Tilbury Phase 2 LNG Expansion Project

Executive Summary

PDF Version 151 KB

Document reference number: 63

Overview of the Assessment Report

This Assessment Report (Report) summarizes the findings and recommendations of the environmental assessment (EA) for the Tilbury Phase 2 Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Expansion Project (Tilbury Phase 2 or the Project), an expansion of an existing LNG production and storage facility proposed by FortisBC Holdings Inc. (FortisBC or the Proponent), with its natural gas subsidiary FortisBC Energy Inc. (collectively referred to as FortisBC or the Proponent). This report aims to inform the provincial Ministers responsible for making a decision on whether to issue an Environmental Assessment Certificate (Certificate) and the federal Minister of Environment, Climate Change, and Nature (or Governor in Council) for decision-making under the Impact Assessment Act. This report also aims to inform participating Indigenous nation's decisions on providing a notice of consent or lack of consent to issuing the environmental assessment certificate under Section 29(2)(c) of British Columbia (B.C.)'s Environmental Assessment Act (the Act) and in accordance with their own legal traditions.

The Report outlines key issues, consultation and engagement with Indigenous nations, environmental, social, health, economic and culture effects, including cumulative effects, and proposed measures to mitigate potential adverse impacts.

Project Details

The Proponent is proposing to expand the capacity of its existing Tilbury LNG facility located on Tilbury Island in Delta, in the Greater Vancouver Regional District. The expansion will include the construction of a new LNG storage tank, with a working volume of 142,400 cubic meters (m³) (3.5 petajoule) (Storage Tank) and up to 7,700 tonnes per day (t/d) of LNG liquefaction (Liquefaction Capacity), natural gas receiving facilities, as well as supporting infrastructure within the existing LNG facilities' area. Tilbury Phase 2 will be constructed entirely within the existing Tilbury LNG Facility site and will not require expansion of the facility footprint onto previously undeveloped lands.

The Proponent has stated that the purposes of Tilbury Phase 2 are to strengthen resiliency by providing instantaneous backup gas supply to FortisBC customers in the event of a supply emergency and to provide a fuel alternative for local and global markets to meet the growing demand.

Regulatory Review

Tilbury Phase 2 is subject to an EA under the Act and an impact assessment under Canada's Impact Assessment Act (IAA). On January 20, 2022, the former federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change approved the substitution of the federal impact assessment to the Province of B.C. The Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) conducted the substituted assessment to meet both provincial and federal requirements, thereby enabling decisions under both B.C.'s Act and Canada's IAA. The Project also requires authorizations under the Energy Resources Activities Act (ERAA) from the BC Energy Regulator (BCER) for the LNG facility, from Metro Vancouver under the Environmental Management Act (EMA) for air emissions, and a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from the B.C. Utilities Commission (BCUC) for the LNG storage tank as part of a utility system.

The EAO prepared this Assessment Report in consultation with a technical advisory committee, comprising of federal, provincial and local government representatives with mandates and skill sets relevant to the review of Tilbury Phase 2, as well as representatives of Indigenous nations potentially affected by Project activities. The Impact Assessment Agency of Canada (IAAC) also provided advice to the EAO in relation to fulfilling requirements of the IAA.

The EAO undertook public consultation activities during the EA including holding four public comment periods and establishing a Community Advisory Committee (CAC) to help share information with interested community members throughout the process. All public comments, as well as the Proponent's and the EAO's responses to these comments, were considered in completing the EA.

Assessment of Effects

The EAO assessed all effects required by the Act and potential adverse effects within federal jurisdiction as required under the IAA. The assessment was informed by the Revised Application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate provided by the Proponent as well as by comments received from the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), Indigenous nations, CAC, and the public.

The EAO assessed effects on the Valued Components (VCs) that were identified as potentially affected by Tilbury Phase 2, specifically: air quality, acoustics, culture, vegetation, wildlife and wildlife habitat, fish and fish habitat, groundwater, surface water, soil, employment and economy, infrastructure and services, land and resource use, archaeological and heritage resources, and human health. The EAO considered whether any adverse effects to these VCs would be significant.

For all Indigenous nations potentially affected by Tilbury Phase 2, the EAO assessed the potential effects of Tilbury Phase2 on the asserted or established Aboriginal rights and title, as recognized and affirmed by Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, as well as on any broader interests related to an Indigenous nation (collectively, "Indigenous Interests").

The assessment also considered other assessment matters as required under the provincial and federal legislation including: risks and uncertainties associated with effects, interactions between effects, the risks of malfunctions and accidents, disproportionate effects on distinct human populations, effects on biophysical factors that support ecosystem functions, effects on current and future generations, contributions to sustainability, consistency with land use plans, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, alternative means for carrying out the project, and potential changes to the project that may be caused by the environment.

