Cedar LNG Project

Attachment ECCC comments on IAAC Analysis Report regarding Cedar LNG Project Changes

• Cedar LNG Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Environment and Climate Change Canada
• Reference number: 64
• Submitted: 2025-05-07
• Project phase: Post Decision
• Participation notice: Public Notice - Public Comments Invited on Proposed Changes to the Project
• See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce ci-jointe  
• Attachment included
• ECCC Comment Tracking Table – IAAC Amendment Application Documents for the Cedar LNG Project Comment # Document Location (Page Number and Section Title) Subject Comment ECCC-01 IAAC Draft Federal Decision Statement Document Page 50 Additional detail related to accidents and malfunctions notifications Section 12.7.3 of the Draft Federal Decision Statement Document outlines the information required in a notification following an accident or malfunction. However, it does not specify that the quantity of substances released into the environment must be provided within this notification. The quantity of substances released into the environment is essential for conducting a comprehensive risk analysis of the potential impacts and informing requisite follow up actions. ECCC recommends modifying Condition 12.7.3.3 (see below) to require the quantity of substances released, ensuring that this critical information is reported in the event of an accident or malfunction: “12.7.3.3 A list and quantity of any substance potentially released into the environment as a result of the accident or malfunction; and …”

Report

Attachment Do not build this

• Cedar LNG Project
• Author: Nicole Corrado
• Reference number: 63
• Submitted: 2025-04-30 - 11:56 PM
• Project phase: Post Decision
• Please do not build this oil and gas project!  We don't need more climate destruction, especially cutting trees for oil.  Please preserve the trees at this location. Please do not harm animals with this project. Please do not use animal testing for pollution and effluent monitoring. https://www.change.org/p/stop-testing-sewer-water-on-laboratory-fish ?Please work with the Canadian Centre for the Alternatives to Animal Methods. https://www.uwindsor.ca/ccaam/ Please only use non lethal ways to live with geese, beavers, and other wildlife. Develop a Living With Coyotes program with the animal welfare organization Coyote Watch Canada. www.coyotewatchcanada.com Please only use non lethal ways to manage wildlife. There are humane, non lethal ways to deal with beavers. Here's a great resource. https://thefurbearers.com/downloads/PDFs/Beaver%20Book%20-%202019-10-08%20The%20Fur-Bearers.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1fP2wOYQKbWREX0E5QzYBhZLf9VjwMov3p37Vh8ToW1-NeQvAoVATZhEg%0A%0A https://www.change.org/p/stop-banff-from-killing-animals-after-conflicts https://www.humanesociety.org/resources/humanely-scare-away-canada-geese https://www.canadageese.org/nlcontrol.html https://www.peta.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/humane-goose-control-pdf.pdf https://www.humanesociety.org/resources/what-do-about-canada-geese This company makes non lethal products. https://margosupplies.com/ca-en/ ? Conventional rodent control uses cruel methods. The companies use glue traps, and snap traps, which, like legholds, can cause injury. They also use rodenticide, which kills slowly and kills many non target ...

Report

Attachment Cedar LNG Project

• Cedar LNG Project
• Author: Cedar LNG
• Reference number: 62
• Submitted: 2025-04-30 - 7:31 PM
• Project phase: Post Decision
• On behalf of Cedar LNG, please see the attached letter. 
• Attachment included
• 1 Suite 1800, 1177 West Hastings Street Vancouver, BC Canada V6E 2K3 info@cedarlng.com April 30, 2025 Impact Assessment Agency of Canada 22nd Floor, Place Bell 160 Elgin Street Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3 Re: Cedar LNG Project – Proposed Amendments to the Decision Statement Cedar LNG Partners LP, by its general partner Cedar LNG Partners (GP) Ltd. (Cedar), a Haisla Nation-led partnership with Pembina Pipeline Corporation, is constructing the Cedar LNG Project (the Project), a liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facility on Haisla-owned land in the traditional territory of Haisla Nation. Cedar commenced construction of the Project in July 2024. On October 25, 2024, Cedar submitted an application to the BC Environmental Assessment Office and the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (the Agency) to amend Environmental Assessment Certificate #23-01 and the Impact Assessment Act Decision Statement to enable an alternate transmission line route, the installation of a power distribution line, and an increase to the Marine Terminal Area. Cedar has reviewed the proposed amendments to the Decision Statement posted to the Agency registry and respectfully requests that the Agency consider the following adjustments to the amended Decision Statement: • In the Description of the Designated Project (page 5), the distribution line is described using both voltage and amperage. Cedar notes it is unusual to describe a power line using amperage and requests that the description be changed to read: “a distribution power line up to 2.8 kilometers long, and up to 25 kilovolts”. • Cedar recognizes Condition 3.5.1 is subject to the parent clause (Condition 3.5) and therefore the in-water work ...

