Speak Out in Solidarity
Partnership for the Sustainable Development of Digby Neck and Islands Society

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

I. Introduction

II. Summary of Outstanding Deficiencies

III. Background on the Society and CARP

IV. Contributors

V. Methodology

VI. EIS Deficiency Statements 1 thru 93 *

      EIS Guidelines Section 2.0 (statement 1)

      EIS Guidelines Section 3.0 (statements 2 - 10)

      EIS Guidelines Section 4.0 (statements 13 - 15)

      EIS Guidelines Section 6.0 (statements 18 - 25)

      EIS Guidelines Section 7.0 (statements 26 - 31)

      EIS Guidelines Section 8.0 (statements 37 - 48)

      EIS Guidelines Section 9.0 (statements 50 - 52) (statements 53 - 61)

      EIS Guidelines Section 10.0 (statements 63 - 71) (statements 72 - 77)

      EIS Guidelines Section 12.0 (statements 78 - 91) (statement 93)

      Footnotes

* Only the deficiencies that have not been adequately addressed by the Supplemental Information are included in this report. This report does not include the deficiencies that were addressed by the Revised Project Description released on February 5, 2007.  (http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/010/0001/0001/0023/001/WP-1704.pdf)

This submission to the Joint Federal-Provincial Review Panel for the Whites Point Quarry and Marine Terminal is in response to the Response to Comments and Questions, released by Bilcon of Nova Scotia on February 12, 2007. 

In August 2006, the Society and CARP made a joint submission to the Panel for the White’s Point Quarry and Marine Terminal Environmental Assessment, on the adequacy of the Proponent’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The August submission represented a collaboration of individuals with a broad background in environmental assessment. It identified a total of 93 deficiencies in the EIS, a significant number of which represented fundamental omissions with respect to the EIS Guidelines. 

In November 2006, the Proponent released a Revised Project Description which sought to address eleven of the deficiencies identified in the August 2006 submission by the Society and CARP. Upon reviewing the Revised Project Description, it was found that four of the deficiencies had been addressed, while seven still remain outstanding. A submission by CARP and the Society was made to the Review Panel on February 5, 2007 commenting on these outstanding deficiencies.

Upon reviewing the Supplemental Information released by the Proponent on February 12, 2007, we found that 56 of the deficiencies identified by the Society and CARP in August 2006 were not addressed. The outstanding deficiencies from the Revised Project Description and Responses to Questions and Comments (Supplemental Information) are summarized in Section II of this report.

Our review of the Supplemental Information identified numerous cases where the Proponent failed to provide sufficient information, as required by the EIS Guidelines. This included the description of the quarry and marine terminal, mining details, and actions to be undertaken in the reclamation and decommissioning of the site. The absence of the required information hampered the ability of reviewers to fully assess the implications of the Project.

This Report provides detailed information on all 56 of the outstanding deficiencies identified. However, we wish to draw particular attention to the following deficiencies which we consider to be fundamental to a complete EIS, as outlined by the EIS Guidelines:

(1) The Supplemental Information fails to undertake a comprehensive examination of  sustainability issues concerning the project. The examination of the project’s Overall  Contribution Toward Sustainability is contained in less than ½ a page. No analysis is  provided on the project’s net contribution to sustainability¹. Furthermore, the issue of  how mitigation measures contribute positively to sustainable development objectives is  not addressed.² 

(2) While the Supplemental Information provided by the proponent takes a number of small,  tentative steps to incorporate the Ecosystem Approach, no integrated analysis has been  provided. The Supplemental Information fails to address key concepts such as duration  and magnitude of interaction, synergy etc. The concept of adaptive management is  inappropriately used by the proponent in addressing both the Ecosystem Approach and  Precautionary Principle.³

(3) The predicted adverse impacts of the project remain largely un-quantified, being  addressed in general terms. Where impact predictions are made, the degree of certainty  for predictions is not provided, as required by the EIS Guidelines⁴. The lack of  quantification is continued in the analysis of impacts on groundwater, with the absence of  a numerical model⁵.

(4) In numerous cases, insufficient information has been provided to allow a comprehensive  analysis of the Environmental Impact Statement. These include corporate environmental  performance⁶, blasting impacts⁷ and ship docking procedures⁸. 

