Site C Clean Energy Project

Attachment Response from Philip Raphals, Helios Centre, to Errata identified by BC Hydro (see Reference Document Number 2100)

• Site C Clean Energy Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 2773
• Submitted: 2014-05-21
• Response from Philip Raphals, Helios Centre, to Errata identified by BC Hydro (see Reference Document Number 2100)
• Attachment included
• RESEARCH, ANALYSIS AND EXPERTISE IN ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE 326 St-Joseph E., suite 100 Montreal, Quebec, Canada H2T 1J2  514/ 849-7900  206/984-9421 philip@centrehelios.org www.helioscentre.org May 21, 2014 Ms. Courtney Travis Panel Co-Manager CEAA 22 nd Floor, 160 Elgin Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Mr. Brian Murphy Panel Co-Manager BCEAO 4 th floor, 836 Yates Street Victoria, BC V8W 9V1 Dear Ms. Travis and Mr. Murphy, The Treaty 8 Tribal Association asked me to review the letter from BC Hydro dated May 9, 2014, concerning errors in Tables 16 and 18 of the Panel Report. I concur that the “Net 2” column in Table 16 appears to leave out the values in the “Low LNG” column. My review also revealed two other inconsistencies in these tables. On page 287, the Panel writes: The forecast of net energy yields for the closely similar DSM options 2 and 3, which differ not in content but in expenditure devoted to them, is shown in Table 16 above. However, while Table 16 includes a column indicating the energy savings from DSM-2, there is no mention of DSM-3. The Final IRP (CEAR #2101) shows in Fig. 3-1 (page 3-24) that, by 2026, savings under DSM- 3 would be approximately 1,100 GWh greater than under DSM-2 — 33% more than the LNG load that was inadvertently omitted from the Net 2 column. Its effect on Table 16 is shown in Table 1, below. In this table, the first seven columns, up to the column “Net 2 (JRP)”, are taken from the Table 16 of the Panel Report. The column “Net 2 (LNG)” is from BC Hydro’s errata letter, taking into account the Low LNG loads. The column “DSM 3” shows the annual energy savings ...

Attachment Errata identified by Allisun Rana, Treaty 8 Tribal Association

• Site C Clean Energy Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 1493
• Submitted: 2014-05-09
• Errata identified by Allisun Rana, Treaty 8 Tribal Association
• Attachment included
• 1 From: Allisun Rana Sent: May 9, 2014 3:10 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Update: Site C Clean Energy Project Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Hi Courtney:  I am legal counsel to the Treaty 8 Tribal Association and made an oral presentation to the Panel on Treaty rights at the  January 17, 2014 session in Fort St. John.  I note that I am not listed in Appendix 7 along with all of the other  appearances, although I was registered in advance and presented with the T8TA Treaty Rights Panel. Can my name be  added to the electronic version of the Report in an errata or some other way? The courts take this approach when there  are technical errors with a judgment that are identified once it is released.   Allisun Rana Barrister & Solicitor Suite 102, 620 - 12th Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta, T2R 0H5 This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, please be advised that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you.    From: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] [mailto:SiteCReview@ceaa-acee.gc.ca] Sent: May-01-14 1:19 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Update: Site C Clean Energy Project ...

Attachment Errata identified by Philip Raphals, Treaty 8 Tribal Association

• Site C Clean Energy Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 1492
• Submitted: 2014-05-09
• Errata identified by Philip Raphals, Treaty 8 Tribal Association
• Attachment included
• 1 From: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Sent: May 9, 2014 9:30 AM To: 'Philip Raphals' Cc: Trevis,Courtney [CEAA] Subject: RE: CEAR, Assessment 63919 Good morning,    Thank you for bringing this to our attention.     Sincerely,     Catherine Bailey-Jourdain Analyst | Analyste Site C Clean Energy Project Joint Review Panel Secretariat | Secrétariat de la commission d'examen conjointe du projet d’énergie propre du site C 22nd Floor, 160 Elgin St. Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 | 22ième étage, 160, rue Elgin, Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 sitecreview@ceaa-acee.gc.ca  Do you really need to print this e-mail? Please think of the environment!|Avez-vous réellement besoin d'imprimer ce courriel? S.V.P. Pensons à l'environnement!   From: Philip Raphals Sent: May 8, 2014 4:41 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: CEAR, Assessment 63919 Good day, In reviewing the Panel report, I came across a typographical error that I would like to call to your attention. On page 305, under the heading 15.6, the third sentence reads: It is also a truism that the cheapest watts are megawatts, the ones not manufactured because conservation, efficiency, and new technologies allow society to prosper with decreasing power requirements per unit of GDP. I presume the Panel meant to write negawatts, rather than megawatts. A spellchecker gone awry, I presume. Best regards, Philip Raphals sinclairr Typewritten Text <email address removed> sinclairr Typewritten Text <contact information removed>

