Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project

Attachment From the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to Douglas Channel Watch re: Response to letter dated February 21, 2017 regarding the Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project

• Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 81
• Submitted: 2017-04-24
• From the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to Douglas Channel Watch re: Response to letter dated February 21, 2017 regarding the Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project
• Attachment included
• April 24, 2017 Barry Robinson Lawyer, Ecojustice Suite 800, 744 – 4th Ave SW Calgary, AB T2P 3T4 Email: Subject: Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project, Ref. No. 80127 Dear Mr. Robinson: Thank you for your letter of February 21, 2017 on behalf of Ecojustice concerning the environmental assessment process for the Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project (the Project) proposed by the Pacific Future Energy Corporation (the proponent). Your letter outlines your concerns with respect to the posting of documents on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry Internet Site (Registry) as well as requests a reconsideration of the Agency’s decision to not hold an additional public comment period in light of the proponent’s submission of its Addendum to the Project Description, dated September 28, 2016. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012) requires the Responsible Authority of a designated project to post specific information and records on the Registry for the Project. These include, but are not limited to, any public notice that is issued by the Responsible Authority to request participation of the public, the Environmental Assessment Report, and the Environmental Assessment Decision. The Agency must also post any other information it considers appropriate and it is the Agency’s current practice for environmental assessments by review panel to post to the Registry all records related to the environmental assessment, except where such information is protected under the Access to Information Act, the Privacy Act, or CEAA 2012. With respect to the Project Description Addendum, a clerical error occurred during the transfer of the file upon referral of the ...

Attachment From Douglas Channel Watch to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Response to letter dated January 30, 2017 regarding the Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project

• Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 80
• Submitted: 2017-02-21
• From Douglas Channel Watch to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Response to letter dated January 30, 2017 regarding the Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project
• Attachment included
• www.ecojustice.ca info@ecojustice.ca 1.800.926.7744 VANCOUVER CALGARY OTTAWA TORONTO Barry Robinson 800, 744 – 4 Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta T2P 3T4 Telephone: Fax: E-Mail: File No: 00729 February 21, 2017 Sent via E-mail: PacificRefinery@ceaa.gc.ca Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 410 – 701 West Georgia Street Vancouver, British Columbia V7Y 1C6 Attention: Brett Maracle, Panel Manager Dear Mr. Maracle: Re: Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project, Ref. No. 80127 I write on behalf of Douglas Channel Watch with respect to your letter of January 30, 2017 in response to our letter of December 15, 2016 regarding the Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project. Your letter of January 30, 2017 failed to respond to a number of concerns raised in our letter December 15, 2016. Specifically, your letter failed to provide any explanation as to why the Addendum to the Project Description (“Addendum”) sent to the Agency on September 28, 2016 was not posted to the Registry until sometime after November 7, 2016. As discussed in our previous letter, the Addendum presented an option of a pipeline from the Kitimat area to Nasoga Gulf that was not included in any previous Project description. Therefore, there may have been members of the public, particularly living in the vicinity of the Kitsumkalum and Nass Rivers, who may have submitted comments on the draft Environmental Impact Assessment Guidelines (“EIS Guidelines”) had they been aware of the potential geographic scope of the project. This is a significant failure of the consultation process given that the Agency had the Addendum in its possession well in advance of the deadline to comment on the ...

Attachment From the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to Douglas Channel Watch re: Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines

• Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 79
• Submitted: 2017-01-30
• From the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to Douglas Channel Watch re: Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines
• Attachment included
• January 30, 2017 Barry Robinson Lawyer, Ecojustice Suite 800, 744 – 4th Ave SW Calgary, AB T2P 3T4 Email: Subject: Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines Dear Mr. Robinson: Thank you for your letter of December 15, 2016 on behalf of Douglas Channel Watch concerning the environmental assessment process for the Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project (the Project) proposed by the Pacific Future Energy Corporation (the proponent). Your letter outlines your concerns with respect to the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) guidelines and requests an extension to the public comment period in light of the proponent’s Addendum to the Project dated September 28, 2016. Aided by comments, concerns and other input from EcoJustice, Indigenous groups, and other members of the public, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (the Agency) amended the EIS Guidelines to include two additional matters that are outside the care and control of the proponent yet relevant to the environmental assessment. These additional matters are included in the final EIS Guidelines pursuant to paragraph 19(1)(j) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012). They are: 1. the potential environmental effects of technically and economically feasible alternatives to transport products from the refinery site to market or for disposal, which includes any potential rail transportation, pipelines and/or marine terminal, including marine shipping; and 2. the potential environmental effects of the transport of raw product and supplies by rail to the refinery, including the environmental effects of potential upgrades to rail access corridors. ...