(5) The Supplemental Information provides an annual figure for carbon dioxide emissions  but fails to provide any comprehensive quantitative information on green house gas  emissions from  the proposed quarry and marine terminal projects. 

The above list is not intended to take away from the remaining deficiencies. It is provided only to facilitate analysis by the Review Panel given the incredibly narrow window of time available to assess the proponent’s Supplemental Information.

I. Introduction

In August 2006, Partnership for the Sustainable Development of Digby Neck and Islands Society (Society) and Clean Annapolis River Project (CARP) made a joint submission to the Panel for the White’s Point Quarry and Marine Terminal Environmental Assessment, on the adequacy of the Proponent’s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The August submission represented a collaboration of individuals with a broad background in environmental assessment. It identified a total of 93 deficiencies in the EIS, a significant number of which represented fundamental omissions with respect to the EIS Guidelines.

This document is the result of collaboration between the Partnership for the Sustainable Development of Digby Neck and Islands Society and Clean Annapolis River Project. This collaboration has allowed these two groups to provide a more thorough examination of the EIS than could be achieved separately. 

It has been the goal in this and previous submissions by the Society and CARP to ensure that the best possible information is made available to the Review Panel. Our ability to achieve this in the review of the Supplemental Information has been somewhat hampered by the format chosen by the Proponent. In many cases, the Proponent’s response to a deficiency has been to make a general reference to the text in the preceding section, which may be up to 80 pages long. While this may be the result of a simple oversight on the part of the Proponent, we would ask that future materials provide a comparable level of referencing to that contained in our submissions.

Summary of Outstanding Deficiencies

The following table is based on a review of the Revised Project Description (November 2006) and Responses to Comments and Questions (Supplemental Information) (February 12, 2007). The following deficiencies from the August 2006 submission by the Society and CARP have not been addressed. For further information on individual deficiencies, please see the body of this report. Detailed comments on Deficiencies 26 to 36 are contained in the February 5 submission to the Panel.

The Society is a not-for-profit community group, which seeks to promote sustainable development and enhance the quality of life of the Digby Neck and Islands. The Society has been active for more than 4 years, and has played a central role locally in raising public awareness over the proposed quarry and marine terminal. 

With more than 250 members, the Society brings together a diverse range of views and perspectives. This broad membership includes long-time residents of the area who trace their ancestry to the original Loyalists settlers, and individuals who make their living as fishers of the coastal waters. The membership also includes pastors, mining engineers, schoolteachers, homemakers, business owners and students, plus many more.

The Clean Annapolis River Project (CARP) is a charitable, community-owned corporation created to work with the community and interested organizations to foster the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of the freshwater and marine ecosystems of Nova Scotia's Annapolis River and its watershed.

Since its formation, in March 1990 CARP has been involved in over 100 projects related to volunteer water quality monitoring, fish habitat restoration, public education, coastal zone management, private stewardship initiatives, sustainable agriculture and pollution prevention. 

The Society and CARP gratefully acknowledge the financial support received through the Canadian Environment Assessment Agency Participant Funding Program. This support has been essential in allowing these groups to participate in the environmental impact assessment and review the EIS. With the following comments we hope to assist the Panel in understanding the local context for the EIA and improve the overall quality of EIS.

IV. Contributors

The August 2006 submission by the Society and CARP to the Panel represented the combined comments of more than 23 individuals with considerable experience and expertise in fields relevant to the environmental impact assessment. The original authors of have been footnoted in this report, with reference to the August 2006 submission. The short timeframe in which to review the Supplemental Information and provide comment made it impossible for CARP and the Society to consult with the experts who contributed to the August 2006 submission. For that reason, the review of the Supplemental Information and comments contained in this report were undertaken by Don Mullin, Ashraf Mahtab and Lisa Mitchell for the Society and Andy Sharpe for CARP. 

V. Methodology

This report makes use of the same format as the August 2006 submission for the purposes of clarity. The layout for each of the deficiencies found in the Supplemental Information is as follows:

• EIS Guidelines - relevant sections of the EIS Guidelines are cited
• EIS – relevant sections in the original EIS are noted
• Supplemental Information (Response to Comments and Questions) – comment on material present/absent in Supplemental Information.
  