Attachment Errata identified by BC Hydro

• Site C Clean Energy Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 2100
• Submitted: 2014-05-09
• Errata identified by BC Hydro
• Attachment included
• PO Box 49260 Vancouver BC V7X 1V5 Toll-free: 1 877 217 0777 Community Consultation Office 9948 100th Avenue Fort St. John BC V1J 1Y5 Tel: 250 785 3420 Email: sitec@bchydro.com sitecproject.com May 9, 2014 Ms. Courtney Trevis Panel Co-Manager Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 22nd Floor, 160 Elgin Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Mr. Brian Murphy Panel Co-Manager British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office 4th Floor, 836 Yates Street Victoria, BC V8W 9V1 Dear Courtney and Brian: The Minister of Energy and Mines asked BC Hydro to review the analysis of the load-resource balance in the Joint Review Panel’s report on the Site C Clean Energy Project (Site C) issued yesterday, as it does not appear to include the low-LNG load scenario identified in the Panel’s report. In our review of the Panel’s report, we note that on page 286, the Panel concluded that the low-LNG load scenario is most likely correct for determining future electricity needs. However, when we reviewed the load-resource balance information in Tables 16 and 18 (pages 283 and 292), the tables appear to have inadvertently excluded this low-LNG load from the energy calculations (“Net 2”). As a result, the Panel’s report shows that there is a need for new energy resources in 2027. When the low-LNG load scenario is included in the calculation, Table 18 would show that the need for new energy resources is in 2024, which is consistent with BC Hydro’s projection as provided in Table 7 of BC Hydro’s Evidentiary Update (filed September 2013). Having identified this inconsistency, we wish to bring this to your attention. Accordingly, for reference, we have attached Tables 16 and 18 ...

Attachment BC Hydro's Response to the Panel's Questions of Clarification (see Reference Document Number 2766)

• Site C Clean Energy Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 2767
• Submitted: 2014-03-03
• BC Hydro's Response to the Panel's Questions of Clarification (see Reference Document Number 2766)
• Attachment included
• PO Box 49260 Vancouver BC V7X 1V5 Toll-free: 1 877 217 0777 Community Consultation Office 9948 100th Avenue Fort St. John BC V1J 1Y5 Tel: 250 785 3420 Email: sitec@bchydro.com bchydro.com/sitec March 03, 2014 Mr. Brian J. Wallace Counsel to the Joint Review Panel In c/o Ms. Courtney Trevis Panel Co-Manager Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 22nd Floor, 160 Elgin Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Mr. Brian Murphy Panel Co-Manager British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office 4th Floor, 836 Yates Street Victoria, BC V8W 9V1 Dear Mr. Wallace: RE: Questions of Clarification from the Joint Review Panel Please find attached the responses to the questions posed by the Joint Review Panel pursuant to your letter of February 26, 2014. If you have any questions, or require further information, please contact me directly at 604-695- 5241. Sincerely, Danielle Melchior Director, Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Site C Clean Energy Project smithj Typewritten Text <original signed by> Questions of Clarification from the Joint Review Panel to BC Hydro JRP Question 1: In consideration of the information provided in Undertaking 6: a) provide an updated table with the data extended back to 2012. b) include DSM Option 3 under “Future Demand Side Management & Other Measures” for the same time frame (i.e. 2012-2033). c) provide the calculations of Demand/Supply at the bottom of the tables accounting for DSM Option 3. d) clarify DSM Option 3: the EIS (pages 5-20) states “9,200 GWh of energy savings and 1,400 MW of dependable capacity savings by 2021”; however, the Nov 2013 IRP states 8,300 GWh and 1500 ...

Attachment Response from the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission to the letter from counsel for the Joint Review Panel (see Reference Document Number 2581)

• Site C Clean Energy Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 2723
• Submitted: 2014-01-30
• Response from the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission to the letter from counsel for the Joint Review Panel (see Reference Document Number 2581)
• Attachment included
• smithj Typewritten Text <contact information removed> smithj Typewritten Text <original signed by>

