At the heart of the Salish Sea lies the Fraser River Estuary: home to over half of the population of the Province of British Columbia, thousands of endemic species, and one world-famous pod of orcas. But as the human population of the region has grown, wildlife populations — including salmonids, orcas, and over 100 species at risk — have been plummeting.

As economic imperatives press up against ecological thresholds, a mega-project that has been in development for over a decade is poised to further alter the character of the estuary, with massive implications for the health of Salish Sea and its many residents.

In this episode, we ask: can we find ways to hear each other through all the noise?

– – –

For lots of photos, transcripts, citations, musical credits, and the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority's responses to our questions, head to www.futureecologies.net/listen/fe-4-2-terminal

UPDATE

The decision to approve Roberts Bank Terminal 2 was announced on April 20, 2023 by Steven Guilbeault, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada, who said “With 370 environmental protection measures that the port must meet, we have set a high bar for this project to proceed. For the first time ever, we are asking a proponent to put up $150 million to guarantee the strict environmental conditions are met and habitats are protected for species such as the Western Sandpiper. Moreover, this decision is paired with massive government investment in the protection of threatened species like Chinook salmon and endangered Southern resident killer whales. “

The measures that have been announced have not addressed the concerns of the environmental and labor movements that oppose the project.  Misty MacDuffee, who you heard in this episode, responded: “All viability assessments of southern resident killer whales indicate their threats must be significantly lowered for recovery to occur. Approving this project does the opposite. It increases threats, worsens their feeding conditions and increases their likelihood of extinction.”

While the approval has been made, this story is far from over.  The project faces additional regulatory hurdles, a changing market environment, and continued opposition as it enters an estimated six years of construction.  We’ll continue to follow the story as it unfolds and we’ll keep you updated.

Read more about the Roberts Bank decision

– – –

Future Ecologies is independent and ad-free. This podcast is possible thanks to our supporters on Patreon

Join our community of supporting listeners for access to early releases, a rad discord server, and more

✨https://www.patreon.com/futureecologies ✨

If you'd prefer to support the show with a one-time donation, you can do so at https://www.futureecologies.net/donate

And if you can't support the show financially, you can always leave us a nice rating (or even a review) wherever you listen. We post our favourites at https://www.futureecologies.net/#reviews 💖

You are listening to season Four of

Future Ecologies.

How do I describe a whale song? It's like an

acoustic masterpiece to me.

It's like if you had a all these puzzle pieces, and you had them

spread out on a table, and every puzzle piece had its own little

sound to it, and you started putting it together. That's what

I think these whales do — at least least humpback whales when

they're singing. It's like they try a little sound, they try a

little sound, then they put those two sounds together, and

to them that's like "oh, yeah, that works" or it doesn't. So

that's... I guess for me when I recognize these are emotional

beings. Without a doubt, when you hear them vocalize, there is

emotion in those sounds, especially to me the humpback

whale song because they are actually creating something in

the moment. And we're lucky enough to actually be able to

listen to that creation while it's occurring.

But with Resident Orca who are extremely chatty, the idea that

you have three clans and that each clan has their own

language, and that within that clan, you have a number of pods

that have their own dialect, and then some families that again,

have their own dialect and some calls that only they will use. I

mean to me right away that just... that just screams

recognition. This is who we are by what we sound like.

Welcome back. My name is Mendel.

And I'm Adam.

And this is Janie Wray.

I am Janie Wray. And I have been listening to whales

now for close to 30 years.

Sound is everything when it comes to whales. We always

compare sound to a whale, to how we use our vision to interpret

our environment. So when we're walking through a trail or

speaking with each other, most of us are able to use vision to

understand our habitat and what's around us. That would be

the same for whales. Whales are literally using sound, let's say

to see their environment. And I think part of that is not only

because of course it's hard to see within a dark ocean. But

because sound travels so much more efficiently in water it

would only make sense that they would evolve to be a creature

that is dependent on sound.

Janie is the founder and lead researcher of

the North Coast Cetacean Society, or if you prefer, BC

Whales.

BC Whales, alongside SIMRES and OrcaLab are

the three nonprofit marine research organizations behind

the BC Coastwide Hydrophone Network: a system of calibrated

underwater microphones positioned up and down coastal

British Columbia, in partnership with First Nations communities.

This hydrophone network is intended, among other things to

help us understand the behaviors of cetacean species at risk:

Southern and Northern Resident killer whales, transient Biggs

killer whales, humpbacks, fin whales, and harbor porpoises.

The beauty of it is is that when you put a

hydrophone in the water, no matter where it is, you are able

to listen 24/7 without having an impact on what it is you're

trying to study or protect. It doesn't matter whether it's

stormy, it doesn't matter whether it's dark, you are able

to collect habitat use of whales, because whales are an

acoustic creature. And it also then allows you to record every

other sound under the water, including, of course, that of

vessel noise, pile driving, any anthropogenic noise that humans

are making. But it also allows you to record — and I don't know

if everyone thinks about this — weather patterns, because

there's also a lot of ambient noise that's caused by storms

and waves. And rain! Rain can sound pretty loud underwater. So

these whales, you know, they've evolved on a planet where

there's always been ambient noise. But then when you add the

anthropogenic noise on top of that, I think that's a pretty

huge thing for them to have to deal with.

