• Home
• About Us
• Issues
• News
• How to Help
• Links
• Blog
• Contact

Issues Overview

Terminal 2

Alternatives

What About the Orcas?

Make a Donation

Take Action

Online Petition

Against Port Expansion in the Fraser Estuary BC

APE (Against Port Expansion in the Fraser Estuary BC) is a group of concerned citizens who recognize that plans for container terminal expansion on Roberts Bank (RBT2) will see the loss of globally-significant wetlands and habitat (classified as a Globally Significant Important Bird and Biodiversity Area - IBA/KBA and under threat) for migratory birds, shorebirds, waterfowl, salmon, herring, crabs and orca whales; degradation of the quality of life for thousands of Lower Mainland residents; and the industrialization of prime agricultural land. 

Once an irreplaceable ecosystem is damaged beyond recovery, no approval condition can turn that loss into a success.

Roberts Bank Biodiversity: A 50-Year Saga of Environmental Warnings Ignored
By Roger Emsley
Against Port Expansion Community Group | October 2026

Introduction: Five decades of warnings

For 50 years, proposals to further industrialize Roberts Bank, British Columbia, have raised fundamental questions about the future of the last remaining functional intertidal bank in the Fraser River Estuary, one of the region’s most important coastal ecosystems and arguably the most ecologically important piece of real estate in Canada.

Designated as an Important Bird Area (IBA) by BirdLife International, the Roberts Bank Wildlife Management Area’s intertidal mudflats provides critical wintering grounds for the highest number of waterfowl and shorebirds found anywhere in Canada. It is especially important for migratory shorebirds, including western sandpipers, whose survival depends on the availability of food during their long migrations.

Over the decades, federal and provincial environmental assessments, government scientific studies and independent research have raised serious concerns about the ecological consequences of further port expansion. The potential effects on intertidal habitat, food webs and migratory bird populations, shorebirds, Southern Resident Killer Whales, juvenile salmon, crabs and other fishes have been central to the debate. Concerns have also been raised about whether these impacts could be adequately mitigated or reversed.

Despite these warnings, the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority and successive federal governments have continued to pursue further industrial development at Roberts Bank.

Now, as Roberts Bank Terminal 2 (RBT2) advances towards construction and a tidewater terminal for the proposed Pacific Link pipeline is added to the picture, the central question remains unresolved: can an ecosystem of international ecological importance be protected when further industrial development may damage the very natural processes on which its wildlife depends?

The history of RBT2 reveals how the project has progressed through successive reviews, changing government decisions and continuing scientific concerns.

1. A history of port expansion and environmental concern

1970s: Federal opposition to further expansion

The industrial development of Roberts Bank began decades ago. Just a few years after the Westshore Coal Terminal commenced operations, the federal Environmental Assessment Review Office (FEARO) recommended against approving the proposed port expansion in its original form in 1979. This early decision established a precedent for concern about the environmental consequences of further industrial development in the area.

2002: Deltaport Berth 3 and RBT2 enter the picture

Plans for adding a third berth to the existing Deltaport and Roberts Bank Terminal 2 became linked in the federal environmental review process. The proposals raised questions about the cumulative effects of expanding container capacity within an already industrialized coastal environment.

2004–2005: The environmental review is divided

The environmental review process began in 2004. In 2005, federal government lawyers withdrew RBT2 from the process amid concerns that both projects might be rejected. Deltaport Berth 3 subsequently received approval.

The separation of the two proposals raises an important historical question about how the environmental consequences of related developments were assessed and whether their combined effects were adequately considered.

2008: An alternative approach to container capacity

A report prepared for the federal government recommended developing additional container capacity at Prince Rupert before approving major new investments in Vancouver.

This recommendation highlighted an important issue that continues to shape the RBT2 debate: whether projected demand could be met through alternative locations and existing infrastructure rather than by constructing another major terminal at Roberts Bank.

2012: RBT2 returns to the federal review process

RBT2 subsequently returned to the federal environmental assessment process and proceeded to a review panel assessment. The project faced detailed scrutiny of its potential effects on the marine and intertidal environment, wildlife and the ecological systems that sustain migratory birds.

2. The environmental review: What alternatives could have been but were not considered?

The Review Panel’s mandate becomes controversial

The Review Panel’s draft terms of reference were amended, and the resulting restrictions on the geographic scope of its review became a significant point of controversy.