Attachment News Article submitted by Laurel Hadland

• Site C Clean Energy Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 2183
• Submitted: 2013-12-13
• News Article submitted by Laurel Hadland
• Attachment included
• From: Laurel Hadland <email address removed> Sent: December 13, 2013 7:13 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Fwd: Debt not OK FYI Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: http://www.fsjbc.ca/site-c/bchydro-ceo-admits-70-billion-obligation/ bchydro_20130704 BCHydro CEO admits $70 billion obligation July 4, 2013 Responding to Arthur Caldicott, during a public discussion at a Fort St John Chamber of Commerce meeting on June 18, BCHydro CEO Charles Reid confirmed that in total the corporation owed almost $70 billion: $15 billion in longterm debt, $4.5 billion in deferral accounts, and some $50 billion in future contractual obligations. He defended the position saying, deferral accounts represent borrowings to finance current projects (such as smart meters and Demand Side Management) which are expected to be paid back out of revenue from the corporation’s customers. The contractual obligations mainly consist of guaranteed commitments to Independent Power Producers (IPP). These obligations do not appear on the books of either BCHydro or the provincial government. The debt, Reid said, was secured by $100 billion of assets. However, as these assets show up on the 2012 Annual Reportas assets of a mere $21 billion. It would appear he is citing a replacement cost—hardly an asset. According to BCHydro’s 2012 financial statements: net income was $558 million from total revenues of $4.7 billion; $230 million was paid to the provincial government. http://islandtides.com/assets/reprint/bchydro_20130704.pdf Responding to Arthur Caldicott, during a public discussion at a Fort St John Chamber of Commerce meeting on June 18, BCHydro CEO Charles Reid confirmed that in ...

Attachment Written Submissions received from concerned citizens using Stopsitec.org

• Site C Clean Energy Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 2079
• Submitted: 2013-12-10
• Written Submissions received from concerned citizens using Stopsitec.org
• Attachment included
• <personal information removed> This message was sent by a concerned citizen using Stopsitec.org If you wish to no longer receive messages from this site please contact info@stopsitec.org and we will remove you from the site contact tool. Dear Courtney Trevis, I am very concerned about the proposed Site C dam project in the fertile Peace River Valley. The proposed project would have wide-ranging environmental, social and financial impacts both for the communities of the Peace River Valley and for all British Columbians. Site C would flood more than 52 square kilometres of agricultural land, including B.C.‘s only prime farmland north of Quesnel. Family farms that have been passed down for generations would be under water, and farmers would be forced to leave their productive land against their wishes. The loss of agricultural land combined with the losses of boreal forest, biodiversity and ecosystem services and functions including carbon sequestration are unacceptable risks that cannot be mitigated. Site C would severely impact First Nations, flooding 78 First Nations heritage sites, including burial grounds and places of cultural and spiritual significance. The proposed dam would eradicate wetlands that support migratory bird flocks and negatively impact at-risk species such as grizzly bear and wolverine. The loss of important wildlife corridors would contribute to genetic isolation and the potential loss of species. Site C electricity is not needed for domestic consumption. Residential and commercial customers in B.C. have actually reduced their power consumption since 2008. The cost of Site C Dam to B.C. ratepayers and to our environment is simply too high. Sincerely, ...

Attachment Written Submissions received from concerned citizens using Stopsitec.org

• Site C Clean Energy Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 2078
• Submitted: 2013-12-09
• Written Submissions received from concerned citizens using Stopsitec.org
• Attachment included
• <personal information removed> This message was sent by a concerned citizen using Stopsitec.org If you wish to no longer receive messages from this site please contact info@stopsitec.org and we will remove you from the site contact tool. Dear Courtney Trevis, I am writing again to add to my reasons for opposing the Site C dam. Where would BCHydro get the workers for the "10,000 direct jobs during construction"? Would these be Temporary Foreign Workers, who do not necessarily know the language or the skill needed; they do not help the local economy because they send the money "home"; they don't make a permanent settlement in most cases, and they are paid less than a living wage, such as union rates. The permanent thousands of jobs--where will they be--some call centre in Asia? The proposed project would have wide-ranging environmental, social and financial impacts both for the communities of the Peace River Valley and for all British Columbians. Site C is too wasteful of tax money and the environment. Sincerely. Mary Magee Victoria Sincerely, Mary Magee <personal information removed> This message was sent by a concerned citizen using Stopsitec.org If you wish to no longer receive messages from this site please contact info@stopsitec.org and we will remove you from the site contact tool. Dear Courtney Trevis, I am very concerned about the proposed Site C dam project in the fertile Peace River Valley. The proposed project would have wide-ranging environmental, social and financial impacts both for the communities of the Peace River Valley and for all British Columbians. Site C would flood more than 52 square kilometres of agricultural land, ...