VI. Deficiency Statements

EIS Guidelines -- Section 2.0 -- The Review Process

Deficiency Statement 1⁹

EIS Guidelines

2.1 - Scope of the Project - ‘The scope of the Project is described in Part I of the Panel’s TOR (Appendix 1).”

2.3 - Environmental Impact Statement - ‘The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) document produced by the Proponent will identify the effects (both beneficial and adverse) of the Project on the environment.”

EIS

The EIS Guidelines (Appendix – Part I) provides a description of the Project under consideration. As is widely known, the Proponent is Bilcon of Nova Scotia Corporation, which proposes to construct a 120 ha quarry and marine terminal, with a planned duration of 50 years. 

The EIS makes reference to public consultation undertaken through the Community Liaison Committee (CLC) at least nine times, in terms of information provided and comments received. An example is where the EIS states ‘Activities initiated by Bilcon include stakeholders’ interviews conducted by Elgin Consulting and meeting notes from the CLC meetings (See Appendix 2).”¹⁰ The CLC was established as a result of an application for a 3.9 ha quarry. This approval differed from the Project in terms of scale (3.9 ha versus 120 ha), duration (10 years versus 50 years) and the fact that the original approval did not include a marine terminal. The CLC was also established under Nova Stone Exporters Inc., a company that has no involvement in the Project. As the CLC addressed a project that was not that described in the Appendix to the EIS Guidelines, it should not be cited as such in the EIS. The Proponent should amend the EIS to remove references to the CLC as part of the public consultation process for the White’s Point Quarry and Marine Terminal.

Supplemental Information

The proponent has not addressed this comment and continues to refer to the Community Liaison Committee as part of the public consultation.

EIS Guidelines – Section 3.0 -- Principles

Deficiency Statement 2¹¹

EIS Guidelines

3.1 – Use and Respect for Traditional and Community Environmental Knowledge – The EIS Guidelines require the Proponent to make best efforts to incorporate traditional knowledge into the EIS or facilitate the presentation of traditional knowledge to the Panel.

EIS

Traditional knowledge is mentioned a number of times in section 9.3 of the EIS. However, section 9.1 on Physical Environment provides only one reference to the use of traditional knowledge. Section 9.1.7.1 states, “Traditional knowledge indicates floating ice has been observed in the Bay off Whites Point, presumably from ice break-up in the inner Bay of Fundy and the Annapolis Basin.”¹² Section 9.2 on the Biological Environment includes no references to traditional knowledge. This does not represent ‘best efforts’ by the Proponent to incorporate traditional knowledge into the EIS. 

There is no information in the EIS that demonstrates effort by the Proponent to facilitate the presentation of traditional knowledge to the Panel.

Supplemental Information

This deficiency has not been addressed.

The proponent refers to the use of individual consultations as a key means of gathering Traditional Knowledge however the content of these individual consultations is unknown. Furthermore, the report on Traditional Knowledge in no manner reflects an effort to obtain Traditional Knowledge. They were at best “trips down memory lane”. A survey conducted in 2005 of 55 residences in Little River was able to identify only one person who had been interviewed¹³. Close examination of the CLC minutes failed to reveal a single example of efforts to obtain Traditional Knowledge. Open houses were information dissemination events. The proponent’s statement that “the knowledge gathered was used throughout the Environmental Impact Statement and reference to the interviews and minutes contained in the EIS clearly demonstrates that that knowledge was used throughout the EIS” is not supported by the evidence. There is nothing to suggest that the proponent sought Traditional Knowledge of such obvious information as the species of flora and fauna, of historical and current populations of migratory and other birds, of local tides or any number of issues relevant to the quarry site. (Reference: 3.1 Traditional and Community Knowledge, p.6)¹⁴

Deficiency Statement 3¹⁵

EIS Guidelines

3.2 - Public Involvement - ‘Public participation is a central objective of the overall review process and a means by which the concerns and interests of the public are taken into account.” 

8.2 - Public Participation - ‘Identify and report on key issues raised, and describe how those issues have been addressed.” ‘Explain how the results of that engagement influenced the design of the Project.” ‘Document, track and describe any issues raised by stakeholders that may remain outstanding.”

