From: Elaine Golds <email address removed> Sent: September 16, 2013 12:20 AM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am very concerned about the changes made to the limitations placed on people who wish to submit comments on the hearings for the Site C dam in BC. To my mind, everyone in BC should be allowed to share their concerns about this project because we all will use the electricity that could be generated by this project. It is truly undemocratic to limit public input on such an important provincial matter. 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 Golds

From: Don Hoffmann Sent: September 16, 2013 2:59 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, Don Hoffmann

From: Sherri Gillespie Sent: September 16, 2013 4:04 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, Sherri Gillespie

From: Dwain La'Brooy Sent: September 16, 2013 4:09 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, Dwain La'Brooy

From: On Behalf Of D P Sent: September 16, 2013 4:11 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: Victoria P. Sent: September 16, 2013 4:36 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, Victoria P.

From: theodore spachidakisr Sent: September 16, 2013 5:04 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, theodore spachidakis

From: Monica T Sent: September 16, 2013 6:10 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, Monica T

From: Judy Coleman Sent: September 16, 2013 6:50 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, Judy Coleman

From: On Behalf Of Christina Crosby Sent: September 16, 2013 8:09 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: J. Capozzelli Sent: September 16, 2013 8:41 AM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, I am writing because I have read 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. The only fair way to handle this is for the panel to 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. It is of much concern 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. The panel should take very seriously the number of presenters who express similar concerns about the same aspects of the project. Finally, I agree with those who 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, J. Capozzelli

From: On Behalf Of doug krause Sent: September 16, 2013 9:06 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. Doug This letter was created with the use of an online letter writing tool at wildernesscommittee.org

From: On Behalf Of Janice Bernard Sent: September 16, 2013 9:55 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 Mr. Trevis, 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. Sincerely, Dr. Janice Watson-Bernard This letter was created with the use of an online letter writing tool at wildernesscommittee.org

From: On Behalf Of Sara Paoluzzi Sent: September 16, 2013 11:09 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 Sirs, I'm writing you to ask to cancel the Site C Dam project. In particular I want to submit you the following important points: - 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. Thanks for your kind attention and Best Regards, Sara Paoluzzi This letter was created with the use of an online letter writing tool at wildernesscommittee.org

From: Michelle Gosselin Sent: September 16, 2013 11:46 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. It is suspect that all these rules apply to concerned citizens. It does not represent democracy. I may not live near by, but I consider myself a British Columbian, and do, of course, have a stake in the way the Province deals with our land. I also will be on the hook as a taxpayer, so of course I should also be allowed to have a voice. Thank you for considering these points.

Sincerely, Michelle Gosselin

From: Nancy Neumann Sent: September 16, 2013 1:19 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,

Nancy Neumann

From: Sara Paoluzzi Sent: September 16, 2013 1:20 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, Sara Paoluzzi

-----Original Message----- From: On Behalf Of Dianne Douglas Sent: September 16, 2013 1:27 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! Cancel the Dam C project. •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: Arnie Sankey Sent: September 16, 2013 2:16 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, Arnie Sankey

From: Verna Michaud Sent: September 16, 2013 7:49 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, Verna Michaud

From: Terry Sankey Sent: September 16, 2013 8:21 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, Terry Sankey

From: Irene Wright Sent: September 16, 2013 10:05 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, Irene Wright

From: Marcelle Roy Sent: September 16, 2013 10:25 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, Marcelle Roy

From: Rob Arnstein Sent: September 16, 2013 4:19 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, Rob Arnstein

From: Drina Read Sent: September 16, 2013 4:27 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, Drina Read

From: Nicole Boon Sent: September 16, 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. I live in Maple Ridge and care deeply about this 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,

