Original Message----- From: On Behalf Of Brenda Tucker ...

-----Original Message----- From: On Behalf Of Brenda Tucker Sent: September 14, 2013 12:23 AM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Courtney Trevis, Panel Co-Manager Site C Review Panel Secretariat 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 RE: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Save the Peace River Valley – Stop the Site C Dam! This poorly thought out mega-project is estimated to cost well over $8 billion to build. Many people are concerned that costs would likely balloon to more than $10 billion, due to unstable slopes along the valley. The dam would back up the Peace River, flooding over 100 kilometres of valley-bottom lands between Hudson’s Hope and Fort Saint John, including critical wildlife habitats and over 6,000 hectares that are currently protected within the Agricultural Land Reserve. All this destruction and cost would result in the production of new electrical power that BC simply does not need. The province already has too much electrical power, which is why BC has recently been cancelling power purchase contracts with private power producers. This letter was created with the use of an online letter writing tool at wildernesscommittee.org

<email address and personal information removed>

-----Original Message----- From: On Behalf Of Patricia Vazquez Sent: September 14, 2013 12:50 AM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Courtney Trevis, Panel Co-Manager Site C Review Panel Secretariat 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 RE: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Save the Peace River Valley – Stop the Site C Dam! The public hearings on the proposed Site C Dam should not be held only the Fort St. John/Peace River region of BC. Public hearings should also be held in other various regions throughout the province. The Site C Dam is so expensive and the potential damage so severe that hearings should also be held in BC regional centers such as Nelson, Cranbrook, Golden, Revelstoke, Grand Forks, Vernon, Kelowna, Penticton, Kamloops, Vancouver, Surrey, Chilliwack, Hope, Quesnel, Prince George, Prince Rupert, Port Clements, Bella Coola, Bella Bella, Victoria, Nanaimo, Courtenay, Campbell River, Port McNeill, Port Hardy, Tofino, Sechelt and Powell River. The downstream environmental impacts of the dam would extend well into Alberta, so public hearings should also be held in Peace River watershed communities in Alberta. This letter was created with the use of an online letter writing tool at wildernesscommittee.org


From: Careylea Snyder Sent: September 14, 2013 12:56 AM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Careylea Snyder


-----Original Message----- From: On Behalf Of Marty Landa Sent: September 14, 2013 1:38 AM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Courtney Trevis, Panel Co-Manager Site C Review Panel Secretariat 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 RE: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Save the Peace River Valley – Stop the Site C Dam! The public hearings on the proposed Site C Dam should not be held only the Fort St. John/Peace River region of BC. Public hearings should also be held in other various regions throughout the province. The Site C Dam is so expensive and the potential damage so severe that hearings should also be held in BC regional centers such as Nelson, Cranbrook, Golden, Revelstoke, Grand Forks, Vernon, Kelowna, Penticton, Kamloops, Vancouver, Surrey, Chilliwack, Hope, Quesnel, Prince George, Prince Rupert, Port Clements, Bella Coola, Bella Bella, Victoria, Nanaimo, Courtenay, Campbell River, Port McNeill, Port Hardy, Tofino, Sechelt and Powell River. The downstream environmental impacts of the dam would extend well into Alberta, so public hearings should also be held in Peace River watershed communities in Alberta. This letter was created with the use of an online letter writing tool at wildernesscommittee.org


-----Original Message----- From: On Behalf Of Marie Wakefield Sent: September 14, 2013 2:57 AM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Courtney Trevis, Panel Co-Manager Site C Review Panel Secretariat 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 RE: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Save the Peace River Valley – Stop the Site C Dam! The public hearings on the proposed Site C Dam should not be held only the Fort St. John/Peace River region of BC. Public hearings should also be held in other various regions throughout the province. The Site C Dam is so expensive and the potential damage so severe that hearings should also be held in BC regional centers such as Nelson, Cranbrook, Golden, Revelstoke, Grand Forks, Vernon, Kelowna, Penticton, Kamloops, Vancouver, Surrey, Chilliwack, Hope, Quesnel, Prince George, Prince Rupert, Port Clements, Bella Coola, Bella Bella, Victoria, Nanaimo, Courtenay, Campbell River, Port McNeill, Port Hardy, Tofino, Sechelt and Powell River. The downstream environmental impacts of the dam would extend well into Alberta, so public hearings should also be held in Peace River watershed communities in Alberta This letter was created with the use of an online letter writing tool at wildernesscommittee.org


-----Original Message----- From: On Behalf Of Inge Bjorkman Sent: September 14, 2013 3:47 AM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Courtney Trevis, Panel Co-Manager Site C Review Panel Secretariat 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 RE: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Save the Peace River Valley – Stop the Site C Dam! Save the Peace River Valley. Stop the Site C Dam. This letter was created with the use of an online letter writing tool at wildernesscommittee.org


-----Original Message----- From: On Behalf Of Juliana Diaz Sent: September 14, 2013 3:50 AM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Courtney Trevis, Panel Co-Manager Site C Review Panel Secretariat 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 RE: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Save the Peace River Valley – Stop the Site C Dam! Save the Peave River Valley This letter was created with the use of an online letter writing tool at wildernesscommittee.org