Not only of course, listening to whales but listening to each

other. I think there's a huge lesson and something we can

really learn from whales — because they have to listen to

each other. And I've always thought that if we could learn

to listen to each other, like whales listen to each other, in

many ways it would be a better planet because they're so

dependent on communication. So listening to me is everything.

Today, we're bringing you a story about how

we navigate listening. Even when sometimes our interests are

misaligned, can we find ways to hear one another through all of

the noise? And what happens when we expand the circle of

listening to include the more than human world?

We're going to be talking about ecology and extinction, dollars

and sense, and perhaps the biggest construction project

you've never heard of.

From Future Ecologies. This is Terminal.

Broadcasting from the unceded, shared, and

asserted territories of the Musqueam, Squamish,

Tsleil-Waututh, and other Hul'qumi'num-speaking peoples,

this is Future Ecologies:

Exploring the shape of our world

this is Future Ecologies:

through ecology, design and sound.

If you’ve listened to our show before, you may have

heard me mention that I live on Galiano Island. It’s a small,

part of an archipelago known as the

Southern Gulf Islands, which lie within the Salish Sea, halfway

between the City of Vancouver and Vancouver Island

All of this is off of the Pacific coast of British

Columbia, Canada and just across the US border. So, to get

between Vancouver and Galiano Island, you have to take a ferry

across what's known as the Strait of Georgia. It's just a

fact of living out here. If you need to do anything off island,

your day is at the mercy of the ferry schedule. And going to or

coming from Vancouver means passing through the ferry

terminal at Tsawwassen, a community that bears the name of

the local First Nation. In English Tsawwassen translates to

"the land facing the sea".

The Tsawwassen First Nation's traditional territory includes

the rich tidal flats formed by the delta of the Fraser River,

which snakes its way across the entire province before emptying

into the Strait of Georgia. The freshwater plume from the river

delta, rich with sediments from the interior forms a massive

estuary, and it has an enormous influence on the Strait of

Georgia and even Galiano Island. In fact, it's common knowledge

among island beach goers that the typically icy ocean water is

just a little bit warmer on the strait side, due to the outflow

of the Fraser.

Wait.. it you knew that, then why did he take

me swimming on the other side of the island?

I like the cold.

Okay, so to recap, we have the largest river

on the west coast of Canada, passing directly through the

largest metro area in Western Canada and forming an enormous

estuary at the heart of the Salish Sea. There's a whole

bunch of small islands, including Galiano Island, that

sit just beyond the river delta, and are accessed by ferry from

Tsawwassen.

The ferry terminal sits on a piece of manmade land at the end

of a long causeway, jutting out into the strait. But the ferry

is not the only terminal in Tsawwassen. Roberts Bank, this

short strip of coastline and south of the Fraser, is also

home to a second causeway, a conduit linking rail lines and

transport trucks to another artificial island, where goods

flow to and from other continents. This manufactured

peninsula is the site of Deltaport. As part of the Port

of Vancouver, the busiest port in Canada, Deltaport is overseen

by the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, a federal Crown

Corporation. It's the waypoint for millions of cargo

corrugated metal boxes, which arrive loaded with

consumer goods, clothes, electronics and all of your

COVID impulse purchases and then leave packed with grain pulses,

lumber and pulp. And the fact that the port, the ferry

terminal, and these communities are all located here — on this

estuary, at the mouth of the Fraser River — that is no

coincidence.

Globally if we look at the fact that the mega

cities around the world are usually plunked down on

estuaries, and it's because that's where small communities

started. They started because of this unbelievably rich

environment for food — not just for wildlife species, but for

humans as well. It's also a great trade corridor because you

can move up and down the river and you can move your goods up

and down the river. So why not start your little village on the

edge of an estuary? The soil is fertile, it is productive. It's

heaven. It's got everything. And so that's why 70% of the world's

mega cities are built on estuaries and that estuaries are

now some of the most endangered ecosystems on the planet.

This is Misty,

My name is Misty MacDuffee and I am a

conservation biologist that focuses on salmon ecology. And I

work for the Raincoast Conservation Foundation.

Misty lives on Pender Island, another one of

the Southern Gulf Islands.

We're neighbors... sort of.

Sure. And it's her work on salmon that brings

her here to the Fraser River estuary.

It's the rearing grounds for Canada's

largest populations of salmon from a single watershed. It

feels like my backyard. If you want to like look at just what's

the definition of an estuary. You could say, well, it's the

point of high tide or it's the point of the saltwater wedge up

into the river. But then as it fans out and mixes with the

marine waters, that freshwater is still detectable right out to

the Gulf Islands. So we are actually in the estuary. Even

though I often get on the ferry to go get there, it's all the

estuary, so I'm working in my backyard.

The muddy fan of an estuary is a critical part of

the salmon lifecycle, in their role as an anadromous fish — or

fish that are born upriver, and then spend their adulthood in

the ocean. All salmon must pass through the estuary at least

first as adolescents, and then again, on their final

homeward journey to spawn. The estuary feeds them and shelters

them. It's critical habitat for this keystone species, whose

nutrient rich bodies ultimately provide food to a litany of

other creatures from the land, the air, and the sea.

Grizzly bears, black bears, cormorants,

mergansers, herons, killer whales, salmon sharks. It's a

gauntlet — from the time they come out of that egg, 'til the

time that they return to those same spawning grounds to lay

their eggs — it's a gauntlet of predators... before we get to

anything else we've piled on top of them.