To fulfill federal requirements, the EAO assessed potential adverse federal effects as required under the IAA specifically on: fish and fish habitat, migratory birds, and federal lands. The EAO also assessed adverse federal effects with respect to the Indigenous peoples of Canada, specifically: an adverse impact resulting from any changes to the environment on cultural and physical heritage; current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes, and any structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural significance, and to health, social and economic conditions of Indigenous peoples. The EAO determined whether adverse federal effects are likely to be significant and, if so, to what extent.

Indigenous Consultation

Potential effects from Tilbury Phase 2 would occur in the territories of the following First Nations (listed alphabetically):

• Chawathil First Nation;
• Xwchíyò:m (Cheam) First Nation;
• Katzie First Nation;
• q̓ʷa:n̓ƛ̓ən̓ (Kwantlen) First Nation;
• kʷikʷəƛ̓əm (kwikwetlem) First Nation;
• Leq'á:mel First Nation;
• Malahat First Nation;
• Màthexwi (Matsqui) First Nation;
• xʷməθkʷəyə̓m (Musqueam Indian Band);
• Pauquachin First Nation;
• Pópkw'em (Popkum First Nation);
• Quw'utsun Nation (Cowichan Tribes, Halalt First Nation, Lyackson First Nation, Penelakut Tribe and Stz'uminus First Nation);
• Semiahmoo First Nation;
• S'ólh Téméxw Stewardship Alliance members (Aitchelitz First Nation, Kwaw-kwaw-Apilt First Nation, Seabird Island Band, Semá:th (Sumas) First Nation, Shxwhá:y Village, Shxw'ōwhámél First Nation, Skowkale First Nation, Skwah First Nation, Soowahlie First Nation, Sq'ewá:lxw (Skawahlook) First Nation, Sq'éwlets (Scowlitz) First Nation, Squiala First Nation, Tzeachten First Nation, Yakweakwioose First Nation, and Yale First Nation);
• Snuneymuxw First Nation;
• Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Úxwumixw (Squamish First Nation);
• SȾÁUTW̱ (Tsawout) First Nation;
• Tsartlip First Nation;
• Tsawwassen First Nation;
• Tseycum First Nation;
• Tsleil-Waututh Nation; and,
• Ts'uubaa-asatx.

The EAO, on behalf of the provincial and federal Crown, consulted with these Indigenous nations throughout the substituted assessment process. IAAC worked in coordination with the EAO on consultation activities leading up to the substitution decision and throughout the effects assessment phase.

The EAO also consulted with Métis Nation British Columbia, on behalf of the federal Crown as part of the substituted assessment, and with Lummi Nation which is a United States Tribe that asserts Aboriginal Rights within the vicinity of the Lower Fraser River.

One of the purposes of the EAO is to support reconciliation with Indigenous peoples in B.C. The EAO sought consensus throughout the process at key milestones with participating Indigenous nations, including:

• Chawathil First Nation;
• Cheam First Nation;
• Kwantlen First Nation;
• kʷikʷəƛ̓əm First Nation;
• xʷməθkʷəyə̓m (Musqueam Indian Band);
• Quw'utsun Nation (Cowichan Tribes, Halalt First Nation, Lyackson First Nation, Penelakut Tribe and Stz'uminus First Nation);
• Snuneymuxw First Nation;
• S'ólh Téméxw Stewardship Alliance (on behalf of Kwaw-Kwaw-Apilt First Nation, Sq'éwlets (Scowlitz) First Nation, Sq'ewá:lwx (Skawahlook) First Nation, Skwah First Nation, Seabird Island Band, Semá:th (Sumas) First Nation, Yale First Nation, Aitchelitz First Nation, Shxwhá:y Village, Skowkale First Nation, Soowahlie First Nation, Squiala First Nation, Tzeachten First Nation, and Yakweakwioose First Nation);
• Ts'uubaa-asatx;
• SȾÁUTW̱ First Nation;
• Tsawwassen First Nation; and,
• Tsleil-Waututh Nation.

These First Nations had the opportunity to provide a notice of consent or lack of consent at the end of the environmental assessment process. Five (5) participating Indigenous nations chose to provide notices of consent, three (3) chose to provide notices of lack of consent, which are included with the final referral documents for Ministers. This report highlights efforts to incorporate Indigenous knowledge into the assessment process and outlines the consensus-seeking processes with participating Indigenous nations.