Attachment From Douglas Channel Watch to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project, Addendum to the Project Description - Activities that are Incidental to the Pacific

• Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 78
• Submitted: 2016-12-15
• From Douglas Channel Watch to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project, Addendum to the Project Description - Activities that are Incidental to the Pacific
• Attachment included
•       www.ecojustice.ca info@ecojustice.ca 1.800.926.7744 VANCOUVER CALGARY OTTAWA TORONTO   December 15, 2016 Sent via email Brett Maracle, Panel Manager Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 410 – 701 West Georgia Street Vancouver, British Columbia V7Y 1C6 Barry Robinson Suite 800, 744 – 4th Ave SW Calgary, Alberta T2P 3T4 Tel: Fax: File No. 729 Email: PacificRefinery@ceaa.gc.ca Dear Sir: Re: Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project, Ref. No. 80127 Addendum to the Project Description – Activities that are Incidental to the Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project I write to you on behalf of our client, Douglas Channel Watch, in relation to the above referenced environmental assessment being undertaken by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (the “Agency”). As you know, on October 7, 2016, the Agency posted its Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines (“Draft EIS Guidelines”) for the Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project (the “Project”) to the Registry and invited public comments. The deadline for submitting written comments on the Draft EIS Guidelines was set as November 7, 2016. Section 3.1 of the Draft EIS Guidelines set out the components of the designated project as described by the Pacific Future Energy Corporation (the “Proponent”) in its June 7, 2016 Project Description. Douglas Channel Watch submitted comments on the Draft EIS Guidelines to the Agency on November 7, 2016. Those submissions were posted to the Registry as Document #67. At some point after November 7, 2016, two documents were posted to the Registry which relate to activities incidental to the Project. Document #73, dated September 12, 2016, is a request ...

Attachment From Gitga'at First Nation to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines

• Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 72
• Submitted: 2016-11-10
• From Gitga'at First Nation to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines
• Attachment included
• November 10, 2016 Brett Maracle Panel Manager, Review Panels, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 160 Elgin Street 22nd Floor Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0H3 Telephone: 613-957-0249 Email: brett.maracle@ceaa-acee.gc.ca Sent Via Email RE: Preliminary Feedback on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines for the Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project Dear Brett Maracle, Thank you for your letter sent on October 7, 2016. In this letter, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency offered Gitga’at First Nation (Gitga’at) the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines (dEIS) for the Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project. On behalf of Gitga’at, please find enclosed our feedback on the dEIS. It is important to note that due to our limited capacity, the enclosed comments are preliminary in nature. Please contact me by phone (250-917-8841) or email (janine.l.lemire@gmail.com) if you have any questions or would like to discuss further. Sincerely, Environmental Assessment Coordinator, Gitga’at First Nation cc: Ellen Torng, CEO, Gitga’at First Nation Chris Picard, Science Director, Gitga’at First Nation Enclosed: Preliminary Feedback on the Draft Guidelines for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for the Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project <contact information removed> <email address removed> <Original signed ...

Attachment From Environment and Climate Change Canada to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines (NOTE: Updated November 22, 2016)

• Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 71
• Submitted: 2016-11-09
• From Environment and Climate Change Canada to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines (NOTE: Updated November 22, 2016)
• Attachment included
• 1+1 Environment and Climate Change Canada Environmental Protection Operations Environmental Stewardship Branch Pacific and Yukon 201 - 401 Burrard Street Vancouver, BC V6C 3S5 November 9, 2016 Brent Maracle Panel Manager Environnement et Changement climatique Canada Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 160 Elgin St. 22nd Floor Ottawa, ON K1A OH3 Dear Mr. Maracle: ECPT: 16-0601 Re: Environmental Assessment of the Proposed Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project - Environment and Climate Change Canada Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines (draft EIS Guidelines) Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) has completed a review of the following document provided by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (Agency) on October 11, 2016: • Draft Guidelines for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact" Statement pursuant to ~he Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project Proposed by Pacific Future Energy Corporation. Departmental comments on the draft EIS Guidel ines are offered in Appendix A, and are based upon the expertise available for the review period. Please note that additional commeots are pending in the subject areas of water quality, wildlife and wildlife habitat; due to the importance of these components within the context of this project, ECCC requests that these additional comments be considered by the Agency once they are received. Supplemental to the comments provided in Appendix A, please find the following appendices· attached as they pertain to ECCC m~ndate and guidance: Appendix B provides an overview of the depa·rtmental mandate for migratory birds and species at risk as context for ...