And we have, admittedly, piled a lot on top

of them. Urbanization and development along the river and

in the delta, has profoundly degraded the quality and

character of this habitat. Factors like the sedimentation,

the salinity, the plant and insect populations, and the

estuaries capacity to moderate the flow of water and mitigate

flooding each have an impact on salmon survival. Taken together,

these impacts have reduced some salmon populations to the brink

of local extinction.

This is a problem not just for those salmon, but

for an entire food web that relies on them, including the

Salish Sea's most famous residents, who Janie introduced

us to earlier.

And when we think about the implications

from populations blinking out, a great one of the consequences is

from the loss of early time Fraser Chinook for Southern

Resident killer whales. And there's a population of whales

that are critically endangered that are dependent on Chinook

salmon and even dependent on Chinook salmon from the Fraser

River. So you've got an endangered population that's

reliant on other endangered populations.

Chinook salmon and Southern Resident killer whales

are just two of the species that depend on the Fraser River

estuary for their survival, although maybe they're the two

most recognizable. But many other creatures live here year

round, and others just pass through.

For example, the Western Sandpiper, a small

shorebird that descends annually on Roberts Bank in the hundreds

making a stopover to rest and eat along their

northward spring migration. And what they eat is biofilm —

effectively shorebird superfood. Biofilm, which is a slurry of

diatoms and bacteria, covers the tidal mudflats. Its nutritional

density, and really just its presence, also depends on all

the dynamics of the river delta:

the salinity, topography,

the dynamics of the river delta:

temperature and more. And besides the animals we've

the dynamics of the river delta:

discussed, this interface between the land and the ocean

the dynamics of the river delta:

is important for so many reasons. The delta has provided

the dynamics of the river delta:

food, shelter and economic opportunities going back

the dynamics of the river delta:

millennia. And now, the Fraser River lowlands are home to more

the dynamics of the river delta:

than half the human population of BC.

And counting! So why have we brought you here, to

the Fraser River estuary? And why have we introduced you to

just a few of the communities connected to it? Well, that's

because this whole region is standing on the threshold of

even more change.

We're talking about a mega project with a

price tag in the billions of dollars, that while

controversial, has escaped the kind of international public

attention that the TransMountain pipeline and the Site C dam have

attracted. This is the proposed site of Roberts Bank Terminal 2,

or RBT2 for short. And the decision over its future may be

only weeks away.

Let's just dive right in the meat and potatoes

of it.

RBT2 would be a further extension beyond what the

current footprint is — like the current footprint is substantial

already, but RBT2 is looking to further increase their landscape

into deeper waters.

This is Steven.

Yeah, my name is Steven Stark, my ancestral name

is Slə́qsit. I’m from Tsawwassen First Nation.

And what's your role within Tsawwassen First

Nation. First Nation?

Well, I have many roles. I sit on a variety of

different committees. I currently sit on executive

council at Tsawwassen First Nation. First Nation. I also sit

as the chairman of the Housing Committee. I'm also a member of

the Natural Resources Committee. And then I'm also a business

entrepreneur in the community, and a father and all those other

roles too.

At its core, the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 proposal

is to build a new island, doubling the area of the

existing terminal and connecting to it at one corner. It would

jut further out into the deeper waters, past the causeway and

towards the river. At a cost of approximately three and a half

billion dollars. It stands to create three additional births

for the world's largest ships, and double the total container

capacity.

RBT2 was officially proposed by the Port

Authority in 2013. Since then, it's been slowly churning

through a process of community consultations, environmental

reviews, and detailed submissions to the federal

government. Over two dozen First Nations across the Salish Sea

have been involved in years of consultations around this

project, including, of course, Tsawwassen First Nation.

It's been many years, and people coming in and

out of the community to get feedbacks and surveys and, you

know, stewardship ideas and impacts to our members. So, you

know, it starts to become redundant. Do you feel like

sometimes that your words aren't being translated?

Consultation, you know, the studies, the surveys, the

workshops, the presentations, there's been a significant

amount of them and doesn't mean that anybody's any more informed

today than they were the first time.

You know, there's a reason why Tsawwassen picked this

foreshore? It's because it was rich with opportunities of all

types. Tsawwassen First Nation has always been a hub of trade.

We used to have 100 longhouses down here. We were the people

facing the sea. People from all different nations would come

here, and barter and trade.

The old saying is when the tide is down, the table is set,

because at that point, there's so much resources available and

you can walk out so far, and pretty much find anything that

you're looking for. And I always said this is amazing, like I I

fell in love with it. I fell in love with walking the foreshore

beach and picking crab right out of the sand.

But ever since 1970, the people facing the sea

have found themselves facing the port instead.

You know, there's a long standing relationship

issue with how the port was built and what transpired from

the governments, and same with the ferry terminal as well,

which still to this day hasn't been even acknowledged by the

province.

Besides interrupting the view and

limiting access to the tastiest offerings of the intertidal.

Both the ferry terminal and the port have brought all kinds of

disturbance to awesome.

You'll get nighttime shutters of the house

when the trains smashed together, right? You can hear

the ground shake, you get particular matter from diesel

exhaust burning. Whether it's from the ship, whether it's from

the diesel trucks doing delivery out to the port as well. So you

get accidents, you get police calls, you see lights flashing,

you get longshoremen speeding through the area — not just

speeding but reckless speeding.