Attachment Written Submissions received from concerned citizens using Stopsitec.org

• Site C Clean Energy Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 2043
• Submitted: 2013-12-08
• Written Submissions received from concerned citizens using Stopsitec.org
• Attachment included
• Dear Courtney Trevis, I am very concerned about the proposed Site C dam project. The proposed project would have wide-ranging environmental financial impacts for all British Columbians, and all Canadians. Financially, Site C electricity is not needed for domestic consumption. Residential and commercial customers in B.C. have actually reduced their power consumption since 2008, and the $8Billion cost of the dam is stunningly high, and will be paid by all British Columbians. But worse, Site C electricity will be used to power the creation of liquified natural gas, which in itself is a huge source of additional atmospheric carbon whether burned here or in Asia. And if the liquified natural gas is used in the process of producing bitumen from the tar sands, it will enable the release of even more carbon into the atmosphere. Given the huge, no longer ignorable effects that excess carbon is already having on our climate, the impact that the proposed dam would have on wetlands that support migratory bird flocks, and the impact on habitat for at-risk species such as grizzly bear and wolverine is almost secondary, despite their importance. We need to move to a post-carbon economy, for all of our sakes, and for the sake of your children and grandchildren. We must move beyond easy business-as-usual "solutions", and start acting in own best interests. We must stop the site C damn project. Thank you Michelle Sincerely, Michelle Baudais <personal information removed> This message was sent by a concerned citizen using Stopsitec.org If you wish to no longer receive messages from this site please contact info@stopsitec.org and we will remove you from the site contact tool. Dear ...

Attachment Written Submissions received from concerned citizens using Stopsitec.org

• Site C Clean Energy Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 2042
• Submitted: 2013-12-06
• Written Submissions received from concerned citizens using Stopsitec.org
• Attachment included
• Dear Courtney Trevis, I am very concerned about the proposed Site C dam project in the fertile Peace River Valley. The proposed project would have wide-ranging environmental, social and financial impacts both for the communities of the Peace River Valley and for all British Columbians. Site C would flood more than 52 square kilometres of agricultural land, including B.C.‘s only prime farmland north of Quesnel. Family farms that have been passed down for generations would be under water, and farmers would be forced to leave their productive land against their wishes. The loss of agricultural land combined with the losses of boreal forest, biodiversity and ecosystem services and functions including carbon sequestration are unacceptable risks that cannot be mitigated. Site C would severely impact First Nations, flooding 78 First Nations heritage sites, including burial grounds and places of cultural and spiritual significance. The proposed dam would eradicate wetlands that support migratory bird flocks and negatively impact at-risk species such as grizzly bear and wolverine. The loss of important wildlife corridors would contribute to genetic isolation and the potential loss of species. Site C electricity is not needed for domestic consumption. Residential and commercial customers in B.C. have actually reduced their power consumption since 2008. The cost of Site C Dam to B.C. ratepayers and to our environment is simply too high. Sincerely, Linda Christine Daskis <personal information removed> This message was sent by a concerned citizen using Stopsitec.org If you wish to no longer receive messages from this site please contact info@stopsitec.org and we will remove you from ...

Attachment Written Submissions received from concerned citizens using Stopsitec.org

• Site C Clean Energy Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 2013
• Submitted: 2013-12-03
• Written Submissions received from concerned citizens using Stopsitec.org
• Attachment included
• <personal information removed> This message was sent by a concerned citizen using Stopsitec.org If you wish to no longer receive messages from this site please contact info@stopsitec.org and we will remove you from the site contact tool. Dear Courtney Trevis, I am very concerned about the proposed Site C dam project in the fertile Peace River Valley. The Joint Review Panel is moving to the public hearing phase of the review. With few hearings scheduled close to Christmas and only in north-eastern B.C., I am concerned about limits to public participation. Since Site C will affectall British Columbians, hearings should be held across B.B. including Victoria and Vancouver. Site C would flood more than 52 square kilometres of agricultural land, including B.C.‘s only prime farmland north of Quesnel. Family farms would be under water, and farmers would be forced to leave their land against their wishes. The losses of boreal forest, biodiversity and ecosystem services and functions including carbon sequestration in addition to farmland are unacceptable risks that cannot be mitigated. Site C would severely impact First Nations, flooding 78 First Nations heritage sites. The proposed dam would eradicate wetlands that support migratory bird flocks and negatively impact at-risk species such as grizzly bear and wolverine. The loss of important wildlife corridors would contribute to genetic isolation and the potential loss of species. Site C electricity is not needed for domestic consumption. Residential and commercial customers in B.C. have actually reduced their power consumption since 2008. The cost of Site C Dam to B.C. ratepayers and to our environment is simply too high. Sincerely, ...

