmingly saying no. Will you listen?
Gordon KenneyMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksThe current governments of our country and province state that science will be the basis of decisions, yet they ignore science in approving industrial projects.
Beverley PlayfairMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksPlease stop ignoring the chief medical officers concerns and let's have a public hearing regarding this massive coal export proposal. We need to make sure we are looking after our environment so there will be something left for our children, grandchildren and generations to come.
Marilyn KoyanagiMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksI am vehemently opposed to the granting of a permit for Fraser Surrey Docks and any expansion of coal export in the Lower Mainland. Having lived in Tsawwassen, I have seen first hand the dust that drifts through the air from the transport of coal. Breathing this dust cannot help but have adverse effects on people's health. It is the duty of the port to have a comprehensive and independent health impact assessment done as well as a complete environmental assessment.
George SrankoMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksI strongly oppose any increase in coal exports via the Fraser Surrey Docks. British Columbia's impacts on greenhouse gases and climate change are already too high and we need to cut back on coal and other fossil fuels.

Unlike the assessment for a proposed coal port just across the border near Bellingham Washington, Port Metro’s EIA does not assess the greenhouse gas impacts of the end-use burning of coal.

In addition, the team of physicians who studied the impacts of coal storage and transportation over a two-year period discovered significant impacts on people's hearts, lungs and brains.
Glen PorterComment on environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksI recommend that Port Metro Vancouver deny the Fraser Surrey Docks permit for coal export.

Oregon and Washington states have blocked coal export proposals due to public concerns about environmental and health impacts. The health of BC residents and BC's environment are at least as worthy of protection as those of our American neighbours. We do not need to assist American coal producers to ship their coal to dwindling foreign markets at the expense of BC's own environment and public health.

Prominent health officials in BC, including the chief medical officers for the Fraser and Vancouver Coastal Health Authorities, and BC’s chief medical officer, have stated that the EIA does not meet “even the most basic requirements of a Health Impact Assessment.” They have called for a comprehensive health impact assessment to determine the impacts of airborne dust and potential contamination of air, land, food and fish harvested from contaminated waters. Such an assessment would also look at diesel exhaust impacts, the effects of increased railway traffic, and noise pollution.

The EIA does not assess impacts of coal transport on White Rock, Surrey, Delta, Texada Island and the waters and islands along the coastal shipping route. Surely the EIA is incomplete unless it does so. And unlike the assessment for a proposed coal port across the border near Bellingham, Washington, Port Metro’s EIA does not assess the greenhouse gas impacts of the end-use burning of coal.

Cumulative impacts on the marine environment, especially the eelgrass beds that provide vital nursery services for migratory salmon and other marine species, must also be addressed.

If the port authority won’t start over and provide a proper assessment, it should deny the Fraser Surrey Docks permit and stop expanding coal exports.
Nicolas HaldemannMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksDear Ministers,
It is very concerning that we do not have a proper health impact study.
And also we should divert our economy away from dirty coal and other fusel fuels.
For a better future, let’s put efforts in to clean energy.
Thank you
Bonnie Mae NewsmallMy comment on the environmental impact assessment for Fraser Surrey DocksThey banned this kind of coal export port in the U.S. due to the terrible impact on their own and the global environment, and now they want to move it to B.C... why are we willing to absorb/create this impact, when the U.S. is not? Please do not grant permits for Fraser Surrey Docks or others for this use. We need to create jobs and businesses with a future, there is no future in burning coal.
kelsey CorbettNO FRASER SURREY DOCKS!!!!!!!Hello Port Metro Vancouver, I'm writing to let you know that I think your review of the Fraser Surrey Docks oversees a lot of obvious environmental and health factors in the name of monetary gain. People need to breathe, and we need to take responsibility to the land we (corporations and the state much more included) have entitled ourselves to. We are not representing this land, we are raping it of its life for a made up system that perpetuates our ideologies and inflated egos. Deny the Docks!!! Kelsey Corbett
Mike McGuinnessUnacceptable RiskThis project needs to be put on hold until the risk to public health is dealt with acceptably in the eyes of public health officials.
Marje UmezukiCoal ExportNO! - daft idea - going back to the dark ages
Nicholas John EllanCoal export expansion doesn't make senseWe need to transition to a zero-carbon society to stop climate change, not expand exports of thermal coal to support dirty power. Coal emissions are a leading cause of lung cancer and early death in developing nations. As one of the richest countries in the world, we need to be investing in the future, not exploiting others by expanding our resource extraction initiatives.
Sophie HarrisonSay no to more coal exportsNow is the time to be investing in a clean, renewable energy future. As a student and young person, expanding coal exports out of Metro Vancouver is a step in the exact wrong direction. It is environmentally hazardous to our local communities, and disastrous for the global climate. Though we are not burning the coal here, it's ultimate combustion down the line will contribute to the disastrous rise in atmospheric carbon levels. The associated rise in sea levels, increased droughts, more floods and increasingly devastating storms will destroy people's lives and livelihoods. We can do better, and the public demands it. Climate change will be the challenge our generation is judged by. Let us seize this moment for leadership, and say no to more coal exports.
Anna Wallace NO! Fraser Surrey Docks, No!To Port Metro Vancouver, I say NO to Fraser Surrey Docks, NO to your sham review process, and NO to dirty coal. If you approve the project, I pledge to take to the streets to stop Fraser Surrey Docks from being built. Your review of the Fraser Surrey Docks project is fundamentally flawed, and the environmental impact assessment currently open to public comment has been criticized by everyone from health officers to local governments to impacted communities. It’s biased because it was carried out by consultants hired by Fraser Surrey Docks. It’s undemocratic because there are no public hearings, and the comments submitted won’t be made public. It also seems to me like it’s already a done deal because 8 days in to the comment period, your CEO said he was satisfied with the assessment. And finally, the assessment doesn’t take climate change into account! I am aware that the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks (FSD) Coal Facility would handle up to 8 million metric tonnes of coal annually, and pump about 17 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere each year. Coal dust and diesel particulates from coal trains would negatively impact community health. I do not want Greater Vancouver to be the largest coal exporter in all of North America! I want to keep coal in the ground, and its pollution out of our lungs and away from the climate. Sincerely, Anna Wallace
Kate VincentNew coal transfer facility at Fraser Surrey Docks I am adamantly opposed to this new facility and to any increase in the export of any coal from our area, let alone U.S. coal. If they intend to export this dirty, global warming product, let them do it from their own ports -- not ours. This issue is not about commerce or the economy. It's about the health and safety of people everywhere.
R ParkOpposition to FSD proposed coal portDear Port Metro Vancouver, I am writing to oppose the Fraser Surrey Docks coal expansion plan. I DO NOT want to see the Lower Mainland become the largest exporter of coal in North America, which this, and other projects are poised to create. I am opposed to the Fraser Surrey Docks coal export facility construction due to the impact on the climate. We need to stop putting our money into fossil fuel projects and instead start looking at alternatives. I'm also incredibly concerned about the impact that coal dust will have on respiratory health of the Lower Mainland, and concerned about the respiratory health of those where the coal is being burnt. I am also incredibly disappointed in the Port's response to protest. I support community members taking action to demonstrate their opposition to projects, particularly when there has already been so much opposition to this project. That the Port would issue a statement that calls protest violent, demonstrates a bullying tactic. Finally, I find it incredibly nefarious that the Port would be using a lobby firm from the United States, where community resistance has rejected coal ports. This does not make any sense for a federal authority. Sincerely, R Park Concerned Vancouver Resident
R Bruce WoodEIA comments to the Port Dear Sirs I am writing this letter to object to the limited scope of the Environmental Impact Assessment. Clearly, if the Fraser Surrey Docks | Direct Transfer Coal Facility expansion takes place, the increase of rail traffic and the increase of industrial activity through and around Urban and Suburban areas will increase noise and vibration , increase coal dust pollution and increase train and tug engine exhaust pollution. An increase of industrial activity of this type clearly, will cause the surrounding urban and suburban areas to be less desirable. The expansion will, most likely, also diminish the value of adjacent industrial land. How is it that, a Port Authority, has the power to diminish the value of Municipal Land? Has the Environmental Impact Assessment attempted to quantify the lost of property values of lands adjacent to this extended industrial activity stretching from the US boarder to the river? Has an attempt been made estimate the loss of property values that has occurred in the last few years resulting from the increase of rail traffic through White Rock and Crescent Beach. Has the Environmental Impact Assessment assessed the Municipal Tax Revenue loss, resulting from the loss of property value loss? To state clearly my simple objection, an Environmental Impact Assessment is not complete unless a best guess “bottom line” dollar value is Assess due to a most probable Environmental Impact of The Port Expansion. Clearly, People do not like coal dust being sprinkled on their property! Clearly, People do not like breathing engine exhaust! Clearly, People do not like noise and vibration! Clearly, an increase of these adds up to an Public Nuisance. And finally, Clearly property owners have “THE RIGHT to the enjoyment of their Property! Regards Bruce Wood Surrey, BC
Ken HamerCoal Shipping Through British ColumbiaI vehemently object to the proposed increase in transportation of coal in British Columbia, and particularly through the Lower Mainland. The truth of the information which has been promulgated to the public has been questioned and disputed by knowledgeable sources, and I believe that our health and environment would be at risk if this plan were to proceed. At the very least, a truly independent assessment should be carried out by qualified experts and the public should be consulted before any further action is taken. Sincerely, Ken Hamer
JillNo To Coal!We demand consensus, democratic process, transparency and acknowledgement that climate change is a real issue that this short sighted initiative totally ignores in favor of lining the pockets of a few while ruining every aspect of our environment for all. In solidarity from your friends south of the border. It's our water too. Don't think an international border prevents strong grassroots communities. Don't think the Affable Canadian Busness Model is going to fool anyone anymore. Peace and justice, Jill
Kelsey CorbettDeny Fraser Surrey DocksTo Port Metro Vancouver, I say NO to Fraser Surrey Docks, NO to your sham review process, and NO to dirty coal. If you approve the project, I pledge to take to the streets to stop Fraser Surrey Docks from being built. Your review of the Fraser Surrey Docks project is fundamentally flawed, and the environmental impact assessment currently open to public comment has been criticized by everyone from health officers to local governments to impacted communities. It’s biased because it was carried out by consultants hired by Fraser Surrey Docks. It’s undemocratic because there are no public hearings, and the comments submitted won’t be made public. It also seems to me like it’s already a done deal because 8 days in to the comment period, your CEO said he was satisfied with the assessment. And finally, the assessment doesn’t take climate change into account! I am aware that the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks (FSD) Coal Facility would handle up to 8 million metric tonnes of coal annually, and pump about 17 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere each year. Coal dust and diesel particulates from coal trains would negatively impact community health. I do not want Greater Vancouver to be the largest coal exporter in all of North America! I want to keep coal in the ground, and its pollution out of our lungs and away from the climate. Sincerely, Kelsey Corbett
Lisa BarrettCoal Export EIATo Port Metro Vancouver, If you approve the Fraser Surrey Docks project I promise that I will be among the many who will take to the streets, the airwaves and across every social media platform to oppose the construction of the Fraser Surrey Docks and the proposed transportation of coal through this region. The SNC Lavalin review of the Fraser Surrey Docks project is fundamentally flawed though not surprisingly, given the scandalous reputation of that company and its notorious dependence on government procurement contracts. While PMV’s website claims commitments to environmental and sustainability principles, the ‘environmental impact assessment’ fails to address the serious concerns raised by health officials, basic environmental issues obviously associated with the entire coal supply chain or the most important issue facing mankind today: global climate change caused by burning of carbon fuels. As a former MetroVancouver board director, I’m alarmed that the Port Metro Vancouver board would contract with a notorious and disreputable private PR and lobbyist firm (Edelman) in order to advance the private corporate interests of the US coal industry. Somehow that smacks of abuse of authority and conflict of interest under the provisions by which Port Metro Vancouver was established by the Federal Government. In closing I would add that the comments made to date by Port Metro Vancouver do not indicate an unbiased position. Quite the contrary: Your CEO has already expressed confidence in the report well before the comment period has closed. Sincerely, Lisa Barrett, Bowen Island - unceded Coast Salish Territories
Simon ChildRe: Concern over Port expansion to SurreyDear members of the Project Review Committee, I am a Canadian and a resident Surrey. I am writing you to express my deep concern over the expansion of the port into Fraser Surrey docks which would make BC one of the primary exporters of coal in the world. Coal is one of the dirtiest forms of energy and in this global context of human-induced climate change, which disproportionately affects the most vulnerable, it is socially irresponsible to support the coal industry in their efforts to get the dirty energy to market. It is my understanding that the assessment of the port expansion project has been extremely problematic and undemocratic: the assessment was done by consultants paid for by industry, there was no public space for dialogue like a hearing, and most importantly, the assessment doesn't talk about the disaster of climate change to which the Fraser Surrey docks will no doubt contribute to. Therefore as a Canadian and a resident of Surrey I urge you to ask for another assessment that is more self-critical and aware of the potentially disastrous impacts of climate change which this project will exacerbate. Say NO to this development project, it will be harmful for communities and the planet. This project will pump approximately 17 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. Coal dust and diesel particulates from coal trains would have devastating health impacts for surrounding communities. Please reject this project for the sake of these communities health and for the well being of our global climate. Should this project go throw, I may be compelled to express my concern through my constitutional right to peacefully protest and take to the streets. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Simon Child
JAKE COOKECOAL EXPORTTo whom it may concern (which should be everyone) The expansion being proposed is unfair to the environment and future generations of people. We all need to look at the big picture. It is not in our best interest to be raping the world like we are. Don't speed up the destruction of our environment. -Jake

Wendy Coste
Comments on the Proposed Fraser Surrey Docks Transfer Coal Facility
I deserve a full independent hearing on the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks coal facility, as has been afforded to citizens of Washington State by regulators assessing coal terminals this year.
I deserve a comprehensive health impact assessment of the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks coal facility, as publicly recommended by Health Authority officials.
I am concerned about the climate impacts currently being experienced in Canada and throughout the world, which are exacerbated by the export and consumption of fossil fuels.
I urge you to deny Fraser Surrey Docks a permit for its proposed coal facility, and to start taking responsibility for the climate damage that will result from the growing export of fossil fuels from Metro Vancouver ports.