Report

Attachment Right of way

• Cedar LNG Project
• Author: Timothy Brousseau
• Reference number: 60
• Submitted: 2025-04-03 - 3:45 PM
• Project phase: Post Decision
• With regards to the ammendment to include a wider right of way for increased transmission line needs, I am concerned about public access on the Bish Creek Forest Service Road (FSR). The site involved is a very narrow area and would i would be remiss if I didn't mention the fact that the Bish FSR is a very popular and active access point for the general public to use to be able to enjoy the beautiful out of doors area the FSR has to offer. I am not against the ammendment, I would just like to receive assurances that public access will remain. Thank you.

Report

Attachment Kitsumkalum Nation comments on IAAC Analysis Report for Cedar LNG Project Change

• Cedar LNG Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Kitsumkalum Indian Band
• Reference number: 65
• Submitted: 2025-04-02 - 3:04 PM
• Project phase: Post Decision
• Participation notice: Public Notice - Public Comments Invited on Proposed Changes to the Project
• Thank you We have received the email.   Kitsumkalum has reviewed and does not oppose the IAAC Analysis of Proposed Changes to the Cedar LNG Project.   Thank you   Quinton Ball Environment, Lands and Referrals Kitsumkalum Indian Band

Report

Attachment Properly rgulated fossil fuels are paramount to a good future

• Cedar LNG Project
• Author: Bailey Steinmann
• Reference number: 59
• Submitted: 2025-04-02 - 3:18 AM
• Project phase: Post Decision
• The proposed changes to the plan would be beneficial not only to us canadians, and local citizens; our use of sustainable resources to export our fossil fuel as a safe alternative to more polluting fuels to overseas markets would strike a reasonable balance in our goal to lower GHG's in canada but also carry a prosperous world for our future generations in canada and abroad. as the market for LNG increases, canada can be a leader in proper and reasonable export processes for a bright future for the world's citizens.

Report

Attachment DFO comments on IAAC Analysis Report regarding Cedar LNG Project Changes

• Cedar LNG Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)
• Reference number: 61
• Submitted: 2025-04-02
• Project phase: Post Decision
• Participation notice: Public Notice - Public Comments Invited on Proposed Changes to the Project
• See the attached submission / Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe
• Attachment included
• 1 PROTECTED B - PROTÉGÉ B Public Consultation Period – Comments from Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Project: Cedar LNG Date: April 2nd, 2025 Author (Name, Title): James Dwyer, Senior Biologist, Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Program # Document Page, Section Original text Modification suggested Comments 1 Draft Report Analysis of Proposed Changes to the Cedar LNG Project (IAAC, 2025) Page 10 Section 4.1.2 Freshwater fish and their habitat DFO also recommended that the Proponent verify the calculation of riparian clearing in the Riparian Management Area around fish- bearing watercourses, as the data does not seem to be consistent (1). 1) 1) DFO also recommended that the Proponent verify the calculation of riparian clearing in the Riparian Management Area around fish-bearing watercourses, as the data provided in the Proponent's Amendment Application did not appear to be consistent. - 2 idem Page 10-11 Section 4.1.2 Freshwater fish and their habitat DFO also asked for more information regarding the fish species present in Beaver Creek and the tributary to Douglas Channel (a new fish-bearing Project crossing in the Amendment Application) where the alternative transmission line and distribution powerline intersect the watercourses. The Proponent responded that the main channel of Beaver Creek is not crossed by the Project and that there are barriers to fish passage downstream of Project crossing (1), thus concluding that anadromous fish species are not expected to be present in proximity to the Project crossing’s locations (2). However (3), DFO highlighted that the Proponent’s - 1) The Proponent responses to DFO IR #003 do not indicate a ...

Report

Attachment Kitselas First Nation comment on IAAC Analysis Report for Cedar LNG Project Change

• Cedar LNG Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Kitselas First Nation
• Reference number: 66
• Submitted: 2025-04-01 - 3:39 PM
• Project phase: Post Decision
• Participation notice: Public Notice - Public Comments Invited on Proposed Changes to the Project
• Hi Andreane,   Following a period of comment on response with the BC EAO regarding the proposed changes to the Project, Kitselas is satisfied with the following information regarding our concerns about impacts to the seabed resulting from the anchor blocks and chains:   “An ROV survey was conducted by Cedar in May 2024 that surveyed the habitat within the expanded Marine Terminal Area. Sediments consisted primarily of fine, soft, muddy materials, and no species at risk were observed (Appendix D).  The potential effects of the catenary mooring system on fish and fish habitat have been reviewed by DFO and a Letter of Advice was provided to Cedar on December 12, 2024. This Letter of Advice confirms that the mooring system is not likely to result in effects that are prohibited under the Fisheries Act.”   At this time, we have no further comments on the proposed changes.   Thank you, Jane

Report

Attachment Cedar LNG Project

• Cedar LNG Project
• Author: Mike Fletcher
• Reference number: 38
• Submitted: 2019-11-27 - 6:11 AM
• Project phase: Planning
• Dear Reviewers,  Given that: 1. Canada has entered a climate emergency as declared by are parliament 2. The UN has stated that global emissions must drop 7.6% per annum to avoid catastrophic climate change 3. A previous study underestimateed the impacts of an LNG development on wild salmon 4. Parts of the arctic are melting 70 years sooner than scienists earlier predicted 5. Fracking, which is the source of LNG is responsible for earthquakes, methane release and water contamination and 6. Renewables are now beating natural gas economically as a fuel for electricity generation I'm wondering why you are even considering this proposal. This madness must stop. Sincerely, Mike Fletcher.