-----Original Message----- From: On Behalf Of jeff hopkins Sent: September 14, 2013 4:15 AM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Courtney Trevis, Panel Co-Manager Site C Review Panel Secretariat 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 RE: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Save the Peace River Valley – Stop the Site C Dam! The public hearings on the proposed Site C Dam should not be held only the Fort St. John/Peace River region of BC. Public hearings should also be held in other various regions throughout the province. The Site C Dam is so expensive and the potential damage so severe that hearings should also be held in BC regional centers such as Nelson, Cranbrook, Golden, Revelstoke, Grand Forks, Vernon, Kelowna, Penticton, Kamloops, Vancouver, Surrey, Chilliwack, Hope, Quesnel, Prince George, Prince Rupert, Port Clements, Bella Coola, Bella Bella, Victoria, Nanaimo, Courtenay, Campbell River, Port McNeill, Port Hardy, Tofino, Sechelt and Powell River. The downstream environmental impacts of the dam would extend well into Alberta, so public hearings should also be held in Peace River watershed communities in Alberta. This letter was created with the use of an online letter writing tool at wildernesscommittee.org


-----Original Message----- From: On Behalf Of Victoria Sent: September 14, 2013 4:22 AM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Courtney Trevis, Panel Co-Manager Site C Review Panel Secretariat 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 RE: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Save the Peace River Valley – Stop the Site C Dam! The public hearings on the proposed Site C Dam should not be held only the Fort St. John/Peace River region of BC. Public hearings should also be held in other various regions throughout the province. The Site C Dam is so expensive and the potential damage so severe that hearings should also be held in BC regional centers such as Nelson, Cranbrook, Golden, Revelstoke, Grand Forks, Vernon, Kelowna, Penticton, Kamloops, Vancouver, Surrey, Chilliwack, Hope, Quesnel, Prince George, Prince Rupert, Port Clements, Bella Coola, Bella Bella, Victoria, Nanaimo, Courtenay, Campbell River, Port McNeill, Port Hardy, Tofino, Sechelt and Powell River. The downstream environmental impacts of the dam would extend well into Alberta, so public hearings should also be held in Peace River watershed communities in Alberta. This letter was created with the use of an online letter writing tool at wildernesscommittee.org


-----Original Message----- From: On Behalf Of Danuta Watola Sent: September 14, 2013 8:40 AM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Courtney Trevis, Panel Co-Manager Site C Review Panel Secretariat 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 RE: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Save the Peace River Valley – Stop the Site C Dam! Please help. This letter was created with the use of an online letter writing tool at wildernesscommittee.org


-----Original Message----- From: On Behalf Of Marla de Vries Sent: September 14, 2013 9:08 AM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Courtney Trevis, Panel Co-Manager Site C Review Panel Secretariat 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 RE: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Save the Peace River Valley – Stop the Site C Dam! Please save the Beautiful Peace River Valley ! This letter was created with the use of an online letter writing tool at wildernesscommittee.org


-----Original Message----- From: On Behalf Of tommy portwood Sent: September 14, 2013 9:28 AM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Courtney Trevis, Panel Co-Manager Site C Review Panel Secretariat 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 RE: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Save the Peace River Valley – Stop the Site C Dam! Please do not let this project take more of what is left of the wilderness This letter was created with the use of an online letter writing tool at wildernesscommittee.org


From: Dawn Turner Sent: September 14, 2013 9:38 AM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely,


Dawn Turner

-----Original Message----- From: On Behalf Of MICHAEL TOOBERT Sent: September 14, 2013 9:51 AM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Courtney Trevis, Panel Co-Manager Site C Review Panel Secretariat 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 RE: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Save the Peace River Valley – Stop the Site C Dam! The public hearings on the proposed Site C Dam should not be held only the Fort St. John/Peace River region of BC. Public hearings should also be held in other various regions throughout the province. The Site C Dam is so expensive and the potential damage so severe that hearings should also be held in BC regional centers such as Nelson, Cranbrook, Golden, Revelstoke, Grand Forks, Vernon, Kelowna, Penticton, Kamloops, Vancouver, Surrey, Chilliwack, Hope, Quesnel, Prince George, Prince Rupert, Port Clements, Bella Coola, Bella Bella, Victoria, Nanaimo, Courtenay, Campbell River, Port McNeill, Port Hardy, Tofino, Sechelt and Powell River. The downstream environmental impacts of the dam would extend well into Alberta, so public hearings should also be held in Peace River watershed communities in Alberta. This letter was created with the use of an online letter writing tool at wildernesscommittee.org