Wendy Coste
Mill bay, B C
wyndi palmerConcerns with Vancouver Metro PortI do not support the proposal to ship coal. coal is a horrible fuel source, it has immense negative impact on our environmental health. The Canadian government and the world needs to address the limited amount of resource and the generational effects that result from this unsound practice. i strongly disagree with the direction of your company and your priorities for short term monetary benefits over the sustainability and welfare of all the inhabitants of this planet.
John HillCoal Export EIAI am appalled at the lack of openness, transparency and the lack of public hearings in the EIA of your Coal Export project. Why were the strong negative views of regional Health authorities of coal dust dangers to the many residents nearby and upwind of the the railway and port facilities proposed not taken into account from the start of the process? The opposing views of the municipal governments of Delta, White Rock and New Westminster must also be taken into account from the start. Why also has the EIA not included the huge impact on climate change of the burning of this dirty coal? Why are we taking on such a project with such small economic benefits relative to the huge negative environmental, health and social costs, when no US port would, as it is US coal? Please put a moratorium on this project until a comprehensive and proper EIA with public hearings has been carried out. If you proceed with this project without that, rest assured I have pledged to publicly protest this project until we, the public, have stopped it. Sincerely John Hill Vancouver
Eva van LoonNo coal up the Salish SeaThe community of Powell River is not being consulted about the desirability of shipping coal to Texada Island--who gives a hoot about the opinions of 16,000 humans and a bunch of deer, orca, dolphins, bear, wolves, cougars and coyotes? Running "thermal" coal up here will ruin the Salish Sea and our community and ecology in fairly short order. The relatively short history of big industry has proven the validity of Murphy's Law: if something can go wrong, it will. Texada and Powell River are still recovering from being a resource-extraction community and making the transition to a sustainable way of life--the plan to move coal through our lives will end all our efforts. No matter how many "jobs" such an undertaking creates, the risk is not worth it. Go away. We have far better things to do in this beautiful and still fairly natural community.
Eric Billsthe environmental impact assessment was inadequate and a new one needs to be conductedI live on the Sunshine Coast and I am writing to express my dissatisfaction with the environmental impact assessment (EIA) that was conducted for the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority regarding the Fraser Surrey Docks permit. The EIA did not adequately address the environmental and health impacts of the proposed transportation of thermal coal from the U.S. to Texada Island and on to Asia. New health and environmental assessments need to be conducted for the entire route. Currently the EIA does not even tackle the issue of the water transportation of the coal on open barges, which is totally inadequate. Living on the Sunshine Coast, the barges will be passing between us and Vancouver Island. There has not been adequate studies conducted to ensure the safety of our coast and the marine life contained nearby. There are many questions yet to be answered or addressed such as: 1. What is the spill plan for coal that escapes from the barges? 2. What is the impact of the coal that will be blown off the barges on the marine environment including but not limited to the wild salmon, the glass sponge reefs, the oyster farms along Vancouver Island, the eel grass, the forage fish, and the fish farms. 3. What is the spill response plan if one of the huge single-hulled ships crashes and spill the coal into the ocean? What will be the impact of all the coal that is released from the ship that crashes? What will be the monetary cost of it? Who will be liable for the damages? 4. What impact will the barge and ship traffic have on the whales and other marine life? 5. How much coal dust will be blown off the barges and how far will it travel? Since I live on the Sunshine Coast, I am concerned it will be blown in our direction and pollute our shoreline and coast. What testing has been done to determine this? What are the health risks to me, my family and friends if the coal dust blows over to our shore? 6. What is the response plan if one of the barges should capsize? 7. Why aren't the barges going to be covered to prevent coal dust from escaping? 8. What impact will the barge traffic have on other marine traffic? 9. How much thermal coal will be blown off the piles on Texada Island, where will it go and what will the impact be? 10. What will be the impact on the marine environment from the water runoff from the piles of coal on Texada Island? What studies have been conducted related to this issue? The issue of the impact of burning all of the coal on climate change is not adequately addressed in the EIA and it must be. Climate change is happening and is costing billions of dollars in damages related to the increase in sea levels and the intensity of storms. Will the companies shipping all of this coal be liable for the damages caused by the burning of the coal? Not likely, I know, but why should we the taxpayers be responsible? How much will the increase in sea levels from burning all of this coal cost us here on the coast? Climate change must be addressed in the EIA and calculated into whether this proposal makes fiscal sense for all the local residents. Another issue not adequately addressed in the EIA is the noise caused by the transportation of the coal. Here are questions that still need to be answered: 1. How loud are train engines? Squeaking wheels? Whistle blasts? How loud it this 50 meters, 100 meters, 200 meters, up to 5 kilometers from the tracks? We request this data to be shown in an easy-to-understand format, including maps with "sound contours" (noise isopleths). 2. How much vibration does a coal train produce? How intense is this at 50 meters, 100 meters, 200 meters, up to 5 kilometers from the tracks? 3. How many people live within 50 meters, 100 meters, 200 meters, 500 meters, 1000 meters, 2 kilometers and 3 kilometers along the entire route from the border to Fraser Surrey Docks? 4. How much noise and/or vibration wakes an average person? A light sleeper?? 5. How much noise or vibration distracts a working person? A concentrating student? 6. For each train along the entire route, how many crossings are there? How many whistle blasts per crossing? How many whistle blasts in total for a single train traveling from the border crossing to Fraser Surrey Docks? How many whistle blasts per day in all? How many of these are at night during sleeping hours (8 PM to 8 AM)? 7. For each train, including engine noise, vibration, squealing wheels, and whistle blasts, how many people will be awakened, based on current and projected populations? How many children? How many adults? How many elderly? All calculations must include projected populations as well, since the terminal has an operating span of 50 years. 8. How many times per night will a person be awakened, from noise or vibration, who lives various distances from the tracks (including distances: 50 meters, 100 meters, 200 meters, 500 meters, 1 kilometer, 2 kilometers and 5 kilometers) in all areas and communities along the route? 9. How many awakenings per night, including all people along the entire route up to 5 kilometers away from tracks, including all trains, based on current and projected populations and further port expansions for all ports within PMV? Considering the noise and vibration, multiple awakenings and resultant fatigue, how many people may potentially have increased blood pressure, or elevated stress hormones, including current and projected populations? What is the total economic cost of increased blood pressure, elevated stress hormones? 12. Considering the noise and vibration, multiple awakenings and resultant fatigue, how many arrythmias, or heart attacks could potentially result from the increased noise, including current and projected populations? What is the total economic cost of the arrythmias, or heart attacks? 13. Considering the noise and vibration, multiple awakenings and resultant fatigue, how many strokes could potentially result from the increased noise, including current and projected populations? What is the total economic cost of the strokes? 14. Considering the noise and vibration, multiple awakenings and resultant fatigue, how much increased mental disease may result from associated stress, including but not limited to: depression, mental instability, neurosis, hysteria, and psychosis, including current and projected populations? What is the potential economic cost of the increased mental disease? 15. What is the potential impact of noise, vibration, multiple awakenings, and fatigue on childhood learning? On childhood test scores? What is the total economic cost of the learning impairment? 16. What is the potential impact of noise, vibration, multiple awakenings, and fatigue on workplace performance and safety? What is the total economic cost of the impaired workplace performance and safety? 17. How many increased traffic accidents may result from fatigue- associated sleep disturbance, including current and projected populations? What is the total economic cost of the accidents? Cost in terms of human morbidity? 18. Who pays for the economic costs of the impacts listed above?? 19. Medical research comes forth at an intense pace. When new health impacts of noise are inevitably identified or quantified, how can the public be assured that their health will be weighed in the balance of ongoing risks/benefits of FSD operations? Another issue not adequately addressed by the EIA relates to the coal dust that will be lost in transit. These questions still need answering: 1. How much coal dust from the storage and transportation of coal can be expected along each section of the rail corridor and shipping lanes from the border crossing to the proposed terminal on Texada Island and ultimately leaving Canadian waters? 2. How much coal is lost from residual dust still on the cars as they leave the coal terminal after unloading (so called “carryback coal”)? How much of the “carryback coal” is expect to be lost in between FSD and the border in particular? How much accumulation will result after 50 years of transport (the operating life of the terminal)? 3. How many coal train derailments can be expected along the rail corridor per year of operation of the proposed export terminal? 4. What will be the effect of contamination from coal dust and spills on farm land and near schools along the rail corridor and on the waters between FSD and Texada Island ? 5. What will be the effect of contamination from coal dust and spills on grazing animals used for human consumption? 6. What will be the effect of contamination from coal dust and spills on fresh water supplies for humans and animals? 7. What will be the effect of contamination from coal dust and spills on marine habitat for fish and other seafood? 8. How many people can be expected to be affected by the increased exposure to mercury and other heavy metal contaminants of coal, such as cancer, including current and projected populations? 9. How many children and adults can be expected to have increased risk of asthma and other respiratory diseases, including current and projected populations? 10. What health and safety impacts may be present at the coal port itself, including increased rates of cancer that have been reported at a large coal port? 11. What is the economic cost of these health impacts? Who pays for the costs? 12. What is the cost of cleanup of the cumulative environmental contamination? How ?effective is the cleanup? Who pays for the cost? Including oil spills that result from ships transporting coal having accidents within the Salish Sea? 13. Medical research comes forth at an intense pace. When new health impacts of coal ?dust and combustion are inevitably identified or quantified, how can the public be assured that their health will be weighed in the balance of ongoing risks/benefits of FSD operations? Another area of concern for me is the length of the trains that will be transporting the coal and the impact these trains will have. Many questions still need answering such as: 1. How many rail crossings are there along the rail corridor from the US border to Fraser Surrey Docks? 2., How many of these rail crossings are unprotected? 3. What are the costs to provide protective barriers at these crossings and who will ?bear these costs? 4. How often and for how long will these crossings be blocked by the increased rail ?traffic en route to FSD? Delay should be calculated for each crossing to account ?for differences in local circumstances. 5. How many times daily do EMS vehicles, including police, fire and medic units, ?cross rail lines? Please note that an ambulance needs to cross twice to transport a ?patient to a hospital. 6. What will be the cumulative and per incident delay in access to these services ?caused by rail traffic en route to FSD (including actual blockage of the crossing, as well as alleviation of resultant congestion)? Please again note that an ambulance generally needs to cross twice to transport a patient to a hospital. 7. How many people are affected at each crossing, based on current and projected populations as shown in relevant planning documents? 8. What crossings and locations are most likely to result in significant delays at crossings? 9. How often are there alternative crossings? How much time is lost to route through alternate crossings, rather than the shortest route? 10. Is there any current established system to alert EMS vehicles of impending crossing closures? 11. How much would such a system cost and who would bear the cost of developing such systems? 12. How does backed up traffic at crossings and the dispersion of that traffic effect EMS response times? 13. How often and to what severity will these delays in EMS response times lead to delays in care and to otherwise avoidable outcomes such as death or permanent disability? 14. What is the amount of healthcare cost attributable to patients receiving delayed EMS services as a result of increased rail traffic at full utilization of FSD? 15. How will the project applicant mitigate these impacts (grade separation at crossings, construction of new hospitals, support for additional paramedics, medivac services, etc.?) 16. How many rail crossing accidents, injuries, and deaths will be attributable to increased rail traffic en route to FSD? 17. What is the anticipated cost of these accidents, including anticipated litigation and long term care costs? 18. How many coal train derailments would be anticipated to occur across the BC over time, given that there have been nineteen in 2012 alone in the US and Canada, for the full useful life of the port expansion (50 years)? 19. Where are the likely sites of these derailments, and are any of these potentially dangerous or inadequately designed rail lines in major population densities? The other issue I am concerned about regarding these long trains is the amount of diesel that will be used to power them and the impact of burning to much diesel along the train route. Questions that still need answering include: 1. How much diesel particulate matter (DPM) and toxins will people be exposed to at 50 meters, 100 meters, 200 meters, up to 2 kilometers from the tracks when a train goes by? We request this data to be shown in an easy-to-understand format, including maps with "pollution contours" (isopleths). 2. What neighborhoods will be exposed to even greater DPM and toxins due to ?trains idling on sidings, both existing and future? How much DPM and toxins will these areas be exposed to? 3. How much DPM and toxins will result from the ships and barges, including ships that are at anchor (staging), at the dock, or in transit? 4. What will the impact of temperature inversion weather conditions be on air pollutants? How high may the concentrations get? 5. How many people live within 50 meters, 100 meters, 200 meters, 500 meters, 1 kilometer, 2 kilometers, and 5 kilometers along the entire transportation route from entering Canada to the Strait of Juan de Fuca, including current and projected populations? 6. How many of the people living, going to school, or working within the distances above are children, including current and projected populations? Elderly? Have any form of pulmonary or cardiovascular disease? 7. How many increased asthma attacks, ER visits, and hospitalizations will result, including current and projected populations, and including under temperature inversion conditions? 8. How many increased strokes will result, including current and projected populations, and including under temperature inversion conditions? 9. How many increased myocardial infarctions (heart attacks) will result, including current and projected populations, and including under temperature inversion conditions? 10. How many COPD exacerbations will result, including current and projected populations, and including under temperature inversion conditions? 11. How much cancer will result, including current and projected populations? 12. How much acrolein, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, heavy metals (including but not ?limited to mercury, lead, and arsenic), 1,3-Butadiene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or other toxins will be deposited cumulatively? This should be analyzed in a cumulative fashion, (i.e. additive) over the full life of the proposed facilities (up to the 50 years life span of the terminal). 13. What are the effects of chronic exposure of the above compounds on: Neonatal and childhood development? Blood and lymphatic systems? Respiratory system? Cardiovascular system? Reproduction? Cancer? 14. What is the cost of cleanup of the cumulative environmental contaminants? How effective is the cleanup? Who pays the cost? 15. What is the economic cost of all of the health impacts combined? Who pays for the costs? Medical research comes forth at an intense pace. 16. When new health impacts of diesel particulate matter are inevitably identified or quantified, how can the public be assured that their health will be weighed in the balance of ongoing risks/benefits of the proposed operations? In conclusion, I think the Port Authority’s assessment of the risks of coal export expansion is fundamentally flawed and should be scrapped. They need to start over. I call on the Port to put a moratorium on coal export expansion and commit to working with key stakeholders to conduct proper health and environmental impact assessments. In my view, these new assessments must include the following features: they must involve key stakeholders like our Health Authorities from the start, including determining the scope and terms of reference; they must include an assessment of the risks of the proposed coal export expansion at Neptune Terminals; they must consider all local impacts from the time the coal enters our region by rail to the time it enters international waters by ocean going vessel; they must consider climate change impacts of the end use of that coal; they must be open and transparent and incorporate public hearings. If the port cannot or will not properly assess the potential impacts of coal exports, it should deny the Fraser Surrey Docks permit and suspend any further expansion of coal exports. Sincerely, Eric Bills Halfmoon Bay, BC
Mike if you build it, we will block itThis proposal is totally unacceptable. Coal is way too environmentally damaging. This totally contradicts what Vancouver stands for. Vancouver is beautiful, and I intend to keep it that way. If you try and build it, I will help block it.
Linda Peteherychcoal export expansionI am in complete agreement with Real Port Hearings.org. New assessments must include the 5 point noted above. Also, I would like to see our federal and provincial governments do the right thing for our future by investing in clean and renewable energy sources instead of helping themselves and their friends in the fossil fuel energy businesses. I want my tax dollars to go towards research and development of clean and renewable energy sources such as geothermal, wind, tidal, solar, etc. All new public buildings should use geothermal energy.
Frank James MDHealth impacts of coal transportation and storageIt is interesting that the expert FSDs contracted with for his opinion is an expert in pesticide exposure and does not do work in the area of human health impacts of coal dust or particulates. An actual expert that has submitted a comment letter reviews the health impacts and they are very different from what FSD has claimed. Melissa Ahern PhD provides a more balanced, informed and objective review of the health impacts of coal transportation and storage on community health. Yes it is associated with cancer in miners, yes communities where there is coal mining have a variety of increased health problems that are very serious in nature in the non-miner, yes the levels that are set for mine safety are practically achievable standards and NOT what the current best science says is safe. There are demonstrated health impacts at levels significantly below the occupational exposure standards. I urge you to read, evaluate and act on the best available science.
Marie Lembesiscoal port expansion assessmentAs a resident of Surrey, I truly hope that a thorough assessment of the coal port expansion will be carried out. We owe this to the our community, our neighbours, and most importantly our future generations. Do not make a hasty decision on something that is so potentially dangerous. Thank you, Marie Lembesis
Patricia and Graham CocksedgeProposed Coal Export Terminal at Fraser Surrey DocksWe are strongly opposed to the proposed coal export terminal at Fraser Surrey Docks. A major concern is the lack of an open, transparent and democratic process. This must NOT be the way that decisions are made in B.C. if we indeed do continue to live in a democracy. In regard to the scope of the Environmental Impact Assessment, it does not include impacts in the Strait of Georgia or Texada Island. As residents of Powell River, we submit that this is totally unacceptable. The full scale of health, environmental and climate impacts are not being given the consideration that is absolutely essential. Until in depth assessments are undertaken, we will have no idea of the potential very serious impacts of the coal dust on citizens' health, on our farmland, shellfish and the whole marine environment in our area. Waiting for the inevitable disaster to judge is NOT acceptable by anyone's measure. We live here. We grow food here. We fish here. We absolutely need to know that we are safe here! If you are indeed working in the "best interest of Canadians" you will ensure that our livelihood, our health and our future are protected and not sold out to the dirty coal industry and its economic bottom line. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns.
Francis LimMoratorium on coal export expansionDear Project Review Committee, I'm writing to express my deep concern and OPPOSITION to the expansion of coal export through . The Port Authority’s assessment of the risks of coal export expansion is fundamentally flawed and has been criticized by everyone from health officers to local governments to impacted communities. It should be scrapped. I'm especially discussed by the way which Port Metro Vancouver forcefully silence any voice of opposition. This is undemocratic! Any decision has to take into account the health and safety the communities, and direct and indirect climate change impact of increase coal export. The proposed increase could mean the increase of 17 million tonnes of CO2 into our atmosphere each year. Increase coal dust and diesel particulates from trains would impact community health negatively. The increase ship traffic will have negative impact in marine environment in around Georgia Straight. Washington and Oregon states have both blocked the coal export expansion through their ports for good reasons, and for the same reasons, we too should not allow the coal port expansion here in Fraser Surrey Docks. I urge the Port to put a moratorium on coal export expansion. Please commit to working with key stakeholders including Health Authorities and community to conduct proper health and environmental impact assessments. This must also include an assessment of the risks of the proposed coal export expansion at Neptune Terminals. Consider all local impacts from the time the coal enters our region by rail to the time shipment enters international waters. This review must be open and transparent and incorporate public hearings. We must also consider the climate change impacts of the end use of that coal. Sincerely, Francis Lim Vancouver, BC
PJ LilleyNegative Health Impacts of Increasing Coal ExportsI'm a Surrey mother of two and I also work to care for several seniors (family & friends, one with asthma already). We are all very concerned about the very real health impacts of increased coal exports out of Fraser Surrey (following on the heels of a tripling in truck traffic along the new SFPR corridor.) I would like to draw your attention to some facts from the Canadian Medical Association's 2008 Summary Report: No Breathing Room: ­ National Illness Costs of Air Pollution: "children inhale a higher volume of air for their body weight and take in higher levels of pollutants. Children spend more time outdoors and they are more active than adults, which also increases the exposure to toxins in the air. The future health of a child is irreversibly affected by exposure to air pollution in the early years of life." Further, these doctors say, "The most susceptible [to air pollution] are those over 65 and those with pre­existing respiratory and cardiovascular problems such as asthma, congestive heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). [...] There are plausible biological explanations why the elderly should be more susceptible to injury from air pollution: multiple diseases, reduced heart and lung function, diminished capacity to adapt to stress, lower incomes." And this is a low-income area, a lot of people are already struggling, and already regularly have to clean layers of dust and grime off of windows and ledges from the existing highway pollution. This is what we're breathing *now*! But it's not just the increased cleaning, the dust and the irritation, or the risk of accidents, the disturbances to the Fraser River... In the long-term, this decision will be deadly, and not just in Surrey, but where that coal is eventually burned, and when it returns as acid rain. Concretely, and this is based on old research (published 2008) not even including these new pollutions, the Heart & Stroke Foundation's says that "Every year, there are approximately 6,000 additional deaths in Canada because of short term exposure to air pollution, and research suggests 69% of these deaths come in the form of cardio and cerebrovascular disease. The number of premature deaths associated with chronic exposure to air pollution is expected to rise 83% between 2008 and 2031." (Heart & Stroke Foundation's 2008 Report Card on Air Pollution.) I'm also the secretary of the PAC at our school, which is a designated "inner city" school, and is only a kilometer away from the port (and in fact the train tracks feeding to it go right past the school within a couple hundred yards of the playground.) And there are schools all along the proposed route. We have discussed this as a PAC, and there is an immediate concern for the possibility of *any* increase in coal dust, as well as a more general, long-term concern for the future health of our children and this community. Please consider the real risks and the long-term damages you are proposing and stop this foolishness now. NO MORE COAL EXPORTS, STOP THE SURREY DOCKS EXPANSION! I pledge that if you move forward with this mistake, I will do everything I can to mobilize my family, friends, co-workers, neighbors and the other PACs to take to the streets of Surrey, including your new SFPR highway, to physically demonstrate our opposition to this dangerous proposed expansion. Sincerely, PJ Lilley
Joan JanzenCoal ExportThere should be a full moratorium on all fossil fuel projects and this one in particular. In every way, these projects serve only the transnationals that push them and not the people whose country is being exploited.
Shauna Smith MDcoal exportsAs a family physician I am very concerned about the health and environmental effects of coal export. Please suspend any further expansion of coal exports. This action is critical to the future of this region and indeed the planet as a whole. Thank you very much.
Jeffrey PetersThis shall not pass. It appears that the Port Metro and Robin Silvester really are living in a bubble completely removed from the concerns of the people who will be impacted by this ill-conceived project. If so they need to realize: there is NO WAY that the public will let this proceed on the basis of this sham review. The sooner they get there heads around that fact, the better.
Rick TonitaCoal Export EIAWe think that the Port Authority’s assessment of the risks of coal export expansion is fundamentally flawed and should be scrapped. They need to start over. We call on the Port to put a moratorium on coal export expansion and commit to working with key stakeholders to conduct proper health and environmental impact assessments. In our view, these new assessments must include the following features: •they must involve key stakeholders like our Health Authorities from the start, including determining the scope and terms of reference; •they must include an assessment of the risks of the proposed coal export expansion at Neptune Terminals; •they must consider all local impacts from the time the coal enters our region by rail to the time it enters international waters by ocean going vessel; •they must consider climate change impacts of the end use of that coal; •they must be open and transparent and incorporate public hearings.
Mike RobinsonNo to US thermal coal It is readily apparent to anyone who actually looks at your EIA that it is a complete farce. The public is demanding a moratorium on coal expansion and a proper assessment that includes: - key stakeholders like our Health Authorities from the start, including determining the scope and terms of reference; - an assessment of the risks of the proposed coal export expansion at Neptune Terminals; they must consider all local impacts from the time the coal enters our region by rail to the time it enters international waters by ocean going vessel; - consideration of climate change impacts of the end use of that coal; - open and transparent and public hearings. It would be incredibly irresponsible and foolhardy for you not to listen to the will of the people.
Doug Simpsoncoal terminal on the Fraser riverCoal and the State of the Oceans The oceans are more acidic today than they have been for over 300 million years, according to the International Programme of the State of the Ocean. We may be already experiencing the next marine mass extinction. Already the ocean is too acidic in some southern B.C. and Washington waters to support oyster larvae. All of the marine coral will be gone in a few decades. Our cold water coral will be amongst the first to go. Shell growing Pteropods, the main food source for many species of salmon, and a major part of the marine food chain, are also at extreme risk. This rate of increasing acidification is unprecedented in the known history of Earth. The 30% increase in acidification since the beginning of the industrial revolution is caused by CO2 fossil fuel emissions. The largest single cause of CO2 emissions is thermal coal, burned for electricity. These are not normal times. Mary Robinson, past president of Ireland, and founder of Climate Justice has emphasized to world leaders that our only acceptable path is to leave most of the fossil fuels in the ground. It is going to take courage and vision to turn away from our present path to disaster. Please look outside the narrow confines of corporate profits and politics and plan for the future. With respect, Doug Simpson, Oceanacidificationreview.org
maryam adrangiReject the Fraser Surrey Docks The FSD project should be rejected because coal extraction, transport, and burning are all bad for community health and water. The fact that communities all over the Pacific Coast are opposing these projects should be an indication that people do actually care about their health even if the PMV doesnt. This is unacceptable and the PMV is behaving in a manner that indicates they feel no accountability to the public. The PMVs process and the FSD project should both be scrapped for the sake of our communities and other communities to which you want to bring this coal or take it from (or ship it through). No to the Fraser Surrey Docks.Yes to protecting our communities and our children's health.
Maria LembesisScrap the sham FSD EIA review now!To subject a project of this magnitude to such a greenwash EIA consisting of mostly repackaged, already inadequate data (some of it more than a decade out of date) and conducting in a matter of weeks by a corporation considered by the IMF to be one of the most corrupt on earth is an utter travesty! Shame on Port Metro! You need to do what you can to redeem yourself. Scrap this sham exercise immediately and begin an open, comprehensive and unbiased review process.
Birgit Schroederport expansion for increased coal exportsDear Vancouver Fraser Port Authority Project Review Committee: I want to take this opportunity to express my outrage at the process re the Fraser Surrey Docks expansion to accommodate a tremendous increase of coal exports. 1) Facilitating the use of coal for energy production in Asia in the time of climate change for personal/company profit, is nothing but criminal. we all know that we cannot continue any further fossil fuel expansions, to the contrary: we must work on a viable 'energy transition', shifting energy production away from fossil fuels to renewable energy only. and yes, despite the North American fossil fuel industry's, their lobbyists' and supporting ideologues' claim that a) we need fossil fuels to continue our way of life - renewable energy cannot satisfy the demand, b) anthropogenic climate change is not happening, c) scientists have it wrong, d) clean coal is so much better etc ..., climate change is happening and we must stop with our current CO2 emissions if we do not want to alter life on this planet to the point of mass species extinction (incl. humans). 2) The Port Authority’s assessment of the risks of coal export expansion is fundamentally flawed and should be scrapped. Due process ie conducting proper health and environmental impact assessments and working with all stakeholders is crucial to any venture of this magnitude and impact. As well, purely paying lip-service to public consultations ie not heeding the demands of the people affected by the port expansion itself, and the increase road traffic and coal dust, is not acceptable. Not to mention the impact of Climate Change world-wide ranging from polar and glacier ice melt, weird weather incl. droughts, wild storms/hurricanes/typhoons, desertification, floods, sea level rise, species extinction, increased diseases, decrease in food production ...etc - given that the Port Authorities have this information available, you must include it when weighing a decision. And you must, as a public body, act for the good of the public (!!!) not for the loudest and best financed lobbyists from industry and their supporters. Consider: all ports of the west coast in the USA have not been able to obtain public approval for expanding a port to accommodate an increase in coal exports. Why should Canadians do the dirty work for greedy US fossil fuel industry? Last not least, many people in several Chinese cities are suffering from severe smog and subsequent respiratory and nervous system illnesses. Thus, surely the day will come soon when the suppliers and facilitators of this dirty fuel will be held accountable for all the negative impacts and severe illnesses dirty fossil fuels have caused. last not least, Canada, similar to Australia is pushing dirty fuels onto China in particular, who is currently the receiver of about 50% of all coal. However, China is switching to renewable energy and as an article in The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/16/coals-grim-forecast-chinas-falling-demand) points out, China's demand is FALLING, and that investors as well as the public should not invest in new projects around coal as these will be mothballed and eg the public will have to bear the costs. In short: i demand due process re environmental impact hearings and a transparent decision-making process. Above all i urge you to look beyond monetary profits and look at the damage that come with coal mining, transports, and use in energy production - your final decision must include the BIG PICTURE, not just the current economy. I thank you for your attention and remain with friendly greetings, Birgit Schroeder
Eric ChambersNo! to Coal To Port Metro Vancouver, If you attempt to proceed with this project, you will be faced with fierce, and mass protest by the public. Vancouver is a place that people live to enjoy and appreciate our natural environment, and a high quality of life for our families. Your attempt to undermine and threaten that will not go unchallenged, and you will force our residents to take a strong and loud position against this. I do not want to see our city turned into a battle zone, and I do not want to see our ports becoming disasters that threaten, rather than serve the public. I say NO to Fraser Surrey Docks, NO to your sham review process, and NO to dirty coal. If you approve the project, I pledge to take to the streets to stop Fraser Surrey Docks from being built. Your review of the Fraser Surrey Docks project is fundamentally flawed, and the environmental impact assessment currently open to public comment has been criticized by everyone from health officers to local governments to impacted communities. It’s biased because it was carried out by consultants hired by Fraser Surrey Docks. It’s undemocratic because there are no public hearings, and the comments submitted won’t be made public. It also seems to me like it’s already a done deal because 8 days in to the comment period, your CEO said he was satisfied with the assessment. And finally, the assessment doesn’t take climate change into account! I am aware that the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks (FSD) Coal Facility would handle up to 8 million metric tonnes of coal annually, and pump about 17 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere each year. Coal dust and diesel particulates from coal trains would negatively impact community health. I do not want Greater Vancouver to be the largest coal exporter in all of North America! I want to keep coal in the ground, and its pollution out of our lungs and away from the climate. Sincerely, ___________________________ Eric Chambers
Rory Donagh O'BreasailThis process is a sham and you will be held accountable.The very idea that you could think that a public consultation wouldn't publish its results publicly would be enough to condemn the entire process. This proposal has been rejected up and down the west coast and has been rejected by the communities here as well. Know that it does not matter if you approve this expansion, you will be stopped from destroying the climate and the environments where the coal is extracted and shipped. This is only the beginning.
Rick FawI have concerns with the EIAI am very concerned that the ecological, agricultural and human health concerns with expanded coal exports at the Port are being ignored or dismissed without due attention. I am not confident in the EIA process to date. The burden of proof lies with the project's proponents to demonstrate that it truly is in the best interests of the people who live in this region. Currently, I am not convinced. Rick Surrey, BC
Audrey BelotteFraser Surrey Docks A naive wish on my part is that our "leaders" would have our best current and future interests at heart. No destructive projects, no polluting projects and preservation of our neighborhoods and healthy way of life. With expansion of the ports and trainloads of coal being shuttled through the area it is evident that changes will take place. Not changes that are in the best interests of the ordinary man or woman. The "man on the Street" does matter. It seems that all that matters to our leaders and business "Persons" is making money, regardless of the damages caused. I am against this project and more coal coming through our communities. Coal now but one would suspect that there are a lot more planned. not good. please consider the residents. Respectfully, Audrey Belotte
Laura LloydNO MORE COALAs a business owner and homeschool mother of 3 children, I am tremendously busy and wish I had been aware of this open comment session much sooner with more time to express how vehemently I oppose our continues dependence on fossil fuels, and more urgently enabling the expand of coal exports! It is not news to you it needs to stay in the ground. It is not news that we are at the epoch of our time, tethering on mass extinction. It might be news to you that there are an army of voices ready to take the future of our world into their own hands. We are mothers terrified for the future left for our children. We are business owners who regularly peek behind the smoke and mirrors of corporate capitalist corruption. We are brothers and sisters, grandfathers and aunts. We are your neighbors, your grocer and the boy who delivers the Sunday paper. We are informed and outraged. Surely you are fully aware that the world that is left will be left for you as well. This is my fierce NO. I know you will make the right decision. Love and winter blessings. Laura Lloyd
Kimberly ChambersNo! to coal exports To Port Metro Vancouver, Our family says NO to Fraser Surrey Docks, NO to your sham review process, and NO to dirty coal. If you approve the project, we pledge to take to the streets to stop Fraser Surrey Docks from being built. We pledge to ensure that our friend's and extended family join us in blocking this reckless development. Your review of the Fraser Surrey Docks project is fundamentally flawed, and the environmental impact assessment currently open to public comment has been criticized by everyone from health officers to local governments to impacted communities. It’s biased because it was carried out by consultants hired by Fraser Surrey Docks. It’s undemocratic because there are no public hearings, and the comments submitted won’t be made public. It also seems to me like it’s already a done deal because 8 days in to the comment period, your CEO said he was satisfied with the assessment. And finally, the assessment doesn’t take climate change into account! I am aware that the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks (FSD) Coal Facility would handle up to 8 million metric tonnes of coal annually, and pump about 17 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere each year. Coal dust and diesel particulates from coal trains would negatively impact community health. I do not want Greater Vancouver to be the largest coal exporter in all of North America! I want to keep coal in the ground, and its pollution out of our lungs and away from the climate. Sincerely, ___________________________ Kimberly Chambers and family
Duncan Greenlawno coal expansionTo Port Metro Vancouver, Your review of the Fraser Surrey Docks project is fundamentally flawed, and the environmental impact assessment currently open to public comment has been criticized by everyone from health officers to local governments to impacted communities. It’s biased because it was carried out by consultants hired by Fraser Surrey Docks. It’s undemocratic because there are no public hearings, and the comments submitted won’t be made public. It also seems to me like it’s already a done deal because 8 days in to the comment period, your CEO said he was satisfied with the assessment. And finally, the assessment doesn’t take climate change into account! I am aware that the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks (FSD) Coal Facility would handle up to 8 million metric tonnes of coal annually, and pump about 17 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere each year. Coal dust and diesel particulates from coal trains would negatively impact community health. I do not want Greater Vancouver to be the largest coal exporter in all of North America! I want to keep coal in the ground, and its pollution out of our lungs and away from the climate. Sincerely, Duncan Greenlaw
Anthony EcclissiNo 2 CoalTo Port Metro Vancouver, I say NO to Fraser Surrey Docks, NO to your sham review process, and NO to dirty coal. If you approve the project, I pledge to take to the streets to stop Fraser Surrey Docks from being built. Your review of the Fraser Surrey Docks project is fundamentally flawed, and the environmental impact assessment currently open to public comment has been criticized by everyone from health officers to local governments to impacted communities. It’s biased because it was carried out by consultants hired by Fraser Surrey Docks. It’s undemocratic because there are no public hearings, and the comments submitted won’t be made public. It also seems to me like it’s already a done deal because 8 days in to the comment period, your CEO said he was satisfied with the assessment. And finally, the assessment doesn’t take climate change into account! I am aware that the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks (FSD) Coal Facility would handle up to 8 million metric tonnes of coal annually, and pump about 17 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere each year. Coal dust and diesel particulates from coal trains would negatively impact community health. I do not want Greater Vancouver to be the largest coal exporter in all of North America! I want to keep coal in the ground, and its pollution out of our lungs and away from the climate. Sincerely, Anthony Ecclissi
Didi DufresneNo Coal! To Port Metro Vancouver, I strongly oppose the Fraser Surrey Docks project, your sham review process, and dirty coal. Your review of the Fraser Surrey Docks project is fundamentally flawed, and the environmental impact assessment currently open to public comment has been criticized by everyone from health officers to local governments to impacted communities. It’s biased because it was carried out by consultants hired by Fraser Surrey Docks. It’s undemocratic because there are no public hearings, and the comments submitted won’t be made public. It also seems to me like it’s already a done deal because 8 days in to the comment period, your CEO said he was satisfied with the assessment. And finally, the assessment doesn’t take climate change into account! I think its very telling that the communities of the southern lower mainland are taking a stand against this process and against the environmental impact assessment. I am aware that the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks (FSD) Coal Facility would handle up to 8 million metric tonnes of coal annually, and pump about 17 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere each year. Coal dust and diesel particulates from coal trains would negatively impact community health. Greater Vancouver should not be the largest coal exporter in all of North America! I want to keep coal in the ground, and its pollution out of our lungs and away from the climate. Sincerely, Didi Dufresne
Pam BushCoal exports and consultationI believe the Port should put a moratorium on coal export expansion and commit to working with key stakeholders to conduct proper health and environmental impact assessments. In my view, these new assessments must include the following features: •they must involve key stakeholders like our Health Authorities from the start, including determining the scope and terms of reference; •they must include an assessment of the risks of the proposed coal export expansion at Neptune Terminals; •they must consider all local impacts from the time the coal enters our region by rail to the time it enters international waters by ocean going vessel; •they must consider climate change impacts of the end use of that coal; •they must be open and transparent and incorporate public hearings. If the port cannot or will not properly assess the potential impacts of coal exports, it should deny the Fraser Surrey Docks permit and suspend any further expansion of coal exports.
CRISTI L SACHTA flawed report & CORRUPTION the world is taking note to.PEOPLE MUST COME BEFORE PROFITS!! The health of not only our own people & country is at stake... but the WORLD is also fully aware: Canada & the US are the ones putting the WEAPONS(coal) in the hands of the Chinese enabling them to KILL US ALL(burn) as we are globally affected by CO2 & climate change. They need to start over & IMMEDIATELY put a moratorium on coal export expansion! What if each of you was held personally responsible for what happens? What if you would lose everything, if anything goes wrong? Well that is what the people of the coast feel like... will personally have to cope and deal with whatever happens to our homeland, because it is our HOME! We call on the Port to put a moratorium on coal export expansion and commit to working with key stakeholders to conduct proper health and environmental impact assessments. In our view, these new assessments must include the following features: they must involve key stakeholders like our Health Authorities from the start, including determining the scope and terms of reference; they must include an assessment of the risks of the proposed coal export expansion at Neptune Terminals; they must consider all local impacts from the time the coal enters our region by rail to the time it enters international waters by ocean going vessel; they must consider climate change impacts of the end use of that coal; they must be open and transparent and incorporate public hearings. If the port cannot or will not properly assess the potential impacts of coal exports, it should deny the Fraser Surrey Docks permit and suspend any further expansion of coal exports. SAY NO MORE! Please help the little people of this province and leave a legacy to be proud of! Gratitude for your time and I look forward to hearing your thoughts!
Fern LoganNo to Coal Exports - Fraser SurreyI think it is reasonable to say that the tides have changed and people are no longer willing to sit idly by while governments exploit the very earth we live on and the air we breathe and the oceans which feed the world. Governments come and go but the people are always here. We will get what we want. We always do. So play nice and save everyone a whole lote of bickering. Please, just say NO to the coal exports coal export expansion and commit to working with key stakeholders to conduct proper health and environmental impact assessments. Thank you for thinking of what is best for the world and her people, flora and fauna, waters and the earth itself. Thank you.
Erin FleggProposed port expansionHi there, I'm writing to express my unequivocal opposition to the Fraser Surrey Docks expansion projects. It's unforgivable to promote something the port knows beyond a doubt is detrimental to the health and safety of the people of BC as well as a huge threat to the environment. Even the Americans don't want it in their country, as you well know since working with American PR and lobby firms to move coal around the restrictions in place south of the border. I'd also appreciate it if you'd sort out the conflict of interest in your mandate that means pushing dirty fuel is more important to you than the health and opinions of the population you supposedly serve. Thanks, Erin Flegg, independent journalist P.S. If you want to know what really happened at the PMV offices yesterday, here's a good start http://www.vancouverobserver.com/news/activists-and-port-vancouver-employees-scuffle-santas-stage-demonstration Also this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7eoY5b8kZg
James Young and Louise GallieCoal Export EIA To Port Metro Vancouver, We arewriting with regard to BC's proposed coal exports from the Fraser Surrey Docks. This is wrong way to be heading, both in terms of its local environment impacts, and the greater question of fossil fuels, sustainability and global climate change. Instead of investing in more fossil fuel exports, we need to be reducing our carbon footprint and developing the renewable energy society of the future. In this way, BC will ensure its prosperity and long term sustainability. Your review of the Fraser Surrey Docks project is fundamentally flawed, and the environmental impact assessment currently open to public comment has been criticized by everyone from health officers to local governments to impacted communities. It’s biased because it was carried out by consultants hired by Fraser Surrey Docks. It’s undemocratic because there are no public hearings, and the comments submitted won’t be made public. It also seems to me like it’s already a done deal because 8 days in to the comment period, your CEO said he was satisfied with the assessment. And finally, the assessment doesn’t take climate change into account! We are aware that the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks (FSD) Coal Facility would handle up to 8 million metric tonnes of coal annually, and pump about 17 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere each year. Coal dust and diesel particulates from coal trains would negatively impact community health. I do not want Greater Vancouver to be the largest coal exporter in all of North America! I want to keep coal in the ground, and its pollution out of our lungs and away from the climate. Sincerely, James Young and Louise Gallie
Michael EnglishProposed increase in shipping of thermal coalIt is quite clear that the Port is intent on approving the increased export of US coal through the report regardless of the environmental concerns and the contribution to climate change. I find this totally unacceptable in this day and age when we know the consequences of climate change for our children and future generations. I urge you to as reopen the consultation process and fully consider the issues the impacts of the proposed expansion. Your actions will affect your children as well as mine and it is no excuse to say environmental considerations are not within your mandate. I would also like to make it known that I am disgusted by the Port's rough housing of protesters yesterday. This was totally uncalled for and does nothing for the Port's image.
ColtonNew Coal TerminalNo, on the new coal terminal. I want my Vancouver clean. You want to be the leading exporter in something? try wind turbines or solar panels. Stop the dirty fuels.
Julie GregoryCoal Train ExpansionHello, My family is concerned about the air quality and pollution impact of the expanded coal transport through our neighbourhood. We live 2 blocks from the rail line and know that we will be exposed to coal dust drifting up the hill to our home daily. We are not convinced that the very limited environmental impact study looked thoroughly enough at the air quality aspect of this expansion. We ask that a more extended and thorough investigation be done to assess the long term effects of coal dust in the immediate area. Thank you for your consideration. Julie & Nick Gregory
Whitney WalkerCoal exportsTo Port Metro Vancouver, I say NO to Fraser Surrey Docks, NO to your sham review process, and NO to dirty coal. If you approve the project, I pledge to take to the streets to stop Fraser Surrey Docks from being built. Your review of the Fraser Surrey Docks project is fundamentally flawed, and the environmental impact assessment currently open to public comment has been criticized by everyone from health officers to local governments to impacted communities. It’s biased because it was carried out by consultants hired by Fraser Surrey Docks. It’s undemocratic because there are no public hearings, and the comments submitted won’t be made public. It also seems to me like it’s already a done deal because 8 days in to the comment period, your CEO said he was satisfied with the assessment. And finally, the assessment doesn’t take climate change into account! I am aware that the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks (FSD) Coal Facility would handle up to 8 million metric tonnes of coal annually, and pump about 17 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere each year. Coal dust and diesel particulates from coal trains would negatively impact community health. I do not want Greater Vancouver to be the largest coal exporter in all of North America! I want to keep coal in the ground, and its pollution out of our lungs and away from the climate. Sincerely, Whitney K Walker
Justin LeBlancClimate change impacts must be evaluatedThe Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the Fraser Surrey Docks proposal is flawed, chiefly because it does not consider the end environmental impact of the product that is being handled. If approved, this project will result in the export of up to 4 million metric tonnes of coal per year. We know that this coal will be burned. The greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of this coal will enter the atmosphere and contribute to a global crisis. For the EIA to claim that climate change should be outside the scope of this assessment (as it does in Section 11.1.1) is therefore incorrect. I call on the directors of the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority to reject the conclusions of the current EIA. A valid EIA would evaluate the impact this project would have on our climate, and any project that contributes to the problem is unacceptable.
Roger EmsleyCoal Port ExpansionI have read the environmental impact assessment on the proposed coal export p[roposal. It is totally inadequate and needs to be re-done to include a full health risk assessment in the format proposed by the regional health authorities. There also needs to be a proper environment and risk assessment on the transport of coal down the Fraser River, as well as its transport by rail through the BC communities.
Alison ScottComments on the Proposed Fraser Surrey Docks Transfer Coal Facility
I deserve a full independent hearing on the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks coal facility, as has been afforded to citizens of Washington State by regulators assessing coal terminals this year.
I deserve a comprehensive health impact assessment of the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks coal facility, as publicly recommended by Health Authority officials.
I am concerned about the climate impacts currently being experienced in Canada and throughout the world, which are exacerbated by the export and consumption of fossil fuels.
I urge you to deny Fraser Surrey Docks a permit for its proposed coal facility, and to start taking responsibility for the climate damage that will result from the growing export of fossil fuels from Metro Vancouver ports.

