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

EIS Guidelines – Section 7.0 – Project Description

Deficiency Statement 26⁶⁰

EIS Guideline

7.3 – The Project - “Address all phases and components in sufficient detail to predict potential environmental effects and to address public concerns about the Project.”

“Use appropriate plans, diagrams, photographs, maps, elevations, and preliminary designs to support the description.”

EIS

7.3 – The Project - The overall site plans for the 50-year Project (illustrated in Plans OP1-8) use a rather elementary two-dimensional method. These plans are missing the illustration of the most important component of a quarry: an isometric view of the “benches” showing the dimensions of the bench and the blast geometry in each of the seven stages of quarry operations.

Supplemental Information

The revised Plans OP1-R1 to OP8-R1 only gives the schematic (so-called “typical”) sections at the end of the various stages. The cross sections only show the elevations of the high walls at the end of the quarry. They do not give any information on the configuration of the benches, which is necessary, not only for a preliminary (albeit, rough) design that should have been a part of the EIS, but also for a financial feasibility study of the proposed project. The above deficiency has not been addressed. 

The response to Deficiency Statement 26 on page 157 of the Revised Project Description states: “Additional details of the quarry have been provided in response to the Panel’s request. Please refer to the Project Description” The revised Plans OP1-R1 to OP8-R1 give the conceptual plan-view of the quarry during the 8 stages. These plans are essentially the same as those provided in the EIS. Figures IR8-1 to IR8-7 provides a conceptual, but so-called “typical” section, at some period during the specific stage (which has a span of 5 to 9 years). The 2-dimensional sections in these figures only show the high wall at the end of the selected “typical” section. The Revised Project Description completely ignored our original comment: “the most important component of a quarry is an isometric view of the ‘benches’ showing the ‘typical’ dimensions of the bench and the blasting geometry in each of the seven stages of the quarry operations”.

The current description of the project does not meet the requirements of (or the expectations from) a preliminary, or even elementary, design. The limited description of the mining aspects could generate the risks of not achieving the project objectives and abandoning the project for practical, financial, and environmental reasons.

Another aspect of Figures IR8-1 to IR8-7, which needs to be substantiated with some data or analyses, is the location of the water table. In Figures IR8-1 and IR8-4, the sediment ponds are intersecting the water table. This situation will not allow the sedimentation pond to perform its function, which is to retain the sediments and prevent them from entering the groundwater.

Deficiency Statement 27⁶¹

EIS Guidelines

7.3 – The Project – ‘Describe all Project components and activities on land and in the marine environment. Address all phases and components in sufficient detail to predict potential environmental effects and to address public concerns about the Project. Identify key design features of the Project including, but not limited to, safety features and efficiency measures.”

EIS

The EIS fails to provide detailed engineering work concerning the design of the quarry. Absent from the EIS are details on the design of the intermediate and ultimate highwalls (slope angle), bench and bench width. Design information is required to ensure the safety of the highwalls. This may require a geotechnical investigation to provide the needed data. The EIS identifies that White’s Cove Road, a public right of way, will be maintained through the Project site.⁶² Quarry activities will be undertaken on both sides of the road. No design work is provided on how the safety of the access road will be maintained. Additional information is required, particularly concerning the slopes on both sides of the road, in order to ensure safety to the public both during and after the operation.

Supplemental Information

The Revised Description on pp.42-46 does not respond to the concerns about safety of the Whites Cove Road expressed by Prof. Zou in his submission (included as Appendix P) in WP1625.

The vertical slopes of the excavated hill at a distance of 30 m on either side of the White’s Cove Road (shown in Figure WCR-6) will be from 38 m to 50 m high, both sides being from at least 1 to 1.7 times the horizontal dimension of the “Preservation Zone). Given that the naturally jointed basalt will be continually fractured by the cumulative impact of the blasting operations, there is a high probability that the steep slopes will rapidly deteriorate, unless reinforced in a progressive manner, right from the start of the blasting operations.

The schematic figures are of little help in assuring the stability of the slopes around the public road. The above deficiency has not been addressed.