-----Original Message----- From: On Behalf Of Aaron Bouchard Sent: September 14, 2013 9:54 AM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Courtney Trevis, Panel Co-Manager Site C Review Panel Secretariat 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 RE: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Save the Peace River Valley – Stop the Site C Dam! The public hearings on the proposed Site C Dam should not be held only the Fort St. John/Peace River region of BC. Public hearings should also be held in other various regions throughout the province. The Site C Dam is so expensive and the potential damage so severe that hearings should also be held in BC regional centers such as Nelson, Cranbrook, Golden, Revelstoke, Grand Forks, Vernon, Kelowna, Penticton, Kamloops, Vancouver, Surrey, Chilliwack, Hope, Quesnel, Prince George, Prince Rupert, Port Clements, Bella Coola, Bella Bella, Victoria, Nanaimo, Courtenay, Campbell River, Port McNeill, Port Hardy, Tofino, Sechelt and Powell River. The downstream environmental impacts of the dam would extend well into Alberta, so public hearings should also be held in Peace River watershed communities in Alberta. Thank you, Aaron Bouchard This letter was created with the use of an online letter writing tool at wildernesscommittee.org


From: Amy Meyer Sent: September 14, 2013 10:09 AM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Amy Meyer


-----Original Message----- From: On Behalf Of jeanne schreurs Sent: September 14, 2013 11:03 AM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Courtney Trevis, Panel Co-Manager Site C Review Panel Secretariat 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 RE: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Save the Peace River Valley – Stop the Site C Dam! Dear Courtney Trevis, Will you please consider the following: •The public hearings on the proposed Site C Dam should not be held only the Fort St. John/Peace River region of BC. Public hearings should also be held in other various regions throughout the province. The Site C Dam is so expensive and the potential damage so severe that hearings should also be held in BC regional centers such as Nelson, Cranbrook, Golden, Revelstoke, Grand Forks, Vernon, Kelowna, Penticton, Kamloops, Vancouver, Surrey, Chilliwack, Hope, Quesnel, Prince George, Prince Rupert, Port Clements, Bella Coola, Bella Bella, Victoria, Nanaimo, Courtenay, Campbell River, Port McNeill, Port Hardy, Tofino, Sechelt and Powell River. •The downstream environmental impacts of the dam would extend well into Alberta, so public hearings should also be held in Peace River watershed communities in Alberta. Thank you. Jeanne Schreurs This letter was created with the use of an online letter writing tool at wildernesscommittee.org


From: Steven Hemstreet Sent: September 14, 2013 11:09 AM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Steven Hemstreet


From: Linda Jones Sent: September 14, 2013 11:13 AM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Linda Jones


From: Ivy McPhee Sent: September 14, 2013 11:13 AM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Ivy McPhee


From: On Behalf Of emilia boccagna Sent: September 14, 2013 11:16 AM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Courtney Trevis, Panel Co-Manager Site C Review Panel Secretariat 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 RE: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Save the Peace River Valley – Stop the Site C Dam! The public hearings on the proposed Site C Dam should not be held only the Fort St. John/Peace River region of BC. Public hearings should also be held in other various regions throughout the province. The Site C Dam is so expensive and the potential damage so severe that hearings should also be held in BC regional centers such as Nelson, Cranbrook, Golden, Revelstoke, Grand Forks, Vernon, Kelowna, Penticton, Kamloops, Vancouver, Surrey, Chilliwack, Hope, Quesnel, Prince George, Prince Rupert, Port Clements, Bella Coola, Bella Bella, Victoria, Nanaimo, Courtenay, Campbell River, Port McNeill, Port Hardy, Tofino, Sechelt and Powell River. The downstream environmental impacts of the dam would extend well into Alberta, so public hearings should also be held in Peace River watershed communities in Alberta. This letter was created with the use of an online letter writing tool at wildernesscommittee.org


From: On Behalf Of freddie williams Sent: September 14, 2013 11:17 AM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Courtney Trevis, Panel Co-Manager Site C Review Panel Secretariat 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 RE: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Save the Peace River Valley – Stop the Site C Dam! NO TO SITE C. The public hearings on the proposed Site C Dam should not be held only the Fort St. John/Peace River region of BC. Public hearings should also be held in other various regions throughout the province. The Site C Dam is so expensive and the potential damage so severe that hearings should also be held in BC regional centers such as Nelson, Cranbrook, Golden, Revelstoke, Grand Forks, Vernon, Kelowna, Penticton, Kamloops, Vancouver, Surrey, Chilliwack, Hope, Quesnel, Prince George, Prince Rupert, Port Clements, Bella Coola, Bella Bella, Victoria, Nanaimo, Courtenay, Campbell River, Port McNeill, Port Hardy, Tofino, Sechelt and Powell River. The downstream environmental impacts of the dam would extend well into Alberta, so public hearings should also be held in Peace River watershed communities in Alberta. This letter was created with the use of an online letter writing tool at wildernesscommittee.org