Report

Attachment Cedar LNG - Summary of Issues Kitselas Follow-up Comments

• Cedar LNG Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Kitselas First Nation
• Reference number: 39
• Submitted: 2019-11-08
• Project phase: Planning
• Participation notice: Public Notice - Public Comments Invited on a Summary and Request for Substitution
• Attached are a couple of commented we wanted to bring to your attention with regards to Cedar’s initial PD. We meant to send these along with our letter regarding substitution and summary of issues but it fell through the cracks. We are hoping these could be addressed in Cedar’s Detailed Project Description. Please give me a call if you have any questions or concerns.   Happy Friday!     Kind regards,   Sachi   Sachiko Ouchi T: 250-615-4066 (not working!) 2225 Gitaus Road Project Assessment Officer C: 250-641-7618 Terrace, B.C. V8G 0A9 Kitselas Land & Resources Department   PAO@kitselas.com (mailto:PAO@kitselas.com)             
• Attachment included
• Comment Number Reviewer Reviewer Affiliation Document Comment/Concern Request 1 Chris Apps Kitselas Lands and Resources Department Cedar LNG Project Description The bleow comment pertains to the project decription provided by Cedar LNG: Kitselas information is identical to Kitsumkalum information. Please note that athought there are historical and cultural ties between the two communities, these are separate Nations Please include correct information for Kitsumkalum First Nation 2 Chris Apps Kitselas Lands and Resources Department Cedar LNG Project Description The bleow comment pertains to the project decription provided by Cedar LNG: Description of IR1 and IR6 location is incorrect. IR1 is located in Kitselas Canyon and IR6 is located outside of Terrace Please revise with corrent information 3 Chris Apps Kitselas Lands and Resources Department Cedar LNG Project Description The bleow comment pertains to the project decription provided by Cedar LNG: No list of project components is provided (i.e. new 8km segment of pipe) Please provide a list of all project components

Report

Attachment Request for Comments on the Potential Federal Environmental Assessment of the Proposed Cedar LNG Project in Kitimat, BC

• Cedar LNG Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Metlakatla Stewardship Society
• Reference number: 32
• Submitted: 2019-10-29 - 3:31 PM
• Project phase: Planning
• Participation notice: Public Notice - Public Comments Invited on a Summary and Request for Substitution
• Please see the attached submission.
• Attachment included
• Phone: (250) 628-3315 Fax: (250) 628-9259 P.O. Box 224 Prince Rupert, BC V8J 3P6 ...

Attachment Haisla Membership Opportunities

• Cedar LNG Project
• Author: Steve Wilson
• Reference number: 22
• Submitted: 2019-10-22 - 3:31 AM
• Project phase: Planning
• My name is Steven Wilson and I am Haisla. I was the first to sign an LNG agreement with Galveston LNG in 2005. We had an agreement that included a 15% equity stake in the terminal worth $180,000,000. The tolling at the terminal was set at 22.5% Return on Equity. The vision was to have a share and a say how the project was developed. I acquired 30% equity in the PTP Pipeline and helped with the PTP FNLP and accompanying ASETS. All of that was flushed down the toilet because the leadership listened to the consultants and lawyers who advised them no one would finance the equity. The ROE would generate $40,500,000/year. A return on investment at 6% compounded interest on the ROE would be valued at $1.2 Billion in year 23 of a 50 Year cycle. Of course, that assumes that the EBITA would all go to the investment instead of paying down the debt. But the Capital Cost Allowance would more than make-up for the cost of debt repayment.  On top of the value we had lined up $650 million worth of direct award contracts, including the lucrative marine transportation, ship assist, and environmental response contracts. At KLNG and LNG Canada, the projects were sold on the economic value to the economy through procurements. While that sounds good, the reality is that has not borne out. The majority of procurements are non-local big corporations. Thee contract to build is a fixed-price incentive contract. The only way to create profits is to cut prices. That excludes the small local contractor. In that fixed-price world, you create efficiencies through scale and scope by way of integration. By setting the standard at $500 million/year revenue companies the local company cannot compete. The ...

Report

Attachment Request for Comments on the Potential Federal Assessment of the Proposed Cedar LNG Project in Kitimat, British Columbia