Nicole Boon

From: Heather Hannaford Sent: September 16, 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 aware that this is a form letter which I ask you to consider. I'd like to start with the following comment. Full disclosure and full participation are the hall marks of our democracy. To include people from the whole province (should really be Canada wide) one runs the risk that uniformed people (and there are thousands in this province who have no idea where Site C is or what this is all about) will comment or participate from a very narrow base of knowledge. I do however not wish to exclude anyone from the province in making comment. this is their right. I just wish the government, BC Hydro and the media was not so focused on dollars, and more on a sustainable planet. 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. Quoting George Monbiot from an interview with CBC the Sunday Edition: "At the moment, this highly cultured, sophisticated, wonderful nation seems to be descending into a thuggish petro-state which appears to be governed by the tar patch, and its politics seem to suffer from the oil curse, as so many countries suffer from when they have found big reserves of fossil fuels. And wildlife has suffered greatly as a result, natural resources of all kinds are suffering greatly, and so are those who love nature. "It’s almost as if Canada is ripping up its most precious natural assets in exchange for assets which won’t last long and which can only cause harm, and that to me seems to be completely perverse." Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, Heather Hannaford

From: Liane Arnstein Sent: September 16, 2013 4:35 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,

Liane Arnstein

From: James Mulcare Sent: September 16, 2013 7:13 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: edna brillon Sent: September 16, 2013 4:50 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,

edna brillon

From: Michelle Hoffmann Sent: September 16, 2013 5:12 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, Michelle Hoffmann

From: Amy Meyer Sent: September 16, 2013 3:53 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, Amy Meyer

From: Clara London Sent: September 16, 2013 6:09 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, 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, Clara London

From: Yvonne Bell Sent: September 16, 2013 6:24 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, Yvonne Bell

From: George A M Smith Sent: September 16, 2013 5:41 PM To: SiteC Review / Examen SiteC [CEAA] Subject: RE: Public response to draft Public Hearing Procedures Dear Ms. Courtney Trevis, Dear Ms Travis, I am concerned about draft limitations to public participation at the hearings of BC Hydro’s Site C dam application. <personal information / identifiable information removed> As a tax payer and hydro rate payer in BC, I and my fellow citizens will have to effectively underwrite the billions of dollars required to build the dam and feel that I have a right to be heard during the EA process. This is not just a local issue but one that implicates every British Columbian on energy, economic, aboriginal fairness and ecological grounds. The draft procedures will limit those of us in the BC Public who will bear the ultimate responsibility for the dam from having a fair opportunity to provide input and evidence into the EA process. Thus, I submit that hearings be held throughout British Columbia, especially in those areas in the south, where the majority of Hydro ratepayers and taxpayers live and whose citizens heretofore have been effectively excluded from the Site C process. Site C is a significant project with the potential to cause irreversible damage to the agricultural, aboriginal and ecological values of 107 kilometres of this major Canadian river and its two main tributaries, the Moberly and Halfway Rivers. The Peace River is the only valley to flow through the Rocky Mountains in North America and as such it's valley brings warm weather and an unique microclimate to the bottom lands which in turn have the capacity to feed much of the northern BC populace. The valley is also an important dwelling place for many wildlife species and a connecting corridor for wildlife that will become increasingly important as Climate change effects take hold. All of the potential impacts of Site C dam on this ecosystem are of importance to me and I wish fair opportunity to be part of this process. Other proposed procedures will limit meaningful public participation in this hearing. The requirement to fill out an application form could arbitrarily limit participation in this project. 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. Please 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 will 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. Thank you for considering these points. George A M Smith Sincerely,

George A M Smith

From: Jack Wark Sent: September 16, 2013 4:08 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. Secondly, I think that when an elected government uses the public taxpayers' purse to promote the government's political agenda by selecting a BC Hydro "consultation team" and a consulting firm known to have close ties to the upper echelons of the elected provincial government body, "Kirk Consulting," to conduct jaded, thinly-veiled propaganda campaigns that cost the public millions of dollars under the ruse of "public consultations," while drafting legislation that disallows the same taxpaying public to speak on their own behalf demonstrates just how corrupt the political system is in British Columbia. An independent hearing, beyond the reach of corrupt political agendas, foreign industries, and special interest groups is vital to prove that honesty, transparency, and democracy still exist in this province. It is essential that the Panel have the opportunity to thoroughly and fairly consider the pros and cons of this proposal. The public (who is funding all of this process) 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, Jack Wark

From: David Boon Sent: September 16, 2013 5:12 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, David Boon