Attachment From the Haida Nation to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines

• Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 69
• Submitted: 2016-11-07
• From the Haida Nation to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines
• Attachment included
• COUNCIL OF THE HAIDA NATION November 7, 2016 Pacific Future Energy Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 410-701 West Georgia Street Vancouver, British Columbia V7Y 1 C6 Email: brett.maracle@ceaa.gc.ca Re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines (the "Guidelines") for the Pacific Future Energy Project (the "Project"). We write in response to your letter (and attachments) dated October 7, 2016 with our comments and concerns regarding the Guidelines for the Project. PART 1: INTRODUCTION We understand that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency ("CEAA") has decided that a federal environmental assessment ("EA") is required for the Project, and that the purpose of the Guidelines is to identify for the proponent (Pacific Future Energy Corporation, the "Proponent") the minimum information requirements for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") for the Project to be assessed pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. PART II: HAIDA NATION MUST BE INCLUDED WITH THOSE MOST AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT CEAA is of the view that the Haida Nation will be affected by the Project, but to a lesser degree than other First Nations along sc·s Coast1 and that the depth of the duty to 1The First Nations listed in the Guidelines as the most affected by the Project are: Kitselas First Nation; Haisla Nation; Kitsumkalum Indian Band; Metlakatla First Nation; Lax Kw'alaams Band; Gitxaala Nation; and Gitga'at Nation, at p. 21. consult is "at the low end of the consultation spectrum".2 The Addendum to the Project Description lists options for the export of products from the refinery, including marine terminals; the Proponent views ...

Attachment From Douglas Channel Watch to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines

• Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 67
• Submitted: 2016-11-07
• From Douglas Channel Watch to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines
• Attachment included
•       www.ecojustice.ca info@ecojustice.ca 1.800.926.7744 VANCOUVER CALGARY OTTAWA TORONTO   November 7, 2016 Sent via email Brett Maracle, Panel Manager Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 22nd Floor, 160 Elgin Street Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3 Barry Robinson Suite 900, 1000 5th Ave SW Calgary, Alberta T2P 4V1 Tel: Fax: 403-452-6574 Email: PacificRefinery@ceaa.gc.ca Dear Sir: Re: Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project, Ref. No. 80127 Comments on Draft Guidelines for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement I write to you on behalf of our client, Douglas Channel Watch, with respect to the Draft Guidelines for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012: Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project (“Draft EIS Guidelines”).1 Douglas Channel Watch provides the following comments on the Draft EIS Guidelines: 1. Spatial Boundaries Douglas Channel Watch understands that spatial and temporal boundaries in the environmental assessment will vary depending on the Valued Component (“VC”) and will be considered separately for each VC.2 However, Douglas Channel Watch submits that the Draft EIS Guidelines should provide a more explicit statement of the spatial boundaries for certain components of the environmental assessment. (a) Rail Transportation With respect to rail transportation, the Draft EIS Guidelines specify that the project components include the railyard at the refinery and the railroad connection to the nearby existing CN Rail                                                              1 Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Draft Guidelines for the Preparation of ...

Attachment From Health Canada to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines

• Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 65
• Submitted: 2016-11-07
• From Health Canada to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines
• Attachment included
• From: To: Cc: Subject: Pacific Future Energy Refinery - Health Canada"s (HC) comments on EIS Guidelines Date: November 7, 2016 1:30:04 PM Attachments: 07_10_2016_draft EIS guidelines_Pacific Future Energy Refinery HC Comments.pdf Dear Brett & Rob: As per your request, HC has reviewed the draft EIS Guidelines for the proposed Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project and has the following comments for your consideration. Attached also are our comments within a .PDF comment. Please select View - Comment - Review to see a list of all comments as referred to in this email associated within the text of the .PDF on the right hand side bar. (See attached file: 07_10_2016_draft EIS guidelines_Pacific Future Energy Refinery HC Comments.pdf) 1.) 3.2.1 Changes to the Environment (pg. 5) · HC suggests including changes in noise levels and revising the paragraph to: "any potential changes in the physical environment such as changes to air quality, water quality and quantity, background noise and physical disturbance of land" 2.) 4.3 Study strategy and methodology (pg. 9) · HC suggests revising the bullet point to include the following: "predicting and evaluating the likely effects on identified VCs, and comparing these to applicable benchmarks, guidelines, standards or objectives" 3.) Part 2 - 1.3 Project Location (pg. 13) · HC suggests revising description of local communities to include population(s) and distance(s) of communities to the proposed project area. 4.) Part 2 - 6.1.1 Atmospheric Environment (pg. 22) · HC suggests adding the following to the paragraph on "ambient air quality in the project areas": by identifying and quantifying emission sources and, in particular, the following contaminants: ...

Attachment From Lucy McRae to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines

• Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 68
• Submitted: 2016-11-07
• From Lucy McRae to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines
• Attachment included
• From: To: Pacific Future Energy Refinery / Raffinerie Pacific Énergie Future (CEAA/ACEE) Subject: Comments on Draft Guidelines for Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project Date: November 7, 2016 6:19:16 PM I am presenting to you some comments that I feel are somewhat in the Draft EIS. I have lived in this area since I was a toddler and therefore have 60+ years of local knowledge. I remember when a previous project 'Orenda Pulp Mill' was being assessed for this exact same site and there are the same concerns today as there were back then in the early 1990's except that Climate Change seems to be adding to some of those concerns. 4.7.1 Water Supply, Water Management and Wastewater Streams 4.7.1.1 Water Supply The proponent states that the preferred source of raw water for the facility is groundwater. Will they be using a baseline of studies from back when the previously noted 'Orenda' did the nine test holes and then compare that data with today's data to compare if the aquifer is refilling at an adequate rate and whether or not they can confirm such data? Aquifers and groundwater* are a big concern right across Canada and a Canadian Groundwater Information Network (GIN) has been developed. Is this particular aquifer at the Dubose Site registered with this group? From local knowledge and involvement in the Community I am aware of the numbers of water licenses that have been issued for the Kitimat River system 'some of which have changed hands privately' and some of which there appear to be no Industrial process associated with it. I am also aware that the levels of the Kitimat River have been decreasing throughout the year due to lack of snowpack and faster melts of the glaciers that feed this small watershed, ...