Under the amended terms of reference, the alternatives the Panel could consider were limited to those within the Port Authority’s jurisdiction:

• Increasing capacity or efficiency at existing terminals within the Port’s jurisdiction.
• Converting existing properties within the Port’s jurisdiction to container-terminal use.
• Building a new terminal within the Port’s jurisdiction.

This restricted scope excluded broader alternatives, including developing additional container capacity at Prince Rupert. While further expanding Deltaport was within the Panel’s scope it was never properly considered as an alternative.

These alternatives deserved consideration because they could potentially provide additional capacity at a lower cost or with less environmental damage. Whether they could meet projected demand would require a transparent comparison of capacity, cost, timing, infrastructure requirements and environmental consequences. This was never done.

The central concern is that restricting the alternatives under review may have limited the ability to compare RBT2 against the full range of potential solutions.

The Review Panel identifies significant environmental effects

The federal Review Panel’s final report concluded that RBT2 would cause numerous significant adverse environmental effects that could not be mitigated.

This finding is central to the debate. It demonstrates that the project’s environmental implications were not simply speculative concerns raised by opponents; significant adverse effects were identified through the formal assessment process.

The subsequent federal decision therefore required a judgment about whether the project should proceed despite those effects.

2023: Federal approval despite significant adverse effects

In 2023, the Governor in Council determined that the project’s significant adverse environmental effects were “justified in the circumstances,” allowing RBT2 to proceed subject to conditions.

This decision brought the project through a major regulatory milestone, but it did not eliminate the underlying ecological risks identified during the assessment.

Nor does approval, in itself, establish that every potential environmental impact can be prevented or successfully reversed.

The effectiveness of the approval conditions will be critical in determining whether the ecological consequences can be kept within acceptable limits.

3. Condition 10.4: Can Roberts Bank’s biofilm be recreated?

The federal approval includes 370 conditions. Among the most consequential for Roberts Bank’s biodiversity is Condition 10.4, which requires monitoring of biofilm and salinity.

Biofilm is a living layer of microscopic organisms that develops on intertidal sediment. It is an important component of the food web at Roberts Bank and provides a critical food source for western sandpipers and other shorebirds during migration.

Changes in biofilm availability or quality could therefore have consequences extending beyond the immediate construction footprint, potentially affecting the feeding opportunities available to migratory birds.

Three possible responses to environmental damage

Condition 10.4 establishes a framework for responding, if monitoring identifies an unpredicted and unacceptable decline in biofilm health or sandpiper use attributable to the project.

The specified mitigation pathways include:

• Option A — Habitat creation or enhancement: Create or improve biofilm habitat.
• Option B — Infrastructure redesign: Modify the project infrastructure to address the problem.
• Option C — Infrastructure removal: Remove infrastructure where necessary to respond to the damage.

These measures raise a fundamental question: what happens if the damage occurs but functional biofilm cannot be recreated at the necessary scale?

Government scientists and independent researchers have raised serious concerns about the feasibility of artificially recreating functional biofilm across an intertidal ecosystem as extensive and ecologically complex as Roberts Bank.

Recreating an area of suitable habitat is not necessarily the same as restoring the ecological functions of the original ecosystem. The timing, distribution, quality and accessibility of biofilm may all matter to shorebirds that depend on Roberts Bank during migration.

If monitoring detects unacceptable damage and habitat creation or enhancement proves inadequate, infrastructure redesign or removal could become necessary. Such measures could present substantial technical, financial and operational challenges.

Condition 10.4 should therefore not be regarded as a guarantee that biodiversity impacts can be remedied. Its effectiveness will depend on several critical factors:

• Whether monitoring detects harmful changes early enough.
• Whether the thresholds for intervention are sufficiently protective.
• Whether the responsible authorities can enforce timely and effective corrective action.
• Whether the proposed mitigation measures can restore the ecological functions that have been lost.
• Whether infrastructure redesign or removal will be required if less intrusive measures fail.

These are not minor implementation details. They go to the heart of whether the project’s environmental risks can be managed successfully.

With the federal government supporting and funding a project whose total cost could exceed $10 billion, the consequences of mitigation failure could be substantial. The question is whether the approval conditions will provide effective protection if the project’s ecological impacts prove more serious or less reversible than anticipated, will the federal government allow the project to continue regaerdless?