• Cedar LNG Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Gitxaala Nation
• Reference number: 34
• Submitted: 2019-10-22
• Project phase: Planning
• Participation notice: Public Notice - Public Comments Invited on a Summary and Request for Substitution
• Please see the attached submission.
• Attachment included
• 1 October 22, 2019 Meghan Gilgunn Regional Director, Pacific and Yukon Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Emailed to megan.gilgun@canada.ca Re: Request for Comments on the Potential Federal Assessment of the Proposed Cedar LNG Project in Kitimat, British Columbia Gitxaała Nation, through Gitxaała Environmental Monitoring, has conducted a preliminary review of the of the Project Description for the Cedar LNG Project, and the information contained in your letter to Chief Councillor Linda Innes, dated September 19th, 2019. It is our understanding that this proposed project includes the following components: • The development, construction and operation of a floating liquified natural gas facility and marine export terminal in Kitimat, BC • Production of 3-4 million tons of LNG per year • Include storage capacity for up to 250 000 cubic metres of LNG • 25 year lifespan • Marine shipping is included in the Initial Project Description as an incidental activity to the Project and as such, will be included in the assessment • Anticipates 40-50 shipments of LNG per year, resulting in 80-100 individual transits through Gitxaała territory annually Request For Substitution of a Provincial Process Gitxaała Nation (the Nation) understands that the review of this proposed project will be conducted under the new Impact Assessment legislation. The Nation also understands that the proposed project is to be reviewed under the existing British Columbia Environmental Assessment Act (BCEAA), despite a new Act coming into force this Fall. Based on conversations with Fern Stockman from the British Columbia Environmental ...

Report

Attachment 6 Critical Things to Consider

• Cedar LNG Project
• Author: Melyssa Desilles
• Reference number: 21
• Submitted: 2019-10-21 - 1:23 AM
• Project phase: Planning
• 1) Current regulations require both; the Proponent expects both: Under current assessment legislation, this project meets the criteria for assessment by both IAAC and its provincial counterpart, the BC Environmental Assessment Authority. As the IAAC legislation is new, we think it unwise to miss this opportunity to test its validity and public acceptance. We note that the proponent acknowledges that the project qualifies for a IAAC assessment. On P. 1 of the project description, the Proponent notes that: “It is expected that the Project will require an environmental assessment (“EA”) under both the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Act (BIAAC) and the federal Impact Assessment Act (IAA) as the Project”. 2) Marine impacts are a Federal- not Provincial- responsibility:  The Cedar LNG project description shows, at full buildout, one floating liquefaction and storage barge moored near the shore of the North end of Douglas Channel, between the Bish Cove (Kitimat LNG) and Kitimat (LNG Canada) project sites. According to the project description (P.4): “Construction activities will include site preparation, as well as the construction and installation of Project components. Construction activities will be refined as design progresses, but are currently ...

Report

Attachment Cedar LNG Project

• Cedar LNG Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Kitselas First Nation
• Reference number: 35
• Submitted: 2019-10-21
• Project phase: Planning
• Participation notice: Public Notice - Public Comments Invited on a Summary and Request for Substitution
• Please see the attached submission.
• Attachment included
• Kitselas Lands and Resources Department 2225 Gitaus Road, Terrace, BC V8G 0A9 P: (778) 634-3517  www.kitselas.com October 21, 2019 Impact Assessment Agency of Canada Pacific and Yukon Region 701 West Georgia Street Suite 410 Vancouver BC V7Y 1C6 ATTN: Meghan Gilgunn RE: Cedar LNG Project Thank you for your letter regarding the Cedar LNG Project seeking feedback on potential impacts of the project as well as on the BC EAO’s request for a substituted process. It is our understanding that this project is comprised of the following main components: • Process and liquefy 3-4 MT of LNG per year • Store capacity of 250,00 m3 • 25 year life span • 40-50 shipments of LNG per year Kitselas understands that the review of this project will be conducted under the new Impact Assessment Act (the Act). Kitselas is also aware that the proposed project under British Columbia’s Environmental Assessment Act will also take place under the previous Act, as the 2018 Act is not yet in place. With respect to the BC EAO’s request for substitution, Kitselas has no opposition to a substitutive process in principle. However, in previous substitutive processes the Nation has noted a lack of complete and fulsome participation from the Agency and other federal authorities. As a substituted process does not alleviate the federal government from it’s obligations with respect to Consultation, Kitselas must note that while the process may be lead by the BC EAO, full and complete involvement from the Agency during the assessment process is required in order to provide our community with the assurance that the final decision on the Project by the federal Minister is accurately informed by the ...

Report

Attachment Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment - BC chapter

• Cedar LNG Project
• Author: Larry Barzelai
• Reference number: 20
• Submitted: 2019-10-20 - 10:19 PM
• Project phase: Planning
• As physicians dealing with the interaction between the environment and peoples’ health, we are seriously concerned about the proposed Cedar LNG project.  First, we think that the assessment should have a federal review rather than a provincial review. We feel that a project of this size requires the more comprehensive federal review, especially since the federal review is more likely to consider human health issues. We believe any review that does not take human health impacts into consideration is deeply flawed. Secondly, we are very concerned about existing health patterns affecting people in the Peace Region, the region from which most of the fracked gas will originate. Recent studies show higher incidences of respiratory disease, cancers and ill-effects on newborn babies in that region of BC, compared to averages for the province, strongly suggesting a connection to the fracking industry there. Most important, we are concerned about the climate crisis. Canada has not reduced its carbon footprint at all during the last 20 years, and current projections suggest that our per capita GHG production -- already one of the highest in the world -- is scarcely declining at all. In line with international agreements, we need to reduce our emissions by 30% by 2030.  Building more LNG facilities will make this goal impossible. Also, we wish to point out that an anomaly in GHG attribution has led many to underestimate the climate impact of projects in BC or Canada as a whole. This anomaly is the custom of attributing GHGs produced by fossil fuels extracted in one country, but burned offshore, to the latter setting -- the country where their use takes place. But climate ...