Alison Scott
Vancouver , BC
Susan RankinFraser Surrey DocksTo Port Metro Vancouver, I say NO to Fraser Surrey Docks, NO to your sham review process, and NO to dirty coal. If you approve the project, I pledge to take to the streets to stop Fraser Surrey Docks from being built. Your review of the Fraser Surrey Docks project is fundamentally flawed, and the environmental impact assessment currently open to public comment has been criticized by everyone from health officers to local governments to impacted communities. It’s biased because it was carried out by consultants hired by Fraser Surrey Docks. It’s undemocratic because there are no public hearings, and the comments submitted won’t be made public. It also seems to me like it’s already a done deal because 8 days in to the comment period, your CEO said he was satisfied with the assessment. And finally, the assessment doesn’t take climate change into account! I am aware that the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks (FSD) Coal Facility would handle up to 8 million metric tonnes of coal annually, and pump about 17 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere each year. Coal dust and diesel particulates from coal trains would negatively impact community health. I do not want Greater Vancouver to be the largest coal exporter in all of North America! I want to keep coal in the ground, and its pollution out of our lungs and away from the climate. Sincerely, ______________
Laura BensonRe: Environmental Impact Assessment of Fraser Surrey Docks Coal Handling FacilityDear Committee Members,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA) completed by SNC Lavalin for the Fraser Surrey Docks (FSD) direct coal transfer
proposal. On behalf of Dogwood Initiative and our more than 100,000 supporters
across B.C. and Canada I urge you to reject this flawed assessment and start over.
Of the thousands of comments you have received during this period, more than 1,900
have come from Dogwood supporters who are gravely concerned about proposals to
expand coal exports. To date, over 15,000 people have signed our Beyond Coal petition.
Twelve thousand others have signed similar petitions through other local groups.
As you know, this grassroots groundswell is part of a much larger public outcry over the
potential impacts of the Fraser Surrey Docks-Texada Island coal transshipment proposal.
The Sechelt First Nation and twelve municipal and regional governments have either
opposed the project, expressed concerns and/or called on the port to conduct public
hearings and a comprehensive Health Impact Assessment.
Many of these actions came forward to support the call of Fraser and Vancouver Coastal
Health’s Chief Medical Officers for an independent and comprehensive HIA that would
address local and regional concerns and adhere to international standards. Drs. Paul
VanBuynder and Patricia Daly have issued detailed an unequivocal critiques of the EIA’s
failure to meet “even the most basic requirements of a health impact assessment.” In the
past few weeks a growing number of physicians and health experts have echoed this
message, critiquing assumptions, data, and modeling used to reach health-based
conclusions in the EIA.
We stand with these experts and health officers in calling on you to start over, work
collaboratively with the health authorities and others in a public scoping process
and produce a credible and comprehensive assessment of this project’s potential
impacts.
The area of health assessment is the most egregious way in which the EIA fails, but it is
not he only way. Environmental experts have also found fault with inadequacies in the
assessment of impacts on water quality, the Fraser Estuary, and fisheries. In fact, the EIA
ignores potentially grave socio-economic, cultural, ecological and health impacts to the
marine environment from barge travel to Texada Island and vessel travel from Texada to
international waters.
Indeed, many of the failures of the EIA stem from its irresponsibly limited scope. Fraser
Surrey Docks may be the project applicant, but the project entails transport of coal from
the Powder River Basin by rail, transfer to barges on the Fraser River, barge transport
down river and up the Strait of Georgia to Texada Island, transfer again to ocean-going
vessels, and transport through the Salish Sea. The EIA assesses very little outside the
limited “fenceline” of the proposed FSD facility, leaving communities from White Rock
and Surrey to the Sunshine Coast, Texada and Lasqueti Islands, among others, to wonder
what the effects to their health and local ecosystems might be.
In order to uphold the port’s responsibility as the regulator working in the public interest
you must ensure that your decision-making process fully and transparently considers the
public and agency comments you have received in response to the EIA. In fact, because
the vast majority of these comments reject the EIA and oppose expanding U.S. coal
shipments, we expect you either to start over and commission an assessment that the
public can trust, or to deny FSD’s permit application.
As you take the time required to appropriately consider public comments, please do not
hesitate to contact me should you have further questions or wish to engage in further
discussion of this matter.
Sincerely,
Laura Benson
Beyond Coal Campaign Director
Dogwood Initiative
315-525 Seymour St.
Vancouver, B.C. V6B 3H6
[email protected]
K Morrionabused santasYour response to the possibly very peaceful santa protest was disgraceful and totally unnecessary. You should be ashamed of yourselves. This shows your general attitude toward public response.."shut it down"..ignore it..disgraceful.
Charlotte WhitneyPlease properly assess coal exports!As a fisheries biologist and conservation ecologist, I am deeply concerned about the lack of accountability and review going into this, and many other, projects involving export and transport of fossil fuels. The existing EIA is not sufficient in regards to potential harm to both human and ecosystem health. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Charlotte Whitney MSC BIT
KrishComments on the Proposed Fraser Surrey Docks Transfer Coal FacilityI deserve a full independent hearing on the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks coal facility, as has been afforded to citizens of Washington State by regulators assessing coal terminals this year.
I deserve a comprehensive health impact assessment of the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks coal facility, as publicly recommended by Health Authority officials.
I am concerned about the climate impacts currently being experienced in Canada and throughout the world, which are exacerbated by the export and consumption of fossil fuels.
I urge you to deny Fraser Surrey Docks a permit for its proposed coal facility, and to start taking responsibility for the climate damage that will result from the growing export of fossil fuels from Metro Vancouver ports.