Attachment From Metlakatla First Nation to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines

• Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 70
• Submitted: 2016-11-07
• From Metlakatla First Nation to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines
• Attachment included
• Phone: (250) 628-3315 Fax: (250) 628-9259 P.O. Box 224 Prince Rupert, BC V8J 3P6 EMAIL TRANSMISSION November 7th, 2016 Brett Maracle Panel Manager Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Brett.Maracle@ceaa-acee.gc.ca RE: Metlakatla comments on the draft Environmental Impact Statement (dEIS) Guidelines for the proposed Pacific Futures Energy Project Dear Brett Maracle, Thank you for your letter on October 7th. The Metlakatla Stewardship Society (MSS) appreciates the details that CEAA provided to us regarding the next steps in the Environmental Assessment (EA) process. Though we are pleased that a federal EA will be conducted, we feel that CEAA should have sought Metlakatla’s views and input prior to determining that an Independent Review Panel was the most suitable option for assessing this project. MSS believes that the Independent Review Panel process provides fewer opportunities for relationship building and collaborative problem solving among First Nations, the proponent, federal and provincial subject matter experts and CEAA. We are looking forward to meeting with you in mid-November to discuss these issues further; we also look forward to gaining a better understanding of the province’s involvement in this EA process. As requested, we have reviewed 1) CEAA’s summary of potential adverse impacts of the project on Metlakatla’s Aboriginal rights and interests and 2) CEAA’s draft Environmental Impact Statement (dEIS) Guidelines. We have prepared comments on the two documents in the attachments below. As you will note in the attachments, MSS has a number of outstanding concerns with the documents and the EA process. One of MSS’ main concerns is the shipment of ...

Attachment From Natural Resources Canada to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines

• Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 66
• Submitted: 2016-11-07
• From Natural Resources Canada to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines
• Attachment included
• November 7, 2016 Brett Maracle Panel Manager Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Sent via email: Brett.Maracle@ceaa-acee.gc.ca Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Guidelines for the Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project, proposed by Pacific Future Energy Corporation Please find attached Natural Resources Canada’s (NRCan) response to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s (CEA Agency) request to provide comments on the Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project Draft EIS Guidelines. NRCan is providing comments that relate to technical information that may be required for our review of this project, that fall within our mandate, specifically:  Seismicity  Geohazards and landslides  Bitumen properties and behaviours in collaboration with ECCC  Air quality (venting, flaring, fugitive emissions) and validation on estimates in collaboration with ECCC  Bitumen upgrading and refining process NRCan would like to highlight the importance that other than for fuel combustion emissions, refinery process emissions will include GHG and pollutants from processes, venting, flaring and fugitive equipment leaks and the scope of any air emissions assessment should be entirely within the context of emissions that such a facility will be required to report to the federal government National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) and the National GHG Reporting Regulations for facilities emitting more than 50,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per year. If you have any questions or require clarification on our comments please feel free to contact me at . Sincerely, Veronica Mossop Environmental Assessment Officer Office of the Chief ...

Attachment From the Snow Valley Nordic Ski Club to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines

• Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 64
• Submitted: 2016-11-06
• From the Snow Valley Nordic Ski Club to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines
• Attachment included
• Pacific Futures Energy Bitumen Refinery Nov. 6, 2016 Snow Valley Nordic Ski Club To: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Re: Draft Guidelines for the Preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement. The Snow Valley Nordic Ski Club would like to be sure that atmospheric dispersion modelling will include air flowing over our trail system. We would also like odour causing emissions to be considered because this too can be a problem with oil refineries and will have a very direct effect on our membership. Thank you for your consideration. Elizabeth Thorne (past pres.) <email address removed> <contact information removed>

Attachment From the Friends of Morice Bulkley to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines

• Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 62
• Submitted: 2016-11-05
• From the Friends of Morice Bulkley to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines
• Attachment included
• Friends of Morice Bulkley PO Box 4725 Email: Smithers BC V0J2N0 Web: friendsofmoricebulkley.ca November 5, 2016 Brett Maracle, Panel Manager Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 22nd Floor, 160 Elgin Street, Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 RE: Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project EIS Brett Maracle and CEA Panel, We call to your attention two inadequacies in the draft guidelines for the EIS requirements for the Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project, both dealing with the scope of the assessment. Our first concern is that the EIS should consider the ultimate planned size of the refinery. In their project description submitted to your agency June 2016, the proponent describes a 31 795 cubic meter per day or 200,000 barrel per day (BPD) refinery. Yet, in oil and gas industry and financial publications, Mr. Samer Salameh, Executive Chairman of Pacific Future Energy, is quoted as saying that, when all the project modules are complete, the facility will process up to 1,000,000 BPD.1 Clearly, the environmental and social impacts, particularly cumulative impacts, cannot be assessed without taking the final size of the refinery into account Our second concern is with how the EA assesses the transport of petroleum products association with the proposal. The receiving and transporting of petroleum products is considered as an incidental in the draft guidelines for the EIS. The raw product (bitumen) and at least some of the final products (diesel, 1 BOE Report June 10, 1914. ...

Attachment From Patricia Lange to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines

• Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 63
• Submitted: 2016-11-05
• From Patricia Lange to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines
• Attachment included
• NOVEMBER 5, 2016 PATRICIA LANGE KITIMAT, BC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PACIFIC FUTURE ENERGY REFINERY PROJECT As a member of the public residing in Kitimat, BC I have to say that the submission to the CEAA is complex and difficult for a regular member of the community to understand and intelligently comment on. My questions for the CEAA are: 1) Does the scope of the ‘designated project’ as defined by the CEAA review include the environmental effects of shipping bitumen by rail from the source to the proposed refinery? 2) Is sending refined product by ship from Kitimat being reviewed as part of the overall ‘Climate Change’ emissions goals set out by Canada’s Federal Government? 3) What about including the consideration to ‘Climate Change’ of the movement of raw materials by ship to the proposed project and the potential cumulative effects on marine mammals? 4) Do the cumulative effects, and the mitigation or remediation actions necessary, of shipping impacts on Marine Mammals (sections 6.1.6) have to be fully described by the proponent? 5) Do the cumulative effects on the human environment (section 6.1.12) include currently approved LNG and Oil projects in the area even if these projects are on hold? Who decides whether other megaprojects are likely to move forward and/or be considered in the cumulative effects? 6) What are the potential effects to the environment caused by accidents and malfunctions resulting from rail transportation and shipping transportation and how are the existing emergency preparedness and response systems going to be supplemented by the proponent? 7) Can the scope of the project include the proposed marine shipping ...

Attachment From SkeenaWild Conservation Trust to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines

• Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 60
• Submitted: 2016-11-04
• From SkeenaWild Conservation Trust to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines
• Attachment included
• November 4, 2016 Brett Maracle, Panel Manager Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 22nd Floor, 160 Elgin Street, Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 Email: ​PacificRefinery@ceaa.gc.ca Re: Pacific Future Energy Project To Whom It May Concern, This letter provides SkeenaWild Conservation Trust’s (SkeenaWild) comments regarding what should be examined during the Canadian environmental assessment of the Pacific Future Energy Refinery proposal. Pacific Future Energy is proposing to construct and operate a new bitumen oil refinery located between Terrace and Kitimat, British Columbia. As proposed, the Pacific Future Energy Refinery (i.e., the Project) would include a refinery, a 40-km access road, a power-plant, a rail yard, a bitumen storage facility, and fresh-water pipeline. SkeenaWild’s position is that the following aspects of the Project should be examined during the Canadian environmental assessment due to their potential to create harmful environmental effects: 1) Transportation of oil by rail, 2) The access road, 3) The oil refinery, 4) Water extraction and discharge, 5) Contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, 6) Routes for exported product. 1. The Project proposes to receive large volumes of raw bitumen transported by rail (an estimated 360 to 480 rail cars each day (~200,000 thousand barrels per day or ~32 million litres per day) from the Tar Sands of Alberta for 60 years; such transport will occur across provincial boundaries, and will cross more than one thousand watercourses, including Canada’s two largest salmon producing systems, the Fraser River and Skeena River. While the risks of transporting raw bitumen via pipelines has been studied in some detail, the ...

Attachment From Transport Canada to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines

• Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 59
• Submitted: 2016-11-04
• From Transport Canada to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines
• Attachment included
• From: To: Cc: Subject: TC"s comments on the draft EIS Guidelines for the Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project Date: November 4, 2016 5:41:43 PM Hi Brett, please find Transport Canada’s comments on the draft EIS Guidelines for the proposed Pacific Future Energy Refinery below. If you have any questions or would like to discuss further, please let me know. Thank-you for the opportunity to provide comment. Paula Doucette Senior Environmental Officer, Environmental Services Transport Canada / Government of Canada paula.doucettel@tc.gc.ca / Tel: Transports Canada / Gouvernement du Canada paula.doucette@tc.gc.ca / Tél: TC’s Comments on the Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project draft EIS Guidelines 1. p. 4-5, section 3.1: TC will need to ensure that any environmental effects associated with 1) the flare towers at the refinery, 2) the Emergency Response Assistance Plan for the Transport of Dangerous Goods, 3) the Marine Facility Security Plan for the offloading facility, 4) the Rail Security Plan for the proposed rail yard, and 3) any upgrades that may be needed for the existing marine terminal used for offloading refinery modules under the Navigation Protection Act are included in the EIS, in order to address any effects as a result of the potential issuance of departmental permits/approvals. 2. p. 5, section 3.2: It’s unclear what “consideration” of the following additional factors includes. Is this a full assessment or at the proponent’s discretion? Does the Agency have guidance on this? It’s also unclear how the proponent will conduct an environmental effects assessment on the incidental activities such as transporting all final and by-products from the refinery or receiving raw product that ...