And this is how things are today. RBT2 would sit

right on top of Tsawwassen's traditional crabbing grounds. It

would expand the no-float exclusion zone for boats and

draw yet more traffic to the near shore.

And yet, it's complicated. Because for now,

Tsawwassen's economic well being is still closely tied to

Deltaport,

We develop the lands and lease them out that

for shipping goods and services in

and out. So, you know, we signed a treaty as well. That gave us

self-governing avenues available to us to be able to develop

those lands, create revenue opportunities, because at the

end of the day, we need to be self-sufficient, because the

lifeline that the federal and provincial government has thrown

Indigenous people and Tsawwassen First Nation eventually will be

pulled away, and we need to be able to be self sufficient. And

we need to be able to provide schooling, housing programs,

youth centers, daycares, administrative day-to-day

operations, things like that. It's got to be funded somehow.

So, you know, Indigenous people are supposed to live off the

land? You know, I've heard that so many... I'm not gonna say

racist, but a different — there's a different word for it.

You know, naive — being naive, in that sense that Indigenous

people should just live off of the land, but how... you can't,

you have to evolve in today's environment.

So when we asked Steven whether he was for or

against port expansion, he just wasn't willing to come down on

either side.

You know, am I in support of the port? I'm not

going to say yes or no. There's going to be a great impact on

our crabbing, our fishermens, our water rights, and I'm very

concerned about that. And we all have been for many years. Do you

feel like sometimes you just powerless against a Goliath that

is going to do it anyways, and you just... you know, do you

take what you can and run with the bag?

When we come back, we're going to chart the options

that lay ahead. Because, as it turns out, Roberts Bank is

facing not just one port expansion proposal, but two.

Right after this.

Hey, this is not an ad. In fact, you may have

noticed that we don't have any ads on Future Ecologies. Not

one. We make this show because we love it, and we're not

interested in selling you stuff. For me personally, it's the most

interesting, challenging and rewarding job that I've ever

had. Of course, I mean, emotionally, if not financially

rewarding. I feel unbelievably lucky to have been able to do so

much learning in public, and to share these stories with you.

But the cold truth is that we're still on our way

to becoming a sustainable organization. To be able to keep

making this show, and hopefully to offer stable creative

opportunities to other storytellers. We need your

support.

If you appreciate the work that we do,

and you have the means, the best way to help is at

patreon.com/futureecologies. And don't worry, there's a link in

the show notes.

Besides all of our amazing patrons, keeping us

afloat, we also wanted to extend our thanks to the Sitka

Foundation for helping support our fourth season. We've got a

few special treats in store for you that simply wouldn't have

been possible without them.

So to everyone who has ever supported us in any

way. Thank you.

Okay, enough with a hard sell. Let's get back to it.

City of Vancouver, Vancouver where we

live, is really a port city and it's grown. The question is, has

Vancouver grown and then the port grew, or has the port grew

and then Vancouver grew as a result of it?

Welcome back. My name is Adam

Mendel

And this is future ecologies.

Today, we're in the Fraser River estuary where

the largest container port in Canada stands to get even

bigger. And the voice you just heard is Marko.

My name is Marco Dekovic. I'm the Vice President

of Public Affairs with GCT Global Container Terminals.

We're a container terminal operator, so we are in business

in handling our customers' trade. Our customers are ocean

carriers, and their customers are consumers and beneficial

cargo owners. And so, as the demand for those cargoes grow,

it is our job to ensure that our customers have the ability to

move that cargo through our terminals.

As terminal operator, we're tenants of port authorities. So

in Canada port authorities are federal crown agencies that have

been entrusted to manage the land that's been given to them,

to generate revenue by renting it out or leasing it out. And so

I like to equate it to a mall, a shopping mall. So the port

authority is the mall administration, and we are the

tenant in the mall.

We like to think of ourselves as the anchor tenant in the mall.

So GCT operates Deltaport, leasing the lands

from the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority. But despite what you

might have assumed, they don't support the Port Authority's

proposal to develop Roberts Bank Terminal 2.

So the Port Authority has been inventing a

project called Roberts Bank Terminal 2, where they actually

want to build a new island landmass out of Roberts Bank

adjacent to the existing landmass outer Roberts Bank. And

our proposal is to incrementally expand our existing facility by

adding an additional birth and filling the land behind it.

GCT, that's Global Container Terminals, calls their

proposal Deltaport Berth Four, or DP4. Essentially, they want

to grow the terminal back towards the shoreline, adding in

just one birth beside the causeway on the opposite side

from the Fraser River.

But GCT doesn't just differ on the details. We

were surprised to learn that they actually completely reject

the Port Authority's rationale for expanding the terminal in

the first place.

And it's not a quiet disagreement. GCT is

behind the Better Deltaport campaign. So if you live here,

and you've seen articles about the project in the Vancouver Sun

or other regional publications, you might have caught their

sponsored content, criticizing the Port Authority and RBT2.

So, faced with all these moving parts, we

called in some help from Stephanie Wood.

Yes, Hello. My name is Stephanie. My ancestral

name is Kwetásel'wet. I'm from Squamish nation, and I am a

journalist with The Narwhal.