Report

Attachment Requirement for a Federal (IAAC) review of Cedar LNG

• Cedar LNG Project
• Author: Eoin Finn
• Reference number: 19
• Submitted: 2019-10-20 - 7:28 PM
• Project phase: Planning
• On behalf of the My Sea to Sky (MS2S), a non-governmental organization in Howe Sound, BC, I am writing to support the requirement that the Cedar LNG project undergo both a Federal/ IAAC and a BC/ BIAAC environmental review and that any request by the BC Government for a substituted assessment be denied. The attached document sets out the major reasons for our request.
• Attachment included
• My Sea to Sky | PO Box 2668, Squamish BC, V8B 0B8 | www.myseatosky.org October 20, 2019 Cedar LNG Project Impact Assessment Agency Canada 410-701 West Georgia Street Vancouver, British Columbia V7Y 1C6 Submitted via web to: https://www.canada.ca/en/impact-assessment-agency/news/2019/09/cedar-lng- project--public-comments-invited.html . Original signed hardcopy hand-delivered. Dear Sir/Madam, Re: Requirement for a Federal (IAAC) review of Cedar LNG On behalf of the My Sea to Sky (MS2S), a non-governmental organization in Howe Sound, BC, I am writing to support the requirement that the Cedar LNG project undergo both a Federal/ IAAC and a BC/ BIAAC environmental review and that any request by the BC Government for a substituted assessment be denied. Our reasons include: • Current regulations require both; the Proponent expects both: Under current assessment legislation, this project meets the criteria for assessment by both IAAC and its provincial counterpart, the BC Environmental Assessment Authority. As the IAAC legislation is new, we think it unwise to miss this opportunity to test its validity and public acceptance. We note that the proponent acknowledges that the project qualifies for a IAAC assessment. On P. 1 of the project description, the Proponent notes that: “It is expected that the Project will require an environmental assessment (“EA”) under both the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Act (BIAAC) and the federal Impact Assessment Act (IAA) as the Project”. • Marine impacts are a Federal- not Provincial- responsibility: The Cedar LNG project description shows, at full buildout, one floating liquefaction and storage barge moored near the shore ...

Report

Attachment Cedar LNG consideration

• Cedar LNG Project
• Author: Lucy McRae
• Reference number: 18
• Submitted: 2019-10-20 - 4:32 AM
• Project phase: Planning
• I am satisfied that this project can be done in a safe manner with a small footprint. I have read through the project description and cannot see anywhere that there is menton of Condensate. I am fairly certain that Condensate will be a byproduct and that it is fairly volatile. The access road leading to the Marine facility is a very poor road that has areas that are single lane as it is susceptible to rock falls etc. there would be no possibility of a railway system installation, between the road and the hillside there is no right of way. I have not seen any maps that show the pipeline right of way and if there was a pipeline built to deal with the condensate what would be the end location of that pipeline. With three other projects in a very small area producing Condensate as a byproduct I do have concerns on hw this will be dealt with cumulatively. I look forward to seeing more information as the process moves along. Lucy McRae

Report

Attachment Cedar LNG Submission - Air Quality Concerns

• Cedar LNG Project
• Author: Lis Stannus
• Reference number: 17
• Submitted: 2019-10-20 - 12:00 AM
• Project phase: Planning
• Participation notice: Public Notice - Public Comments Invited on a Summary and Request for Substitution
• To: Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency     10/19/2019 The Cedar LNG project is now the third LNG project under proposition in the Kitimat Valley and these projects are in addition to Rio Tinto’s existing aluminum smelting plant.  Local residents are already concerned about local air quality due to Rio Tinto’s substantial sulphur dioxide emissions.  LNG Canada, which is in construction phase, is also expected to contribute sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide emissions to the existing Rio Tinto emissions The public needs more information on the impacts of industry pollution in the Kitimat Terrace airshed.  The only study that examined existing and potential industry emissions (Kitimat Airshed Study 2014) presented pollutants (nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide) in isolation without consideration of the interaction between pollutants.  The compound impact of pollution over time from Rio Tinto’s smelter and three possible LNG projects on vegetation, water, soils and animal life will not be known for many years.    Shipping emissions and construction related emissions also need to be measured as a contributor to cumulative emissions.    Our government needs to take climate change more seriously. The carbon emissions from the Cedar LNG project seem disproportionately high in regards to the size of the project. Cedar LNG’s project if power is self-generated has carbon emissions that are roughly equivalent to the Rio Tinto smelter, a much larger plant.   The residents of Kitimat and surrounding areas have higher rates of asthma and respiratory related illness than the BC ...