Attachment From Phil Germuth, Mayor of Kitimat to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines

• Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 61
• Submitted: 2016-11-04
• From Phil Germuth, Mayor of Kitimat to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines
• Attachment included
• November 4, 2016 Brett Maracle, Panel Manager Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 22nd Floor, 160 Elgin Street, Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 Submitted by email: pacificrefinery@ceaa.gc.ca RE: Comments on Pacific Future Energy Refinery Draft EIS Guidelines Dear Mr. Maracle, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s (CEAA) draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Guidelines for proposed Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project (Project). As Mayor of Kitimat, and on behalf of Council, I am compelled to ensure that the District of Kitimat (District), our community, and its residents are granted appropriate opportunity to provide input during the Project’s Environmental Assessment (EA) process. Although the proposed Project is not located in the District’s jurisdiction, it will have a significant impact on our community, residents, and municipal services. Therefore, it is necessary that the District, community, and residents are consulted during the Project’s EA. Providing appropriate capacity for consultation aligns with Chapter 4 of draft EIS Guidelines (Public Participation and Concerns). I encourage your organization and the proponent to ensure that opportunities to provide input are available, accessible, and made aware to the District, community, and our residents. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on CEAA’s draft EIS Guidelines for the proposed Project. Sincerely, Phil Germuth Mayor <Original signed by>

Attachment From the Haisla Nation to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines

• Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 58
• Submitted: 2016-10-28
• From the Haisla Nation to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines
• Attachment included
• October 28, 2016 A SL NATION COUNCIL PO Box 1101, Kitamaat Village, BC, VOT 2BO I {250) 639-9361 Toll Free: 1-888-842-4752 I Fax: 250-632-2840 or 250-632-4794 VIA EMAIL: brett.maracle@ceaa-acee.gc.ca Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa, Ontario K1A OH3 Attention: Brett Maracle, Panel Manager Dear Mr. Maracle: Re: Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project- Panel Review We are writing in response to your letter dated October 7, 2016 providing information about the comment period on draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines, the availability of funding to support Indigenous Groups, and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency's (CEAA) proposed approach to consultation with the Haisla Nation for the above-noted Project. I. Scope of Environmental Assessment On September 28, 2016, the proponent filed an Addendum to its Project Description, on the basis of a request for additional information from CEAA, identifying activities that are incidental to the Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project. These activities included a marine terminal component, and identified a marine export terminal in Kitimat as the preferred option. Given the Project's preference for a marine export terminal in Kitimat, it is the Haisla Nation's view that the proposed Kitimat export marine terminal should be scoped as part of the Project. Integral to the refinery and the export terminal will be the pipelines carrying the refined product from the proposed refinery to the proposed export terminal. These pipelines should also be considered part of the Project for the purposes of the environmental assessment. When the Project Description was originally filed , it identified a ...

Attachment From Environment and Climate Change Canada to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Response to the Federal Authority Advice Record for the Proposed Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project

• Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 51
• Submitted: 2016-07-22
• From Environment and Climate Change Canada to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Response to the Federal Authority Advice Record for the Proposed Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project
• Attachment included
• Federal Authority Advice Record Response due by: July 21, 2016 Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project- Pacific Future Energy Corporation Agency File No.: 005565 DepartmenUAgency: I Environment and Climate Change Canada EA Contact Marc LaPointe Telephone: Name: Address: 91782 Alaska Highway, Whitehorse YT, Y1A OX5 Fax: Email: marc.lapointe3@canada.ca (867)667 -3403 1. (a) Indicate whether the description of potential environmental effects presented in the Project Description is · sufficient in characterizing project effects to the components of the environment, as defined under section 5 of CEAA 2012, that relate to your mandate, including whether these effects may be adverse. The Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project Description, dated June 2016, does not sufficiently characterize potential effects from the proposed project to components of the environment, as defined under section 5 of CEAA 2012. For example: • Migratory Birds and non-aquatic Species at Risk: The project description categorically tables the designated species at risk that are known to occur in the project area and generally identifies some of the migratory birds listed under the Migratory Birds Convention Act (1994). Potential project effects on Species at Risk and migratory birds are identified, however a general accounting does not provide an adequate project-specific understanding of potential effects on migratory birds and species at risk, or the habitats upon which they depend. While additional information is required to determine whether impacts to the identified species at risk are linked to a section 5 environmental effect, it is important for the proponent to identify species at risk to assist the Canadian ...