Krish
Detroit, Michigan
Allan YorkowitzComments on the Proposed Fraser Surrey Docks Transfer Coal FacilityPlease re-consider the allowing of a new coal terminal in Surray. Why would an organization want to further ruin the air in surrounding communities - coal transportation will be enough effect, forget about the actual burning!

Allan Yorkowitz
Cilonia, NJ
Christopher BaykoI don't want Vancouver to be the largest coal exporter in all of North America! To Port Metro Vancouver, Hey, I get it, money is awesome; but it's not ok to manipulate the rules to get your way. I say NO to Fraser Surrey Docks, NO to your sham review process, and NO to dirty coal. If you approve the project, I pledge to take to the streets to stop Fraser Surrey Docks from being built. Your review of the Fraser Surrey Docks project is fundamentally flawed, and the environmental impact assessment currently open to public comment has been criticized by everyone from health officers to local governments to impacted communities. It’s biased because it was carried out by consultants hired by Fraser Surrey Docks. It’s undemocratic because there are no public hearings, and the comments submitted won’t be made public. It also seems to me like it’s already a done deal because 8 days in to the comment period, your CEO said he was satisfied with the assessment. And finally, the assessment doesn’t take climate change into account! I am aware that the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks (FSD) Coal Facility would handle up to 8 million metric tonnes of coal annually, and pump about 17 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere each year. Coal dust and diesel particulates from coal trains would negatively impact community health. I do not want Greater Vancouver to be the largest coal exporter in all of North America! I want to keep coal in the ground, and its pollution out of our lungs and away from the climate. Sincerely, Christopher Matthew Bayko.
Robert HoughtonFraser - Surrey Dock Coal DevelopmentPort Metro Vancouver’s resent release of the Environmental Impact Assessment regarding the proposed development of a coal export facility at the Fraser Surrey Docks appears to be a very narrowly focused. It has focused only on the area of development itself the FSD lands themselves and the adjacent creeks and streams with very little awareness of the fragility of the Fraser River. The report’s conclusion, seem to be, primarily, based on previously conducted reports and lacks the depth necessary to evaluate such a major development. It would not be too cynical to believe that the entire development is based on two premises; first to improve the annual profits of Port Metro, second the belief that Port Metro exist in isolation from the communities surrounding the port. Any further movement on this development must include a detailed and independent Environmental and Health Impact Assessment. Port Metro is not an isolated facility, it is connected to many surrounding communities and the global community as a whole by the very nature of its purpose. The global environmental impact of such a development must be a part of any assessment. Simply because we are not burning the coal in our communities does not mean we have no responsible when it comes to those whose lives are shortened by this burning or for that matter to the planet and the impact of our actions. We do not live in isolation, our actions ripple across the globe, coal mined in the USA, shipped from Canada and burned in Asia accelerates climate change and reduces the live expectancy of thousands of people. As the directors of Port Metro Vancouver you still have an opportunity prevent the negative this project will have on the surrounding communities as well as reducing the impact of the project on the global environment.
Ingrid SulstonCoal port needs a rethinkPlease listen to the reasonable concerns of the Health Authority and City Councils. Do not proceed with the coal port without consideration and scientific assessment of environmental impacts. Please think of the future of BC and beyond before exporting coal and promoting its use as an energy source. We need to look to cleaner energy sources. Thank you.
rod innescoal exportsi totally disagree with the whole concept of exporting coal into the lower mainland and bc, Texada. Having read and listened to doctors reports do to health issues as well as the tremendous impact on the environment, i also know how weak are laws are here in bc its obvious why we are to be the victims if this goes through. i am 100% against this please stop and think about the future. Rod Innes
Shirley SamplesNo Coal Port Expansion through Strait of GeorgiaThere are many concerns I have about the SFD proposal, the most important to me is as follows: A part of the route of the tons of coal from Montana to Asia is through our gorgeous Strait of Georgia and Fraser River - I have not seen one reference to any environmental impact or concern about our ocean and river. Since the coal will be loaded onto barges on the Fraser River and then reloaded onto sea faring tankers that will maneuver our coast - what about the effect of this increase of marine vessels on whales, fish and birds, not only from the coal dust, an accident or the increase of noise disabling whales from communicating. I have noticed that the VPA does not consider the cummulative effects of the increase of tankers through our coast, when is enough, enough? Now with Kinder Morgan application that would increase tankers from the current 72 to 444 (37 a month) going in an out of Burrard Inlet, also through the Strait of Georgia. A full proper, comprehensive Environmental Impact Study would include the effects of shipping U.S. thermal coal through our marine environment. As the Port Authority, I expect you to make decisions based on facts and also what the people of B.C.want for their future. Please do not ignore our concerns, this is our home and many amazing creatures inhabit the coast of B.C. Please say no to U.S. thermal coal through our home. We do not want it!
Karen MohrNo To Dirty Coal I say NO to Fraser Surrey Docks, NO to your sham review process, and NO to dirty coal. If you approve the project, I pledge to take to the streets to stop Fraser Surrey Docks from being built. Your review of the Fraser Surrey Docks project is fundamentally flawed, and the environmental impact assessment currently open to public comment has been criticized by everyone from health officers to local governments to impacted communities. It’s biased because it was carried out by consultants hired by Fraser Surrey Docks. It’s undemocratic because there are no public hearings, and the comments submitted won’t be made public. It also seems to me like it’s already a done deal because 8 days in to the comment period, your CEO said he was satisfied with the assessment. And finally, the assessment doesn’t take climate change into account! I am aware that the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks (FSD) Coal Facility would handle up to 8 million metric tonnes of coal annually, and pump about 17 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere each year. Coal dust and diesel particulates from coal trains would negatively impact community health. I do not want Greater Vancouver to be the largest coal exporter in all of North America! I want to keep coal in the ground, and its pollution out of our lungs and away from the climate.
Sandra HarrisMoratorium on coal export expansionUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Sandra Harris
Stephanie AitkenNo thermal coal exports from BC To Port Metro Vancouver, If you approve the Fraser Surrey Docks thermal coal export facility, I pledge to take to the streets to stop it from being built. Your review of the Fraser Surrey Docks project is fundamentally flawed, and the environmental impact assessment currently open to public comment has been criticized by everyone from health officers to local governments to impacted communities. It’s biased because it was carried out by consultants hired by Fraser Surrey Docks. It’s undemocratic because there are no public hearings, and the comments submitted won’t be made public. It also seems to me like it’s already a done deal because 8 days in to the comment period, your CEO said he was satisfied with the assessment. Finally, the assessment doesn’t take into account the devastating and unjust social costs of climate change. I do not want Greater Vancouver to be the largest coal exporter in all of North America! I want to keep coal in the ground, and its pollution out of our lungs and away from the climate. Sincerely, Stephanie Aitken
Robert RattleRe: Fraser Surrey Docks Coal Export TerminalDear Fraser Surrey Docks Coal Export Terminal Project Review Committee:
I am an independent researcher and consultant. For the last two decades, I have performed
central roles in the development of Health Impact Assessment across Canada and around the
world. This work includes numerous HIAs and HEIAs, several research projects, policy reports
and academic papers exploring HIA frameworks, integration of HIA and SIA/EIA, and network
and policy development efforts. I currently instruct environmental assessment courses at the post
secondary level. My comments below reflect my own opinions as a private citizen and in no way
reflect the opinions of my institution.
Having been alerted to this project rather late in the process, I have not had sufficient time to
make a thorough assessment of the proposed project, EIS report or the project processes. Having
said that, a quick review of the report suggests several shortcomings of the proposed project that
may lead to potential health impacts. I would like to restrict my comments to those shortcomings
directly associated with noises generated by the proposed project.
1) The scope of the EA was insufficient to adequately address noise. Noise is an environmental
effect that can traverse physical boundaries of a project site and in this proposal, be generated
off-site. Noise has not been sufficiently taken into consideration in the assessment report.
2) Sufficient baseline data on existing noise levels has not been presented. Baseline data,
modelling, noise maps and participatory community dialogue will be required in order to:
adequately and effectively predict impacts; prevent impacts and/or develop effective mitigation
plans; and to monitor, assess and manage future noise levels and changes.
3) Noise impacts are given too low a significance weighting based on the above omissions.
4) The proposed mitigation plan includes both the construction and operational (traffic and
facility) stages. While construction is an important source of noise generation, it is short term.
The long term potential doubling of coal trains through Semiahamoo, White Rock and South
Surrey, and the introduction of up to two more trains per day through North Delta and along the
Surrey waterfront and the associated on-site activity will likely prove to be a significant source of
additional noise, noise patterns, noise disturbance, and acoustic vibrations likely to generate
significant adverse health and environmental impacts. Additional assessment of the related
acoustic environments is required.
5) In addition to sound levels, the sound frequency, duration, frequency of occurrence, and times
at which noises occur all need to be taken into consideration for their impact on health and the
environment to be properly assessed. Avoidance, management and mitigation plans should
address, as a minimum, these criteria. The EA report has not done this for either on-site or for
off-site noise generation.
6) The proposed mitigation plan is inadequate to address these issues.
7) Additional information is needed, including, but not limited to, baseline data, noise mapping,
modelling and monitoring, further mitigation plans (including, but not limited to, attenuation of
acoustic vibrations/transmission, roles and responsibilities, timelines, reporting mechanisms and
follow-up activities).
8) Noise impacts can be a very significant adverse health impact. The additional noises and
vibrations associated with the proposed project will likely compound existing noise patterns and
generate additional cumulative health impacts. Further assessment of the acoustic environment
should be included in a comprehensive Health Impact Assessment.
9) Municipal noise bylaws are poorly regulated, inconsistent and often omit many characteristics
needed to protect human health and the environment from industrial noises. Both on-site and
off-site noise associated with the proposed project will likely contribute to additional adverse
health impacts. Municipal noise bylaws will have limited capacity to manage those adverse
impacts.
10) The proposed mitigation plan has omitted many essential components of a detailed noise
assessment. It is therefore very likely to prove inadequate to manage the environmental and
human health impacts as well as the resulting costs (such as social, financial, economic, and
cultural) from noises generated by the proposed project.
Terri u'prichardNo coalNo no no to transporting coal!
Pascale GibeauEIA comments to the PortHi there, I am writing to voice my concerns about the proposed coal direct transfer facility. I am concerned with several aspects of the project, among which: - the many flaws noticeable in the EIA process and evaluation -- for example, the fact that the indirect impacts of burning coal shipped through this facility were omitted, as well as the many potential health risks to surrounding residential communities. The EIA has to be spotless for the public to trust the process, and I don't consider it was the case here. For example, the coal particulate deposition into the Fraser are a big worry, and that aspect was not adequately covered in the EIA. - I am concerned that some events of Port of Metro Vancouver were sponsored by coal companies -- how can we trust that decisions will be made in the public interest? - We should be very worried about the impacts of coal export and use on greenhouse gas emissions -- climate change is a reality that will hit us all harder and harder in the coming decades, and we should do all what is in our power to reduce emissions, not increase them. We need leadership at the highest levels, we need vision, and we need people to realize that jobs will only be sustained in the long term with the adequate development of our resources, and a real concern for environmental impacts. Let's not kid ourselves with the short-term perspectives and forget the big, long-term, picture. I believe we need a moratorium on coal export expansion. We need proper discussions, and proper environmental impact assessments. We need long term vision from our leaders at all levels of government, and in the public and private sectors. Thank you for hearing me, Pascale -- Pascale Gibeau, M.Sc., R.P.Bio. PhD Student, Earth to Ocean Research Group Department of Biological Sciences Simon Fraser University
Steven Faraher-AmidonEIA Ignores concerns of customers access to businessFrequently blocked crossings may reduce the ability of businesses to attract traffic and to deliver goods to their destinations
Steven Faraher-AmidonEIA Fails to account for toxicity of metal byproductsThe toxic metals in coal, such as arsenic, can accumulate in soils near the coal trains, resulting in exposure to people and to the environment.
Mary FrischAdditional Industrial Coal shipments from Port of Van:This is American Industrial Coal and it should be shipped from American ports. There is a very good reason they will not have it in their ports. So why should we have all their pollution up & down our coastline? Especially as there has not be a thorough study on the effect the dust will have.
Steven Faraher-AmidonEIA Fails to address combustible nature of Thermal Coal Powder River basin coal is well known for its tendency to spontaneously combust, causing health and safety as well as environmental problems.
Dianne Varga'No' to coal export expansion Dear Port Metro Vancouver, I am writing to you as the daughter of one departed Fraser Surrey Docks longshoreman and the sister of another. Knowing what we know about the relationship of coal use to poor air quality, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, I feel sure that if James and Dennis Varga were alive, they would say ‘no’ to the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks coal terminal and ‘no’ to the plan to turn Greater Vancouver into North America’s biggest carbon exporter. I myself am particularly concerned that the environmental impact assessment for this project was carried out by Fraser Surrey Docks and their consultants. This is like having the foxes count the chickens before turning the lights off for the night. Who would not expect self-interest and bias to colour the results – the definition of ‘chicken’ no doubt being challenged by the foxes, certain chickens intentionally being left out of the count, the latch on the door not being firmly secured when the foxes leave. And so it is that the environmental assessment does not even consider the central environmental concern of our era: climate change. What on earth do Fraser Surrey Docks, their consultants and Port Metro Vancouver think we are talking about when we talk about coal if it is not climate change? I hope you hear the thunder of three voices, not one, as I register this ‘no’ to the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks, ‘no’ to the further destruction of the planet, and ‘no’ to the coal industry, its lobbyists and the politicians who are willing to sell out our future and the future of our children and grandchildren for a dirty job and a dime. Dianne Varga Kelowna, BC
Steven Faraher-AmidonEIA Faile to assess effect of pollutants from Ships.Ships approaching and leaving the terminal will emit air pollutants, including sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbon PM, and carbon monoxide. These pollutants can have serious health effects.
Steven Faraher-AmidonEIA Fails to address sleep impact on kids and othersNoise from the coal trains will interfere with sleep. This impairs cognitive development in children, and has other impacts in people of all ages.
Adam GoldEIA for Fraser Surrey DocksI would like to raise some concerns regarding the Environmental Impact Assessment conducted by SNC Lavalin for a coal export facility at Fraser Surrey Docks. I object to the Port’s dismissal of requests made by local government health authorities such as Fraser Health and Vancouver Coastal Health in their letter of September 25, 2013. As a lower mainland resident with pre-existing health conditions that would be further deteriorated by the health impacts of local coal transport I ask that the Port honor the requests made by Dr. Paul Van Buynder and Dr. Patricia Daly to accept input into the parameters of the EIA from Fraser Health and Vancouver Coastal Health. I also ask that the Port honor the second request made in the letter from September 25 to provide health authorities with an opportunity to review the revised and completed EIA that includes an adequate health assessment.
Steven Faraher-AmidonSerious omissions of your EIA. redo it please! The coal trains will emit Nitrogen and Sulfur Oxides, which create acid rain and have direct health impacts.
Amy LubikDisapointed with the Port Authority and Coal Expansion I am utterly disappointed in the Port Authority for the lack of consideration for the plethora of concerns that health and environmental care professionals have put forward. Just watching the dust from grain shipments blow into our waters and communities should be enough to convince most rational people that coal expansion is a poor;y conceived idea - especially considering that the places that produce it do not want to export it. Furthermore, I'm ashamed that the Port Authority wants to expand and perpetuate any country's dependence on harmful coal emissions for energy. We should be demanding that our trade partners curb their coal dependence.
Steven Faraher-AmidonWhy EIA should be re done.Dangers of strip mining should be addressed, even in an anciallry manner, this is not dealt with in your EIA. YOU still can correct that by talking with Fraser Health and incorporating proper set up requirements for a new HIA, which will incorporate the needed EIA. Coal mining, including at surface strip mines, is an inherently hazardous activity that produces known rates of illness, injury, and death.
Rod MarinerNo Coal Exports. I believe that to export coal is simply wrong. I makes no scientific sense, no health sense and our children will suffer when the climate heats up to an level in which human life will not be able to tolerate.
Steven Faraher-AmidonFailied EIA.-need to do due diligence and redo it. Issue of coal duse and effect on human health not dealt with enough, if at all, in EIA. Redo it please. Before it is too late, and when people die, you will have some of their deaths on your organization if you have not done full due diligence in proper HIA. Coal dust from the trains will be inhaled by people. Coal dust contains toxic metals, and has respiratory health effects.
Pebble in the Pond Environmental SocietySay NO to coal expansion!The EIA that has been done by FSD is completely inadequate and does not include the Strait of Georgia or Texada Island. This is wholly flawed and incomplete. This project must NOT go ahead without a thorough, independent, third party unbiased environmental impact assessment and health impact assessment that encompasses all the communities affected by the transport of coal to the Fraser River, along the corridor of the Salish Sea, along Sabine Channel up to Texada Island and including coal storage impacts on Texada Island and impacts of spillage on Texada foreshore and in the ocean and then also the impacts that hundreds of Panamax and Capesize freighters arriving from overseas to Texada Island bringing with them their contaminated bilge water and dumping it in our pristine ocean. Also the potential for freighter accidents needs to be looked at as well since our own Provincial Gov't admits it is in no way prepared to handle any type of oil spill in our waters. Also the additional GHG's that this expansion of thermal coal will contribute to the atmosphere of our planet from China continuing to burn it for energy production. Also the mercury deposits that this burning will dump into our waters and lakes and onto our land once these emissions are deposited over here. All these accumulated effects must be considered before any approvals are given. The citizens of BC will not stand for these coal exports from Powder River Basin. We will stand up, join together and block these exports to protect the future of BC and the future of our planet.
Steven Faraher-AmidonWhy the EIA is inadequate and should be redone Flammability of coal dust is not dealt with well in the EIA. Coal Dust is highly combustible. When it is blown from coal piles at the terminal on to nearby refineries, it could create a fire hazard or other hazardous conditions.
Steven Faraher-AmidonWhy EIA should be re done. The EIA fails to account or answer queries re the ease with which the DPM would get into airways, causing serious health issues. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) that is less than 2.5 microns in size, the most dangerous size, is emitted by the coal trains. These particles go deep into the lungs of people who breathe the fumes and cause serious health effects including cancer.
Steven Faraher-AmidonReasons the EIA should be repealed and start over.Coal trains may derail. Derailments can be caused by an accumulation of coal dust, and also by the accumulation of damage done to the rails by the huge coal trains.
Steven Faraher-AmidonFailed EIA Over the operating lifetime of the terminal, some number of people will be killed by collisions with coal trains
Steven Faraher-AmidonEIA Fails to account for.During wind events, coal dust will be blown from coal piles to locations up to 5 miles away, as has been observed at the Point Roberts terminal, and it will be inhaled.
Steven Faraher-AmidonEIA FailureEmergency vehicles, or vehicles taking personnel to hospitals to respond to an emergency, will be delayed at train crossings, at a time when seconds count.
Eileen FloodyComments on the Proposed Fraser Surrey Docks Transfer Coal Facility
I am very concerned about the rise in the use of coal, a dangerous greenhouse gas emitting fuel. The proposed Fraser Surrey Docks coal facility will lead to increased climate change and local negative health effects on residents and the environment.
The citizens of Washington State have been given the right to full independent hearings. I deserve no less.
Health Authority officials support a comprehensive health assessment. I, and the local residents and the citizens of Bc deserve this.
Please deny the Fraser Surrey Docks a permit for this proposed coal facility. Metro Vancouver should be at the forefront of combatting climate change, and reduce the export of fossil fuels.