From: On Behalf Of diletta bianco Sent: September 14, 2013 11:21 AM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Courtney Trevis, Panel Co-Manager Site C Review Panel Secretariat 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 RE: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Save the Peace River Valley – Stop the Site C Dam! The public hearings on the proposed Site C Dam should not be held only the Fort St. John/Peace River region of BC. Public hearings should also be held in other various regions throughout the province. The Site C Dam is so expensive and the potential damage so severe that hearings should also be held in BC regional centers such as Nelson, Cranbrook, Golden, Revelstoke, Grand Forks, Vernon, Kelowna, Penticton, Kamloops, Vancouver, Surrey, Chilliwack, Hope, Quesnel, Prince George, Prince Rupert, Port Clements, Bella Coola, Bella Bella, Victoria, Nanaimo, Courtenay, Campbell River, Port McNeill, Port Hardy, Tofino, Sechelt and Powell River. The downstream environmental impacts of the dam would extend well into Alberta, so public hearings should also be held in Peace River watershed communities in Alberta. This letter was created with the use of an online letter writing tool at wildernesscommittee.org


From: Terry Tedesco-Kerrick Sent: September 14, 2013 11:23 AM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Terry Tedesco-Kerrick


From: Deborah Spencer Sent: September 14, 2013 11:28 AM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Deborah Spencer


From: rick Olding Sent: September 14, 2013 11:34 AM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, rick Olding


From: Mary Lou Whittaker Sent: September 14, 2013 11:39 AM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Mary Lou Whittaker


From: George Harrison Sent: September 14, 2013 11:58 AM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, George Harrison


From: Lesley Currie Sent: September 14, 2013 12:02 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Lesley Currie


From: Ray Mason Sent: September 14, 2013 12:05 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Ray Mason


From: On Behalf Of Sandra Materi Sent: September 14, 2013 12:09 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Courtney Trevis, Panel Co-Manager Site C Review Panel Secretariat 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 RE: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Save the Peace River Valley – Stop the Site C Dam! The public hearings on the proposed Site C Dam should not be held only the Fort St. John/Peace River region of BC. Public hearings should also be held in other various regions throughout the province. The Site C Dam is so expensive and the potential damage so severe that hearings should also be held in BC regional centers such as Nelson, Cranbrook, Golden, Revelstoke, Grand Forks, Vernon, Kelowna, Penticton, Kamloops, Vancouver, Surrey, Chilliwack, Hope, Quesnel, Prince George, Prince Rupert, Port Clements, Bella Coola, Bella Bella, Victoria, Nanaimo, Courtenay, Campbell River, Port McNeill, Port Hardy, Tofino, Sechelt and Powell River. The downstream environmental impacts of the dam would extend well into Alberta, so public hearings should also be held in Peace River watershed communities in Alberta. This letter was created with the use of an online letter writing tool at wildernesscommittee.org


From: ron silver Sent: September 14, 2013 12:10 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, ron silver


From: margaret silver Sent: September 14, 2013 12:10 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, margaret silver


From: Carol McWhirter Sent: September 14, 2013 12:11 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Carol McWhirter


From: On Behalf Of Theodore Shayne Sent: September 14, 2013 12:11 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Courtney Trevis, Panel Co-Manager Site C Review Panel Secretariat 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 RE: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Save the Peace River Valley – Stop the Site C Dam! The public hearings on the proposed Site C Dam should not be held only in the Fort St. John/Peace River region of BC. Public hearings should also be held in other various regions throughout the province. The Site C Dam is so expensive and the potential damage so severe that hearings should also be held in BC regional centers such as Nelson, Cranbrook, Golden, Revelstoke, Grand Forks, Vernon, Kelowna, Penticton, Kamloops, Vancouver, Surrey, Chilliwack, Hope, Quesnel, Prince George, Prince Rupert, Port Clements, Bella Coola, Bella Bella, Victoria, Nanaimo, Courtenay, Campbell River, Port McNeill, Port Hardy, Tofino, Sechelt and Powell River. The downstream environmental impacts of the dam would extend well into Alberta, so public hearings should also be held in Peace River watershed communities in Alberta. Dams aren't always the solution. Sometimes they exacerbate existing problems while creating new ones. Consider New England that just removed 73 dams and instituted environmental laws that have seen an encouraging increase in fish and other wildlife that once proliferated throughout that area. That is wildlife and ecological health returning to an area that was once depleted and polluted. What you are proposing could seriously jeopardize other areas that are naturally interconnected as all things are. How about being proactive and not reactive as humanity often is? This letter was created with the use of an online letter writing tool at wildernesscommittee.org


From: On Behalf Of Linda C Jones Sent: September 14, 2013 12:13 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Courtney Trevis, Panel Co-Manager Site C Review Panel Secretariat 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 RE: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Save the Peace River Valley – Stop the Site C Dam! The public hearings on the proposed Site C Dam should not be held only the Fort St. John/Peace River region of BC. Public hearings should also be held in other various regions throughout the province. The Site C Dam is so expensive and the potential damage so severe that hearings should also be held in BC regional centers such as Nelson, Cranbrook, Golden, Revelstoke, Grand Forks, Vernon, Kelowna, Penticton, Kamloops, Vancouver, Surrey, Chilliwack, Hope, Quesnel, Prince George, Prince Rupert, Port Clements, Bella Coola, Bella Bella, Victoria, Nanaimo, Courtenay, Campbell River, Port McNeill, Port Hardy, Tofino, Sechelt and Powell River. The downstream environmental impacts of the dam would extend well into Alberta, so public hearings should also be held in Peace River watershed communities in Alberta. This letter was created with the use of an online letter writing tool at wildernesscommittee.org