4. Developments in 2026: The project moves closer to construction

Global Container Terminals changes course

Global Container Terminals (GCT), the operator of Deltaport, had remained a prominent opponent of RBT2. GCT argued that adding a fourth berth at Deltaport could provide additional container capacity at lower cost and with less environmental damage than constructing a separate terminal at Roberts Bank.

In spring 2026, GCT signed a cooperation agreement with the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority. This marked a significant change in the position of a major industry participant that had previously challenged the RBT2 proposal.

The agreement raises questions about the future of the alternative expansion proposal and whether the relative costs, capacity benefits and environmental consequences of the available options will receive further scrutiny.

 

 

July 2026: TerraMarine selected for the artificial island project component

In July 2026, TerraMarine was reported to have been selected to build the artificial island required for RBT2.

The proposed island would cover approximately 1.3 square kilometres, or about 320 acres. Construction is planned to begin in 2028 as part of a project expected to cost $10 billion or more.

This figure does not include the cost of Pacific Link, the separately proposed oil-export infrastructure discussed later in this report.

The anticipated work includes stripping the seabed, dredging and reclaiming land from the sea to establish a foundation for the artificial island. Dutch company Van Oord is expected to undertake the seabed and dredging work.

Additional dredging to accommodate larger tugs is also planned, further expanding the tug basin.

These activities make the protection of the marine and intertidal environment an immediate concern. The scale of the proposed construction reinforces the importance of understanding how changes to the seabed, sediment movement and local environmental conditions could affect Roberts Bank’s ecological functions.

Late August 2026: RBT2 referred to the Major Projects Office

At the end of August 2026, RBT2 was referred to the federal Major Projects Office (MPO).

The referral places the project within a federal framework intended to advance major projects. It also raises questions about how the environmental conditions attached to the existing approval will be maintained and enforced as the project moves through subsequent stages.

Any acceleration of the project should not diminish the importance of transparent environmental oversight, independent scientific scrutiny and effective responses to emerging evidence of ecological harm.

October 2026: Pacific Link declared a project of national interest

On October 1, 2026, the proposed Pacific Link oil-export project was declared a project of national interest.

The development of RBT2 and the advancement of Pacific Link within the federal government's major-project framework bring wider questions about infrastructure planning, economic priorities and environmental protection into sharper focus.

The projects should be assessed on their individual merits, while also considering any relevant cumulative environmental effects and infrastructure implications.

The designation of a project as a national priority does not, by itself, resolve questions about its environmental consequences or the adequacy of measures intended to address them.

Bill C39

Its objective to fast track major projects and centralize decision making  adds even more questions as to whether checks and balances will be elminiated.

5. Continuing opposition and cross-border concerns

The Lummi Nation continues to oppose RBT2

The Lummi Nation continues to oppose RBT2 and has indicated that it will challenge the federal government's decision in court.

Its opposition adds an important Indigenous perspective to the continuing debate over the project's potential consequences for the marine environment and the broader region.

The outcome of any legal challenge may also have implications for the project's future.

Opposition to the proposed Pacific Link oil terminal in Washington State

Opposition to the proposed Pacific Link oil terminal extends across the Canada–United States border.

Washington State Governor Bob Ferguson, Department of Ecology Director Casey Sixkiller and US environmental organizations have been actively opposing the proposed terminal.

Their concerns add another dimension to the debate over industrial development, marine environmental protection and the potential consequences of major infrastructure projects in the region.

The cross-border nature of these concerns underscores the importance of considering environmental effects within the wider coastal ecosystem rather than treating each infrastructure proposal in isolation.

6. The proposed construction timetable

 

The reported construction schedule for RBT2 anticipates the following major milestones:

• 2028: Commencement of the artificial-island construction programme, including the seabed preparation and dredging phase.
• 2028 to the early 2030s: Dredging and associated construction work.
• Mid-2030s: Completion of the terminal's principal infrastructure, followed by the planned commencement of operations.

These are projected milestones, not guarantees. The final schedule will depend on the project's contractual arrangements, financing, construction progress and any regulatory or legal developments.

The scale and duration of the work make it particularly important that environmental monitoring begins early, that baseline conditions are properly established and that effective corrective measures are available before significant ecological damage occurs.

7. The fundamental question: Can the damage ever be reversed?

After 50 years of industrial development, scientific warnings and successive environmental reviews, Roberts Bank faces another major expansion.