Attachment Written Submission received from concerned citizen using Stopsitec.org

• Site C Clean Energy Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 1993
• Submitted: 2013-12-01
• Written Submission received from concerned citizen using Stopsitec.org
• Attachment included
• <personal information removed> This message was sent by a concerned citizen using Stopsitec.org If you wish to no longer receive messages from this site please contact info@stopsitec.org and we will remove you from the site contact tool. Dear Courtney Trevis, I am very concerned about the proposed Site C dam project in the fertile Peace River Valley. The proposed project would have wide-ranging environmental, social and financial impacts both for the communities of the Peace River Valley and for all British Columbians. Site C would flood more than 52 square kilometres of agricultural land, including B.C.‘s only prime farmland north of Quesnel. Family farms that have been passed down for generations would be under water, and farmers would be forced to leave their productive land against their wishes. The loss of agricultural land combined with the losses of boreal forest, biodiversity and ecosystem services and functions including carbon sequestration are unacceptable risks that cannot be mitigated. Site C would severely impact First Nations, flooding 78 First Nations heritage sites, including burial grounds and places of cultural and spiritual significance. The proposed dam would eradicate wetlands that support migratory bird flocks and negatively impact at-risk species such as grizzly bear and wolverine. The loss of important wildlife corridors would contribute to genetic isolation and the potential loss of species. Site C electricity is not needed for domestic consumption. Residential and commercial customers in B.C. have actually reduced their power consumption since 2008. The cost of Site C Dam to B.C. ratepayers and to our environment is simply too high. Sincerely, ...

Attachment Written Submissions received from concerned citizens using Stopsitec.org

• Site C Clean Energy Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 1994
• Submitted: 2013-11-29
• Written Submissions received from concerned citizens using Stopsitec.org
• Attachment included
• <personal information removed> This message was sent by a concerned citizen using Stopsitec.org If you wish to no longer receive messages from this site please contact info@stopsitec.org and we will remove you from the site contact tool. Dear Courtney Trevis, We don't need more dams, we need less. There are thousands of dams in both Canada and the U.S which serve no purpose and which block fish migrations. Consequently, I am very concerned about the proposed Site C dam project in the fertile Peace River Valley. The proposed project would have wide-ranging environmental, social and financial impacts both for the communities of the Peace River Valley and for all British Columbians. Site C would flood more than 52 square kilometres of agricultural land, including B.C.‘s only prime farmland north of Quesnel. Family farms that have been passed down for generations would be under water, and farmers would be forced to leave their productive land against their wishes. The loss of agricultural land combined with the losses of boreal forest, biodiversity and ecosystem services and functions including carbon sequestration are unacceptable risks that cannot be mitigated. Site C would severely impact First Nations, flooding 78 First Nations heritage sites, including burial grounds and places of cultural and spiritual significance. The proposed dam would eradicate wetlands that support migratory bird flocks and negatively impact at-risk species such as grizzly bear and wolverine. The loss of important wildlife corridors would contribute to genetic isolation and the potential loss of species. Site C electricity is not needed for domestic consumption. Residential and commercial ...

Attachment Comments on the Project received from Dzengo Mzengeza, Executive Director of Northern Environmental Action Team

• Site C Clean Energy Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 1991
• Submitted: 2013-11-29
• Comments on the Project received from Dzengo Mzengeza, Executive Director of Northern Environmental Action Team
• Attachment included
• smithj Typewritten Text <contact information removed> smithj Typewritten Text smithj Typewritten Text smithj Typewritten Text <contact information removed> smithj Typewritten Text smithj Typewritten Text <contact information removed> smithj Typewritten Text smithj Typewritten Text November 2013 If the Site C were to go ahead A submission from Northern Environmental Action Team to the Site C Clean Energy Project Joint Review Panel – Public Hearing. If the project were to go ahead the proponent must include the following important considerations: 1. The project, BC Hydro and all contractors attached to the project will be zero waste (composting, recycling, waste reduction) 2. Air emissions are reduced or eliminated (vehicle, particulate) 3. Energy conservation is practiced by BC Hydro and all contractors 4. Best practices in supply of materials that reduce carbon input - supply chain management 5. Ongoing education of workforce on best practices around environment 6. Implement policies that permeates (BC Hydro and contractors completely, not just on the work site but throughout the organization/companies) 7. Best practices at the camps extend to and are available to the community (composting, waste reduction, recycling, etc.) 8. Build in long term stewardship of affected areas 9. Staff and contractor orientation includes environmental best practices 10. Enforcement of policies and best practices (similar to Oil and Gas enforcement), penalties included 11. Extend best practices to entire BC Hydro operations across the province (zero waste at Site C becomes zero waste at BC Hydro) 12. Any land lost that is arable due to this dam should be permanently protected (by ...