Stephanie has been covering the controversy at

Deltaport for the past few years. So we asked her to give

us the big picture, starting with the biggest question: why

expand the port in the first place?

For some time, the Port Authority has been

saying that there's going to be a need for more container

capacity at the port. They've been talking about this since

the 90s. And they say they have all these forecasts that show it

gets really urgent, they say, by the mid 2020s, which is like...

now, really. But then Global Container Terminals who is

competing with a different proposal — so obviously, they

have some business interest here — but as a container operator,

like they are saying that that is not true.

There is no scenario that we can see in the

near term, despite you know some more recent spikes and demand

for consumer goods or container trade, that there will be a need

for 4 million-plus TEUs of capacity in Port of Vancouver in

the near term. So, in the next 10,15, 20 years.

That measurement, TEU stands for 20

foot-equivalent unit, the standard unit of a shipping

container. Currently Deltaport has capacity for 2.4 million

TEUs. And Roberts Bank Terminal 2 stands to double that. But

then there's another important question: where do all those

containers end up?

35% of everything that moves through Canadian

terminals — be it in Prince Rupert or in Vancouver — is

US-destined. We're capturing that discretionary US-destined

cargo to move through our terminals. The Canadian demand

for containers has been relatively flat over the last 10

years.

According to GCT, any port expansion would be

driven by the economic business case. That is the opportunity to

outcompete terminals across North America by getting

containers onto railways to service the Asia Pacific Gateway

traffic.

Of course, it's their whole business model to

capitalize on those opportunities as they can, which

is why they still want to eventually expand the port.

Our approach for growth has always been through

densification, incremental expansion — doing more within

our footprint... doing more with less, if you will.

And to do so, GCT believes that they have a much

better solution than the Port Authority's Terminal 2, which

has understandably put a strain on their relationship.

When we saw from our private sector perspective

that we need to start planning for the next incremental

expansion for our project, we started engaging with the Port

Authority in 2015 about Deltaport Berth 4 said "we think

this is this is the next best way to grow capacity in the

port, and we want to do it together with you". The port did

not want to engage. And we submitted an application to

begin working on Deltaport Berth 4, and the Port Authority

completely dismissed the application. They would even

review it. So it's not like they looked at it and said "Okay,

well, we don't agree with this. So we're not going to process

the application or advance your project", they actually just

refused to look at it. We felt that that was a wrong approach

from a regulator which again, is a government agency, who's

decided to you know, get in the in the business, if you will, of

container handling. So it'd be like the mall administrator

getting into the retail business.

Marko was saying that basically, the Port

Authority is now their landlord, regulator, and competitor. And

no matter how people feel about containers, I think most people

can be like that's a unique and possibly problematic situation.

And as you can imagine, from you know, day to

day operations, it became challenging, because it was seen

in the light where we're now competitors.

GCT claims that Deltaport Berth 4 would achieve

almost the same capacity increase at less than half the

cost, and with significantly lower environmental impacts: to

salmon, to biofilm, and to crabbing grounds.

The only one where DP4 would potentially have

slightly more impact is eel grass, because of where we're

building slightly shallower.

But even then, they assert that they've

successfully remediated eelgrass habitat in the past, when they

first incrementally expanded the port — from two berths to three,

back between 2008 and 2010.

So we asked the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority

to comment on this schism with GCT and the rationale behind

their own expansion plans. They told us that without terminal

expansion, they see Canada's container capacity running out

by 2025., with ripple effects across the national economy.

They wouldn't make any statement on GCTs plans specifically, but

they did refer us to a 2020 independent review panel of

RBT2, which found that the Port Authority had appropriately

considered alternatives.

This same panel was not optimistic about the

environmental impacts, concluding that RBT2 would have

numerous adverse residual and cumulative effects.

The Port Authority remains adamant that they can

offset the damage caused by construction and operation,

recently increasing their commitment to restore habitat

from 29 to 86 hectares

Although their proposed terminal itself would

still permanently destroy twice that amount of habitat.

From our readings of what the Port Authority has

published previously, they contend the Deltaport Berth 4,

being closer to the intertidal flats, would have worse

environmental impacts than the deeper water RBT2. And they've

expressed concern that DP4 would give GCT, an anti competitive

hold over local container terminal services.

So we have two very different proposals on the

one by a federal Crown Corporation, and

the other by their corporate lease holder, who feel that

they're being denied due process.

I think they have a fair argument in terms of

procedural fairness, like how can you legitimately go through

this project for RBT2 when there's a proposal on the table

that has definitely less consequences? And so how can you

fairly say that you're going to evaluate Global Containers'

proposal if you've already made this decision on Roberts Bank?

So even just from a procedural perspective, the whole Roberts

Bank review process should just stop until they can legitimately

review Global Containers'. But if we're going to do this, there

needs to be a regional plan.

People aren't looking at this project in

isolation, they're looking at everything that has happened to

the estuary in the past few decades, how much development

and other proposals there are already. And I think that people

are starting to really realize just what's at stake. People are

just already experiencing the impacts. They're already seeing

the losses. Like how much more can this area really take?

I think that this is a question that we're all

kind of grappling with, at a planetary scale, and at a local

scale as well. And on this podcast, we've already covered

one tool that has been applied to answer these kinds of

questions. Priority Threat Management.