Report

Attachment Potential federal impact assessment of the proposed Cedar LNG Project

• Cedar LNG Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Métis Nation British Columbia
• Reference number: 36
• Submitted: 2019-10-18
• Project phase: Planning
• Participation notice: Public Notice - Public Comments Invited on a Summary and Request for Substitution
• Please see the attached submission.
• Attachment included
• __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Métis Nation British Columbia (MNBC) represents nearly 90,000 self-identified Métis people in BC. To date, 19,000 Métis Citizens are provincially registered with MNBC. The Métis National Council and the Provincial Government of British Columbia, as well as the Federal Government of Canada, recognize Métis Nation British Columbia as the Governing Nation for Métis in BC. Unit# 107–5668, 192nd Street Surrey, BC, V3S 2V7 Tel: 604.557.5851 Fax: 604.557.2024 TF: 1.800.940.1150 www.mnbc.ca October 18, 2019 Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 410 – 701 West Georgia Street Vancouver, BC V7Y 1C6 By Email Re: Potential federal impact assessment of the proposed Cedar LNG Project Métis Nation British Columbia (MNBC) represents nearly 90,000 self-identified Métis people in British Columbia. Of those, over 19,500 are provincially registered Métis Citizens of MNBC. Recognized by the Métis National Council, the Province of British Columbia and the Government of Canada, MNBC is the official governing body of the Métis in BC. MNBC represents thirty-eight (38) Métis Chartered Communities in British Columbia and is mandated to develop and enhance opportunities for Métis communities by implementing culturally relevant social and economic programs and services. MNBC’s Ministry of Natural Resources, including the BC Métis Assembly of Natural Resources, will advocate for consultation with government and industry where actions and activities on provincial and federal Crown lands (or towards Crown resources) have the potential to infringe on Métis rights ...

Report

Attachment Request for Substitution of Environmental Assessment Process

• Cedar LNG Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of District of Kitimat
• Reference number: 33
• Submitted: 2019-10-18
• Project phase: Planning
• Participation notice: Public Notice - Public Comments Invited on a Summary and Request for Substitution
• Dear Impact Assessment Agency of Canada Team: We created an account to submit comment for the environmental assessment substitution of the Cedar LNG project, but have not received an email approving the account to submit. Therefore, to ensure our comment is received prior to the October 20, 2019 submission deadline, we are sending you our comments via this email. Please see District of Kitimat submission attached to this email. <contact information removed>. Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on this project. Regards, <contact information removed> Economic Development Dept District of Kitimat
• Attachment included
• <Original signed by> <contact information removed>

Report

Attachment Cedar LNG Liquefaction and Export Terminal

• Cedar LNG Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of The North Matters
• Reference number: 37
• Submitted: 2019-10-18
• Project phase: Planning
• Participation notice: Public Notice - Public Comments Invited on a Summary and Request for Substitution
• Please see the attached submission.
• Attachment included
• CEDAR LNG #THENORTHMATTERS CEAA SUBMISSION PAGE # 1 Cedar LNG Liquefaction and Export Terminal ABOUT THE NORTH MATTERS Under the registered name The North Matters, community leaders in the North Coast, Skeena, Cariboo- Chilcotin, Peace River, Northern Rockies and Bulkley Valley Regions have joined forces with citizen groups in the natural gas producing regions of B.C. to highlight benefits of resource development. Our Mission: Building strength in northern communities by aligning and creating opportunities for its residents PAGE # 2 CARING COMMUNITIES • Protecting the natural environment is a primary value of the people of rural resource communities; • Many rural residents work in natural resource industries; • The North Matters advocates for balanced decision making that objectively weighs opportunity in the context of social needs, environmental values, economic return and cultural conservancy. PAGE # 3 • There are many single-interest organizations weighing only one element, such as environment, and only from the perspctetive of impact. • That is too narrow of a view for sound decision making • Many of these single-interest organizations politicize official project assessments - That has to end OUR MESSAGE TO CANADIAN DECISION MAKERS 1. Bring Objectivity Back to Decision Making 2. Recognize Canada’s Advancements and Achievements 3. Consider GHG Reduction in Global Context PAGE # 4 OBJECTIVE DECISION MAKING New Measures of Success PAGE # 5 • End Politics in Canadian Review Processes • End Negative Bias Reporting and Reviewing • Begin Acknowledging and Accounting for Canadian Successes • Begin Levering Canadian Expertise For Global Benefit PAGE ...

Report

Attachment Federal Authority Advice Record

• Cedar LNG Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Service Canada
• Reference number: 29
• Submitted: 2019-10-17
• Project phase: Planning
• Participation notice: Public Notice - Public Comments Invited on a Summary and Request for Substitution
• Please see the attached submission.
• Attachment included
• ATTACHMENT: September 19, 2019 Federal Authority Advice Record form Response due by October 9, 2019 Cedar LNG Project – Cedar LNG Export Development Ltd. Agency File: 005734 Department/Agency Service Canada – W-T Region Lead IA Contact Assistant Deputy Minister Office Senior Advisor, Sheila Brasnett Full Address 15th Floor, 300 West Georgia St Vancouver, BC V6B 6G3 Email Sheila.brasnett@servicecanada.gc.ca Telephone 250-979-2453 Alternate Departmental Contact Janet Walsh, Program Delivery Branch Janet.walsh@servicecanada.gc.ca Please find consolidated responses from the W-T Region Business Lines including Strategic Services Branch (SSB), Program Delivery Branch (PDB) and Citizen Services Branch (CSB) as a key business line working directly with communities. POB and PDB intend to align future efforts/project response to ensure a coordinated and collaborative National/Regional approach. Responses below for this early input are reflective of this approach. 1. Is it probable that your department or agency may be required to exercise a power or perform a duty or function related to the Project to enable it to proceed? As an underlying consideration, it is important to emphasise that the Program Operations Branch plays a function in the implementation of policies and programs and supports policy centres with the Regions. As such, our input largely focuses on this operational perspective and relies on the policy centres’ input with respect to the public interest and Government priorities underpinning policies and programs designs. In spite of the wording of the questionnaire, the input provided below is not meant as the Departmental response, but rather as a ...