Sincerely,
Eileen Floody
Tofino, BC
Sabra WoodworthInadequate EIA To: Vancouver Fraser Port Authority Project Review Committee Cc Premier Clark, Provincial Ministers of Health, Environment and Mines; Federal Ministers of Transport, Health and Environment. Re: Application to Port Metro Vancouver by Fraser Surrey Docks for Proposed Direct Transfer Coal Facility I hereby request that Port Metro Vancouver a) accept the Fraser Health Authority’s request for a comprehensive health impact assessment for the FSD’s direct transfer coal facility (that includes each of the communities along the rail corridor from the Canada-US border to SFD) b) conduct a comprehensive health impact assessment and EIA for the Neptune coal facility in North Vancouver as being of equal importance to the FSD proposal. c) seriously reconsider its promotion of itself to become North America’s biggest exporter of coal in the light of coal’s impacts on the many municipalities of Metro Vancouver’s LIVEABLE REGION and put a moratorium on coal export expansion. UNDERSTANDING THE SCOPE OF FSD EIA (or not) I find it very difficult to believe or understand from the Fraser Surrey Dock EIA/proposal that all consequences regarding transporting two (or four) million metric tonnes of coal in open 125-car-long trains between the Canada-US border and Surrey Fraser Docks through the communities of White Rock, Delta, and Surrey are not addressed as part of “the Project” or the Project’s Environmental and Health Impact Assessment. It seems that the entire route from the border has nothing to do with the Project? Should there be a derailment, or accident of any kind, or spill, or tons of fugitive dust leaving the trains, such are not the concerns of either SFD or PMV. Nor apparently do the communities along the trains’ routes have any democratic decision-making power as to whether to accept these trains or not. Similarly with the unloading and reloading of coal at Texada: The scope of the Project does not include: - Physical works and activities undertake or preceding the loading of coal onto rail cars; - The transport of coal from the mine site to PARY/FSD; and - The transport of coal during and after the coal is unloaded at Texada Island The barges will be unloaded to the existing coal storage and loading facility at Texada Island, where the coal will be stored and eventually loaded onto deep sea vessels for export. The unloading of coal at the existing Texada Island coal storage and loading facility are not in the scope of this EIA. FSD estimates that in the first year of operations there will be 320 fully-loaded barges traveling to Texada Island, with the number doubling to 640 barges in years two through five. It is expected that in the first year, on average there will be two barges arriving and departing FSD every second day; in years two to five, there will be an average of two barges arriving and departing FSD every day. p. 64 FSD EIA If neither Port Metro Vancouver nor Surrey Fraser Docks nor the communities involved have jurisdiction over the impacts of coal trains along these train corridors, WHO DOES? Who exactly can take or command responsibility for the impacts of these millions of tons of coal being unloaded and reloaded from Texada if not either the community in which they are happening or the institution granting the Project? I fail to understand how Port Metro Vancouver has arbitrary power to sanction this Project (without serious oversight, responsibility, and Impact Assessments for each of the many communities) if virtually every Lower Mainland municipality rejects it. This incredibly undemocratic situation resembles a third-world dictatorship that excludes all concern beyond beautifully spun nominal lip-service appearing to welcome public input. That Port Metro has exclusive power MUST change. We desperately need elected Port Authorities similar to what our democratic southern neighbours have if we are to realize true citizen participation. INFORMED PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT Clearly it is up to BC communities to inform themselves for Port Metro is not in the business of public participation, nor of informing the public of the recent history of a series of West Coast coal terminal investment failures. Coal expansion endeavors like Neptune and SFD have proven over and over to be high risk due to the volatility of international markets. Note massive losses by Los Angles, California and Vancouver, Portland: When the Port of Vancouver, Washington, was approached by an undisclosed coal company represented by Sino-American,9 an Oregon-based international trading company, the Port rejected the proposal out of hand. The Port’s operations manager, Mike Schiller, summarized the Port’s reasoning succinctly, concluding that “[c]oal is the most risky bulk mineral market.”10 Mr. Schiller’s statement is supported by figures kept by the U.S. Department of Energy, recent predictions by industry analysts, and by the West Coast’s history of failure with thermal coal export terminals. The… graph reflects coal export’s history of failure on the West Coast: two large cities have gambled and lost on coal export terminals.13 With high hopes for big profits, both Los Angeles and Portland invested millions of dollars and high-value acreage at their ports in coal export terminals, only to watch those facilities fail. 14 http://www.sierraclub.org/designarchive/printed/Reports/077%20Beyond%20Coal%20LaQuinta%20WP/high77_LaQuinta_Exports_Whitepaper_cover.pdf Moreover, it was reluctantly that Surrey Fraser Docks and Port Metro Vancouver yielded to the Lower Mainland public’s dissatisfaction with their in-house EIA and agreed to a somewhat “independent” third party review of that EIA along with public input, in process now. That SFD & PMV & the provincial government are satisfied with the SFD’s EIA focus solely on the immediate Fraser River site belies a deep avoidance of sincere interest in the public good. Nor does it seem PMV or SFD is concerned with the fact that, despite SFD’s efforts to control particulate matter emissions on site, the train company Burlington Northern Santa Fe railway transporting these millions of tonnes of coal to the docks is currently being sued for contaminating water resources in the United States, openly acknowledging in testimony the apparently “normal” immense amounts of (fugitive?) coal dust loss in transport: “According to BNSF testimony at hearings before the Surface Transportation Board, each rail car loses an average of 500-3,500 pounds of coal dust. Coal trains are composed of approximately 120 rail cars, resulting in an average of 60,000-420,000 lbs of coal lost per train, each trip. A massive increase in rail traffic and longer trains are expected in the future should new hotly contested coal export terminals be built in Washington and Oregon.” http://content.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2013/06/bnsf-railways-coal-shippers-sued-federal-court-water-contamination-violations How is it possible that Port Metro Vancouver has sole decision-making power to sanction the many parts of this Project excluded from their Environmental and Health Impact Assessment? INADEQUATE SFD EIA (Environment & Health Impact Assessment) Is it a mystery to SFD and PMV why Canada has public Chief Medical Health Officers? How can our PUBLIC PORT so easily dismiss our Chief Medical Health Officers’ judgment that: “The report does not meet even the most basic requirements of a health impact assessment.” I fully support the recommendations of a) the Fraser Chief Medical Health Officer Paul Van Buynder, b) Metro Vancouver Director of Air Quality and Environment Roger Quan and c) Vancouver Coastal Health Chief Medical Health Officer Patricia Daly. BELIEF IN THE POWER OF SPIN Port Metro Vancouver and Surrey River Docks seem almost entirely focused on ASSURANCES OF NO HARM to the exclusion of investigating actual consequences to the environment or the health of British Columbians. The public is becoming skeptical about glossy motherhood assertions such as the Coal Alliance puts out virtually denying coal’s possibility of harm! “No harm with coal”, “Dust control is working”, “Coal can be handled and transported safely in BC”, “British Columbians Support the Coal Industry” – so much spin! Our public federal Port Metro needs to take a fuller more responsible realistic global perspective such as that offered by Harvard’s School of Public Health in Mining Coal, Mounting Costs: The life cycle consequences of coal http://chge.med.harvard.edu/resource/mining-coal-mounting-costs-life-cycle-consequences-coal Each stage in the life cycle of coal – extraction, transport, processing, and combustion – generates a waste stream and carries multiple hazards for health and the environment. These costs are external to the coal industry and are thus often considered “externalities”. We estimate that the life cycle effects of coal and the waste streams generated are costing the U.S. public a third to over one half of a trillion dollars annually. Many of these so called externalities are, moreover, cumulative. Accounting for the damages conservatively doubles to triples the price of electricity from coal per kWh generated, making wind, solar, and other forms of non-fossil fuel power generation, along with investments in efficiency and electricity conservation methods, economically competitive. If Port Metro is truly not responsible for what is shipped through its facility – believing all products are equal, tons of tobacco or tons of coal or tons of DDT – then Port Metro is not the proper decision-maker for whether the Lower Mainland is to support and become North America’s biggest coal exporter. This decision-making power is wrongly invested in Port Metro. Bite the bullet! Invest your billions in safeguarding Earth’s life support systems for future generations by choosing to invest in geothermal, solar, and other energy sources compatible with life. Go for it! There’s immense potential for geothermal in BC! Stop the injurious 18th century addiction to coal! http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/Titles/OGTitles/geothermal/Pages/GeothermalResourcesMap.aspx Sincerely, Sabra Woodworth North Vancouver, BC
Nicole WeberComments on the Proposed Fraser Surrey Docks Transfer Coal FacilityI am concerned about the climate impacts currently being experienced in Canada and throughout the world, which are exacerbated by the export and consumption of fossil fuels. I urge you to deny Fraser Surrey Docks a permit for its proposed coal facility, and to start taking responsibility for the climate damage that will result from the growing export of fossil fuels from Metro Vancouver ports.

Nicole Weber
Pasadena, MD
Kathleen SomervilleCoal exports I believe the stakeholder who has not been consulted in this process is the children of the future. Please consider that we do not need more fossil fuel transported and burned in 2013 and beyond. This is a bad idea and we need to look for sustainable energy ideas. Please listen to the people who live in the proposed areas where this coal will travel, not to mention the people of Asia who will have to live with the final consequences of this coal burning. If it is not good for us it is not good for them! How about taking responsibility for climate change around the world by not contributing to it.
John MuirheadCoal Port ExpansionI'm a 23 year old snowboarder/surfer who's life and happiness revolves around clean air, oceans and environment.....Oh wait so does everyones. This project is directly putting people's health at risk in Vancouver area, aswell as leading to eventual massive carbon footprints when the coal is burned overseas, this affects us all. US ports said NO, and we are saying NO as well. Here's to a healthy future for your and my grandchildren.
Marcel WangNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Marcel Wang
K Morrisonno to coal To Port Metro Vancouver, I say NO to Fraser Surrey Docks, NO to your sham review process, and NO to dirty coal. If you approve the project, I pledge to take to the streets to stop Fraser Surrey Docks from being built. Your review of the Fraser Surrey Docks project is fundamentally flawed, and the environmental impact assessment currently open to public comment has been criticized by everyone from health officers to local governments to impacted communities. It’s biased because it was carried out by consultants hired by Fraser Surrey Docks. It’s undemocratic because there are no public hearings, and the comments submitted won’t be made public. It also seems to me like it’s already a done deal because 8 days in to the comment period, your CEO said he was satisfied with the assessment. And finally, the assessment doesn’t take climate change into account! I am aware that the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks (FSD) Coal Facility would handle up to 8 million metric tonnes of coal annually, and pump about 17 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere each year. Coal dust and diesel particulates from coal trains would negatively impact community health. I do not want Greater Vancouver to be the largest coal exporter in all of North America! I want to keep coal in the ground, and its pollution out of our lungs and away from the climate. Sincerely, kaTo Port Metro Vancouver, I say NO to Fraser Surrey Docks, NO to your sham review process, and NO to dirty coal. If you approve the project, I pledge to take to the streets to stop Fraser Surrey Docks from being built. Your review of the Fraser Surrey Docks project is fundamentally flawed, and the environmental impact assessment currently open to public comment has been criticized by everyone from health officers to local governments to impacted communities. It’s biased because it was carried out by consultants hired by Fraser Surrey Docks. It’s undemocratic because there are no public hearings, and the comments submitted won’t be made public. It also seems to me like it’s already a done deal because 8 days in to the comment period, your CEO said he was satisfied with the assessment. And finally, the assessment doesn’t take climate change into account! I am aware that the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks (FSD) Coal Facility would handle up to 8 million metric tonnes of coal annually, and pump about 17 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere each year. Coal dust and diesel particulates from coal trains would negatively impact community health. I do not want Greater Vancouver to be the largest coal exporter in all of North America! I want to keep coal in the ground, and its pollution out of our lungs and away from the climate. Sincerely, kaTo Port Metro Vancouver, I say NO to Fraser Surrey Docks, NO to your sham review process, and NO to dirty coal. If you approve the project, I pledge to take to the streets to stop Fraser Surrey Docks from being built. Your review of the Fraser Surrey Docks project is fundamentally flawed, and the environmental impact assessment currently open to public comment has been criticized by everyone from health officers to local governments to impacted communities. It’s biased because it was carried out by consultants hired by Fraser Surrey Docks. It’s undemocratic because there are no public hearings, and the comments submitted won’t be made public. It also seems to me like it’s already a done deal because 8 days in to the comment period, your CEO said he was satisfied with the assessment. And finally, the assessment doesn’t take climate change into account! I am aware that the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks (FSD) Coal Facility would handle up to 8 million metric tonnes of coal annually, and pump about 17 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere each year. Coal dust and diesel particulates from coal trains would negatively impact community health. I do not want Greater Vancouver to be the largest coal exporter in all of North America! I want to keep coal in the ground, and its pollution out of our lungs and away from the climate. Sincerely, kaleb
Danah PagulayahNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Danah Pagulayah
MaryCoal Export EIAI appeal to you political leaders to take responsible action on behalf of the welfare of people around the globe by including the global warming consequences in the environmental impact assessment on expanding Vancouver's coal export capacity. People's lives are being devastated by the increase in extreme weather events such as recently occurred in the Philippines. Coal is among the most polluting substances. You should be leading the way to a sustainable economy and leaving fossil fuels in the ground, not looking for ways to deal in them more extensively. I urge you to take a moment of silence to reflect deeply on your impact on the world and act accordingly. The world does not need more burning of coal. Thank-you for listening. Mary Etey
Andrezza LemosNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Andrezza Lemos
Jenny WangNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Jenny Wang
Grant RiceComments on Environmental Impact Assessment for Fraser Surrey Docks Direct Transfer Coal Facility ProposalDear Mr. Silvester and the Port Review Committee, Re: Comments on Environmental Impact Assessment for Fraser Surrey Docks Direct Transfer Coal Facility Proposal I'd like to add my voice to the many comments you are receiving on the proposed coal export terminal at Fraser Surrey Docks. I have been a neighbour of the FSD for the past 22 years and I was the President of the Southwestminster Ratepayers Association from 2003 until 2011. Our group was formed at the time the FSD was undergoing an expansion and the Neighbourhood Concept Plan for the Southwestminster area was being developed. Our main issues at the time were about providing access to the waterfront from the surrounding communities, enhancing the ecologically important Manson Canal, and mitigating the noise impacts on residential neighbourhoods. We had some meaningful dialogue with executives of the Fraser Port Authority about our concerns. One of the issues of the day was how the authority denied responsibility for certain activities. Although the railways operate within the port facility, they refused to commission a second noise assessment that included rail activity. Our formal request, with a supporting cover letter from our MP Chuck Cadman, for a comprehensive noise assessment was denied. It appears that community involvement in port decisions has deteriorated even further since the amalgamation. In a July 1, 2013 interview with Frances Bula, Robin Silvester was asked: What changes do you see in the next decade? Does the backlash against oil shipping affect future plans? "Inevitably we'll see growth, and with that, more engagement from the community and more focus on growth without negatively impacting the environment. A couple decades ago we were the first port in Canada-only the second in North America-to have a full-time environmental person. Today we have a team of 15. It's one of the areas in our organization that's growing fastest." Frances' question applies to the shipment of US thermal coal as well. With this large team of environmental experts on staff, PMV should be able to look beyond the gates of the FSD to fully understand the implications of this proposal. In the same interview Robin professes his love for the natural beauty of BC and his appreciation for scuba diving in BC's waters. Please consider those waters, the air that we breath, and the carcinogenic effects of the coal and deisel particulate that will rain down on the good neighbours of FSD. Nothing short of a full, independent Health Impact Asessment will do. SNC Lavalin is in the coal business and has an undeniable conflict of interest with FSD and PMV. Deny this application! Respectfully, Grant Rice
Charlotte LiNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Charlotte Li
Connor AndersonNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Connor Anderson
Philip TashinNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Philip Tashin
Olivia MalcomNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Olivia Malcom
Nicole DelgrossoNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Nicole Delgrosso
Adam ParrottNo to Fraser Surrey Docks Proposal, Yes to Liveable AtmosphereDear Review Committee, The Fraser River Docks Proposal and its review process is completely inadequate. Completely shortsighted, it does not take into account climate change, which could catastrophically destroy the climate. Coal is a highly polluting substance and no amount of technology will change that fact. We MUST reduce emissions or we may even face the extinction of the human species. Yes. Really. We are doing it to 200 species a day. Every day. How will this proposal result in cleaner water for the salmon? Cleaner air for all of our lungs? I implore you, save our time and do not build this waste. I pledge to take to the streets! I pledge to take to the river! To stop Fraser Surrey Docks from being built. Sincerely, Adam
Ross MurphyNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Ross Murphy
Cory PahlCoal port expansionTo Port Metro Vancouver, I live on the Salish Sea and we share our environment which provides food for my family, including my 2 1/2 year-old daughter. I say NO to Fraser Surrey Docks, NO to your sham review process, and NO to dirty coal. If you approve the project, I pledge to take to the streets to stop Fraser Surrey Docks from being built. Your review of the Fraser Surrey Docks project is fundamentally flawed, and the environmental impact assessment currently open to public comment has been criticized by everyone from health officers to local governments to impacted communities. It’s biased because it was carried out by consultants hired by Fraser Surrey Docks. It’s undemocratic because there are no public hearings, and the comments submitted won’t be made public. It also seems to me like it’s already a done deal because 8 days in to the comment period, your CEO said he was satisfied with the assessment. And finally, the assessment doesn’t take climate change into account! I am aware that the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks (FSD) Coal Facility would handle up to 8 million metric tonnes of coal annually, and pump about 17 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere each year. Coal dust and diesel particulates from coal trains would negatively impact community health. I do not want Greater Vancouver to be the largest coal exporter in all of North America! I want to keep coal in the ground, and its pollution out of our lungs and away from the climate. Sincerely, Cory Pahl
Sarah MccartneyNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Sarah Mccartney
Tessica TruongStand up for our Future Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Tessica Truong
Vivian LyStand up for our Future Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Vivian Ly
Dana RadivojevicStand up for our Future Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Dana Radivojevic
Bianca BallarinNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Bianca Ballarin
Haley PennerNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Haley Penner
Karl De VeraNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Karl De Vera
James NorthwayNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, James Northway
Connor DennisNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Connor Dennis
Harold FletcherCoal Export EIAI endorse the call for a Coal Export EIA.
Kuljit GrewalNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Kuljit Grewal
Valeria Nandayapa BarreraNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Valeria Nandayapa Barrera
Matt HammerSay Yes to the Future To whom it may concern (and it concerns everyone), Coal is the fuel of the past. The Port of Metro Vancouver should be opening the door to the future and providing the community with responsible economic development that will provide lasting jobs and not trigger runaway climate change. It's that simple. In order to make sure this happens, we need a real review process. We need to scrap the current assessment processes and start over with a new set which must include the following features: - They must involve key stakeholders like our Health Authorities from the start, including determining the scope and terms of reference; - They must include an assessment of the risks of the proposed coal export expansion at Neptune Terminals; - They must consider all local impacts from the time the coal enters our region by rail to the time it enters international waters by ocean going vessel; - They must consider climate change impacts of the end use of that coal; - They must be open and transparent and incorporate public hearings. This is a matter which concerns all British Columbians. Do the right thing. If you don't, I like, so many others, are prepared to stand up to protect our future. As concerned citizens, we've pledged to take to the streets if you try to build Fraser Surrey Docks. This is not a pledge of aggression but one of love. Love for my two neices and the beautiful world I hope they will grow up into. - Thank you very much
Emily AkagiNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Emily Akagi
George TsigovNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, George Tsigov
Haley GreenhalghNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Haley Greenhalgh
Ivan SeslijaNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Ivan Seslija
Martin GarciaNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Martin Garcia
Andrei DivinagraciaNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Andrei Divinagracia
Yves CristinNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Yves Cristin
Elizabeth ZaikowMoratorium on Coal Expansion I am asking for a moratorium on coal expansion. All local impacts on health and environment need to be considered, from the time coal enters B.C. and the time it leaves international waters. We must consider what climate change impacts at end use of coal will bring all future generations. We must look at all the impacts this proposed coal expansion will have on health and the environment in the short and long term. We need endorse clean energy for all the world's children!
Paulyne CelisNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Paulyne Celis
Gina ChiuNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Gina Chiu
Beth KaedingVancouver Fraser Port Authority EIA Please understand that the project you are considering will have significant life, health, safety, and financial impacts on the people of Montana. Not only because more coal will be mined here, but also because all that coal and the coal from Wyoming will pass through Montana communities to get to the Canadian port(s). Consequently, I am respectfully requesting that the connected and cumulative impacts that this project will have on Montana citizens and communities be thoroughly examined in the EIA and considered in any decision.
Andrew LamigoNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Andrew Lamigo
Jessica LeeNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Jessica Lee

Barbara Kantola
Comments on the Proposed Fraser Surrey Docks Transfer Coal Facility I deserve a full independent hearing on the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks coal facility, as has been afforded to citizens of Washington State by regulators assessing coal terminals this year.
I deserve a comprehensive health impact assessment of the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks coal facility, as publicly recommended by Health Authority officials.
I am concerned about the climate impacts currently being experienced in Canada and throughout the world, which are exacerbated by the export and consumption of fossil fuels.
I urge you to deny Fraser Surrey Docks a permit for its proposed coal facility, and to start taking responsibility for the climate damage that will result from the growing export of fossil fuels from Metro Vancouver ports.