From: Jackie Garbitt Sent: September 14, 2013 12:50 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Jackie Garbitt


From: On Behalf Of Andrea Sreiber Sent: September 14, 2013 1:10 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Courtney Trevis, Panel Co-Manager Site C Review Panel Secretariat 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 RE: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Save the Peace River Valley – Stop the Site C Dam! The public hearings on the proposed Site C Dam should not be held only the Fort St. John/Peace River region of BC. Public hearings should also be held in other various regions throughout the province. The Site C Dam is so expensive and the potential damage so severe that hearings should also be held in BC regional centers such as Nelson, Cranbrook, Golden, Revelstoke, Grand Forks, Vernon, Kelowna, Penticton, Kamloops, Vancouver, Surrey, Chilliwack, Hope, Quesnel, Prince George, Prince Rupert, Port Clements, Bella Coola, Bella Bella, Victoria, Nanaimo, Courtenay, Campbell River, Port McNeill, Port Hardy, Tofino, Sechelt and Powell River. The downstream environmental impacts of the dam would extend well into Alberta, so public hearings should also be held in Peace River watershed communities in Alberta. This letter was created with the use of an online letter writing tool at wildernesscommittee.org


From: On Behalf Of Susan Shendaruk Sent: September 14, 2013 1:25 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Courtney Trevis, Panel Co-Manager Site C Review Panel Secretariat 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 RE: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Save the Peace River Valley – Stop the Site C Dam! To whom it may concern, I beseech you, please do not approve the Site C Dam. My family comes from the beautiful Peace River Country, in fact my Grandparents were among the first white settlers there. Please do not dismiss out of hand the concerns of our native brothers and sisters they speak experience and from the heart as do many of us. The Peace River Region is full of abundant wildlife and fertile land, all of which will be lost to this massive project. The archaeological record of human settlement and development will be lost from the record forever. The geologic record will be lost to science forever. The biologic record will be lost to science forever. The anthropologic record will be lost to all mankind forever. The human history and traditions of both Native and Non-Native will be lost to families and tribes forever. These are not concerns that should be viewed lightly for there is much about our Province, our Country, our Continent, our People's and our Wild Species that are still to be learned from this unique and bountiful area. Finally, I would state that this wonderful planet that nurtures so much diversity of life is being stressed beyond its limits by commercial enterprises that are, when looking at the bigger picture (the sustainability and future of our species), of little or no value to either humanity as a body or the planet as a functioning biosphere capable of supporting life. Instead of eliminating such bio-diverse regions of our Province / Country, we should be claiming them and protecting them as life support systems essential to the continued existence of our own species. No to Site C. Sincerely, Susan Shendaruk This letter was created with the use of an online letter writing tool at wildernesscommittee.org


From: Sharon Priest-Nagata Sent: September 14, 2013 1:30 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I have read through the Sierra Club's form letter and feel that it would be difficult to improve on it. You will receive many copies of this letter, and whether or not a person reworded the letter it still represents the views of that person and that of many like-minded people who have not taken the opportunity to write to you. I feel that it is highly important that any review panel have an idea how many people are represented by someone with "similar views" to other presenters who are omitted because of these similar views. These "views" are being expressed by voters and blocks of voters. It is clear to me that many projects are given the go-ahead because the company with the contract has already proceeded with infrastructure, often without permission or permits. Then, based on this investment the company convinces the rest of us that it would be expedient to go ahead. Site C has been delayed many times for lengthy periods of time. There are very good reasons for this and those reasons still exist, outlined by those of us who believe that we are PAST the point of destroying agricultural land and precious cultural sites in order to churn out more and more power because the public ostensibly demands it. Government is not obligated to destroy the land to provide electricity to an increasingly urbanized population. As well, government has NOT fulfilled its obligation to continue to explore non-destructive sources of power. I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant.


Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Sharon Priest-Nagata


From: Jasmina Cuk Sent: September 14, 2013 1:42 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Jasmina Cuk


From: M Andrus Sent: September 14, 2013 1:44 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, M Andrus


From: Anna Louise E. Fontaine Sent: September 14, 2013 2:10 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Anna Louise E. Fontaine