Attachment Letter of Comment to the Panel Secretariat from Henry Wakabayashi concerning the Site C Project

• Site C Clean Energy Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 1954
• Submitted: 2013-11-29
• Letter of Comment to the Panel Secretariat from Henry Wakabayashi concerning the Site C Project
• Attachment included
• smithj Typewritten Text smithj Typewritten Text smithj Typewritten Text <contact information removed> smithj Typewritten Text smithj Typewritten Text smithj Typewritten Text <contact information removed> smithj Typewritten Text <contact information removed> smithj Typewritten Text smithj Typewritten Text

Attachment Letter of Comment to the Panel Secretariat from Lee Brain concerning the Site C Project

• Site C Clean Energy Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 1942
• Submitted: 2013-11-28
• Letter of Comment to the Panel Secretariat from Lee Brain concerning the Site C Project
• Attachment included
• From: <email address removed> Sent: November 28, 2013 12:10 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Cc: premier@gov.bc.ca; jennifer.rice.mla@leg.bc.ca; adrian.dix.mla@leg.bc.ca Subject: Deny the Site C mega-dam Linda Jones Panel Manager Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 22nd Floor, 160 Elgin Street Ottawa Ontario K1A 0H3 sitecreview@ceaa-acee.gc.ca Dear Ms. Jones, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) submitted by B.C. Hydro with regard to the proposed Site C dam on the Peace River. The Peace River valley is a significant historical, cultural and natural feature in northern B.C. This significance is recognized by the B.C. government’s designation of the Peace as a Heritage River. The river is heavily used by local residents for boating, swimming, rafting and fishing. The Peace River has significant cultural and historic values associated with First Nations settlement. The upper reaches of river have already been developed for hydro power. The WAC Bennett and Peace Canyon hydro-electric dams produce 31 per cent of British Columbia's hydro-electric power. A third dam, called Site C, is now proposed for the Peace River downstream from the confluence with the Moberly River, near the city of Fort St. John. B.C. Hydro is seeking federal and provincial approval to construct Site C and create a third reservoir on the river. This would destroy virtually all of the historic Peace River that remains within B.C. The purpose of the EIS is to assess the significance of the impacts of the Site C dam and determine whether or not they can be mitigated or offset. I am writing to let you know my opinion that the EIS for the Site C dam fails ...

Attachment Written Submission received from concerned citizen using Stopsitec.org

• Site C Clean Energy Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 1995
• Submitted: 2013-11-28
• Written Submission received from concerned citizen using Stopsitec.org
• Attachment included
• <personal information removed> This message was sent by a concerned citizen using Stopsitec.org If you wish to no longer receive messages from this site please contact info@stopsitec.org and we will remove you from the site contact tool. Dear Courtney Trevis, I am very concerned about the proposed Site C dam project in the fertile Peace River Valley. The proposed project would have wide-ranging environmental, social and financial impacts both for the communities of the Peace River Valley and for all British Columbians. Site C would flood more than 52 square kilometres of agricultural land, including B.C.‘s only prime farmland north of Quesnel. Family farms that have been passed down for generations would be under water, and farmers would be forced to leave their productive land against their wishes. The loss of agricultural land combined with the losses of boreal forest, biodiversity and ecosystem services and functions including carbon sequestration are unacceptable risks that cannot be mitigated. Site C would severely impact First Nations, flooding 78 First Nations heritage sites, including burial grounds and places of cultural and spiritual significance. The proposed dam would eradicate wetlands that support migratory bird flocks and negatively impact at-risk species such as grizzly bear and wolverine. The loss of important wildlife corridors would contribute to genetic isolation and the potential loss of species. Site C electricity is not needed for domestic consumption. Residential and commercial customers in B.C. have actually reduced their power consumption since 2008. The cost of Site C Dam to B.C. ratepayers and to our environment is simply too high. Sincerely, ...

Attachment Written Submissions received from concerned citizens using Stopsitec.org

• Site C Clean Energy Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 1935
• Submitted: 2013-11-27
• Written Submissions received from concerned citizens using Stopsitec.org
• Attachment included
• Please see the attachment to view the content.

Attachment Letter of Comment to the Panel Secretariat from Troy Godsman concerning the Site C Project

• Site C Clean Energy Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 1943
• Submitted: 2013-11-27
• Letter of Comment to the Panel Secretariat from Troy Godsman concerning the Site C Project
• Attachment included
• From: Troy Godsman <email address removed> Sent: November 27, 2013 5:35 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Re: registration It's not clean energy! It's an environmental disaster a waste of $ and land !!! Sent from my iPhone On 2013-11-27, at 3:20 PM, "SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA]" <SiteCReview@ceaa-acee.gc.ca> wrote: Dear Troy, Thank you for your email and your interest in the Site C Clean Energy Project. Please note that your submission will be sent to the Panel for consideration and posted on the public registry. Visit the registry at http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/details- eng.cfm?evaluation=63919 and inform us if there are any errors in the information you provided. If you are not currently on our distribution list, your email address will be added to the distribution list so that you continue to receive updates about the Project and be kept informed of the process. Please be assured that your personal information will be kept confidential. If you would prefer not to receive emails regarding the Project, please inform us. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions. Sincerely, Christine Levicki Project Assessment Analyst Site C Joint Review Panel Secretariat Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 22nd Floor, 160 Elgin St. Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 sitecreview@ceaa-acee.gc.ca Telephone | Téléphone: 613-960-2466 Telephone (Tollfree) | Téléphone (sans frais): 1-866-582-1884 Facsimile | Télécopieur 613-957-0935  Do you really need to print this e-mail? Please think of the environment!|Avez- vous réellement besoin d'imprimer ce courriel? S.V.P. Pensons à l'environnement! ...