Barbara Kantola
Niles, MI
Andrew ZaworotryNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Andrew Zaworotry
Janis KamachiNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Janis Kamachi
Wendy AresneaultNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Wendy Aresneault
Rica De VeraNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Rica De Vera
Alex GlibissonNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Alex Glibisson
Melanie GundersonNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Melanie Gunderson
Ella PonceNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Ella Ponce
Sungmin LeeNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Sungmin Lee
James PalmerNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, James Palmer
Candice GundersonNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Candice Gunderson
Kyle YumangNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Kyle Yumang
Vanessa MandozaNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Vanessa Mandoza
James Phillips-SommerfeldNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, James Phillips-Sommerfeld
Da-yae ParkNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Da-yae Park
Michelle TabisulaNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Michelle Tabisula
Craig GundersonNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Craig Gunderson
Kevin GandhamNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Kevin Gandham
Sylvia GuoNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Sylvia Guo
Jen SlinnNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Jen Slinn
Sara GundersonNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Sara Gunderson
Nina DrozdridNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Nina Drozdrid
Jordan LawrenceNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Jordan Lawrence
Joey ChandlerNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Joey Chandler
Ruth ChittyCoal export EIAPort Metro Vancouver ~ I urge you to reconsider. The environment impact assessment you contracted Lavalin to conduct is far too limited in scope, depth and transparency. This has been the feedback of thousands of citizens. Thus far, you have ignored the involvement and recommendations of informed opinions (based on extensive experience and research) of leading health experts whose interest lies with the health and well -being of the public and its environment. At the very least, carry out a full, well- scoped and transparent assessment of the impact on citizens, air, water, wildlife which extends to Delta Estuary, Fraser River and Texada Island. Commit to an extensive, in -depth impact assessment with an independent review board in order to inform responsible decision – making. Better still, ask yourself “What is the responsible and ethical thing to do at this time? “Consider saying no to the expansion of thermal coal. At a time when the facts regarding climate change are un-debatable, it is unethical to continue the hazardous practices of transporting, shipping and ultimately burning thermal coal- practices which jeopardize the health and environment of our local and global communities . It ‘s time for change. We are overdue for moving on to support green and sustainable alternatives. There’s time ( hopefully) if we hurry.
Luke ChristensenNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Luke Christensen
Sophie HollidayNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Sophie Holliday
Trisha CacchioneNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Trisha Cacchione
Piper Scott-FiddlerNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Piper Scott-Fiddler
Michaela GavinoNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Michaela Gavino
Melissa PattersonNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Melissa Patterson
Shea HarrisonNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Shea Harrison
James OrenzoNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, James Orenzo
Jonathan TomaltyNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Jonathan Tomalty
Chantal GagnonNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Chantal Gagnon
Rachel WilsonNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Rachel Wilson
Barbad GhidsiNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Barbad Ghidsi
Sarah Trivettno to fraser surrey docksTo Port Metro Vancouver, I say NO to Fraser Surrey Docks, NO to your sham review process, and NO to dirty coal. If you approve the project, I pledge to take to the streets to stop Fraser Surrey Docks from being built. Your review of the Fraser Surrey Docks project is fundamentally flawed, and the environmental impact assessment currently open to public comment has been criticized by everyone from health officers to local governments to impacted communities. It’s biased because it was carried out by consultants hired by Fraser Surrey Docks. It’s undemocratic because there are no public hearings, and the comments submitted won’t be made public. It also seems to me like it’s already a done deal because 8 days in to the comment period, your CEO said he was satisfied with the assessment. And finally, the assessment doesn’t take climate change into account! I am aware that the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks (FSD) Coal Facility would handle up to 8 million metric tonnes of coal annually, and pump about 17 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere each year. Coal dust and diesel particulates from coal trains would negatively impact community health. I do not want Greater Vancouver to be the largest coal exporter in all of North America! I want to keep coal in the ground, and its pollution out of our lungs and away from the climate. Sincerely, Sarah Trivett
Not Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Katherine Wang
Megan ParmarNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Megan Parmar
Stefanie MatosNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Stefanie Matos
Kyle YipNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Kyle Yip
Ashland Selby-BrownNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Ashland Selby-Brown
Maddie GundersonNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Maddie Gunderson
Matthew SeymourNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Matthew Seymour
Claire SwantsonNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Claire Swantson
Oleksiy SlvpskyyNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Oleksiy Slvpskyy
Fiona GreenNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Fiona Green
Jeremy StehrsoNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Jeremy Stehrso
Soni HeerNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Soni Heer
Soni HeerNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Soni Heer
Kristine TorioNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Kristine Torio
Amanveer KandolaNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Amanveer Kandola
Manjyot RakhraNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Manjyot Rakhra
Sam BeckettNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Sam Beckett
Anastasia KalytaNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Anastasia Kalyta
Emily GnittNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Emily Gnitt
Jyoti DeolNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Jyoti Deol
Petar JordenovNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Petar Jordenov
Hana OliverNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Hana Oliver
Mikhael MelchorNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Mikhael Melchor
Jennifer HolmesNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Jennifer Holmes
Shantel ReddyNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Shantel Reddy
Christopher PolokNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Christopher Polok
Avtar PanesarNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Avtar Panesar
Ericka de LeonNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Ericka de Leon
Howard DaiNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Howard Dai
Cole CorniesNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Cole Cornies
Zendel SaysonNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Zendel Sayson
Simran SallNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Simran Sall
Emilio CarayNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Emilio Caray
Penda SambNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Penda Samb
Diana SmithNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Diana Smith
Patrick YangNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Patrick Yang
Armand RudolfNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Armand Rudolf
Puneet GrewalNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Puneet Grewal
Shannon HoskinsNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Shannon Hoskins
Malaika DavisNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Malaika Davis
Sadie FarinaNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Sadie Farina
Obraj KhelaNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Obraj Khela
Teresa DiewertEIA comments on port expansion for coal I am writing this email to submit to your sham review process. I say No to the expansion and NO to dirty coal. I am also writing to put you on alert that if the expansion is approved I will be actively resisting the expansion! Your review of the Fraser Surrey Docks project is fundamentally flawed, and the environmental impact assessment currently open to public comment has been criticized by everyone from health officers to local governments to impacted communities. It’s biased because it was carried out by consultants hired by Fraser Surrey Docks. It’s undemocratic because there are no public hearings, and the comments submitted won’t be made public. It also seems to me like it’s already a done deal because 8 days in to the comment period, your CEO said he was satisfied with the assessment. And finally, the assessment doesn’t take climate change into account! I am aware that the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks (FSD) Coal Facility would handle up to 8 million metric tons of coal annually, and pump about 17 million tons of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere each year. Coal dust and diesel particulates from coal trains would negatively impact community health. I do not want Greater Vancouver to be the largest coal exporter in all of North America! I want to keep coal in the ground, and its pollution out of our lungs and away from the climate. Sincerely, Teresa Diewert
Sukhjit SidhuNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Sukhjit Sidhu
Aneil SohiNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Aneil Sohi
Katherine WangNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Katherine Wang
Shijin KimNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Shijin Kim
Baldeep JagpalNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Baldeep Jagpal
Stephen GibbisonNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Stephen Gibbison
Nicolas GuindonNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Nicolas Guindon
Clarice GibbisonNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Clarice Gibbison
Dana RadivojevicNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Dana Radivojevic
Gabi GeollegueNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Gabi Geollegue
Lera VolkovaNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Lera Volkova
Yomel MahalleNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Yomel Mahalle
Kierin KaydukNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Kierin Kayduk
Michelle CasasNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Michelle Casas
Andrea MacDonaldPort expansion the wrong direction for BCAs a person who has lived in BC my whole life I am deeply concerned about the proposed coal port expansion. Projects like this dictate the direction our province is growing and that direction is toward massive industrial expansion. This kind of expansion threatens the health of our environment and the autonomy of our communities. BC claims to be taking steps to address climate change but projects like this show that we are doing exactly the opposite. The review process has not been transparent or thorough enough considering the gravity and scope of this project. It's time to take responsibility for the true gravity and damage of the decisions you are making and facilitating.
Meghan MalkowichNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Meghan Malkowich
Katie BroqueelNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Katie Broqueel
Olivia PowerNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Olivia Power
Auromaitreyi SalmonCoal port expansionI am horrified that this is even being considered in light of the impact on climate change, our health, our children's health, the air quality, the potential environmental disaster on the Westcoast. This is not only a local problem but a global one. As a citizen of Delta but also a citizen of this planet I cannot quietly let this expansion happen. I would like to see an independent EIA including an health impact assessment.
Erin EasdownNo coal export expansion It seems to me that the Port Authority has not done their due diligence in determining the health risks of coal export expansion. More importantly, we should be moving away from the use of coal and towards cleaner fuel sources. Canada must start taking actions to reduce climate change not actions that will have a very negative impact on our environment.
Morgan EmsleyNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Morgan Emsley
Luke ChavesNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Luke Chaves
Don SmitzNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Don Smitz
Neyvone JohnsNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Neyvone Johns
Miranda ChengNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Miranda Cheng
Harpreet PanesarNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Harpreet Panesar
Raquel TjernagelNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Raquel Tjernagel
MitchellNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Mitchell
Dana EvansNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Dana Evans
Joshua TerraNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Joshua Terra
Hugh JordanComments on the Proposed Fraser Surrey Docks Transfer Coal FacilityAt the least there needs to be a full health review to be done as recommended by the health authority


Hugh Jordan
Kamloops, BC
Jacqueline DysonNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Jacqueline Dyson
Bryson OkothNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Bryson Okoth
Devin StokesNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Devin Stokes
Devin StokesNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Devin Stokes
Christopher KleefmanNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Christopher Kleefman
Jen ChiangMot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Jen Chiang
Annaliese MeyerNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Annaliese Meyer
Liz FendleyCoal terminalIt is sheer folly to be transporting heating coal through Vancouver to China. We all need to be taking action to reduce greenhouse gases, and encouraging the use of coal is counterproductive. We can make a transition to clean energy and keep Vancouver healthier and safer.
Aidan CalhounNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Aidan Calhoun
Allaa Ela-AlimNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Allaa Ela-Alim
Howard LiuNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Howard LiuUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Oilip Rathineckumar
Olivia DewarNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Olivia Dewar
Naoll DegifeNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Naoll Degife
Madeline BarnesNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Madeline Barnes
Annaliese MeyerNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Annaliese Meyer
Blythe DixonNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Blythe Dixon
Jessica DrygalskiNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Jessica Drygalski
Victoria MacritchieNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Victoria Macritchie
Ravneet RattanNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Ravneet Rattan
Steve GablieNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Steve Gablie
Shamus KainNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Shamus Kain
Sidney WaageNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Sidney Waage
Torrance CosteComments on the Proposed Fraser Surrey Docks Transfer Coal FacilityMr. Blair,

At the least, I strongly urge you to admit the inappropriate nature of PMV consultation/review process for Surrey Fraser Docks. I also ask that you commit to a full independent review that better reflects the clear, transparent processes and the democratic approach that Canadians value.

At best, I urge you to deny Fraser Surrey Docks a permit for its proposed coal facility, given the huge leap backward it represents in terms of our commitment to addressing climate change in this province. This facility represents a diliberate, reckless long-term investment in the systematic pollution of our climate through carbon export and combustion.

An enterprise as illustrious as PMV must be a leader on the shift to a new, more responsible economy of tomorrow. Building this facility will permanently mark the Port as a laggard on this front - clinging to archaic and harmful ideologies and systems and forsaking future generations in the name of profit.

I for one believe PMV can do better than this.

Respectfully,

Torrance Coste
316 Arnold Ave
Victoria, Bc
Greg HansenNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Greg Hansen
Cameron MolesworthNot Good Enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Cameron Molesworth
Elisa HicklingNO vote for you if the pipeline is a YES I'm opposed for many reasons to the proposed pipeline and will speak with my vote if it is given the green light. Our coastline will be anything but green if you allow this project to proceed. Consider the future, not the dollar for a change.
Val WindsorCoal Trains Through Delta/Surrey to Surrey Fraser Docks I am one of many concerned citizens of Delta who will be subject to the fallout from coal trains moving through my neighbourhood. The Fraser Health Authority has requested a comprehensive health impact assessment for the Fraser Surrey Docks direct transfer coal facility and I support that request. I believe the assessment needs to be conducted by an independent adjudicator that has no ties to the port authority or the docks in order for the process to be seen to be reliable. I am also concerned about the close proximity of at least six Delta schools to the rail line that will carry the coal and of the potential health risks for students in our schools. Twenty years from now, when/if problems occur, it will be too late for some students who have already developed health issues as a result of the coal trains and associated issues. Before anything is approved, the government needs to mandate a proper health impact assessment like the state of Washington is doing. If it takes two years to do the job properly, so be it. If Americans are not prepared to accept the movement of this coal through their ports, we need to take a careful look at their concerns and make sure they are mitigated before coal starts moving into this country. Please be honourable and conscientious in ensuring a comprehensive health impact assessment is conducted on this very important issue.
Larri WoodrowForeign coal import-exportWhy are we fast-tracking foreign coal import-export when there's strong opposition from local agencies, when we in the Lower Mainland have such precious little area for industry, development & agriculture? Why add more ships to waters destined to be severely congested with ships exporting our own products? Why increase environmental risk/damage here when it belongs elsewhere. BNSF is a carrier with a poor record, as demonstrated by the lack of regular maintenance on their line. Their neglected crossing at the environmentally sensitive mouth of Little Campbell River, in South Surrey provides proof that neither BNSF or Fed. Ministry of Transport, the agency responsible for rail safety are acting responsibly. What safety measures are currently in place should a liquified chlorine tanker car burst anywhere along the route from N.Van to the US border? The neglect demonstrated at the Little Campbell crossing can be held up as a standard. And how do sugar 'n spice 'n all that's nice ads equate to thermal coal contaminants imported and exported here. I prefer we export BC products from BC Ports in an environmentally acceptable way.
Brad ParkFraser Surrey DocksI am opposed to the creation of the Fraser Surrey Docks. The issue at hand is the parameters by which acceptable actions are determined. The environmental impact of such a large scale project will reverberate through countless communities now and far into the future, and it is my contention that an adequate assessment of those consequences has not been accurately considered. By the standards set up by a globalized market thirsty for energetic resources this project should receive a gigantic green light. But I ask, are you truly aware of what is being done exactly? Yes the economic benefits would be great in the short term, and many people would be rewarded for this project with further resources to then be used elsewhere. Where will those further resources be spent though? On this planet. The very planet that is being polluted, perhaps beyond the point of recognition , to create additional wealth. Tell me, what good is the creation of additional wealth, if it's creation causes the destruction of the very place that wealth has value? We are reaching a point in history where those who continue upon the path that contributes to the destruction of our planet can run from their environmental consequences, but they can no longer hide and ignore them. Every move is carefully scrutinized and the effects documented. The forces of economic progress and the natural order of homeostasis are meeting, and creating a new equilibrium of environmental sustainability. The wave of unchecked growth is being matched by the counter wave of environmental protection, and it is only a matter of time before that counter wave engulfs the old order. There is a new way emerging, and it has already reached the tipping point. It's momentum will carry it past those who's vested interests would see it stopped. This issue is only one of many battles that have already been fought, and that will be fought in the future. The old order must change, it just doesn't know it yet.
AniMaeChi drabicComments on the Proposed Fraser Surrey Docks Transfer Coal Facility
I deserve a full independent hearing on the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks coal facility, as has been afforded to citizens of Washington State by regulators assessing coal terminals this year.
I deserve a comprehensive health impact assessment of the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks coal facility, as publicly recommended by Health Authority officials.
I am concerned about the climate impacts currently being experienced in Canada and throughout the world, which are exacerbated by the export and consumption of fossil fuels.
I urge you to deny Fraser Surrey Docks a permit for its proposed coal facility, and to start taking responsibility for the climate damage that will result from the growing export of fossil fuels from Metro Vancouver ports.


AniMaeChi drabic
Ojai, CA
Christopher LeinonenThe Coal Export Expansion Must Not HappenThere are many reasons that are brought up for an expansion to coal exports: foreign countries need energy, we have coal to export, our economies are hurting, and so on. None of these are reason enough to expand the export of coal (or even continue it at current rates). Leaving aside the fact that it is possible and practical to restructure economies away from energy sources like coal (which is known to be among the dirtiest and deadliest of fuels), we haven't got a choice. The science of climate change is as close to consensus as is possible within the scientific community, and the numbers tell us that there are five times the proven fossil fuel reserves as we can 'safely' burn while still keeping the globe's temperatures to below two degrees above-average. Already we're seeing the feedback effects of rising temperatures. If humanity is to have any hope of keeping global temperatures down, we must refuse to build new infrastructure that will increase greenhouse gas emissions. We have no choice. Nothing about burning coal is inevitable, alternatives exist and they must be taken up. This coal port expansion must not and can not happen.
Maura DohertyNo Coal Exports Through Port of VancouverThe cleanliness of our water and air have an undeniably direct impact on residents of the Lower Mainland and surrounding communities. As such, these residents (aka the public) have a right to know exactly what risks they are taking by living close to coal transports through the PMV. We have to know that the risks are a) reasonable and b) worth it. The EIA report that has been done on the proposed coal export terminal at the Fraser Surrey Docks fails miserably in its effort to assuage public safety concerns. This must be rectified - a transparent, unbiased and comprehensive review process must take place before the public can be expected to take such a risk.
Vishva HarttExpanded coal exports!?I am not breathing in coal nor mining the stuff for export. You represent me politically but that can change. If I send you a letter or talk to you at our kids' hockey practice-the question is the same:what the ! Do you think you're doing?
Anne McDonaldConcerns about Fraser Surrey Docks expansionI urge the Port Authority to put a moratorium on coal export expansion. A full and credible health and environmental impact assessment has yet to be done. A thorough assessment must address not only the risks to the health of residents and the environement posed by increased rail and ship transport of coal, but more importantly, it must address the urgent issue of the impact of coal on climate change. Port Metro Vancouver's mandate is to operate in the best interests of all Canadians. I urge you to take the concerns of local communities seriously and deny further of expansion of coal exports.
Lynn Maxtedcoal portDo not expand the coal port. This must be stopped all over the world. We must change to sustainable practises for our survival. Follow your heart and do the right thing....
Barbara DanielsComments on the Proposed Fraser Surrey Docks Transfer Coal FacilityI am concerned about the climate impacts currently being experienced in Canada and throughout the world, which are exacerbated by the export and consumption of fossil fuels.