Report

Attachment Cedar LNG

• Cedar LNG Project
• Author: Cheryl Brown
• Reference number: 16
• Submitted: 2019-10-16 - 8:02 PM
• Project phase: Planning
• Participation notice: Public Notice - Public Comments Invited on a Summary and Request for Substitution
• Comment on Substitution letter
• Attachment included
• ...

Report

Attachment Wilderness Committee submission on Cedar LNG project

• Cedar LNG Project
• Author: Peter McCartney
• Reference number: 15
• Submitted: 2019-10-16 - 6:44 PM
• Project phase: Planning
• Participation notice: Public Notice - Public Comments Invited on a Summary and Request for Substitution
• Please see attached Wilderness Committee submission on the Cedar LNG project.
• Attachment included
• Wilderness Committee submission on Cedar LNG project Prepared by: Peter McCartney, Climate Campaigner and Charlotte Dawe, Conservation and Policy Campaigner. I’m writing on behalf of the Wilderness Committee’s 60,000 supporters across Canada with regards to the Impact Assessment for Cedar LNG in Kitimat, B.C. Wilderness Committee has significant concerns with this project, in particular its related carbon emissions, cumulative impacts from fracking operations in the northeastern part of the province and its impacts on the endangered marbled murrelet. Cedar LNG is one of several proposed liquefied natural gas facilities in the province that make it significantly more difficult for the province to meet its targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Under CleanBC, the government committed to a 40 per cent reduction below 2007 levels of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2030. Current climate initiatives only amount to 75 per cent of this goal, without even factoring in a planned expansion of the LNG Canada project. 1 This shortcoming illustrates how difficult it is for governments to achieve emissions reductions, and should give the Impact Assessment Agency (IAA) cause for extreme caution when evaluating any proposed increase in carbon emissions. Based on the provincial government’s track record of consistently failing to meet its climate targets, the regulator cannot assume the additional greenhouse gas produced by Cedar LNG will be accounted for elsewhere. The proponent forecasts the facility will produce 168,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide annually if its liquefaction processes can be powered from the BC Hydro grid and 840,000 tonnes if it relies on its own gas for power. Neither of these ...

Report

Attachment Federal Authority Advice Record

• Cedar LNG Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Public Safety Canada
• Reference number: 28
• Submitted: 2019-10-13
• Project phase: Planning
• Participation notice: Public Notice - Public Comments Invited on a Summary and Request for Substitution
• Please see the attached submission.
• Attachment included
• ATTACHMENT: September 19, 2019 Federal Authority Advice Record form Response due by October 9, 2019 Cedar LNG Project – Cedar LNG Export Development Ltd. Agency File: 005734 Department/Agency Public Safety Canada/Pacific Regional Office (PS PRO) Lead IA Contact Andrew Hannan Full Address 607 – 3292 Production Way, Burnaby, BC V5A 4R4 Email Andrew.hannan@canada.ca Telephone 604-666-1199 Alternate Departmental Contact Sue Olsen, 604-666-5705, sue.olsen@canada.ca 1. Is it probable that your department or agency may be required to exercise a power or perform a duty or function related to the Project to enable it to proceed? No. 2. Is your department or agency in possession of specialist or expert information or knowledge that may be relevant to the conduct of an impact assessment of the Project? No. 3. Has your department or agency considered the Project; exercised a power or performed a duty or function under any Act of Parliament in relation to the Project; or taken any course of action that would allow the Project to proceed in whole or in part? No. 4. Has your department or agency had previous contact or involvement with the proponent or other party in relation to the Project? (for example, enquiry about methodology, guidance, or data; introduction to the project) No. 5. Does your department or agency have additional information or knowledge not specified, above? No. 6. From the perspective of the mandate and area(s) of expertise of your department or agency, what are the issues that should be addressed in the impact assessment of the Project, should the Agency determine that an impact assessment is required? From ...