From: On Behalf Of Lona Goudswaard Sent: September 14, 2013 2:14 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Courtney Trevis, Panel Co-Manager Site C Review Panel Secretariat 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 RE: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Save the Peace River Valley – Stop the Site C Dam! Dear Ms. Trevis, I'm writing you this e-mail from across the world, but that doesn't mean I don't concern myself with environmental issues even if they take place very far away from my bed. We all live on this small and crowded planet and we all have a responsibility to maintain it as best we can and wherever we live. So I write to you about my concerns about the upcoming public hearings for this a costly and environmentally damaging Site C Dam project. My concerns are as follows: - The public hearings on the proposed Site C Dam should not be held only the Fort St. John/Peace River region of BC. Public hearings should also be held in other various regions throughout the province. The Site C Dam is so expensive and the potential damage so severe that hearings should also be held in BC regional centers such as Nelson, Cranbrook, Golden, Revelstoke, Grand Forks, Vernon, Kelowna, Penticton, Kamloops, Vancouver, Surrey, Chilliwack, Hope, Quesnel, Prince George, Prince Rupert, Port Clements, Bella Coola, Bella Bella, Victoria, Nanaimo, Courtenay, Campbell River, Port McNeill, Port Hardy, Tofino, Sechelt and Powell River. - The downstream environmental impacts of the dam would extend well into Alberta, so public hearings should also be held in Peace River watershed communities in Alberta. Thank for your time and attention. Ms. Lona Goudswaard This letter was created with the use of an online letter writing tool at wildernesscommittee.org


From: Derwyn Hughes Sent: September 14, 2013 2:22 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Site C Hearings Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limits to public participation in the hearing of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is vital to this process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Finally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful considerations to all presentations and submissions, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Derwyn Hughes


From: Judith Harper Sent: September 14, 2013 2:25 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Judith Harper


From: dawn odonnell Sent: September 14, 2013 2:25 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, dawn odonnell


From: James Mulcare Sent: September 14, 2013 2:27 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, James Mulcare


From: Gary Mills Sent: September 14, 2013 2:29 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Gary Mills


From: Deanna Welters Sent: September 14, 2013 2:32 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Deanna Welters


From: Brenda Maisey Sent: September 14, 2013 2:44 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Brenda Maisey


From: Cliff Wallis Sent: September 14, 2013 2:46 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Site C Dam review Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limits to public participation in the hearing of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is vital to this process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Finally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful considerations to all presentations and submissions, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Cliff Wallis


From: On Behalf Of Alison Appelbe Sent: September 14, 2013 2:48 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Courtney Trevis, Panel Co-Manager Site C Review Panel Secretariat 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 RE: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Save the Peace River Valley – Stop the Site C Dam! To panel members: I am strongly opposed to the Site C Dam project, and the flooding of the Peace River region. This vast farmland is far too valuable to be sacrificed for the public's insatiable appetite for energy. I urge the committee to take a wider look at the issue, including input from the Lower Mainland, and to give full attention to the saving of rich ALR land, wildlife and natural habitat. Respectfully, Alison Appelbe This letter was created with the use of an online letter writing tool at wildernesscommittee.org


From: Loni Eliot Sent: September 14, 2013 2:50 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Loni Eliot


From: Donna Walker Sent: September 14, 2013 2:54 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Donna Walker


From: Bruce Van Tassell Sent: September 14, 2013 2:55 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Bruce Van Tassell


From: Byron Bona Sent: September 14, 2013 2:55 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Any attempt to limit the quality and quantity of input leaves me with a feeling that the input itself is not respected, not listened to, and perhaps buried under foregone conclusions by a Board or Committee. My input has a relevant connection to the project because I am a taxpayer citizen of British Columbia. Sometimes governments forget...the people are the shareholders.


Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Byron Bona

From: On Behalf Of Nahanni Southern Sent: September 14, 2013 2:55 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Courtney Trevis, Panel Co-Manager Site C Review Panel Secretariat 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 RE: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Save the Peace River Valley – Stop the Site C Dam! It is of outmost importance for ourselves and every other precious living organism that we keep our environment clean in order to keep it self sustaining and alive. Thank you, with love, Nahanni Southern 1505 Belcher Ave apt 209 Victoria, B.C. Canada This letter was created with the use of an online letter writing tool at wildernesscommittee.org


From: Julie Amato] Sent: September 14, 2013 2:59 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Julie Amato


From: Zoe Forest-Cooter Sent: September 14, 2013 3:09 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Zoe Forest-Cooter


From: On Behalf Of kxbx Sent: September 14, 2013 3:20 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Courtney Trevis, Panel Co-Manager Site C Review Panel Secretariat 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 RE: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Save the Peace River Valley – Stop the Site C Dam! The public hearings on the proposed Site C Dam should not be held only the Fort St. John/Peace River region of BC. Public hearings should also be held in other various regions throughout the province. The Site C Dam is so expensive and the potential damage so severe that hearings should also be held in BC regional centers such as Nelson, Cranbrook, Golden, Revelstoke, Grand Forks, Vernon, Kelowna, Penticton, Kamloops, Vancouver, Surrey, Chilliwack, Hope, Quesnel, Prince George, Prince Rupert, Port Clements, Bella Coola, Bella Bella, Victoria, Nanaimo, Courtenay, Campbell River, Port McNeill, Port Hardy, Tofino, Sechelt and Powell River. The downstream environmental impacts of the dam would extend well into Alberta, so public hearings should also be held in Peace River watershed communities in Alberta. This letter was created with the use of an online letter writing tool at wildernesscommittee.org


From: Christina Ross Sent: September 14, 2013 3:21 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Christina Ross


From: anthony montapert Sent: September 14, 2013 3:36 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, anthony montapert