Key Issues

The EAO assessed a wide range of potential positive and adverse effects to understand the predicted residual, and where applicable, cumulative effects of Tilbury Phase 2. Three key issues arose during the assessment process:

1. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions: The Project's contribution to climate change was a key concern. While the proponent's application states that the project will help reduce global emissions by displacing higher-carbon energy sources, there remained concerns about its alignment with provincial, federal, local, and First Nation climate goals. Mitigation measures and regulatory conditions have been proposed to address GHG concerns alongside the implementation of legislation and policy frameworks to achieve future net-zero goals from both B.C. and Canada. After implementation of the proposed mitigation measures and conditions, the EAO determined that the Project would not have significant adverse effects on GHG emissions.
2. Effects to Air Quality and Human Health: Concerns were raised about the potential impacts of air quality as it relates to human health. This includes concerns related to ongoing emissions during Operation as well as the inclusion of a flare as part of the Project. Mitigation measures and regulatory conditions have been proposed to minimize these effects and complementing permitting requirements. Following implementation of the proposed mitigation measures and conditions, the EAO determined that the Project's residual effects on air quality and human health, as well as its contribution to cumulative adverse effects, would not be significant.
3. Project Scope and Aquatic Effects: Although no marine traffic is directly connected with this Project, concerns were raised by First Nations about impacts on marine mammals, fisheries and those who rely upon the marine environment and resources. Concerns regarding impacts to fish were also raised relating to the release of water from hydrostatic testing of the LNG storage tank and impacts of 6PPD-Quinone (6-PPDQ) from trucks during Construction. Mitigation measures and regulatory conditions have been proposed to minimize these effects to the extent they are related to the Project. Following implementation of the proposed mitigation measures and conditions, the EAO determined that the Project's residual effects on aquatic interests, as well as its contribution to cumulative adverse effects, would not be significant.

Measures to Reduce Effects

To mitigate potential adverse effects, the Proponent proposed a suite of mitigation measures as part of project design and operations. Additionally, the EAO has proposed provincial conditions as legally-binding requirements in the event a Certificate is issued. The EAO has identified federal Key Mitigation Measures and Follow-up Programs and made recommendations regarding them to IAAC to inform federal decision making under the Impact Assessment Act. If approved, the EAO notes that Tilbury Phase 2 would require a number of additional provincial, federal and municipal approvals and permits that would also impose additional requirements.

Conclusions

The EAO carefully considered all information submitted by the Proponent, Indigenous nations, local governments, public, the CAC, and the TAC. Based on a thorough analysis of the assessment materials, the proposed mitigation measures, acceptable implementation of the proposed provincial conditions, the KMMs and federal follow-up programs under the IAA, and the permitting and other regulatory requirements that the Project would be subject to, the EAO has determined that Tilbury Phase 2 is not likely to result in significant adverse project-specific effects or contribute significantly to adverse cumulative effects.

The EAO acknowledges ongoing concerns regarding cumulative effects to air quality as a result of residual effects of Tilbury Phase 2 interacting with the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The EAO concludes, however, that Tilbury Phase 2's contribution to these cumulative effects would be limited, due to the nature and scale of the project's effects, and not significant.

In reaching its conclusions, the EAO considered the adverse effects within federal jurisdiction as defined in Section 2 of the IAA. The EAO concluded that residual and cumulative adverse federal effects to fish and fish habitat, migratory birds, air quality and acoustic resources that would occur on federal lands, to physical and cultural heritage and any structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural significance, are not significant. The EAO concluded that residual effects to Indigenous peoples' physical and cultural heritage are not significant, and the cumulative effects are significant to a low extent. The EAO concluded that residual and cumulative adverse federal effects to Indigenous peoples' current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes and to the health, social, and economic conditions of Indigenous peoples are significant to a low extent.

In considering the purposes of the Act, the EAO evaluated whether Tilbury Phase 2 would promote sustainability by protecting the environment, fostering a sound economy, and supporting the well-being of British Columbians and their communities.

From an environmental perspective, the assessment concluded that potential adverse effects can be effectively mitigated through the proposed Certificate conditions, additional regulatory requirements, KMMs and project-specific mitigation measures. While cumulative air quality concerns exist in the region, the Project's incremental contribution to those effects is expected to be limited in magnitude and frequency.

Tilbury Phase 2 also has the potential to foster a sound economy by supporting continued and new employment, contracting, and training opportunities, generating regional economic activity, and contributing tax revenue to local governments and the Province.

Finally, the Project has the potential to contribute to the well-being of British Columbians and their communities, including First Nations communities, through energy system resiliency, economic opportunities, and continued engagement with Indigenous nations regarding potential effects on their interests.

Based on the overall findings of the environmental assessment, the EAO is of the view that Tilbury Phase 2 is consistent with the promotion of sustainability as defined under the Act.