EIS

One of the key purposes of the Canadian Environment Assessment Act is to ‘ensure that there are opportunities for timely and meaningful public participation throughout the environmental assessment process.”¹⁶ Meaningful public participation implies a two-way dialogue where a developer provides information on an undertaking, receives feedback on the possible impacts and how the Project can be improved. In this interactive process, the design of the Project is amended, public consultation repeated, and further changes made if necessary. 

The EIS documents the public consultation activities of the Proponent.¹⁷ These activities have been largely confined to providing information on the Project and recording comments and concerns. While considerable effort is made to ask for individual’s opinions on the Project, there is little information available on how these opinions and concerns were addressed, beyond simply making reference to them in the Concordance Table (Section 5).

The EIS Guidelines explicitly require the Proponent to identify how the comments received through public input have influenced the design of the Project. This has not been done. The Guidelines also require the Proponent to identify those concerns which remain outstanding. This has not been done. The EIS fails to document how meaningful public consultation was undertaken and its results. 

Supplemental Information

This deficiency has not been addressed.

The proponent appears to be confusing “plans” and “reports” in stating that “the Communication Plan will be updated on an annual basis to reflect all recent public consultation activities, changing issues and how they were addressed”. (Reference: Section 8.2 Public Consultation, p.3) With the exception of a change in the turning radius for the ship, remedial action for loss of water quality/quantity, and the ill-defined compensation regime for lost fishing gear and property values, there remains a plethora of examples of how the proponent used public input in the design of the project.

The Issues Management System referred to on page 14 of Section 8.2 of the EIS provides a potential mechanism for tracking public consultation; however, no evidence is provided that the system has been used for such a purpose.¹⁸

Deficiency Statement 4¹⁹

EIS Guidelines

3.3 - Sustainable Development - ‘Promotion of sustainable development is a fundamental purpose of environmental assessment…” “…the Panel will evaluate the Project’s contribution to sustainability on the basis of: the extent to which the Project makes a positive overall contribution towards the attainment of ecological and community sustainability, both at the local and regional scales’.

12.7 - Residual Impacts - ‘Discussion of residual impacts and significance should indicate how the Project might contribute to sustainable development in the area affected by the Project.”

EIS

Executive Summary, Section 3.3 and other sections - EIS falls well short in the evaluation of sustainability. The EIS appears not to include any explicit discussion of efforts to identify and address issues particularly relevant to sustainability concerns. 

The key points raised in the Panel’s EIS Guidelines discussion of the sustainable development principle seem to have been almost entirely overlooked. The Proponent should revise the EIS to address these deficiencies.

Supplemental Information

The Supplemental Information (Section 3.3) fails to undertake a comprehensive examination of sustainability issues concerning the project. A key aspect of appraising sustainable development implications is the notion of ‘net contribution to sustainability’, as was highlighted in the Environment Canada comment on this subject (WP1630). The Supplemental Information provides only the positive aspects of the project, as viewed by the Proponent, but fails to incorporate negative impacts to allow a determination of net contribution to sustainability. No justification or reference is provided for the framework used, as required by the EIS Guidelines, Section 4.3.²⁰ 

For an authoritative source on appraising sustainable development, the Proponent is directed to: Sustainability Assessment: Criteria & Process, R. Gibson, S. Hassan, S. Holtz, J. Tansey, G. Whitelaw, Earthscan, 2005.

Deficiency Statement 5²¹

EIS Guidelines

3.4 – The Ecosystem Approach - ‘In the EIS, the Panel will expect evaluations of the potential impacts of the Project on:

• the interconnections between the physical environment, the biological environment, and the human environment;
• the links between terrestrial, coastal zone, and oceanic processes;
• the interchange between the subsurface, the surface and the atmosphere, and
• the repercussion of the potential local impacts at a regional, national and global level.”

Section 10 – Environmental Impact Analysis - ‘The assessment must recognize not only the complexity and inter-connectedness of all the parts that comprise a single environmental entity (e.g. the physical environment), but also the broader, even more complex, inter-connectedness between the physical, biological and human components.”