Attachment From Natural Resources Canada to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Response to the Federal Authority Advice Record for the Proposed Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project

• Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 48
• Submitted: 2016-07-21
• From Natural Resources Canada to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Response to the Federal Authority Advice Record for the Proposed Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project
• Attachment included
• ••• Natural Resources Ressot.RCeS natureltes Canocla Canoda July 21, 2016 Rob Hajdu Project Manager Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Re: Determination of Environmental Assessment Requirements for the Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project, B.C. Please find attached Natural Resources Canada's (NRCan) response to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency's (CEA Agency) request for information for the Federal Authority Advice Record (FAAR) regarding the Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project, B.C. NRCan is submitting this response pursuant to section 11 of CEAA 2012. The response includes two attachments: (1) a completed "Federal Authority Advice Record" and (2) Supplemental Information in response to questions 2(a) and 4 of the "Federal Authority Advice Record". If you have any questions or require clarification on our comments please feel free to contact me at (343) 292-6360. Sincerely, A/Environmental Assessment Officer Office of the Chief Scientist Canada <Original signed by> Federal Authority Advice Record Response due by: July 21, 2016 Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project- Pacific Future Energy Corporation Agency File No.: 005565 DepartmenUAgency: I Natural Resources Canada EA Contact Angeles Albornoz Telephone: 343-292-6360 Name: Address: 580 Booth St. Ottawa, ON Fax: Email : angeles.albornoz@canada.ca 1. (a) Indicate whether the description of potential environmental effects presented in the Project Description is sufficient in characterizing project effects to the components of the environment, as defined under section 5 of CEAA 2012, that relate to your mandate, including whether these effects may be adverse. Yes (b) Identify any additional ...

Attachment From Parks Canada to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Response to the Federal Authority Advice Record for the Proposed Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project

• Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 49
• Submitted: 2016-07-21
• From Parks Canada to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Response to the Federal Authority Advice Record for the Proposed Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project
• Attachment included
• Federal Authority Advice Record Response due by: July 21, 2016 Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project – Pacific Future Energy Corporation Agency File No.: 005565 Department/Agency: Parks Canada EA Contact Name: Steve Oates Telephone: 604 666-0286 Address: 300-300 W Georgia Street, Vancouver BC V6B 6B4 Fax: Email: Steve.oates@pc.gc.ca 1. (a) Indicate whether the description of potential environmental effects presented in the Project Description is sufficient in characterizing project effects to the components of the environment, as defined under section 5 of CEAA 2012, that relate to your mandate, including whether these effects may be adverse. ___Yes it is sufficient____________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ (b) Identify any additional potential adverse environmental effects of the Project that are not described in the Project Description and their linkage to components of the environment under federal jurisdiction (as defined under section 5 of CEAA 2012). ___None_________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ c) List any species at risk as defined by the Species at Risk Act (SARA) or species of conservation concern that have been assessed by COSEWIC that may be affected by the Project and are not identified in the Project Description. This information will inform the Agency’s Section 79(1) notification obligations under SARA. ...

Attachment From the Lax Kw'alaams Band to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Comments on the Potential Impacts of the Proposed Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project

• Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 45
• Submitted: 2016-07-21
• From the Lax Kw'alaams Band to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Comments on the Potential Impacts of the Proposed Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project
• Attachment included
• Information .to Inform the Determination of EA Requirements Please respond by: Thursday, July 21, 2016 Pacific Future Energy Project- Pacific Future Energy Corporation Agency File No.: 005565 Nation I Band I J Lax Kw'alaams Band Government: EA Contact (}j)u<:OZ-A ,)N ;/.1. ISeervGK__ Name: Address: J<o~ 2 hA-Sh {{_a):: Sf~-GT L?Lr iJJk~ ., . VVV lf"lV Telephone: Fax: Email: 8CU ~ (9oO o<!uO ;;)~C> 0L 1- ~"'s< 1. Does the project description accurately identify the potential adverse environmental effects of the Project that would be of importance to your group or community? DYes j2fNo Please attach additional information that your group or community considers relevant. 2. In your opinion, could the potential changes to the environment caused by the Project result in changes to your community's: (a) health and socio-economic conditions? li?'Yes D No (b) physical and cultural heritage? 0"Yes D No (c) current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes? [2JYes D No (d) structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural significance? J2(Yes 0No Specify as appropriate: 3. Does the Project have the potential to impact on your potential or established Aboriginal or Treaty rights? ]Q'Yes DNo .Specify as appropriate: Print Name of responder D/t? ~-c7o '- o ,c G1lY o s Title of responder ::::___________ 1___ { I ~J ) b SJ~······ature Please respond to the above questions by Thursday, July 21, 2016 via email at Rob.Hajdu@ceaa- <email address removed> <Original signed by>