From: Susanna Kaljur Sent: September 14, 2013 3:38 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Susanna Kaljur


From: On Behalf Of Malgorzata Sent: September 14, 2013 3:38 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Courtney Trevis, Panel Co-Manager Site C Review Panel Secretariat 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 RE: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Save the Peace River Valley – Stop the Site C Dam! Proszę ocalić piękną Peace River Valley This letter was created with the use of an online letter writing tool at wildernesscommittee.org


From: Salme Kaljur Sent: September 14, 2013 3:39 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Salme Kaljur


From: On Behalf Of Elisabeth Bechmann Sent: September 14, 2013 3:40 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Courtney Trevis, Panel Co-Manager Site C Review Panel Secretariat 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 RE: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Save the Peace River Valley – Stop the Site C Dam! •The public hearings on the proposed Site C Dam should not be held only the Fort St. John/Peace River region of BC. Public hearings should also be held in other various regions throughout the province. The Site C Dam is so expensive and the potential damage so severe that hearings should also be held in BC regional centers such as Nelson, Cranbrook, Golden, Revelstoke, Grand Forks, Vernon, Kelowna, Penticton, Kamloops, Vancouver, Surrey, Chilliwack, Hope, Quesnel, Prince George, Prince Rupert, Port Clements, Bella Coola, Bella Bella, Victoria, Nanaimo, Courtenay, Campbell River, Port McNeill, Port Hardy, Tofino, Sechelt and Powell River. •The downstream environmental impacts of the dam would extend well into Alberta, so public hearings should also be held in Peace River watershed communities in Alberta. Dr. Elisabeth Bechmann Austria This letter was created with the use of an online letter writing tool at wildernesscommittee.org


From: Elisabeth Bechmann Sent: September 14, 2013 3:42 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Elisabeth Bechmann


From: Colleen Kirkpatrick Sent: September 14, 2013 3:55 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Colleen Kirkpatrick


From: Mauro Castellarin Sent: September 14, 2013 4:02 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Mauro Castellarin


From: Shawna Watson Sent: September 14, 2013 4:24 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Shawna Watson


From: On Behalf Of Michael Kirkby Sent: September 14, 2013 4:28 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Courtney Trevis, Panel Co-Manager Site C Review Panel Secretariat 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 RE: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Save the Peace River Valley – Stop the Site C Dam! Dams are often the cause of a myriad of problems for the interconnected areas such as those aforementioned. Please take the time and reconsider this carefully. This letter was created with the use of an online letter writing tool at wildernesscommittee.org


From: Loraine Brooks Sent: September 14, 2013 4:26 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Loraine Brooks


From: Terri Lube Sent: September 14, 2013 4:31 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Terri Lube


From: On Behalf Of Reidun Carstens Sent: September 14, 2013 4:39 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Courtney Trevis, Panel Co-Manager Site C Review Panel Secretariat 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 RE: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Save the Peace River Valley – Stop the Site C Dam! HELP SAVE THE BEAUTIFUL PEACE RIVER VALLEY. This letter was created with the use of an online letter writing tool at wildernesscommittee.org


From: Lou Kurjata Sent: September 14, 2013 5:07 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Lou Kurjata


From: On Behalf Of John Richkus Sent: September 14, 2013 5:09 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Courtney Trevis, Panel Co-Manager Site C Review Panel Secretariat 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 RE: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Save the Peace River Valley – Stop the Site C Dam! The public hearings on the proposed Site C Dam should not be held only the Fort St. John/Peace River region of BC. Public hearings should also be held in other various regions throughout the province. The Site C Dam is so expensive and the potential damage so severe that hearings should also be held in BC regional centers such as Nelson, Cranbrook, Golden, Revelstoke, Grand Forks, Vernon, Kelowna, Penticton, Kamloops, Vancouver, Surrey, Chilliwack, Hope, Quesnel, Prince George, Prince Rupert, Port Clements, Bella Coola, Bella Bella, Victoria, Nanaimo, Courtenay, Campbell River, Port McNeill, Port Hardy, Tofino, Sechelt and Powell River. The downstream environmental impacts of the dam would extend well into Alberta, so public hearings should also be held in Peace River watershed communities in Alberta. This letter was created with the use of an online letter writing tool at wildernesscommittee.org


From: Lorenz Steininger Sent: September 14, 2013 5:10 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Lorenz Steininger


From: Lana Lipsett Sent: September 14, 2013 5:55 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Lana Lipsett


From: J E Hammill Sent: September 14, 2013 6:04 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am seriously concerned about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to consider the pros and cons of this proposal thoroughly and fairly. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This limitation could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. You should impose no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This arbitrary procedure for weighing input seems counterintuitive and is clearly contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions. It also ignores the magnitude of public concern and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Such repeated concerns validate the gravity of the problem. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents, including me in Gibsons. At a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points.