The issue is not simply whether a new container terminal can be built. It is whether the loss or degradation of an internationally important intertidal ecosystem can ever be adequately compensated for — and whether the conditions attached to the project’s approval will protect that ecosystem if the predicted damage proves irreversible.

This question becomes especially important when the proposed mitigation depends on recreating ecological functions that have developed naturally over long periods and within a complex environmental system.

Monitoring can identify changes. Mitigation can attempt to address them. Regulatory conditions can require action. But none of these measures, on its own, proves that a damaged ecosystem can be restored to its original condition.

If essential ecological functions cannot reliably be recreated, should the burden of demonstrating that the project can proceed without unacceptable and irreversible harm not rest with those proposing further industrialization?

At a minimum, the public deserves clear answers to several questions:

1. What evidence demonstrates that functional biofilm habitat can be recreated at the scale required if the project causes significant ecological damage?
2. What thresholds will trigger mandatory intervention, and how quickly must corrective action be taken?
3. Who will independently verify the monitoring results and determine whether mitigation has succeeded?
4. What happens if habitat creation and enhancement fail to restore the ecological functions on which migratory shorebirds depend?
5. Under what circumstances would infrastructure redesign or removal become mandatory, and who would be responsible for the costs?
6. Have alternative approaches to meeting projected container demand been fully compared in terms of cost, capacity, timing and environmental consequences?
7. How will the relevant authorities ensure that the project's national-priority status does not weaken environmental oversight or the enforcement of existing approval conditions?

These questions deserve answers before construction advances to the point where the consequences may be difficult or impossible to reverse.

Roberts Bank’s biodiversity cannot be treated as expendable simply because a project has been designated a national priority. Economic objectives must be weighed against the long-term consequences for wildlife, intertidal habitat and the ecological systems on which migratory birds depend.

The history of Roberts Bank demonstrates why environmental warnings, scientific evidence and regulatory safeguards must be taken seriously. The challenge now is to ensure that these safeguards are effective in practice, not merely present on paper.

Once an irreplaceable ecosystem is damaged beyond recovery, no approval condition can turn that loss into a success.

 

 

This March 2026 report points to the RBT2 project being economically unviable and environmentally disastrous and therefore a Non Starter.
Roberts Bank Terminal 2, The Inconvenient Truth

This powerpoint presentation provides more detail as to why RBT2 is a non-starter.
Roberts_Bank_Terminal_2__March_2024.pptx

ACTION NEEDED TO SAVE THE ROBERTS BANK ECOSYSTEM
1.Make Roberts Bank a National Marine Conservation Area.
2.Expand the Fraser River Delta designation as a UN “Wetland of International Importance” (Ramsar Site) to encompass all of Roberts Bank.
3.Provide immediate protection to biofilm habitat at Roberts Bank by designating it a Provincial Ecological Reserve.
4.Place a cap on the number of vessel transits through the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Salish Sea.
5.No more port development on Roberts Bank.
6.Diversify trade expansion by maximizing the potential of the port facilities at Prince Rupert.

Building Roberts Bank Terminal 2 in the Fraser Estuary  means:

• 
  Upsetting Roberts Bank’s natural chemistry
• Destroying the unique quality of its intertidal  biofilm
• Breaking the chain of the Pacific Flyway
• Destroying a key refueling stop  for migratory birds
• Further declines in the western sandpiper population towards eventual species extinction
• Pushing Orca whales towards their eventual extinction
• Putting juvenile salmon at increased risk
• Further declines in commercial crabbing
• Infringing on First Nations livelihoods and cultural practices
• Increased air, noise and light pollution
• More traffic congestion caused by Port truck traffic

For What? A new $4-6 billion container terminal that can never be economically justified, because there are better cheaper alternatives to satisfy Canada’s trading needs. Demand governments stop this. Email ec.ministre-minister.ec@canada.ca and copy saynotot2@gmail.com

On April 20 2023 the federal cabinet approved RBT2, effectively signing the death certificate for the Fraser Estuary. The BC Government gave its approval on September 28 2023.

Below is a summary and dateline of the RBT2 project. It was approved:

• Over a mountain of opposition;
• With political interference
• Ignoring Environment Canada scientists’ concerns
• Ignoring significant wide ranging credible research and science, much of it published in peer-reviewed science journals, demonstrating the project’s significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be mitigated.
• Ignoring the facts and evidence.