Attachment From Transport Canada to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Response to the Federal Authority Advice Record for the Proposed Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project

• Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 50
• Submitted: 2016-07-21
• From Transport Canada to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Response to the Federal Authority Advice Record for the Proposed Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project
• Attachment included
• From: L"Heureux, Suzanne To: Hajdu,Rob [CEAA] Cc: Doucette, Paula: TC; Chatwell, Ian: TC; Hall, Ronald: TC; Hubbard, Cindy; Parkinson, Colin R: TC; Beavis, Katherine: TC Subject: RE: TC Federal Authority Advice Record - Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project - Transport Canada"s response Date: July 21, 2016 12:08:19 PM Attachments: Minor Works Order as published in the Canada Gazette April 19 2014 (2).pdf Hi Rob, As requested, please find Transport Canada’s responses to the FAAR questions below. 1. Indicate whether the description of potential environmental effects presented in the Project Description is sufficient in characterizing project effects to the components of the environment, as defined under section 5 of CEAA 2012, that relate to your mandate, including whether these effects may be adverse. · TC Response: Generally yes, although TC has one comment. The following 3 paragraphs were extracted from the proponent’s Project Description: “… our Project will create new opportunities for NEATBIT™ producers to access world markets, especially in Asia, the only market in the world with projected growth. We will also be opening up domestic markets for our products, offering the highest quality gasoline and diesel, anticipating future emissions requirements.” “The export of products is planned via a tolled process, whereby purchasers or offtakers will be responsible for the transport of product from the Refinery. By extension, this activity would benefit the Proponent and purchasers. It will be the responsibility of offtakers to obtain the necessary permits and approvals to construct the necessary infrastructure to enable export. PFEC would expect that a separate EA process would be required ...

Attachment From Fisheries and Oceans Canada to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Response to the Federal Authority Advice Record for the Proposed Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project

• Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 47
• Submitted: 2016-07-20
• From Fisheries and Oceans Canada to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Response to the Federal Authority Advice Record for the Proposed Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project
• Attachment included
• Federal Authority Advice Record Response due by: July 21, 2016 Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project- Pacific Future Energy Corporation Agency File No.: 005565 Depa~menUAgency : I Fisheries and Oceans Canada EA Contact Michael Engelsjord Telephone: Name: Address: 401 Burrard Street, Vancouver, B.C. Fax: Email: Michaei.Engelsjord@dfo-mpo.gc.ca 604-666-2365 1. (a) Indicate whether the description of potential environmental effects presented in the Project Description is sufficient in characterizing project effects to the components of the environment, as defined under section 5 of CEAA 2012, that relate to your mandate, including whether these effects may be adverse. The project description includes a general description of project components and activities. and a general description of the fish species that may use the freshwater environment in the vicin ity of the project. There is n0 description of aquatic resources in the vicinity of the project components and activities location in or near the marine and estuary environments. Information provided in the project description is not adequate to identify environmental effects. assess the significance of potential environmental effects (e.g. magnitude. duration. timing, intensity) or how effective mitigation measures may be at avoiding or managing potential adverse effects. (b) Identify any additional potential adverse environmental effects of the Project that are not described in the Project Description and their linkage to components of the environment under federal jurisdiction (as defined under section 5 of CEAA 2012). None identified at this time. c) List any species at risk as defined by the Species at Risk Act (SARA) or species ...

Attachment From Friends of Wild Salmon to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Comments on the Project Description of the proposed Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project

• Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project
• Author: Administration
• Reference number: 39
• Submitted: 2016-07-20
• From Friends of Wild Salmon to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency re: Comments on the Project Description of the proposed Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project
• Attachment included
• July 20, 2016 Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 410-701 West Georgia Street Vancouver, BC V7Y 1C6 Dear Sir or Madam: Re: Pacific Future Energy Refinery Project, Registry Reference No. 80127 In this letter, Friends of Wild Salmon (FOWS) responds to the Agency’s invitation to comment on the above project and its potential to cause adverse environmental effects under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. FOWS main concern is that enormous amounts of community time and resources, as well as taxpayer money could be spent participating in reviewing a project whose economic and financial viability has little prospect of success and whose most significant adverse environmental impact – the bitumen-by-rail scheme – is not caught by the Act and its regulations. FOWS proposes that the Agency and the Minister of Environment to initiate a limited review to decide these two issues before subjecting regional communities to the less urgent minutia that make up the proponent’s project application. FOWS is a coalition of northwestern BC community groups concerned with the conservation and protection of the wild salmon populations in region’s watersheds and adjacent ocean approaches. As such, the coalition has participated in various aspects of recent environmental assessments of bitumen and natural gas pipelines, processing plants and their attendant marine terminal facilities and tanker traffic. The coalition and its members have focused their efforts on the environmental effects of these proposals on salmonid populations and the freshwater and marine habitats on which they rely. As an example: since 2008 there have been some ...