From: Pauline Peters Sent: September 16, 2013 5:13 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, Pauline Peters

From: Brian Hoffmann Sent: September 16, 2013 5:13 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, Brian Hoffmann

From: Patty Mucklow Sent: September 16, 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, Patty Mucklow

From: Ken J. Chambers Sent: September 16, 2013 2:43 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, Ken J. Chambers

From: Simonne Macklem Sent: September 16, 2013 11:23 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, Simonne Macklem

From: On Behalf Of Helen McLaren, Vancouver Sent: September 16, 2013 5:57 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! I am writing to strongly urge you to hold public hearings regarding the proposed Site C Dam in communities throughout British Columbia. I will address the issue of food supply and will leave the many other issues to others. In Vancouver, a good percentage of our produce is imported from California, which is experiencing more and more extreme weather conditions. As food production declines in California, we will receive less and less produce from that area. But as the Peace River Valley becomes warmer and dryer, that vast agricultural land could become a major source of BC's food supply. The environmental impact of the Site C Dam will extend far beyond the Fort St. John/Peace River region of British Columbia. With respect, I believe you owe it to all British Columbians to allow their voices to be heard. This letter was created with the use of an online letter writing tool at wildernesscommittee.org

From: Elizabeth Keenan Sent: September 16, 2013 6:26 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, Elizabeth Keenan

From: KATE MAHLER Sent: September 16, 2013 4:03 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, KATE MAHLER

From: Rick Koechl Sent: September 16, 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, Rick Koechl

From: D. Singer Sent: September 16, 2013 11:40 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, D. Singer

From: Lynnette Kind Sent: September 16, 2013 6:27 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, Lynnette Kind

From: On Behalf Of Robyn Duncan Sent: September 16, 2013 3:57 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! Please accept my letter regarding the upcoming process to hear and receive public comment on the proposed Site C dam. This is a critical issue for British Columbians with huge impacts across the province and into Alberta. I believe 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 for hearing my comments. I look forward to your response. Robyn Duncan, This letter was created with the use of an online letter writing tool at wildernesscommittee.org

From: Norine Wark Sent: September 16, 2013 3:28 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. Secondly, it will affect the future taxpayers of this province for generations to come. It is an exorbitant expense in countless ways. Critics have provided irrefutable evidence that much less costly options for producing energy exist. It seems illogical that this mega-dam is being produced solely for the purpose of generating energy for foreign industries that, once they are finished extracting our raw mineral resources, will leave our province and household energy users to pay heavy prices. Furthermore, the company hired to conduct the pre-environmental assessment public hearings, Kirk Consulting, was closely tied to the acting elected provincial government leaders. These provincial leaders, including then Premier, Gordon Campbell, made no secret (e.g. view his annual throne speeches) that this political government desired to see Site C put in place, no matter what public opinion was. I attended a number of these public "input sessions." The resultant documents produced by the "BC Hydro team and Kirk Consulting buried the input that they did not want publicized. They also refused to allow anyone to electronically record or take any photos of any "public" meeting they hosted. This prevented any concerned party from later refuting whatever the "consultation team" decided should be generated as the sole reflection of what went on in those meetings. Thus, any report generated by this "consultation" team should be viewed as politically skewed to fit the special interests of the provincial party of the day and the special interest groups and foreign industries they were promoting. To illustrate, I expressed great concern over the misinformation and propaganda being generated at these meetings. I produced hard copy evidence from BC Hydro's own publicly-available financial records to prove that the financial figures the "consultation team" was using were irregular and inaccurate; nowhere in the resultant documents do such concerns appear. Thus, it is abundantly clear that what has gone on to date is no more than a political maneuver that is pushing the agenda of some special interest groups. This movement does not reflect the true facts and issues of this mega hydro-electric dam project. An independent hearing, beyond the reach of political agendas, foreign industries, and special interest groups is vital to prove that honesty, transparency, and democracy still exist in this province. 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, Norine Wark

From: Pamela den Ouden Sent: September 16, 2013 11:52 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. Pamela den Ouden

Sincerely, Pamela den Ouden