EIS

The EIS Guidelines require that as much attention as is given to the discrete parts of the ecosystem should be given to the ecosystem itself.  The EIS is clearly deficient in this regard; there is not even a section devoted to this important requirement.  The lack of ecological perspective is illustrated in the Plain Language Summary (page 24) where a point is made of stating that parts of the existing forest is diseased or dying, as if this is grounds for getting rid of it.  Diseased trees are part of a natural cycle, and provide niches for a whole suite of organisms, such as wood-boring beetles and black-backed woodpeckers.

Supplemental Information

The Supplemental Information (Section 3.4) fails to effectively demonstrate that the Ecosystem Approach has been utilized in the environmental assessment. The Proponent has taken a number of small, tentative steps with the incorporation of the lists of Project Works and Activities (Table 2), VECs and Associated Boundaries (Table 3) and Pathways and Linkages (Figures 1 to 7). This material needs to be examined in an integrated manner, including concepts of duration and magnitude of interaction, synergy etc. No justification or reference is provided for the framework used, as required by the EIS Guidelines, Section 4.3. As it is currently written, the Supplemental Information fails to satisfy the relevant sections within the EIS Guidelines.²²

Deficiency Statement 6²³

EIS Guidelines

3.4 – The Ecosystem Approach – “The Panel believes that the Project has to be evaluated in a holistic manner, using an ecosystem approach, where the interconnections receive as much attention as the discrete components.”

EIS

3.4 – The Ecosystem Approach – The EIS relies on the FAO definition for ecosystem approach and emphasizes the conservation and biological diversity aspect (along with sustainable use). There are other aspects other than genetic and biological diversity to effective functioning of the ecosystem. A definition that is more in-line with the EIS Guidelines is one that includes a comprehensive and holistic approach to understanding and anticipating ecological change, assessing the full range of consequences, and developing appropriate management responses.²⁴

The EIS goes on to describe 12 principles. Unless the Proponent authored these principles, a citation should be provided. The EIS does not provide any clear rationale for the selection of these principles or any connection to other elements of the EIS. For example, principle 5 states, “Conservation of ecosystem structure and functioning, in order to maintain ecosystem services, should be a target of the ecosystem approach.”²⁵ The EIS should describe how the Proponent will measure and use ecosystem services for management. Principle 8 states, “Recognizing the varying temporal scales and lag-effects that characterize ecosystem processes, objective ecosystem management should be set for the long term.”²⁶ The EIS should explain what it means to objectively manage an ecosystem for the long term and demonstrate how that will be done in the proposed Project.

The EIS goes on to list five points of ‘operational guidance for application of the ecosystem approach.”²⁷ Item # 2 in the list is “Enhance benefit-sharing.” The EIS should describe what this means and how it serves as an operational principle of effective ecosystem management. 

Item #3 in the list is “Use adaptive management practices.” This is one of several instances where this terminology is used in the EIS, but there is no clear explanation provided. Adaptive management requires a commitment to baseline monitoring, science-based decision-making and post-operational monitoring. These concepts are not defined in the EIS. For adaptive management to be successful, the best approach would be to define targets that will not be surpassed, and to put into place a series of “precautionary” responses that will be implemented if the targets are surpassed. For example, significant species will not decrease in abundance, and if significant decreases are seen, the response will be ….. This approach requires baseline measures of abundance, reference sites, targets, and post-operational monitoring programs, none of which appears to be included in the EIS.

Supplemental Information

The Supplemental Information fails to address the numerous items noted above concerning the Proponent’s incorporation of the Ecosystem Approach. The above deficiency has not been addressed.²⁸

Deficiency Statement 7²⁹

EIS Guidelines

3.4 – The Ecosystem Approach – “The Panel believes that the Project has to be evaluated in a holistic manner, using an ecosystem approach, where the interconnections receive as much attention as the discrete components.”

10 - Environmental Impact Analysis - ‘The assessment must recognize not only the complexity and inter-connectedness of all the parts that comprise a single environmental entity (e.g. the physical environment), but also the broader, even more complex, inter-connectedness between the physical, biological and human components.”

10.4 - Summary Table of Impacts - ‘Develop a table that summarizes the identified potential effects of the Project on all components and relationships in the environment.”

EIS

The EIS Guidelines are quite explicit on the type of integrated analysis required for inclusion in the EIS. Volume II of the EIS (EIS Guidelines Referenced to the EIS Document) directs the reviewer to Section 3.4 of the EIS. While Section 3.4 (Ecosystem Approach) discusses in very general terms the use of the Ecosystem Approach, no details or specifics are provided on this analysis. 