Major environmental groups, scientists expert in their field, citizen scientists, the Cities of Delta, Richmond and White Rock, MPs, members of the public rose up and voiced their opposition to RBT2. As the final phase of the environmental assessment concluded that opposition grew and grew. The politicians ignored all of that and by approving the project signed the death certificate for what little remains of the natural habitat in the Fraser Estuary and the wildlife that relies on it.

WHEN IT WAS APPROVED THESE WERE THE CABINET MINISTERS KNOWN TO HAVE SUPPORTED RBT2: MESSRS WILKINSON, ALGHABRA, SAJJAN AND CHAMPAGNE

THESE CABINET MINISTERS WERE KNOWN TO OPPOSE RBT2:  GUILBEAULT, QUALTROUGH, MURRAY 
BUT THEN TRUDEAU SHUFFLED HIS CABINET. 

THESE ARE THE MINISTERS STILL IN CABINET. EMAIL EACH OF THEM, ASK THEM TO EXPLAIN WHY THEY IGNORED SCIENCE FACTS AND EVIDENCE AND DEMAND THEY REVIST THEIR APPROVAL

JONATHAN WILKINSON:
minister.ministre@nrcan-rncan.gc.ca

STEVEN GUILBEAULT 
ec.ministre-minister.ec@canada.ca;Steven.Guilbeault@parl.gc.ca

CARLA QUALTROUGH: 
info@pch.gc.ca; Carla.Qualtrough@parl.gc.ca

FRANCOIS- PHILIPPE CHAMPAGNE: francois-philippe.champagne@parl.gc.ca

TELL THEM TO HONOUR THE AGREEMENTS CANADA HAS SIGNED TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT (MOST RECENTLY AT THE UN BIODIVERSITY CONFERENCE). TELL THEM TO REVERSE THE RBT2 APPROVAL. 

 

THIS IS THE TORTUOUS PATH THAT LED TO RBT2 APPROVAL

MARCH 2023 STILL NO DECISION - AFTER EIGHT YEARS !!

• MAR. 27 2020 THE FEDERALLY-APPOINTED REVIEW PANEL PUBLISHED ITS REPORT IDENTIFIYING SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS IN MANY AREAS SHOULD RBT2 BE BUILT.
• AUG. 24 2020 THE FEDERAL ENVIRONMENT MINISTER PAUSED THE DECiSiON PROCESS AND ASKED THE PORT FOR MORE INFORMATION. 
• AUG. 28 2020 THE PORT SAYS IT WILL HAVE COMPLETED GATHERING THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PRIOR TO YEAR END
• NOV. 5 2020 THE PORT SAYS IT WILL NOT PROVIDE THE INFORMATION UNTIL SUMMER 2021.
  
• SEP 24 2021 PORT PROVIDED ITS RESPONSE
• DEC 15 GOVERNMENT PROVIDED A DRAFT OF POTENTIAL CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL AND OPENED FINAL ROUND OF PUBLIC COMMENT
• MAR 15 2022 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD CLOSED WITH THOUSANDS OF OPPOSING SUBMISSIONS
• APR 22 2022 PORT RESPONDED TO SOME OF THE OPPOSING SUBMISSIONS, BUT NOT ON THE KEY ISSUE, BIOFILM
• JUNE 10 2022 PORT RESPONDED ON THE BIOFILM ISSUE. SAME OLD FLAWED SCIENCE, PROMOTING BIOFILM REPLACEMENT WHEN INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED SCIENCE SAYS THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE ON THE SCALE NECESSARY TO REPLACE WHAT WILL BE LOST
• SEPTEMBER 2022 - A WALL OF SILENCE REMAINS OVER OTTAWA ON RBT2
• OCTOBER 26 2022 - ENVIRONMENT CANADA RESPONDS TO THE VFPA WITH A DETAILED ANALYSIS DEMONSTRATING YET AGAIN THAT RBT2 WILL RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED. ECCC SCIENTISTS STATE:
  "Given the importance of the Roberts Bank site for the Western Sandpiper, the nutritional requirements for fatty acids of migrating shorebirds, and the predicted effects of the Project on biofilm quantity and quality, ECCC continues to advise that the changes predicted as a result of the Project, as currently designed, would likely constitute an unmitigable species-level risk to Western Sandpipers, and shorebirds more generally". 
• January 23 2023 Ottawa decides it has all the information it needs to make a decision
• Febuary 2023 - The RBT2 Decision is with the Federal Cabinet acting as Governor in Council
• April 3 2023 Still waiting for a decision from Ottawa. Three cabinent ministers are known to support it. Amazing!!!
• April 20 2023. The federal government approves terminal 2 stating
  " I (Environment Minister) have determined that the Designated Project (RBT2) is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effectsreferred to in subsection 5(1) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012.