Barbara Daniels
Union Dale, Amerikanische Jungferninseln
Burke Mountain Naturalists (Elaine Golds, PHD)Opposition to proposed increased export of thermal coalThe Burke Mountain Naturalists are a group of approximately 200 members who reside mainly in the Coquitlam and surrounding areas of Metro Vancouver. However, some of our members live in Surrey and could be impacted by the Port’s plans to substantially increase the transport and export of thermal coal. First, while the posting of information regarding this project has been only somewhat satisfactory (for example, we question why a 2.47 acre site to stockpile coal is described as “small”), the invitation for the public to submit comments and the accompanying deadline is completely buried on your website. This is totally inappropriate. This opportunity to submit comments is certainly not sufficiently obviously to most members of the public who may have concerns about potential impacts from this project and wish to state their views. We also question the so-called 30 day deadline for comments. If this posting was made on November 18 (which it was), then, to our minds, the deadline should be December 18, not December 17. Furthermore, to avoid confusion, this deadline should be at midnight unless otherwise clearly stated. Thus, we were dismayed to read elsewhere that the deadline is 4 pm. In this regard, we applaud the efforts of volunteers with and other groups who have made this information much more readily available to the broader community through their websites. Through much improved pollution regulations on thermal coal plants in the USA, the use of thermal coal to generate electricity has consequently decreased in that country. Thus, it make little sense to undermine these advances by simply proposing to export this same coal to China where it will also be burned, presumably in much less regulated plants, and cause even greater pollution. The release of mercury into the atmosphere from the combustion of thermal coal has now contaminated marine food webs in all the oceans of the world. Long-lived fish now have such high body burdens of mercury that their consumption by people has become an issue of health concern. Port Metro Vancouver should not be proposing to undertake projects which would result in an increase of such deleterious contaminants to the atmosphere. Our members are also very concerned about the impacts that will come from global warming. We therefore question the wisdom of a project to import dirty thermal coal from the USA and export it via Texada Island to China. It is all too easy to assume that yet one more project to inappropriately add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will make an insignificant amount of difference. Such projects clearly have cumulative impacts. An article in the Vancouver Sun today noted that, due to a warming ocean and rising sea levels, dikes along the coast of the lower mainland will have to be raised by 2100 at an estimated cost of $9.5 billion. The astronomical costs of dealing with global warming will eventually come back to haunt all of us. The buck must stop somewhere. Consideration must be given to the collective impact of our actions. In addition to contributing to global warming, there are also concerns about direct health impacts and noise along the rail corridor and at the dock site. Health professionals in BC have clearly stated their concerns and objections to this proposed project. We very much support their views. We are also grateful that the Directors of Metro Vancouver have also requested a more thorough health impact assessment. Such an assessment must take into account all health impacts associated with the import of this thermal coal from the time it crosses the border to the time it is shipped from Texada Island into international waters. Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments. Sincerely Elaine Golds, Ph.D. Conservation/Education Chair
Greg SimmonsComments on proposed Fraser Surrey Docks Coal ExpansionI am not going to repeat what so many have already so cogently expressed regarding the deep and severe flaws of this EIA – because I believe you, Port Metro, are only too aware of them already. Nor I am going to appeal to any basic sense of decency on your part, to any presumed token concern for the many young lungs that you are apparently willing to see filled with so many toxins. No, I would instead appeal directly to your self-interest. For should you decide to try and ride roughshod over the public’s concern – over the calls of all every municipality along the rail transport route, of the Fraser Valley and Vancouver Chief Medical Health Officers, of so many experts and so many citizens and residents – then I put it to you that this will prove a turning point for the Port Authority. The public simply will no longer stand for an authority so lacking in transparency and accountability, one that so clearly puts the interests of industry ahead of the public it is mandated to serve. The tide of opposition (pun intended) is growing stronger by the day, and pushing this project through will only catalyze that resistance all the more. I assure you that such a demonstrated contempt for democracy on your part simply will not be countenanced. The result will be that Port Metro will then be subject to real and significant changes to its decision making ability. So be smart. Concede to a thorough and comprehensive environmental assessment, one that includes the health authorities, includes a complete health assessment, and includes the entire transportation route. Believe me, it’s in your own best interests.
Montana BrockleyNo to Coal I say NO to Fraser Surrey Docks, NO to your sham review process, and NO to dirty coal. If you approve the project, I pledge to take to the streets to stop Fraser Surrey Docks from being built. Your review of the Fraser Surrey Docks project is fundamentally flawed, and the environmental impact assessment currently open to public comment has been criticized by everyone from health officers to local governments to impacted communities. It’s biased because it was carried out by consultants hired by Fraser Surrey Docks. It’s undemocratic because there are no public hearings, and the comments submitted won’t be made public. It also seems to me like it’s already a done deal because eight days in to the comment period, your CEO said he was satisfied with the assessment. And finally, the assessment doesn’t take climate change into account. I am aware that the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks (FSD) Coal Facility would handle up to 8 million metric tonnes of coal annually, and pump about 17 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere each year. Coal dust and diesel particulates from coal trains would negatively impact community health. I do not want Greater Vancouver to be the largest coal exporter in all of North America. I do not want Vancouver to be a coal exporter at all. I want to keep coal in the ground, and its pollution out of our lungs and away from the climate.
Kimberley WoodwardNo to CoalTo Port Metro Vancouver, I say NO to Fraser Surrey Docks, NO to your sham review process, and NO to dirty coal. If you approve the project, I pledge to take to the streets to stop Fraser Surrey Docks from being built. Your review of the Fraser Surrey Docks project is fundamentally flawed, and the environmental impact assessment currently open to public comment has been criticized by everyone from health officers to local governments to impacted communities. It’s biased because it was carried out by consultants hired by Fraser Surrey Docks. It’s undemocratic because there are no public hearings, and the comments submitted won’t be made public. It also seems to me like it’s already a done deal because 8 days in to the comment period, your CEO said he was satisfied with the assessment. And finally, the assessment doesn’t take climate change into account! I am aware that the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks (FSD) Coal Facility would handle up to 8 million metric tonnes of coal annually, and pump about 17 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere each year. Coal dust and diesel particulates from coal trains would negatively impact community health. I do not want Greater Vancouver to be the largest coal exporter in all of North America! I want to keep coal in the ground, and its pollution out of our lungs and away from the climate. Sincerely, Kimberley Woodward
Abelone EdwardsCoal Port, Pipelines Please Stop this Insanity to produce money at the expense of our lives, our health and that of the Fraser River and associated eco systems . I have to put up with making less money today bacause of corporate decisions to outsource jobs or bring temoporary foreign workers . And So Should YOU ! GET USED TO IT , less money NO !
Ann GrantFraser Surrey Docks Coal Exports To Port Metro Vancouver, I am writing to let you know that I don't want the Fraser Surrey Docks to export coal no matter what so-called “precautions” are taken. Your “review process” is unacceptable. You are not accountable to the people of BC. If you approve the project, I pledge to take to the streets to stop Fraser Surrey Docks from being built. I will do everything in my power to prevent this project from going ahead. As you know, the environmental impact assessment currently open to public comment has been criticized by everyone from health officers, to local governments, to impacted communities. It’s biased because it was carried out by consultants hired by Fraser Surrey Docks. It’s undemocratic because there are no public hearings, and the comments submitted won’t be made public. It also seems to me like it’s already a done deal because 8 days in to the comment period, your CEO said he was satisfied with the assessment. Most import in all this supposed assessment is that climate change is not taken into account! We don't live on a separate planet here in BC. We are part of the global community and what we do will affect everyone on earth. This of course includes us and what could affect our health more than runaway climate change? So it is preposterous not to include climate change in your assessment! Let me say that I am aware that the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks Coal Facility would handle up to 8 million metric tonnes of coal annually, and pump about 17 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere each year. Coal dust and diesel particulates from coal trains would negatively impact local community health. But the bottom line is: I do not want Greater Vancouver to be the largest coal exporter in all of North America! I want to keep coal in the ground so that we do not add to the danger of increase climate change. As I have said above, I will do everything in my power to prevent this project from going ahead.
Lisa DroogendykNO to dirty coal!To Port Metro Vancouver, I do not want Greater Vancouver to be the largest coal exporter in all of North America! The climate demands that we STOP using coal. Burning coal is well known to be one of largest contributors to climate change. Ports and governments all along the West coast of the United States have said NO to this dirty coal, and you should take your lead from them. I also want to take a few moments to call out your sham “public consultation.” You chose not to make the comments public, and only allowed us to submit them in writing. It is clear you do not want to TALK to the public. In fact, yesterday, when a group of peaceful activists came to deliver the message in person to your CEO, you reacted with violence, damaged their clothing and personal belongings, and refused to listen. IN sum, I say NO to your sham review process, and NO to dirty coal. If you approve the project, I pledge to take to the streets to stop a coal facility at Fraser Surrey Docks from EVER being built. Sincerely, Lisa Droogendyk Vancouver – Coast Salish Territories
Sid ShniadSAY NO TO COAL EXPORTS! To Port Metro Vancouver, You must deny permission for American coal to be shipped via Fraser Surrey Docks. The proposed Fraser Surrey Docks Coal Facility would handle up to eight million metric tonnes of coal annually and pump about 17 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. Coal dust and diesel particulates from coal trains would negatively impact community health. The existing review of the Fraser Surrey Docks project is fundamentally flawed. The current environmental impact assessment process has been widely criticized. Its bias is clear, given that it has been carried out by consultants hired by Fraser Surrey Docks. There have no public hearings. The comments submitted won’t be made public. Eight days into the comment period, your CEO said he was satisfied with the assessment, which doesn’t take climate change into account. In short, despite the existence of minimal democratic trappings, this appears to be a done deal. Coal should be left in the ground. Yours truly,
Gail CotterCoal Export There is no money, corporate profit, or business with the Orient worth fouling our home and risking the health of generations to come. We must stop the old style thinking and work towards a clean future for this planet. B.C. is the perfect place to begin! We are awake! We support change.
Faune JohnonCoal shipments through the port need to be limitedIn the modern world we should be able to capitalize on our scientific knowledge to conserve energy, find alternate energy sources, regulate use of energy, and protect the natural world on which we all depend. We cannot afford even a small disaster, nor can we afford to continue "growing" when that will lead to depletion of resources. Money for a few means hardship for many. Do not increase coal shipments through our Port.
Foye HattonSeriously? I cannot believe you had an ‘environmental’ assessment undertaken that did not include climate change! Seriously, one of the biggest threats to face humanity over the coming years and you choose to ignore it. You cannot be serious about increasing coal exports - coal is the dirtiest fuel there is … and just because you are not going to burn it here that does not make it OK! The World Banks suggests if we carry on as we are (i.e. increasing coal exports to make a quick buck) we are heading to 4 degrees of warming. To put 4 degrees in perspective ... The UK Treasury 'Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change' estimates that at 2ºC of warming = ‘sharp declines in crop yield in tropical regions (5- 10% in Africa)’, ‘up to 10 million more people affected by coastal flooding each year’, ‘40 – 60 million more people exposed to malaria in Africa’ and ‘15 – 40% of species face extinction’. Up at 4 degrees - approx 200 million permanently displaced due to rising sea levels, heavier floods and drought, global food production seriously affected, ‘30 – 50% decrease in water availability in Southern Africa’, ‘sea level rise threatens … major world cities such as New York, London, and Tokyo’ and the ‘possible disappearance of large glaciers in Himalayas, affecting 1/4 of China’s population and hundreds of millions in India' (Stern, 2006, 56/57). FULL REPORT - http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm It is so obvious. You should not increase coal exports. Thank you for your time.
Tracy PrescottSay "NO" to the Fraser Surrey DocksTo Port Metro Vancouver, I say NO to Fraser Surrey Docks, NO to your sham review process, and NO to dirty coal. If you approve the project, I pledge to take to the streets to stop Fraser Surrey Docks from being built. Your review of the Fraser Surrey Docks project is fundamentally flawed, and the environmental impact assessment currently open to public comment has been criticized by everyone from health officers to local governments to impacted communities. It’s biased because it was carried out by consultants hired by Fraser Surrey Docks. It’s undemocratic because there are no public hearings, and the comments submitted won’t be made public. It also seems to me like it’s already a done deal because 8 days in to the comment period, your CEO said he was satisfied with the assessment. And finally, the assessment doesn’t take climate change into account! I am aware that the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks (FSD) Coal Facility would handle up to 8 million metric tonnes of coal annually, and pump about 17 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere each year. Coal dust and diesel particulates from coal trains would negatively impact community health. I do not want Greater Vancouver to be the largest coal exporter in all of North America! I want to keep coal in the ground, and its pollution out of our lungs and away from the climate. Sincerely, Tracy Prescott
Darrick BaconStop destroying the planetThis reckless pillaging of the planet needs to stop. Do not allow these energy companies to DESTROY the earth for their profits!
Joyce JacksonCoal Port E xpansionThe present environmental assessment has been rejected as inadequate by health professionals. It's not worth putting people's lives at stake for short term gain. Please take note of what our health professionals have said and reject this project.
Toni AdisanoComments on the Proposed Fraser Surrey Docks Transfer Coal FacilityI deserve a full independent hearing on the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks coal facility, as has been afforded to citizens of Washington State by regulators assessing coal terminals this year.
I deserve a comprehensive health impact assessment of the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks coal facility, as publicly recommended by Health Authority officials.
I am concerned about the climate impacts currently being experienced in Canada and throughout the world, which are exacerbated by the export and consumption of fossil fuels.
I urge you to deny Fraser Surrey Docks a permit for its proposed coal facility, and to start taking responsibility for the climate damage that will result from the growing export of fossil fuels from Metro Vancouver ports.

Toni Adisano
Brooklyn, NY
Jeff BeckFlawed assessment This assessment must be open to public input,take in mind the affects on climate-peoples health-the communities the coal trains will be disturbing (their air quality). You "MUST" properly assess the potential risks of coal export. The American citizens wouldn't allow it in their port,why should we.
Franshisca DearmasComments on the Proposed Fraser Surrey Docks Transfer Coal FacilityStop coal exports.

Franshisca Dearmas
Cooper City, FL
Ryan ComerfordNot in my BackyardLiving in California, the impact of the coal trains & port does not directly effect me as it does for the residents of British Columbia. The potential serious deleterious environmental and health impact to the residents of BC and any global landing port (including Asia), is everyone's concern. We need to be careful to have a balanced approach to power generation and not continue to promote dirty energy. Although Canada has a CDN$5B coal industry, the best long term approach may be to ignore strong coal industry lobbyists in Ottawa and make the courageous decision to move towards sustainable energy and a sustainable, healthy future for all Canadians.
Dean GingrichCoal Port ExpansionThere is no value that offsets the possible health and environmental for expanding BC coal port capacity to ship US coal overseas. I am against ANY coal capacity expansion for non Canadian coal.
Blake TambolineNot good enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Blake Tamboline
Devan McClellandI do not support Fraser Surrey Docks Coal ExportsI am an athlete and outdoor enthusiast, and I will fight for the right to clean air for my friends, family, and the next generation. I call for a stop to coal export expansion and commitment to a proper health and environmental assessment including the following points: 1) they must involve key stakeholders like our Health Authorities from the start, including determining the scope and terms of reference 2) they must include an assessment of the risks of the proposed coal export expansion at Neptune Terminals 3) they must consider all local impacts from the time the coal enters our region by rail to the time it enters international waters by ocean going vessel 4) they must consider climate change impacts of the end use of that coal 5) they must be open and transparent and incorporate public hearings I do not support the the expansion of dirty coal exports. If you approve the project, I pledge to take to the streets to stop Fraser Surrey Docks from being built. Sincerely, Devan McClelland Business Marketing Student
Victor SiudaNot good enough Upon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Victor Siuda
Shell JohnsonEnd the Use of CoalHello Government Officials -- we're at a crucial tipping point on the planet. Coal must no longer be used. The Fraser Surrey Docks permit must be suspended to stop the expansion of coal exports. This is a time for sane decision making not economic excuses. Please address climate concerns now. Sincerely, Shell Johnson
Simar SainiNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Simar Saini
Nicole ShanksNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Nicole Shanks
Stefani CruickshankNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Stefani Cruickshank
Michael Brauer PHDComments on the EIA prepared for Fraser Surrey DocksDear Mr. Desjardin, I would like to take this opportunity to submit these comments in regard to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) prepared for the Fraser Surrey Docks (FSD). As other comments submitted in response to the EIA have covered many issues in detail I will limit these remarks to those areas where I have specific expertise 1)the human health effects of air and noise pollution and 2)human health risk assessment and the health impact assessment process. Air quality and human health With regard to air quality, the EIA states that “There are predicted exceedences noted for the 24-hour averaged PM10 and annual NO2 when combining the impacts from the proposed Project, current agricultural goods operations and ambient background concentrations, “ yet then concludes that “No significant adverse effects on air quality are likely to occur as a result of this project.” In arriving at this conclusion the EIA indicates that “Predicted PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations, including at the nearest residential receptor were less than the municipal, provincial, national and international World Health Organization air quality objectives / guidelines. In addition, the PM2.5 concentrations were estimated to be below the Metro Vancouver planning objective of 6 microgram per cubic metre (µg/m3). The air quality objectives have been derived based on the best available scientific evidence and, if achieved, are considered protective of health effects in the general public, including for sensitive sub-populations.” This conclusion of protective of health effects is unfortunately incorrect. I participated in the formulation of global air quality guidelines for the World Health Organization (WHO) and was a member of the subgroup that drafted the particulate matter guidelines. It is explicitly stated in the documentation for these guidelines that for particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), a “safe” level or concentration as which health impacts do not occur amongst the population has not yet been identified, and WHO recommends “continual minimization of population exposures and improvements in air quality.” 1 In fact there are already examples of health 1World Health Organization. Air Quality Guidelines. Global Update. 2005. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/78638/E90038.pdf p 173 impacts, including mortality, in Canada, at levels of particulate matter below the WHO Guideline2. It should also be noted that the same inaccuracy in the EIA applies to the emission of carcinogenic substances as part of the proposed project. For human carcinogens, regulatory agencies follow the current understanding of carcinogenesis which suggests no safe level of exposure which warrants minimizing exposures to as low as reasonably achievable. This is relevant given the recent assessment, in which I also participated, of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (of the World Health Organization) of air pollution and particulate matter in outdoor air as carcinogenic to humans3. Diesel exhaust has also previously been identified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as carcinogenic. With respect to the EIA, it is therefore incorrect to assume no adverse impacts on human health even if predicted levels of these carcinogenic air pollutants will be below WHO Guidelines or below a reference concentration (RfC); the RfC that is cited does not apply to cancer, but rather to non-carcinogenic effects as is clearly stated in the documentation cited on p151 of the EIA. For known human carcinogens regulatory agencies apply a cancer risk factor, following the assumption that any level of exposure will lead to an increased risk of cancer. Further, while the EIA suggest that “the modelling results are likely to be conservative by nature,” it also recommends “monitoring after facility commissioning is recommended to validate that air quality exceedences will not occur.” However, there is no plan described in the EIA that would reduce emissions so that ambient air concentrations would not exceed any of the stated benchmarks (beyond those already predicted) if any are in fact demonstrated or even whether this would be possible post-hoc. If there are possibilities to reduce emissions then it is reasonable to ask at this time, in the context of known human carcinogens and pollutants without recognized safe thresholds for severe deleterious health effects such as heart attacks and strokes (i.e. particulate matter), why Port Metro Vancouver would not put such plans in place from the outset in accordance with best practices? Noise and human health The superficial assessment of in the EIA does not adequately acknowledge the serious health impacts related to community noise exposure. Noise is recognized as contributing to increased cardiovascular mortality4, typically associated through heart attacks. Indeed, our 2 Crouse DL, Peters PA, van Donkelaar A, Goldberg MS, Villeneuve PJ, Brion O, Khan S, Atari DO, Jerrett M, Pope CA, Brauer M, Brook JR, Martin RV, Stieb D, Burnett RT. Risk of nonaccidental and cardiovascular mortality in relation to long-term exposure to low concentrations of fine particulate matter: a Canadian national-level cohort study. Environ Health Perspect. 2012 May;120(5):708-14. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1104049 3 Loomis D et al., The Lancet Oncology, Volume 14, Issue 13, Pages 1262 - 1263, December 2013 doi:10.1016/S1470- 2045(13)70487-X 4 Davies H, Kamp IV. Noise and cardiovascular disease: a review of the literature 2008-2011. Noise Health. 2012 Nov- Dec;14(61):287-91. doi: 10.4103/1463-1741.104895 own studies in the BC Lower Mainland have demonstrated associations between typical levels of community noise with deaths from heart disease5 and with low birthweight pregnancies6. These impacts are as severe and exposures as widespread as those related to air pollution yet unlike the treatment for air pollution the EIA contained no modeling of noise exposures and no noise measurements were provided. Human health risk assessment and the health impact assessment process. The EIA is full of judgments that are presented without support and which do not reflect state-of-the art approaches to the assessment of human health risk. For example “Air quality impacts from traveling barges along the Fraser River were considered to be low to negligible. No significant adverse effects on air quality are likely to occur as a result of this project.” With modeling and risk assessment approaches that have been well established for more than 25 years it is rather routine to provide quantitative estimates of potential impacts on human health as well as assessment of the uncertainty of these estimates. This is the well-known practice of quantitative risk assessment which is used routinely by the Federal and Provincial Governments as part of making processes related to numerous exposures (air pollution, pesticides, contaminated sites, etc.). The development of such quantitative estimates of impact for air pollutants are a significant component of my research, are well established for common air pollutants, and have been used repeatedly in many local, regional and national level assessments. Instead, the EIA leaves us only with the judgments of the authors and no assessment of the magnitude of the uncertainty of these conclusions. Further, it is important to recognize that the type of Health Impact Assessment (HIA) suggested by the Medical Health Officers in their letters differs substantially in scope and process from an EIA. The latter is designed to assess the potential for negative impacts on the environment and in some cases human health and has the tenor, as does this EIA, of determining whether there are or are not negative impacts compared to standards or guideline values. HIA, in contrast is an iterative process to evaluate the potential negative and positive impacts on human health related to the full scope of a project that strives to achieve a result with the greatest benefits and with no harmful impacts on public health. Thus the HIA process it is not an exercise in determining whether or not a project is acceptable but about improving projects to minimize or eliminate negative health impacts. If, as is argued in this EIA, there are no negative impacts related to this project then an HIA would serve to enhance the positive health benefits of the project – seemingly an objective that Port Metro Vancouver would share. 5 Gan WQ, Davies HW, Koehoorn M, Brauer M. Association of long-term exposure to community noise and traffic- related air pollution with coronary heart disease mortality.Am J Epidemiol. 2012 May 1;175(9):898-906. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwr424 6 Gehring U, Tamburic L, Sbihi H, Davies HW, Brauer M The impact of noise and air pollution exposure on pregnancy outcomes. Epidemiology, in press. 2013. However, following the above principles regarding no safe level of exposure for particulate matter and carcinogens, it is not a matter of exceeding guidelines or not, but whether the project will increase emissions to air and what level of impact is associated with these increased emissions. The modeling in the EIA does show increased emissions and these added emissions will lead to impacts on human health. This is what the state of the science understanding regarding these pollutants indicates. What might then be achieved in a health impact assessment? One possibility would be to have this project coupled to emissions reductions from other air pollution sources in the airshed – an approach that has been established in many jurisdictions for more than 30 years. To conclude, I find significant deficiencies, incorrect assumptions and superficial analysis in several aspects of the EIA and respectfully request that Port Metro Vancouver consider these comments when deciding on the future of the proposed coal facility. Further, I urge Port Metro Vancouver to pursue the initiation of a collaborative Health Impact Assessment as previously recommended by our Health Authorities. Sincerely, Michael Brauer Professor UBC
Clayton WhitelawNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Clayton Whitelaw
Sophie LabosseNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Sophie Labosse
Christy Faraher-AmidonHealth Impact Assessment and Full Public Hearings, PleaseDear Port Metro Vancouver, Pleae heed the request of local citizens, city councils, School Boards and Medical Health Officers to: 1. Initiate and complete and publically report a full, comprehensive and independent health assessment of the import of US thermal coal from the BC border to Fraser Surrey Docks and through the waterways to Texada Island. 2. Arrange, advertise, hold and publically report input from a full public hearing on the matter of importing this product into our country and transpoting it through our local communities. Anything less is inappropriate and undemocratic for a body appointed by our elected officials and funded by our tax dollars. I will be waiting to receive word that you have decided to do the right thing in this matter before you. Sincerely, Christy Faraher-Amidon
Simon HuangNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Simon Huang
Gurjot KalraNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Gurjot Kalra
Khaled NasraNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Khaled Nasra
Pat bowenComments on the Proposed Fraser Surrey Docks Transfer Coal Facility am concerned about the climate impacts currently being experienced in Canada and throughout the world, which are exacerbated by the export and consumption of fossil fuels.
I urge you to deny Fraser Surrey Docks a permit for its proposed coal facility, and to start taking responsibility for the climate damage that will result from the growing export of fossil fuels from Metro Vancouver ports.
Keila StarkNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Keila Stark
Jessica IpNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Jessica Ip
Ronald HeberSerious concerns with VFPA's EIA of proposed US thermal coal export expansion I am writing as a concerned citizen to provide my feedback about the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority's EIA on the proposed US thermal coal export expansion. Over 2,000 concerned citizens have thus far provided their feedback enunciating their concerns about this proposal. I would argue that for every comment you receive, there are likely 100 others who feel the same way but just haven't taken that next step in writing an official feedback response. Is the Fraser Port Authority willing to go ahead when the real opposition to US thermal coal export expansion is arguably in the hundreds of thousands? When VanCity, on behalf of its 500,000 members, released a letter saying it must not proceed until our Health Authorities' concerns have been addressed? When the Vancouver Coastal Health/Fraser Health has enumerated several concerns about flaws in the EIA? When several experts have weighed in expressing their grave concerns? The BC Nurses Union? Not to mention concerns raised by various council members/mayors of the cities of Delta, Surrey, New Westminster, White Rock and Richmond? It is also incompatible with the city of Vancouver’s Greenest City initiative. I am in accord with all the serious and very specific concerns already raised by so many others, so while I won’t specifically reference them all here, please know that I share those same concerns. Instead, I will highlight two issues that are top of mind for me personally: 1. Health: particulate from thermal coal dust and the diesel exhaust from its transportation is likely to aggravate my chronic lung condition, making it even harder for me to breathe, and making me prone to serious bouts of coughing and wheezing. 2. Climate change: at just 0.8 degrees C of global warming as compared with pre-industrial times, we are already seeing increased weather extremes and climate stress. More scientists are coming forward to say that the 2 degrees C limit that we must not breach is in fact too high a limit. And yet, we are currently on a path to blow past that 2 degree limit far before the end of this century. Any overt expansion of fossil fuel use without stringent carbon capture and storage—of which the proposed US thermal coal export expansion would most definitely be a part—is being dangerously reckless with humanity’s future. A proper EIA of the proposal must take into account the environmental harm from the carbon that will be released into the atmosphere as a result of increasing coal exports. It saddens me that I should have to write this letter. For humanity’s future, please reconsider this coal export expansion. Regards, Ronald Heber
Jana LehmannNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Jana Lehmann
Monica TComments on the Proposed Fraser Surrey Docks Transfer Coal Facility
I deserve a full independent hearing on the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks coal facility, as has been afforded to citizens of Washington State by regulators assessing coal terminals this year.
I deserve a comprehensive health impact assessment of the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks coal facility, as publicly recommended by Health Authority officials.
I am concerned about the climate impacts currently being experienced in Canada and throughout the world, which are exacerbated by the export and consumption of fossil fuels.
I urge you to deny Fraser Surrey Docks a permit for its proposed coal facility, and to start taking responsibility for the climate damage that will result from the growing export of fossil fuels from Metro Vancouver ports.