Sincerely, J E Hammill

From: Bea Varley Sent: September 14, 2013 6:15 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley of fertile land so that we can buy locally grown vegetables and grains. We have the most beautiful scenery in the world and are lucky to still have wild animals. We don't want First Nations Heritage destroyed. In short, we don't want this project to go ahead because the power will go to the USA, they are glutons who need more and more power, this time the answer is NO. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities.


Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Bea Varley

From: h kirk Sent: September 14, 2013 6:19 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, h kirk


From: Jeanette Helmer Sent: September 14, 2013 6:33 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Jeanette Helmer


From: Kathryn Jones Sent: September 14, 2013 6:57 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Kathryn Jones


From: Luci Pugh Sent: September 14, 2013 7:00 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Luci Pugh


From: Tara Verbridge Sent: September 14, 2013 7:05 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Tara Verbridge


From: Robert Blair Sent: September 14, 2013 7:07 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Robert Blair


From: Geraldine Young Date: September 14, 2013 5:12:02 PM MDT (CA) To: Ms. Courtney Trevis <[email protected]> Subject: Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limits to public participation in the hearing of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is vital to this process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Finally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful considerations to all presentations and submissions, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Geraldine Young


mailto:[email protected]

From: antoine wally Sent: September 14, 2013 8:45 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely,


antoine wally

From: Elaine Smith Sent: September 14, 2013 10:11 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely,


Elaine Smith

From: Kristin Walsh Sent: September 14, 2013 10:14 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Kristin Walsh


From: gary ben Sent: September 14, 2013 10:54 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, gary ben


From: On Behalf Of dinda evans Sent: September 14, 2013 11:31 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Courtney Trevis, Panel Co-Manager Site C Review Panel Secretariat 160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 RE: Public Comment on Hearing Procedures for Site C Project Save the Peace River Valley – Stop the Site C Dam! •The public hearings on the proposed Site C Dam should not be held only the Fort St. John/Peace River region of BC. Public hearings should also be held in other various regions throughout the province. The Site C Dam is so expensive and the potential damage so severe that hearings should also be held in BC regional centers such as Nelson, Cranbrook, Golden, Revelstoke, Grand Forks, Vernon, Kelowna, Penticton, Kamloops, Vancouver, Surrey, Chilliwack, Hope, Quesnel, Prince George, Prince Rupert, Port Clements, Bella Coola, Bella Bella, Victoria, Nanaimo, Courtenay, Campbell River, Port McNeill, Port Hardy, Tofino, Sechelt and Powell River. •The downstream environmental impacts of the dam would extend well into Alberta, so public hearings should also be held in Peace River watershed communities in Alberta. The US is now tearing down old dams and trying to restore fish, flora and fauna the dams had destroyed. It would be smarter not to duplicate their mistakes by building such dams in the first place. Iceland's dam is putting pressure on the earth's crust and the volcanic lava beneath it..endangering all of Iceland as well as the rest of the planet. Let's not use old solutions when we know better than that now. This letter was created with the use of an online letter writing tool at wildernesscommittee.org


From: Martha Milne Sent: September 14, 2013 11:38 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application imposed by the draft public hearing procedures. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public must also have the opportunity to express their concerns and present evidence to the Panel on the potential impacts of Site C. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is integral to the environmental assessment process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. Further, the requirement that people who wish to present at the hearings must apply to do so and the panel’s discretion to decide who is an “Interested Party” risks the arbitrary and unfair exclusion of citizens and organizations from this important public process. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form and permit presentation by any interested person or organization who meets the registration deadline. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Additionally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful consideration to all presentations and submissions, as well as to the magnitude of public concern, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I would suggest that hearings be held throughout British Columbia. This project will affect all B.C. residents and, at a minimum, hearings should be held in Fort St. John, Hudson's Hope, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vancouver, Victoria, in the Kootenay and Okanagan regions as well as in local First Nations communities. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Martha Milne


From: GEORGE KRAUSE Sent: September 14, 2013 10:39 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing to express my concerns about limits to public participation in the hearing of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to a unique river valley. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. Enabling full participation from interested members of the public and concerned organizations is vital to this process. Several proposed procedures have the potential to limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. For example, it is not clear that everyone who wants to make a presentation will be allowed to do so. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily and unfairly limit participation and potentially prevent concerned citizens from voicing their views on this project. I request that the panel dispense with the requirement of an application form. Presentations by participants are limited to 20 minutes, even the evidence of experts. This could unfairly constrain the presentation of important information to the panel. There should be no limit on the timing of presentations, so long as the information is relevant. Finally, the procedures state that the panel is going to discount the significance of multiple people expressing the same concerns, making those concerns seem less important. This seems contrary to the panel’s obligation to give careful considerations to all presentations and submissions, and may minimize the extent of public concern about the project, which is a consideration in determining whether or not the project is in the public interest. Instead, the panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, GEORGE KRAUSE

SmithJ

Typewritten Text


SmithJ

Typewritten Text

SmithJ

Typewritten Text

SmithJ

Typewritten Text

Original Message----- From: On Behalf Of Brenda Tucker ...

Documents

Transcript of Original Message----- From: On Behalf Of Brenda Tucker ...