   In accordance with paragraph 52(4)(a) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012, the Governor in Council (Federal Cabinet) decided that the significant adverse environmental effects referred to in subsection 5(1) that the Designated Project is likely to cause are justified in the circumstances. 

THE FIGHT IS NOT OVER

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IGNORED ITS OWN SCIENTISTS AND THEIR CONCERNS.

WE NEED YOUR HELP. EMAIL THE PRIME MINISTER AND DEMAND HE REVERSE THIS DECISION. pm@pm.gc.ca

The govenrment  has the science, facts and evidence. Its own scientists say RBT2 will result in significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be mitigated. How much more does the government need to reject this project?

KEEP THE PRESSURE ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

TELL THEM YOU WILL NOT ACCEPT RBT2 BEING APPROVED.

WRITE TO MINISTER GUILBEAULT. SELECT COPY & PRINT THIS

Attention Minister Steven Guilbeault: 

Roberts Bank Terminal 2 (RBT2) is environmentally unsustainable. 
Environment and Climate Change Canada scientists have consistently characterized the negative environmental impacts of the RBT2 project as permanent, irreversible and continuous, disrupting and eliminating quality fatty acid production from diatoms in biofilm across Roberts Bank by dampening and reducing salinity. These particular fatty acids are absolutely required by Western Sandpipers and disrupting their production may also have negative implications for salmon and crab production, as well as eulachon a major part of Indigenous heritage. Many international scientists agree, as do Birds Canada, Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, BC Nature, Nature Canada and others. 

I am opposed to RBT2 and petition you and Cabinet to reverse your approval for this project. 

Date___________________________

Signed________________________Email______________________________

 Name_______________________________Postal Code__________________

AND MAIL TO

Minister Steven Guilbeault               POST FREE
    House of Commons
     Ottawa, Ontario, K1A0A6

See what others are doing to stop RBT2:

1. Fraser Delta in the International spotlight. Birdlife Interantional has joined the fight to stop RBT2.
https://www.birdlife.org/worldwide/news/waterfowl-winter-refuge-fraser-river-delta-risks-being-lost-forever?utm_source=BirdLife+International+News+Notifications&utm_campaign=a1bb67f58b-Summary_news_notification&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4122f13b8a-a1bb67f58b-131704081&mc_cid=a1bb67f58b&mc_eid=0757e28fcf 

2. In May 2022 The Garden City Conservation Society published a comprehenisive analysis of all that is wrong with the RBT2 project, under the title Stop RBT2 - To Enable Success, and sent it to the federal Environment Minister and the Cabinet

stoprbt2_enablesuccess_gccs_0.pdf

3. A video by Ranincoast Conservation
https://youtu.be/HkKLY3P2_ys

4. Natural Legacies versus Waste

https://gardencitylands.wordpress.com/2020/04/04/fraser-voices-urges-federal-government-to-reject-roberts-bank-port-expansion/

5. Fraser Voices

https://www.facebook.com/FraserVoices/posts/2525873930958632?__cft__[0]=AZUdM4gLQGuLAuiIVb_6PxF5BNrdBoz4KiElrrlqVoUBShwuJp6UHSY5mWAGz0etwKLQsE10_Ss-qK7aGDQemFBPCb8nyQsjtbRBGMWEMaqncH-9Dc-WYdwptkuZASF4OsN487dcEmp0wBKuk9JfpC8C0GMYxI1uj79xp-tiD_FXKA&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R

6. Georgia Strait Alliance 

https://georgiastrait.org/work/species-at-risk/proposed-terminal-2-deltaport-expansion-2/

Against Port Expansion in the Fraser Estuary, BC

WEBSITE LINKS

HAVE A COMMENT?

We love to hear from others who share our concerns, and would like to make a difference.

Contact Us

SOCIAL MEDIA