Priority Threat Management is becoming an

increasingly popular approach to responding to the conservation

crisis that we have globally around the world. And in the

case of the Fraser, as in other areas around the world, it's not

just you know, a couple of species that were concerned

about. In the case of the Fraser it's more than 100 species that

are recognized to be at risk — some level of at risk of

extinction — that live parts of their lives or all of their

lives within the bounds of the Fraser estuary. And not only are

the status of the species not recovering, and in many cases

getting worse, there's more and more species being added to

these lists all the time.

We first discussed Priority Threat Management with

Dr. Tara Martin, in relation to the Southern Mountain Caribou in

Episode 2.1. But we'll give you a quick recap.

It's a decision-making tool: a way to

break out of the tunnel vision of trying to manage conservation

for one endangered species at a time, and instead find the most

effective solution for all of them.

The way that Priority Threat Management works

is by bringing all the biologists and ecologists that

work on the individual species or a group of species

Experts who deal with anadromous fish, marine

mammals, aquatic plants, shorebirds, insects, etc, etc.

Getting them all into a room and saying "if

we do X, what are the chances that the species will recover?"

Starting with —

"If we just continue the way we are? What is

the likelihood that this species is going to be here in 25

years?"

And the outcome of that was that two-thirds of those 100 species

had a less than 50% probability of persistence in 25 years. So

pretty dire, for most of the species that are in the estuary.

Then they look at the suite of possible

interventions,

Restoring aquatic habitat, implementing

green infrastructure, more fisheries regulation, changing

the way we manage public lands, changing the way we manage

private lands, dealing with invasive species, dealing with

how we move vessels through their habitat, what about

pollution?

And they crunch the numbers on how those would

help the odds of survival for each of those species at risk.

But it doesn't stop there.

What if we combined strategies? A

combination of aquatic restoration and fisheries

regulation, and changing the way we manage agriculture?

What if we were to implement all of the strategies?

And finally, they tally up the price tag for every

single one of those options.

So you come up with this matrix that says

"here's the probabilities of survival for the species, and

here's how much it's gonna cost" — what's the best thing we can

do to recover the most number of species at the most cost

effective price.

And... with all of those strategies combined, the

odds of persistence for most of those species in 25 years gets

bumped up to... just over 50%.

So in business as usual, it's below that 50%

probability, which isn't a lot. Like it takes them from a worst

chance to a better chance.

There's no escaping the fact that it's

pretty late in the game to turn things around, especially for

this region, which has already seen so much fragmentation and

development. But the take-home message is that there is still a

chance. And we have a good idea of how much it would cost.

It would cost about $380 million, or about $15

million a year, which on some levels is a drop in the bucket.

You know, it might sound like a big figure. But I mean, how much

are we spending on trying to expand the port?

Just to remind you, the current estimate for

RBT2 is three and a half billion dollars.

How much are we spending on pushing through

TransMountain right now? All of these things that affect the

survival probability of the species.

As of a few weeks ago, the cost to build the

TransMountain pipeline now stands at $21.4 billion, which

is way up from an estimate of 7.6 billion just four years ago,

when the federal government bought the pipeline. And just

for reference, 21.4 billion would cover the estuary

remediation we've been talking about for over 1300 years.

But then we also looked at what other

components there could be to implementing the strategies that

might improve it. And one of those components was if we were

to change the way we make decisions collectively, and that

if we were to implement a co-governance model that

includes First Nations — actively as, you know, decision

makers in these decisions, which hasn't happened in the past —

and that we were able to have the funding to implement these

solutions. That just that implementation of better

decision making and co-governance increases that

survival above the 60% probability.

The total cost for the strategies recommended

by this Priority Threat Managment process to give these

species a fighting chance, and to institute a regional

co-governance model would come out to less than $8 per year for

every adult in just the Metro Vancouver area.

But there's another strategy that the PTM

process highlighted. Although they were unable to assign a

cost to it. One of the most effective ways to preserve the

endangered species of the Fraser River estuary is perhaps the

most obvious.

Don't proceed with the proposed mega projects

that are on the books. Stop destroying this habitat with

those kinds of projects, and undertake restoration. It's sort

of intuitive that you would think "Oh, you know, what do we

do?" Well, one, hold the line don't make anything worse. And

second, start restoring the habitat that has already been

trashed.

Halting major industrial development in this

economic nexus might seem like a pipe dream. But the authors of

the study are resolute on this point. They write "if major

industrial developments continue in this region, the persistence

of many iconic species, such as the Southern Resident killer

whale, anatomist fishes, including salmon and sturgeon,

and saltwater species, including the migratory Western Sandpiper

are likely to be jeopardized."

And arguably, the reason that industrial

development has been able to carry on as it has been, is

because each project has only had to assess its environmental

impacts in isolation, rather than considering its

interactions and cumulative effects. There is no oversight

that considers the region as a whole. But it wasn't always that

way. Up until 2013, just a few months before RBT2 was

officially proposed, there was a government agency with exactly

FREMP, or the Fraser River Estuary Management

Plan.

Fingers crossed, this is the last acronym in this

episode.

FREMP was the coordination of Fraser estuary

activities between the federal government, the provincial

government, the port, and, you know, sort of the greater metro

region. And they didn't have any authority over decision making.