Attachment Letter of Comment to the Panel Secretariat from Reg Whiten concerning the Site C Project

• Site C Clean Energy Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 1927
• Submitted: 2013-11-26
• Letter of Comment to the Panel Secretariat from Reg Whiten concerning the Site C Project
• Attachment included
• From: Reg Whiten <email address removed> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 06:52 PM To: SiteCReview@ceaa-acee.gc.ca <SiteCReview@ceaa-acee.gc.ca>; Moore, Sean EAO:EX Subject: Site C Proposal Dear Courtney and Shawn - below is my letter for input to the Site C hearing and I request being able to present at the forthcoming hearing in Fort St. John. Thanks for your consideration of this request. R.Whiten >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Panel: There is a saying of the Dane-Zaa people of the Treaty 8 First Nations that claims "if you drink of the waters of the Peace River, you will return". That for me has held special meaning for most of my life, and since first starting my career 32 years ago as a agrologist based at Peace River many years ago working as a Land Resource Agrologist in Range Improvement with the Alberta government. Little did I know then, my career would be bring me back to the waters of the Peace River - this time in the BC Peace after finishing a graduate planning school degree and an invitation by the Elders and Chiefs to serve as the land-use advisor for the Treaty 8 First Nations in 1991. This return followed some considerable involvement with the Peigan First Nation concerning the Old Man Dam, and an example of a major water reservoir project that was subsequently ruled as unacceptable by a federal Env Assessment Panel. I have made my home at Moberly Lake for the past twenty years, and where I contine to operate a consulting practice in the field of resource management, watershed planning and community development. I also have strong community and extended family ties with the First Nations there as a grandfather of five Saulteau ...

Attachment Letter of Comment to the Panel Secretariat from Troy Godsman concerning the Site C Project

• Site C Clean Energy Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 1926
• Submitted: 2013-11-26
• Letter of Comment to the Panel Secretariat from Troy Godsman concerning the Site C Project
• Attachment included
• From: Troy Godsman <email address removed> Sent: November 26, 2013 10:16 AM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Re: registration Not supporting ! Against it ! Sent from my iPhone On 2013-11-26, at 7:56 AM, "SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA]" <SiteCReview@ceaa-acee.gc.ca> wrote: Dear Troy, Thank you for your email and your interest in the Site C Clean Energy Project. Please note that your submission will be sent to the Panel for consideration and posted on the public registry. Visit the registry at http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/details-eng.cfm?evaluation=63919 and inform us if there are any errors in the information you provided. If you are not currently on our distribution list, your email address will be added to the distribution list so that you continue to receive updates about the Project and be kept informed of the process. Please be assured that your personal information will be kept confidential. If you would prefer not to receive emails regarding the Project, please inform us. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions. Sincerely, Christine Levicki Project Assessment Analyst Site C Joint Review Panel Secretariat Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 22nd Floor, 160 Elgin St. Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 sitecreview@ceaa-acee.gc.ca Telephone | Téléphone: 613-960-2466 Telephone (Tollfree) | Téléphone (sans frais): 1-866-582-1884 Facsimile | Télécopieur 613-957-0935  Do you really need to print this e-mail? Please think of the environment!|Avez-vous réellement besoin d'imprimer ce courriel? S.V.P. Pensons à l'environnement! http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/details-eng.cfm?evaluation=63919 From: Troy Godsman <email address ...