Report

Attachment Comment removed by Administrator due to an administrative error

• Cedar LNG Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Women and Gender Equity Canada
• Reference number: 31
• Submitted: 2019-10-11
• Project phase: Planning
• Participation notice: Public Notice - Public Comments Invited on a Summary and Request for Substitution

Attachment Federal Authority Advice Record

• Cedar LNG Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Women and Gender Equality Canada
• Reference number: 42
• Submitted: 2019-10-11
• Project phase: Planning
• Participation notice: Public Notice - Public Comments Invited on a Summary and Request for Substitution
• Please see attachment.
• Attachment included
• <Original signed by> PART A – Summary of Issues – Cedar LNG Project Following a review of the Proponent’s Project Description, the following are WAGE’s key suggested areas/issues for the proponent to consider: Current situation and gender relevance The initial Project Description and project consultations should serve to better understand the purpose of the proposed project and show how it connects with gender equality and broader inclusion goals. Ideally gender equality and inclusion issues should be found in all sections of the report rather than mentioned only in a specific section on gender. Having said that, the proponent may wish to include a specific section in the project description to highlight the relevancy between liquefied natural gas facilities and gender equality. In addition to the gender relevancy, the project description should provide a detailed overview of the target group(s) and local context in order to clearly identify the segments of the population that will either benefit or be negatively impacted by the project. This includes individuals, groups and legal entities who the project is targeted at (direct beneficiaries). The proponent may also consider individuals who, even though the project is not directly targeted at them, can be affected by its implementation (indirect beneficiaries). There are very few cases, if any, that a project is considered gender neutral where there are no differential positive or negative impacts on gender equality. Extractive industries - oil, gas, and mining can drive economic growth and provide opportunities, including the creation of jobs, access to revenues and expanded investment in the local communities. However, to ensure ...

Report

Attachment Federal Authority Advice Record

• Cedar LNG Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Transport Canada
• Reference number: 30
• Submitted: 2019-10-10
• Project phase: Planning
• Participation notice: Public Notice - Public Comments Invited on a Summary and Request for Substitution
• Please see the attached submission.
• Attachment included
• RDIMS 15764663 ATTACHMENT: September 19, 2019 Federal Authority Advice Record form Response due by October 9, 2019 Cedar LNG Project – Cedar LNG Export Development Ltd. Agency File: 005734 Department/Agency Transport Canada Lead IA Contact Suzanne L’Heureux Full Address TC Programs, Environmental Services, 800 Burrard St, Vancouver, BC V6Z 2J8 Email Suzanne.lheureux@tc.gc.ca Telephone 604-836-9371 Alternate Departmental Contact Joanne Kwok (604-315-3167) 1. Is it probable that your department or agency may be required to exercise a power or perform a duty or function related to the Project to enable it to proceed? If yes, specify the Act of Parliament and that power, duty or function. Yes. 1) Any on water works will require an Approval under the Canadian Navigable Waters Act. Under the Canadian Navigable Waters Act (CNWA), Transport Canada issues approvals for (a) a designated major work that may interfere with navigation on any navigable water; (b) a work – other than a designated major or minor work – that may interfere with navigation and that is located on a navigable water listed on the Schedule; (c) a work – other than a designated major or minor work – that may interfere with navigation, and that located on a navigable water that is not listed on the Schedule, whereby the proponent has decided to apply to Transport Canada. TC does not require approvals for works that do not interfere with navigation, or works that meet the criteria of the Minor Works Order. In cases where a work (other than a minor work) does not interfere with navigation, the proponent is required to deposit ...

Report

Attachment Federal Authority Advice Record

• Cedar LNG Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Health Canada
• Reference number: 26
• Submitted: 2019-10-09
• Project phase: Planning
• Participation notice: Public Notice - Public Comments Invited on a Summary and Request for Substitution
• Please see the attached submission.
• Attachment included
• <Original signed by>

Report

Attachment Federal Authority Advice Record

• Cedar LNG Project
• Author: Administrator on behalf of Natural Resources Canada
• Reference number: 27
• Submitted: 2019-10-09
• Project phase: Planning
• Participation notice: Public Notice - Public Comments Invited on a Summary and Request for Substitution
• Please see the attached submission.
• Attachment included
• October 9, 2019 Nicola Cook Project Manager, Pacific and Yukon Region Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency ceaa.cedarlng-gnlcedar.acee@canada.ca Re: Federal Authority Advice Record for the proposed Cedar LNG Project Please see attached for Natural Resources Canada’s (NRCan) response to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s September 19, 2019 request to review the Initial Project Description for the Cedar LNG Project and to complete the associated Federal Authority Advice Record (FAAR). NRCan is submitting this response in accordance with subsection 13(1) of the Impact Assessment Act. If you have any questions, please contact me by email at jessica.coulson@canada.ca, or by phone at 613-295-6289 Thank you, Jessica Coulson Team Leader Office of the Chief Scientist <Original signed by> Federal Authority Advice Record form Response due by October 9, 2019 Cedar LNG Project – Cedar LNG Export Development Ltd. Agency File: 005734 Department/Agency Natural Resources Canada Lead IA Contact Jessica Coulson Full Address 588 Booth Street, second floor, Ottawa, ON Email Jessica.Coulson@canada.ca Telephone 613-295-6289 Alternate Departmental Contact Walker Smith 1. Is it probable that your department or agency may be required to exercise a power or perform a duty or function related to the Project to enable it to proceed? No 2. Is your department or agency in possession of specialist or expert information or knowledge that may be relevant to the conduct of an impact assessment of the Project? Specify as appropriate. Seismicity, terrain hazards, marine environment and marine geohazards; ...

Report