They didn't have any funding. And they didn't have any First

Nations participation. But what they were doing was they were

conducting studies, they were compiling literature and

undertaking assessments, and they were all talking to each

other. So it, it wasn't great. But it was completely eliminated

under Stephen Harper. So FREMP disappeared, and a lot of the

really big expansion proposals have happened since then.

the co-governance model that Misty

and her Priority Threat Management colleagues recommend

is the aspiration to improve upon FREMP 1.0.

So we need for all of those past stakeholders

to come together again — with First Nations and the public

— and have a set of criteria and principles that are going to

guide decision making in the estuary, and that that be rooted

in, you know, looking at cumulative effects and looking

at our societal goals. But to correct the three main things

the First Nations presence, the

funding, and the decision making authority.

So we have a Port Authority, a Port Operator,

a First Nation, a gaggle of ecologists, and a pod of orcas,

each agreeing on some points and completely diverging on others.

What do we want? What do we need? And what can we tolerate —

for ourselves and all the communities touched by the

Fraser River estuary? Is an effective compromise even

possible here? Or is the estuary already compromised to the

limit? Can there really be a middle ground when one party —

actually a whole host of parties in this relationship — are

facing extinction.

And to that point, here again, is Janie Wray

At some point, there has to be that moment in time

where we turn around and actually care enough, that

instead of constantly taking, that we just start to give back

— by giving back meaning giving something up. In all levels,

when it comes to the resources that we take from the planet,

we're going to have to start to give back at some point here,

and we're all going to have to give up a little something in

order to do that. That's what always goes through my mind when

I hear about another expansion, about another port, about, you

know, increasing vessel traffic. I just don't know how these

whales are going to survive it.

On the other hand, even the most ardent

environmentalists among us are keenly aware of the social and

economic tolerances that we live within.

I mean, I'd love to say, but wouldn't it be great,

right? No more shipping, we're gonna stop at all. But we know

that can't happen. The reality is we're all participating in

this, we're all using the products that are coming off of

these vessels most likely. So there has to be a way to make

that work.

So, as Mendel and I were staring a hole right

through this issue, we realized that there might actually be an

outside-of-the-box sort of solution staring right back at

us. And we weren't the only ones to see it. The terminal at

Roberts Bank isn't just home to GCT-Deltaport. The same

artificial island and causeway also houses Westshore: a bulk

export terminal whose business is based around just one thing.

Coal.

Most of that is metallurgical coal used in the

manufacturing of steel. But almost a third of the coal

shipped by Westshore is thermal coal, destined to be burned for

heat and electricity. And in the end, both thermal coal and

metallurgical coal have effectively the same carbon

footprint.

Ports on the west coast in the States refused

to export this thermal coal, and the way that it gets out is by

coming up into Canada by train, and then out of the port. And so

a lot of people have kind of pointed out the hypocrisy in the

fact that the Canadian government is allowing the

export of thermal coal to power electricity elsewhere in the

world, which is extremely greenhouse gas intensive, while

at the same time leading an initiative to ban the use of

thermal coal for electricity.

In June of last year, the federal government

released a new policy statement, calling for the elimination of

thermal coal mining and burning in Canada, but made no mention

our continued facilitation of the

mining, export, and combustion of American coal. So we wrote to

GCT and asked whether they could get the extra container capacity

they want, by taking over the coal port instead of by building

out a new berth. Their answer was that Westshore is a strong,

viable business, who hold the lease to their terminal until

2066. And who have announced their plans to diversify from

coal and begin to export potash, which is widely used as

fertilizer. Plus, converting the bulk terminal would require

extensive renovations so that it could handle the weight of

stacked containers. In short, from GCT's perspective, not

feasible.

Although we should point out that Westshore is

effectively GCT's, roommate at Roberts Bank, and so it's

possible that this response is at least partially diplomatic.

For their part in this question, the Port Authority wrote to us

that they are mandated under the Canada Marine Act to enable

Canada's trade through the Port of Vancouver, ensuring that

goods are moved safely, efficiently and sustainably.

They don't however, decide what moves through the port. The

federal government is responsible for making decisions

related to what goods and commodities Canada trades,

including coal.

I'm sure there's an economic argument for

why the port profits by shipping US coal. But I think that

socially in this day and age that's getting harder and harder

to sell. You know what, if we really, really really need a

little bit more capacity at Roberts Bank, get rid of the

coal terminal. That is the logical place for it to go.

Because we really can't increase shipping traffic through the

Salish Sea anymore. The Salish Sea can't get any noisier if we

hope to recover Southern Resident killer whales.

Replacing the coal terminal in order to get

this extra container capacity isn't a slam dunk. And it might

or might not even be feasible. But it does pose a case study

for what, as a society, we are or aren't willing to consider as

a compromise in order to meet our stated climate change and

biodiversity goals. But, frankly, something's got to

give.

Knowing what we know and where we are how do we

move forward? And I think that we kind of have to get away from

this economy versus the environment approach because

ultimately, we have to recognize that our economy is underpinned

by the health of our ecosystems and our environment. So if

you're going to compete between those two, it's it's not too

long before everything runs out, and we have neither.

As a case in point, nothing illustrates this

better than the experience of Tsawwassen fishermen over the

past several decades.

You would see so many Tsawwassen boats out on the

water. You would see a camaraderie within the community

that uplifts people and people helping to get nets and fuel

their boats up with each other, and people running around with

trucks and ice, and we would have fishermen's parties, ball

for the community, things like that.