Monica T
Manado, North Sulawesi, Indonesia
Mentari WidyarsoNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Mentari Widyarso
Lindsay MarshComments on the Proposed Fraser Surrey Docks Transfer Coal Facility
I am very concerned about the proposed coal facility at Surrey Docks. All citizens living in and visiting this area deserve a comprehensive health impact assessment of the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks coal facility. Not having this assessment is bypassing an essential step.

I am also greatly concerned about the climate impacts currently being experienced in Canada and throughout the world, which are worsened by the export and consumption of fossil fuels.

Please please please, I urge you to deny Fraser Surrey Docks a permit for its proposed coal facility, and to start taking responsibility for the climate damage that will result from the growing export of fossil fuels from Metro Vancouver ports.

Thank you for listening.

Sincerely,

Lindsay Marsh
Burnaby, BC
Anastasia BurkeNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Anastasia Burke
Evan ParmarNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Evan Parmar
Oilip RathineckumarNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Oilip Rathineckumar
Anna VosNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Anna Vos
Elj PonceNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Elj Ponce
Jason-Giro GiroulxxNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Jason-Giro Giroulxx
Vichy CaoNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Vichy Cao
Prisulla ChenNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Prisulla Chen
Dale DonnellyNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Dale Donnelly
Effie ZhangNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Effie Zhang
Gabrielle BallardNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Gabrielle Ballard

Julie English
Comments on the Proposed Fraser Surrey Docks Transfer Coal FacilityI urge you to deny Fraser Surrey Docks a permit for its proposed coal facility, and to start taking responsibility for the climate damage that will result from the growing export of fossil fuels from Metro Vancouver ports.

Julie English
Sacramento, CA
Raymond NemetzNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Raymond Nemetz
Chantal DoffoeNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Chantal Doffoe
Atheing BiarNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Atheing Biar
Ken ChangNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Ken Chang
Miles LavigneNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Miles Lavigne
Holden MahNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Holden Mah
Alev GovNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Alev Gov
Emiliana CustodioNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Emiliana Custodio
Michelle NaynesNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Michelle Naynes
Kedean VargaNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Kedean Varga
Gordon SpringNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Gordon Spring
Chris Vanceplease respect Indigenous sovereignty and all people's well being by assessing coal export expansion negativelyPlease cease the present so-called assessment because it violates Indigenous sovereignty and was not determined by appropriate bodies capable of assessing health impacts. The lands on which this coal export expansion is proposed to be is unceded sovereign Indigenous territory and therefore first, before any potentially positive assessment can be made, the Indigenous nation(s) of this territory must be fully recognized as sovereign. At the same time, any assessment must be conducted with scope and terms of reference determined by bodies like health authorities capable of informing proper health and environmental impact assessments. sincerely, Chris Vance
Grace JungNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Grace Jung
Alex WongNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Alex Wong
Quinn MacDonaldComments on the Proposed Fraser Surrey Docks Transfer Coal FacilityI am concerned about the climate impacts currently being experienced in Canada and throughout the world, which are exacerbated by the export and consumption of fossil fuels.

As a Victoria resident, I refuse to allow the Salish Sea to become a carbon corridor. Coal is the dirtiest fossil fuel polluter we have, and we should be shutting the industry down, not supporting its further growth. This expansion is reckless and short-sighted. Port Metro Vancouver works for the people not for big business, and they should remember that when making decisions.

Thank you for your time,

Quinn MacDonald
Victoria, B.C.
Sharon KimNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Sharon Kim
Rick BloudellNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Rick Bloudell
Samantha DayalNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Samantha Dayal
Ron van der EerdenNo Coal Export ExpansionWe know that we must stop using fossil fuels altogether within 30 years. How can anybody with any morals move forward with infrastructure that is designed to ensure we are still committed to them long after the deadline. It is a deadline!
Connor WilkesNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Connor Wilkes
Julia LeeNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Julia Lee
Debbie WilliamsonComments on the Proposed Fraser Surrey Docks Transfer Coal FacilityI am concerned about the climate impacts currently being experienced in Canada and throughout the world which are exacerbated by the export and consumption of fossil fuels.

I urge you to deny Fraser Surrey Docks a permit for its proposed coal facility and to start taking responsibility for the climate damage that will result from the growing export of fossil fuels from Metro Vancouver ports.

Debbie Williamson
Mountain Home, AR
Marie Brunerexporting coalI live in North Delta not far from the Fraser Surrey Docks. I do not want the exporting of US Thermal coal to proceed. The health effects of transporting and burning coal could be detrimental to human and environmental health. There is no economical benefit to transporting US thermal coal through our ports. Even if there was it is not worth the risk to our environment and health.
Simran DhillonNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Simran Dhillon
Jenna ChernoffNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Jenna Chernoff

natasha salgado
Comments on the Proposed Fraser Surrey Docks Transfer Coal FacilityPlease reject US coal
Mike HuntNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Mike Hunt
Isabela JorioNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Isabela Jorio
Lucie NguyenNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Lucie Nguyen
Carmen WuNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Carmen Wu
Faheemah HamidNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Faheemah Hamid
Natalie PerelyginNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Natalie Perelygin
MaryComments on the Proposed Fraser Surrey Docks Transfer Coal Facility•I deserve a full independent hearing on the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks coal facility, as has been afforded to citizens of Washington State by regulators assessing coal terminals this year.
•I deserve a comprehensive health impact assessment of the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks coal facility, as publicly recommended by Health Authority officials.
•I am concerned about the climate impacts currently being experienced in Canada and throughout the world, which are exacerbated by the export and consumption of fossil fuels.
•I urge you to deny Fraser Surrey Docks a permit for its proposed coal facility, and to start taking responsibility for the climate damage that will result from the growing export of fossil fuels from Metro Vancouver ports.


Mary
Richmond, British Columbia
Gursimran SandhuNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Gursimran Sandhu
Kit BlumensteinComments on the Proposed Fraser Surrey Docks Transfer Coal FacilityI deserve a full independent hearing on the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks coal facility, as has been afforded to citizens of Washington State by regulators assessing coal terminals this year.

I deserve a comprehensive health impact assessment of the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks coal facility, as publicly recommended by Health Authority officials.

I am concerned about the climate impacts currently being experienced in Canada and throughout the world, which are exacerbated by the export and consumption of fossil fuels.

I urge you to deny Fraser Surrey Docks a permit for its proposed coal facility, and to start taking responsibility for the climate damage that will result from the growing export of fossil fuels from Metro Vancouver ports.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this issue.


Kit Blumenstein
Lewisville, Texas
Desiree RosalesNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Desiree Rosales
Leo HuangNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Leo Huang
Bart MihailovichComments from Spokane Riverkeeper, Lake Pend Oreille Waterkeeper & The Lands CouncilWe have also submitted an email to this email address: [email protected] To whom it may concern: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) conducted by Fraser Surrey Docks on their proposed direct transfer coal facility in Surrey B.C. These comments are submitted on behalf of the following organizations in the United States who would be impacted by this project and the increased rail traffic associated with the proposal; Spokane Riverkeeper in Spokane, WA, The Lands Council in Spokane, WA and Lake Pend Oreille Waterkeeper in Sandpoint, ID. These comments are on behalf of the aforementioned organizations and their respective member bases who are aligned under the broad common goal of environmental protection in their geographic areas. Another thing connecting our organizations is that they share a BNSF rail line connecter known as the “BNSF funnel”, a 70-mile stretch of track between Sandpoint and Spokane that sees up to 70 trains a day, according to an Inland Pacific Hub study – (http://www.inlandpacifichub.org/documents/Modal%20Fact%20Sheets/Modal%20Fact%20Sheet%20-%20Rail%20final.pdf). This line, extremely important to the economy of our region, has over the last two years been the subject of much discussion and analysis given the litany of coal and oil transport proposals in Washington and Oregon. There are currently three coal export proposals (two in Washington and one in Oregon) and twelve oil transport proposals (ten in Washington and two in Oregon) that are in various stages of permitting and review. All told, the proposed increase in number of trains that could traverse the BNSF funnel from Sandpoint to Spokane then westward to any number of the proposals, could result in up to 60 or 70 additional trains a day, essentially a 100% increase in current traffic. This is a potential reality that is logistically, financially and environmentally illogical. We are writing to express our concerns over your proposal as it is another project that would result in increased train traffic through our communities, and to ask that you delay your decision on the EIA for the direct transfer coal facility in Surrey B.C. until you can properly analyze the impacts to rail communities along the way, communities like Sandpoint and Spokane. Furthermore, there are simply too many questions and too many unknowns given the onslaught of fossil fuel transporting and exporting proposals in the NW to fully understand the impact of one singular proposal. We urge Fraser Surrey Docks to coordinate with officials in the United States to have a better idea of rail line capacity, rail infrastructure upgrades needed and how those would be financed, and logistics around rail safety and emergency response before any permits are approved. Our communities are staring down several projects many miles away from us on the west coast that would dramatically impact our way of lives, our health and our natural resources, this is now another one. We respect your permitting processes, but must strongly urge you to start over and widen the scope of your EIA and study how this direct transfer coal facility in Surrey B.C would impact rail communities like ours. Exporting coal through our communities directly impacts the Lake Pend Oreille watershed and the Spokane River basin in many ways, most notably our discovering that the current coal train shipments through our region are already resulting in coal dust and coal chunks in our waterways, and that an increase in this activity of coal exporting for a facility in B.C. will only increase how often we find toxic coal in our natural resources. Open coal trains lose huge volumes of coal dust and debris during transportation. According to BNSF studies, between 500 lbs. to 2000 lbs. of coal can be lost in the form of dust for each rail car. In other studies, as much as three percent of the coal in each car (around 3600 pounds per car) can be lost in the form of dust. A study of a West Virginia rail line found that one pound of coal per car per mile is lost from coal trains. At this rate, one coal train with 120 cars traveling 80 miles through Sandpoint, over Lake Pend Oreille and to Spokane over and along the Spokane River could lose just over 10,000 pounds of coal in our region. One coal train per day for 365 days is 3,650,000 lbs. per year deposited in our communities. Additionally, the scope of the EIA should be widened and must also address the risk of derailment from increased train traffic carrying coal through our region. Increased train transportation, particularly coal trains, poses a real threat of derailments, spills, and impacts to sensitive areas. Coal dust has been documented as a rail ballast contaminant and BNSF has attributed derailments to the ballast contaminated with coal dust. A cursory review of the recent history of accidents illustrates the risks of derailment: • In July 2012 a coal train transporting Powder River Basin coal derailed near Pasco, Washington, dumping and undetermined amount of coal. • In July 2012 a coal train derailed in Chicago because a bridge was not designed to carry the weight of coal cars. • On April 24, 2005, an Amtrak train traveling on the Washington side of the Columbia River derailed within the National Scenic Area. • In January 2003, a train containing hazardous waste derailed near The Dalles on the Oregon side of the Columbia River. That derailment occurred in a culturally significant area within the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area, and threatened tribal cultural resources. Moreover, our members routinely bring up concerns with the BNSF refueling depot in Hauser, Idaho and how it has historically and currently leaks in to the Rathrdrum Prairie – Spokane Valley aquifer, an aquifer that is connected to the Spokane River and which could transport pollutants in to the River system. The Rathrdrum Prairie – Spokane Valley aquifer is also the drinking water source for nearly 700,000 people in Kootenai and Spokane counties in north Idaho and eastern Washington respectively. This refueling depot has had numerous issues with inadequate aquifer protection, can it withstand a massive increase in refueling instances due to increased traffic? This needs to be considered in your EIA and studied very carefully for we only have one shot to protect the Rathrdrum Prairie – Spokane Valley aquifer. And finally, if corporations export coal to Asia they are causing air pollution in the western United States. Coal export from the Pacific Northwest has the connected action of importing poisonous air pollution that is deposited into lakes, streams and rivers, toxifying our fish and threatening the health, vitality and brain development of our children. Every single waterbody in the U.S., including Lake Pend Oreille and the Spokane River has a mercury advisory on it. This proposed direct transfer coal facility will only add to that problem. What is being done to address this? Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this. Because of the potential impacts to our communities and our natural resources, we strongly urge you to consider stepping back and widening the scope of the EIA to include studies of impacts on rail communities like Sandpoint, ID and Spokane, WA and every rail community between source and facility. If you have any questions, you can reach any of us at the information provided below in our signatures. Thank you, Bart Mihailovich Director Spokane Riverkeeper Spokane, Washington Mike Petersen Executive Director The Lands Council Spokane, Washington Shannon Williamson Executive Director Lake Pend Oreille Waterkeeper Sandpoint, Idaho
Curzio BruniComments on the Proposed Fraser Surrey Docks Transfer Coal FacilityI deserve a full independent hearing on the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks coal facility, as has been afforded to citizens of Washington State by regulators assessing coal terminals this year.
I deserve a comprehensive health impact assessment of the proposed Fraser Surrey Docks coal facility, as publicly recommended by Health Authority officials.
I am concerned about the climate impacts currently being experienced in Canada and throughout the world, which are exacerbated by the export and consumption of fossil fuels.
I urge you to deny Fraser Surrey Docks a permit for its proposed coal facility, and to start taking responsibility for the climate damage that will result from the growing export of fossil fuels from Metro Vancouver ports.


Curzio Bruni
Assisi, PG
Sandra ForbesCoal shipping expansionStop your attempt to expand coal shipping through the port of Vancouver. You're using pretty pictures on your media ads to hide the TRUTH. Coal is the dirtiest of fossil fuels and it's use must stop! Not expand. It's hazardous to the health of those all along it's shipping route and through contributing to air pollution and climate change it threatens everyone. Vancouver is proud of it's clean environment. Don't build this!
Sadie DeCosteNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Sadie DeCoste
Jasmine TaylorNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Jasmine Taylor
Jordan CastroNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Jordan Castro
Deana BrynildsenNO TO COAL EXPORT EXPANSIONThe Surrey Fraser docks currently can't control the dust from a load of lentils and don't care that it blows over to Westminster Quay. I don't believe it will be must different with coal dust. The whole Wyoming Coal plan is absolutely ridiculous. Let the Americans ship their own coal to China. We don't want it crossing our border!!
Hannah BlockNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Hannah Block
Harnek BhupalNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Harnek Bhupal
Donna VanceMoratorium imperativeIt is imperative that you call a moratorium on coal import expansion at Fraser Surrey Docks and that the proposal to then ship coal to Texada Island be subject to an thorough independent review that studies the environmental health impact of this proposal. Please listen to THE PEOPLE and conduct open public and TRANPARENT hearings.
Vicki ZhangNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Vicki Zhang
Kiki YuNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Kiki Yu
Ellen and Robert SmithOpposition to the plan to increase coal exportsWe are strongly opposed to the plans to increase coal export from the Fraser Port.. The environmental assessment has heretofore been inadequate and the entirely inadequate opportunities for public consultation - particularly in the coastal communities that are directly affected - is scandalous. We ask for a moratorium on the expansion of coal products until these problems are addressed..
Shannon KhanNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Shannon Khan
Brent D.Not good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Brent D.
Ethan StromeNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Ethan Strome
Marie Honey'JonesComments on the Proposed Fraser Surrey Docks Transfer Coal FacilityTo whom it may concern:

I am concerned about the climate impacts currently being experienced in Canada and throughout the world, which are exacerbated by the export and consumption of fossil fuels.
I urge you to deny Fraser Surrey Docks a permit for its proposed coal facility, and to start taking responsibility for the climate damage that will result from the growing export of fossil fuels from Metro Vancouver ports.
I urge you to stop this, and it's time the world wakes up to climate change!

Marie Honey'Jones
Conwy, None
Josh RheaumeNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Josh Rheaume
Michelle StanwoodNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Michelle Stanwood
Ekveer KandolaNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Ekveer Kandola
Christine VickersCoal export expansionThe port authority needs to conduct new assessments of the environmental and health impact of the proposed terminal for coal export. These assessments must involve local health and environmental authorities.
Lee YooNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Lee Yoo
Lahiru MadawanarachohiNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Lahiru Madawanarachohi
Katrina HeinonenNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Katrina Heinonen
Colin DonahoeNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Colin Donahoe
Harry ZhuangNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Harry Zhuang
Aylon CohenPort Hearing CommentsTo whom it may concern, The project to expand coal exports is deeply concerning. It is clear that climate change and environmental destruction is one of the biggest issues facing not only Canada, but the globe. Evidence points to the fact that if the project is passed, the associated carbon emissions would be greater than BC’s current total annual carbon output. More disconcerting is the democratic basis of the review process. It is clear that the public cannot engage in proper deliberation and decision making on a project that has been assessed by consultants hired by Fraser Surrey Docks. Third party scientists, unconnected to the corporate interest of the project, need to assess the merits of the process for clearer information for public deliberation. Moreover, whatever the scientific merits of the project,the lack of public hearings and the fact that comments submitted will not be made available to the public undermines the very democratic grounding by which these projects ought to be decided. Unless the port is willing to come clean and admit that the sovereign voice of the people matters little when deciding projects that will affect everyone in face of corporate interests, then the project simply cannot proceed. Lack of democratic mandate and public approval undermines the legitimacy of the project, regardless of how economically beneficial it may be. Given the lack of scientific invalidity and democratic legitimacy, the Port Authority simply cannot approve of the coal export expansion project until proper health and environmental impact assessments for key stakeholders have been undertaken and ultimately approved by these stakeholders. Sincerely, Aylon Cohen
Brittany LimNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’s proposal. The Port’s own correspondence reveals an overly friendly relationship with the coal industry. Industry-run open houses and mail-in comments are not enough. The Port should conduct transparent and comprehensive public hearings. In conclusion, I call on you to reject the environmental impact assessment as is. It needs to be redone in partnership with provincial and federal health and environment authorities, considering the health impacts of the coal from the time it enters Canada to the time it leaves, as well as the contribution to climate change of the coal’s combustion upon arrival at its final destination. The Port has failed to adequately include the public in the review process, and needs to conduct full public hearings to do so. Sincerely, Brittany Lim
Natasha MoysiukNot good enoughUpon review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of Fraser Surrey Docks’ proposed coal transfer facility, I request the EIA be scrapped and redone properly. It does not adequately measure the local and global heath and environment impacts of the coal being transported. The EIA should be redone in partnership with affected First Nations as well as independent federal and provincial health and environment officials. As indicated by the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health officers, the EIA does not adequately assess potential local health impacts of the proposal. The impacts of additional train traffic and coal dust pollution would be significant for the communities affected, including the dozens of secondary schools, elementary schools, and preschools that are located within blocks of the train tracks. I also request that when the EIA is redone, the terms of reference cover all aspects of the project, from the time the coal trains cross the Canadian border to the time the sea-faring vessels from Texada Island leave Canadian waters. SNC Lavalin’s assessment focuses primarily on potential impacts in the immediately vicinity of the port itself and does not adequately consider the health impacts of trains, barges, and the project on Texada Island, where heavy metals from coal dust are a particular concern for the drinking water supply. In addition to failing to properly address health impacts, the current EIA completely fails to consider the contribution to climate change when the exported coal is inevitably burned in the destination country. Climate change knows no borders; we will all suffer the same fate. Canada needs to be a leader and move beyond the mindset that our responsibility ends at our water’s edge. Furthermore, I request that Port Metro Vancouver conduct a more open, transparent, and inclusive assessment of FSD’