The secondary and tertiary interactions between physical, biological and human components represent a broad area of concern raised by members of the public with respect to the Project. Analyses of these issues are largely absent from the EIS. The Proponent should revise the EIS to reflect the EIS Guidelines, Sections 3.4, 10 and 10.4. 

Should the Proponent require guidance in undertaking such an ecosystem analysis, the following fundamental should be consulted:

Gordon E. Beanlands and Peter N. Duinker, An Ecological Framework for Environmental Impact Assessment in Canada, Institute for Resources and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, 1983, Published in Cooperation with the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office.

Supplemental Information

The Supplemental Information fails to incorporate a systematic analysis of ecosystem interactions, as required by the EIS Guidelines. The deficiencies noted above have not been addressed.³⁰ 

Deficiency Statement 8³¹

EIS Guidelines

3.5 – The Precautionary Approach – ‘Further, the Panel understands the application of the precautionary principle to require: that the onus of proof shall lie with the Proponent to show that a proposed action will not lead to serious or irreversible environmental damage, especially with respect to overall environmental function and integrity, considering system tolerance and resilience;..”

EIS

3.5 – The Precautionary Approach – The EIS Cross-Reference indicates that all requirements in section 3.5 of the EIS Guidelines are covered in section 3.5 of the EIS. The information provided in section 3.5 of the EIS does not meet any of the requirements set out in the EIS Guidelines. For example, the EIS states, “Where there is uncertainty with respect to the effectiveness of measures that are used to prevent serious or irreversible environmental damage, Bilcon will take an adaptive management approach.”³² The Federal Environmental Assessment Best Practice Guide for Wildlife at Risk in Canada states “Adaptive management, also referred to as ‘adaptive resource management,’ is a management and learning process developed to meet the challenges of managing resources in the face of uncertainty, with a focus on monitoring and assessing the outcomes of decisions to reduce uncertainty in the future (Bailey 2000). It can be applied only in those cases where harm is reversible, since it implies that midcourse corrections should be made where required.”³³ The Best Practice Guide indicates that adaptive management should not be used with respect to species at risk, as the effects may be irreversible. The approach taken in the EIS to precaution and adaptive management demonstrates a misunderstanding and misapplication of both. To satisfy the requirements of section 3.5 of the EIS the Proponent must make itself aware of the appropriate application of the precautionary approach and reapply it to the EIS.

Supplemental Information

While the Proponent has provided additional information with respect to the application of the Precautionary Principle, it is evident that there remains some level of misunderstanding with the use of adaptive management in this context. For example, the Supplemental Information has not been amended to reflect federal guidance that adaptive management is inappropriate for use with species at risk, as the effects are irreversible. The above deficiency has not been addressed.³⁴

Deficiency Statement 10³⁵

EIS Guidelines

3.5 – The Precautionary Approach – “Further the Panel understands the application of the precautionary principle to require: verifiable scientific research and high-quality information; and access to information, public participation, and open and transparent decision-making.”

EIS

9.2 – Aquatic Ecology - The precautionary approach and adaptive management seem to be restricted to pH and TSS. The EIS does not include any real measurement of biological diversity. There is reference to some baseline monitoring, but the levels and information is not integrated into the assessment. Baseline monitoring of regional reference site, as well as discharge area are absent. The Proponent should revise the EIS to ensure that the principal of Precautionary Approach is applied to all relevant areas.

Supplemental Information

The Supplemental Information fails to clearly identify how adaptive management will be applied to the Precautionary Approach. In particular, the use of adaptive management in this sense requires rigorous baseline monitoring, science-based decision making and post-operation monitoring. The advance identification of targets or thresholds to trigger management changes is needed. This information is not provided in the Supplemental Information. The above deficiency has not been addressed.³⁶ 

EIS Guidelines – Section 4.0 – Guidance on the Preparation of the EIS

Deficiency Statement 13³⁷

EIS Guidelines

4.1 – Use of Existing Information - ‘The EIS must provide sufficient information to identify, describe and determine the significance of potential impacts on the environment that could arise from the Project.”