Those days are long and gone. Crabbing is getting more and

more difficult. But salmon as well is... I would have to say

it's like life support at this point on salmon stocks, and the

camaraderie is definitely changed. Unintended consequence

of depleting of resources means people's morale is going down.

So where do we stand, right now? We asked

Stephanie to sketch out who, besides the folks we've talked

to, has come out as for or against Roberts Bank Terminal 2.

I saw one mining company – it's like a

Surrey-based mining company was like, "Yeah, we're for it". And

that's all I found. Even the municipalities in the

surrounding area are all against.

That includes the city of Delta, where the port is

located, plus the city of Richmond, both have passed

motions in opposition to RBT2, either to reject it outright, or

at least to wait until it can be compared with DP44.

And as far as the official process, for the

last year and a half, the federal environmental review for

RBT2 had been on pause. The previous Minister for the

Environment had postponed making a decision, instead sending the

Port Authority to gather more information. And then, in

December of 2021, the Port Authority filed their response.

So now they're in the middle of a public

comment period.

Which will last until March 15. And again, is

open to the public.

Yes, everyone can comment, it's pretty easy.

I urge urge urge more people to submit their

comments.

And so like us, you might wonder what will

happen after March 15.

So if the minister decides that he got

enough information to make an informed decision, then the

timeline restarts, and he has to make a decision within 89 days.

So theoretically, by mid-2022, we will know what the decision

is. If the minister decides that the project will have adverse

environmental impacts, then it's then passed on to the governor

and council, and the process isn't over yet.

At that point, the federal cabinet can decide to

overrule the Minister of the Environment if it decides that,

despite all of the concerns, raised port expansion is still

in the public interest. So to reiterate, the public can speak

out for or against the expansion, the Minister of the

Environment will make his determination. And still, all of

that could potentially be overturned by the federal

cabinet one way or the other.

Based on what we've just discussed, I do not

see how that project is in public interest. Money will

create further burden on the public purse, it will create

more negative environmental impacts, and this is not really

in line with what the customers are looking for. But ultimately,

it will be a government decision.

So thank you all for listening. This has been

Future Ecologies where we keep you informed about important

issues that you have absolutely no control over.

Wait wait wait... cut that out. I know

that none of this seems particularly democratic. But

every observer we've spoken to so far, thinks that this

decision could easily go one way or the other. And nothing is

certain at this point. So those public comments might actually

make a huge difference.

In reality, your voice does matter whether you

feel it's insignificant or not. We need to accumulate all of

that information and just try to make the best decision you can

collectively and hope 20 years from now. You didn't fail

miserably at it.

Inevitably, there's going to be conflict in

this world about this port, about development, about

anything. Get enough people together, or for that matter,

enough animals, or enough plants and you can guarantee that

they're not all going to get along.

We started off this episode by thinking about

the importance of listening — really listening. Listening to

the sound of an increasingly noisy ocean, and listening to

each other — as our values increasingly press up against

our needs and our desires.

If you listen to the Port Authority, our economy urgently

needs more container capacity, and we can get it safely and

responsibly.

If you listen to GCT, we will eventually need

that capacity. But we can get it in a much less expensive and

risky way.

If you listen to conservationists, any additional

development within the estuary chips away at an already

precarious food web, and plants another nail in the coffin of

over 100 species at risk.

And if you listen to Tsawwassen and other

First Nations of the Salish Sea, these cumulative effects have

been rapidly stacking up since the waterways of the delta were

first diked in the 1860s, providing some opportunities,

but also posing significant cultural, economic, and

ecological harms that are ongoing.

So for those of you who live here, in the Salish

Sea, it might sound trite, but now is your opportunity to speak

and to make your voice heard on this issue. For those of you who

are tuning in from elsewhere, we're absolutely certain that

there's a controversial development proposal just like

this one on the horizon in your own backyard. We don't pretend

to have the answers, so instead, we're going to give the last

word to just a few of the other voices of the estuary.

We can't say for certain what they're saying, but

the least we can do is to listen.

Future Ecologies is an independent production

made possible by our supporters on Patreon. For photos,

citations, transcripts and a link to make a comment on RBT2,

visit us at futureecologies.net

this episode was produced by me, Mendel Skulski.

And me, Adam Huggins

With help from Megan Hockin Bennett and Lili Li

Geaturing the voices of Janie Wray, Misty

MacDuffee, Steven Stark, Marco Dekovic and Stephanie Wood

And with music by Ruby Singh, Dawn Pemberton,

Inuksuk Mackay, Russel Wallace, Shamik Bilgi, Tiffany Ayalik,

Tiffany Moses, Thumbug and Sunfish Moon Light.

Special thanks to Megan Hockin Bennett, Alex

Harris, Jennifer Perih, Julia Feyrer, Tara Martin, Matti

Polychronis, Rebecca Abel, Erin Harlos and Gary Sutton.

And thanks to OrcaLab for the amazing

underwater audio. For more on their work and the BC Coastwide

Hydrophone Network, check out the links in the show notes

Which you can find on our website

futureecologies.net

Where you'll also find all of the Port Authority's

answers to our questions. And while you're there, you can get

in touch with us. Or if you prefer, we're also on Twitter,

Facebook, and Instagram. The handle is always Future

Ecologies.

Okay. That's all for now.

You'll be hearing from us soon.