Attachment Letter of Comment to the Panel Secretariat from A_L Hadland concerning the Site C Project

• Site C Clean Energy Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 1925
• Submitted: 2013-11-26
• Letter of Comment to the Panel Secretariat from A_L Hadland concerning the Site C Project
• Attachment included
• From: A_L Hadland <email address removed> Sent: November 26, 2013 1:15 PM To: A_L Hadland Subject: B.C. Hydro’s Site C dam faces fiscal, regulatory minefield I thought you'd like this: Read this on The Globe and Mail B.C. Hydro’s Site C dam faces fiscal, regulatory minefield With no independent oversight by the B.C. Utilities Commission, the $8-billion project is shaping up to be a headache for the provincial Energy Minister From: A_L Hadland <email address removed> Sent: November 26, 2013 1:15 PM To: A_L Hadland Subject: B.C. Hydro’s Site C dam faces fiscal, regulatory minefield

Attachment Letter of Comment to the Panel Secretariat from pep.271rds concerning the Site C Project

• Site C Clean Energy Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 1924
• Submitted: 2013-11-26
• Letter of Comment to the Panel Secretariat from pep.271rds concerning the Site C Project
• Attachment included
• From: pep.271rds <email address removed> Sent: November 26, 2013 4:07 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Re: Update: Site C Clean Energy Project Nov 26 2013. We have a couple of visiting hunters on the farm this week. So far they have seen over 25 mule deer, a handful of whitetail deer, 3 or 4 moose, a couple of the coyote pack and most spectacular a herd of, get this, 58 Elk!! Right here on the farm along the banks and the entire elk herd, swam the river this AM, the climbed out at the Site of the Historic McKenzie Fort on the South side of the River from us. This herd of Elk are relatively new arrivals to this, "Serengetti" we seem to live on. They have been chased up the valley from the North and over here from the WILDLIFE PRESERVE directly across the river from the 2nd 1/4 section of our farm. This is due to hunting, Hydro research, and other human based disturbances from build and Oil and Gas exploration on their former habitats. As well it is reported that there are 12+ wolves just up the valley from our farm, and a further 18+ wolf pack just across the river around the proposed Damsite. Where will all this wildlife go when their habitat, is flooded and sloughed in? To town, what is their "Well we'll mitigate that when the time comes." Defense lawyer? Do we just shoot 25 deer, almost 60 elk, and 30 wolves? What is to be their outcome? Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry From: "SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA]" <SiteCReview@ceaa-acee.gc.ca> Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 13:08:23 -0500 To: <pep.271rds <email address removed> Subject: RE: Update: Site C Clean Energy Project Good morning, Thank you for your email and your interest in the Site C Clean Energy ...

Attachment Letter of Comment to the Panel Secretariat from Terri Scallon concerning the Site C Project

• Site C Clean Energy Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 1929
• Submitted: 2013-11-26
• Letter of Comment to the Panel Secretariat from Terri Scallon concerning the Site C Project
• Attachment included
• From: Terri Scallon <email address removed> Sent: November 26, 2013 1:25 AM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Stop the Site C Dam Dear Review Panel members I am appalled at the lack of public consultation on this project and can only surmise it is because you know any thinking person would reject such a huge environmental negative impact as is the proposed Site C dam. This $8 billion dam would flood some of B.C.’s best farmland, disrupt a vital wildlife corridor and set us all up for rate hikes as BC Hydro sinks us even deeper into debt. I can not afford to pay BC Hydro rates as it is and am renovating my home to get off Hydro as much as possible because of that. I do not expect the need for Hydro to rise as more and more of us are going off the grid as much as possible. Building Site C dam will only cause negative environmental impacts and contribute to climate change which as we are already witnessing is devastating populations around the world. Please act responsibly and do not proceed with the Site C Dam project. Terri Scallon <personal information removed> From: Terri Scallon <email address removed> Sent: November 26, 2013 1:25 AM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Stop the Site C Dam

Attachment Written Submission received from Mike Fenger

• Site C Clean Energy Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 1934
• Submitted: 2013-11-26
• Written Submission received from Mike Fenger
• Attachment included
• From: Val Hignett <email address removed> Sent: November 26, 2013 12:36 AM To: brian.murphy@gov.bc.ca; SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Cc: <email address removed> Subject: Statement on Site C from Friends of Ecological Reserves Letter of concern and opposition to development of Site C BC Hydro This letter is for the record from Friends of Ecological Reserves reguarding Site C. We are concerned that an independent watch dog acting on behalf of all British Columbians was removed from over site of the project. Why was Public utilities Commission over sight removed with changes in the Clean Energy Act? Since Site C was first proposed over forty years ago it has been rejected twice as too risky and too costly. We believe if an assessment by the BC Utilities Commission were done today it would again reach a similar conclusion . We suspect that the removal of the BC Utilities Commission was because on technical merits the greater public good Site C could provide would again deem it to be a non starter. The current process should be but is not tasked with the bigger picture of energy needs and conservation. There are too many confounding factors in Energy development to look simply at Site C in isolation without this much needed broader context and public dialogue. We ask that the current process recommend to government to re-instate the Public Utilities Commission as an body to provide over sight role expand the scope and put in context Site C. The re-negotiation of the Columbia River Treaty, numerous Independent Power initiatives and the overall needs of BC and the export potential and domestic and local industrial needs all need to be put into context along with site C and also made ...