8.1 – Methods - ‘Identify and justify any assumptions made. Indicate the degree of certainty in the impact predictions and determination of significance (identify measures used). Document all models and studies so that, to the extent possible, the analyses are transparent and reproducible, support analyses and conclusions with reference to appropriate literature and provide all relevant references.”

EIS

The Proponent is unable to use convincing language to assuage concerns about the quarry lighting. For example, in Chapter 9.1, we are told that “Operational lighting will be kept to a minimum”³⁸, that “the working face of the quarry will require minimal lighting”³⁹, and that “minimal light spill is expected into the marine waters and into the night sky”⁴⁰. These vague statements are used to support a definitive conclusion that lighting will have “long term, insignificant negative effects, of local scale.”⁴¹ Why are these impacts not properly quantified? The Proponent should revise the EIS to quantify impacts and include the degree of certainty associated with lighting impacts.

Supplemental Information

No quantification of lighting or degree of certainty associated with lighting impacts is provided in the Supplemental Information (Reference: 9.1.8 Light, p.3) or the Revised Project Description.⁴²

Deficiency Statement 14⁴³

EIS Guidelines

4.2 – EIS Format – “For clarity and ease of reference, present the EIS in the same general order as the Guidelines.” “Write the EIS in the clearest language possible.” “Produce maps using a limited number of common scales in order to permit inter-comparison and overlay of mapped features.”

EIS

The EIS was not presented in the same order as the EIS Guidelines, requiring the reader to search through previous sections to try to find relevant reference sources. It would have been more user friendly to have the figures showing geology, hydrogeology, existing and future topography, locations of monitoring wells and residential wells, etc. on identical scales so that they could have been more easily compared.

Supplemental Information

The proponent did go to some effort to provide a quick reference in the Supplemental Information to assist the authors of comments in identifying the location of responses to their comments. However, in many instances in the document the reader is referred to a response to another party and not given a specific reference for that information. Also, there are sections of the Supplementary Information that are totally repetitive. For example, much of the material covered in Section 9.3.6 (Human Health and Wellness and Socio-Cultural Environment) is a repeat of information provided in other sections. For example, pages 12-16 of Section 9.1.6 (Air Quality) are identical to pages 33-36 of Section 9.3.6.⁴⁴

Deficiency Statement 15⁴⁵

EIS Guidelines

4.2 - EIS Format - ‘A key subject index, glossary of technical terms and acronyms, and detailed table of contents are required.”

EIS

The EIS does not include a Key Subject Index, as required by the Guidelines. This omission has the effect of hampering the reviewer’s search of key topics and issues with the EIS, and should be rectified.

Supplemental Information

The proponent did not address this deficiency.⁴⁶

EIS Guidelines – Section 6.0 – Introduction to the EIS

Deficiency Statement 18⁴⁷

EIS Guidelines

6.1 – The Proponent – “Provide summary information on the nature of the management structures and organizational accountability for designing, constructing, operating and modifying the Project; implementing environmental mitigation measures and environmental monitoring; and managing potential adverse environmental effects.” 

EIS

6.1.1 – Management Structure – The EIS provides only one name for management and accountability for all aspects of the design, construction, operation, modification, mitigation, and management of adverse effects. At a minimal level, to meet the requirements of section 6.1 of the EIS Guidelines the EIS should provide an organizational structure for the management of this Project, which includes identification of middle management positions for the above noted areas.

Supplemental Information

There appears to be no organizational structure as the Operations Manager shall have sole responsibility for management and accountability of all aspects of the quarry and marine terminal and appears to report to nobody. (Reference: Section 6.0 Introduction to the EIS, p. 13)⁴⁸

Deficiency Statement 19⁴⁹

EIS Guidelines

6.1 – The Proponent – “Provide a record of the environmental performance…:”

EIS

6.1.2 – Environmental Performance and Capability – The EIS does not include a record of environmental performance. A few statements that broadly cover activities that the Company has engaged in, such as promoting research, do not constitute a record of environmental performance. A record of environmental performance should include:

• A history and description of Environmental Management System(s) used by the Proponent;
• Past evidence and future commitments of specific, measurable environmental improvements;
• Past evidence and future commitments of public outreach, including identification and response to community concerns, and performance reporting; and
• A record of sustained compliance with environmental requirements, certification of current compliance, and commitment to maintain compliance.

Supplemental Information

The proponent’s response to this deficiency is dismissive when it states that “Bilcon rests on the statement that it has an excellent record of environmental management and environmental compliance, and an excellent record of identifying and responding to community concerns” The response does not address any of the issues raised. Bilcon itself has essentially no record of environmental management or compliance except for the related company that managed the excavation of the 3.9 hectare site and the construction of a small sedimentation pond that required remediation. There is no information provided on Clayton Concrete Block and Sand. (Reference: Section 6.0 Introduction to the EIS, p. 14)⁵⁰

Deficiency Statement 20⁵¹

EIS Guidelines

6.1 – The Proponent - ‘Indicate the environmental record of key sub-contractors (e.g. shipping contractors).”

EIS

6.1 - The Proponent - The EIS fails to provide environmental record of contractors. In the event that contractors have not yet been selected, the EIS should identify the minimum standards for environmental performance, marine safety etc that will be required. In the case of foreign registered vessels, these standards should meet or exceed Canadian standards. 

The voyage in question is an international movement (as opposed to a cabotage movement).  This means that there is no theoretical restriction on the registration of the vessel, or indeed on the nationalities of the officers and crew.  The EIS speaks of ensuring that the ships are operated by responsible owners.  This is, however, quite general, and more specificity should be provided as to how this is to be accomplished, and how the quality of ownership is to be assessed, (including for example whether any restrictions are expected to be placed on where the ship operating company is incorporated, where its 'mind and management is located, where its ships are classified, insured, etc.).

To meet the requirements of section 6.1 of the EIS Guidelines, the Proponent could provide environmental records for key subcontractors the Proponent and related companies. This approach would demonstrate an effort on the part of the Proponent to meet the requirements of the EIS Guidelines rather than dismissing the requirement. 

Supplemental Information

No information has been provided to address this deficiency. It is dismissed by the proponent.⁵²

Deficiency Statement 21⁵³

EIS Guidelines

6.1 – The Proponent – Provide a record of the environmental performance and capability of the Proponent…”

EIS

6.1.2 – Environmental Performance and Capability – The EIS states, “The companies have had no incidents leading to major violations of New Jersey Regulations with respect to the Environment or Safety.”⁵⁴ The use of the term major is subjective in nature and does not provide an objective representation of environmental performance. To meet the requirements of section 6.1 of the EIS Guidelines all violations should be included in the EIS.

The EIS states, “The Clayton Companies are continually evaluating new technologies with respect to dust collection, concrete recycling, solar power, etc., and operate recycling operations.”⁵⁵ The EIS does not contain any detail or even a description of the new technologies referenced. There is no objective demonstration of environmental performance as required by the EIS Guidelines.

Supplemental Information  

The proponent has dismissed this requirement of the EIS Guidelines stating that all records of environmental management and compliance are public, but providing no such records. This deficiency has not been addressed.⁵⁶

Deficiency Statement 25⁵⁷

EIS Guidelines

6.5 – Regulatory Environment – “Describe the existing regulatory environment (federal, provincial, and municipal) including all permitting, licensing and regulatory requirements…that apply to all phases of the Project and associated infrastructure.”

EIS 

6.5 – Regulatory Environment – Sections 6.5.3, 6.5.4, 6.5.6, read like Environmental Law 101, but they provide very little relevant information on how the described statutes and regulations apply to the proposed Project. To meet the requirements of section 6.5 of the EIS Guidelines the information provided in the EIS on federal and provincial legislation must be linked directly to the Project and associated infrastructure. The reader should not be required to guess how these regulatory requirements apply. For example, the EIS includes several paragraphs describing the Guideline for the Release of Ammonia Dissolved in Water Found in Wastewater effluents.⁵⁸ The information is entirely generalized. This information is useless unless the EIS answers the following question; will the Proponent be required to take some form of action as a result of this Guideline? Why or why not? This level of detail is critical to an examination of the environmental management of the proposed Project and yet it is not included in the EIS. The same statement can be made for many of the references in these sections of the EIS.

Supplemental Information

The proponent has dismissed this requirement and the deficiency has not been addressed.⁵⁹