The 80 to 90 m high, nearly vertical slopes at the eastern end of the quarry will also be subject to deterioration over time, first by the influence of blasting and second by the tensile fractures introduced due to the horizontal deformation of the wall. These slopes will inhibit the process of reclamation and will also be a hazard to the safety of the public. It is, therefore, necessary to propose and execute some appropriate counter-measures. These considerations need to be included in a preliminary design – as part of the EIS – in order to respect Section 7.3 of the EIS Guidelines.

Deficiency Statement 29⁶³

EIS Guidelines

7.5 – Schedule and Boundaries- “For each Project phase, describe in detail (including a mining plan) the scheduling and relative timing and duration of major activities; ..”

EIS

7.9 – Modification - An example of the lack of appropriate mining plans is illustrated by the outline of the quarry boundary shown in Figure 5 of the EIS Chapter 7.9. The height of each of the four benches is approximately 22.5 m, which is about 3 times the height of the bench that is inferred from the proposed Shot 1 (of the blasting plan of 2002, examined in detail later at Deficiency Number 31.). The EIS does not include the design of the benches and geometry of the progressive blasts, which will permit to achieve the boundary of Figure 5 and the planned production of aggregate, in conformance with the provincial and federal guidelines for observing the environmental constraints. No information is provided regarding the standard blasting plan to be used during the 49 years of quarry operations.

Supplemental Information

The submission by Mahtab and Klein (Appendix J of WP1625) was only partially addressed in the Revised Description of the Project. The following comments are only related to the “Response” of the Proponent.

The blasting protocol included in the EIS is the only tool which was used to demonstrate that the project would satisfy the regulations for blasting near a shoreline. The reader of the EIS could never believe that the protocol was only a “procedure”. If the actual blasting plans will be different for the project, there is still the need to ensure that the frequency and size of the (variable) blast will satisfy the regulations and make the project to achieve its stated targets. This assurance has to come now, and not at the time of requesting an industrial permit.

As suggested in Deficiency Statement 31, the Proponent should at least provide a “conceptual” or preliminary blasting plan which will correspond to the stated “once every 2 weeks” blasting frequency. This plan could also remove the concern (see Deficiency Statement 26) about the lack of information regarding the configuration of the benches.

Deficiency Statement 31⁶⁴

EIS Guidelines

2.4 – Purpose of the EIS Guidelines – ‘It is the responsibility of the Proponent to provide sufficient data and analysis on any potential adverse environmental effects to permit proper evaluation by the Panel, the public, and technical and regulatory agencies.’

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.’

7.8 – Operation and Maintenance Phase - “Explain the lifespan of the Project, and annual and maximum production rates. Describe all drilling and blasting ...”

EIS

7.8 – Operation and Maintenance Phase – The EIS gives a short description of blasting, including the statement: “the size and configuration of the blast holes and weight of explosives will vary….”⁶⁵ The blasting protocol, for which the reader is referred to Appendix 9, also does not illustrate the bench or blast geometry. The comments of DFO on the blasting protocol (included in Appendix 9) make reference to the “proposed initial blast sequence” given in the Blasting Plan for the 3.9-hectare quarry of Nova Stone Exporters Inc., dated November 18, 2002. The 2002 plan and subsequent revisions to it are not included in Appendix 9, but are to be found in Public Registry Document # 1389 (to which no reference is made in the EIS). 

For the purpose of this submission, we performed our own calculations for defining the amount of the ANFO explosive to be used per “shot” and the resulting tonnage of the blasted rock. These calculations are provided in the Appendix J, Annex 1 to this Report.

The following conclusions emerge from Annex 1.

The Blasting Protocol of Bilcon of NS of May 2005⁶⁶ states that “The frequency of blasting during quarry start-up will be once per week (52 blasts per year) and once every two weeks (26 blasts per year) during full production”. However, the blast from the 56 holes of “Shot 1” will produce 10,640 tons, requiring 188 blasts per year for producing 2 million tons of aggregate.

The blasting design per shot shown in the EIS and other referenced documents cannot be used for meeting the goals of the proposed quarry. In our opinion, the blast design for meeting the “once every two weeks” frequency needs to be prepared and submitted by the Proponent for review by the Panel and an independent expert. The public can then spend its efforts (in a more productive way) to examine the blast design for its environmental impacts. 

Supplemental Information

The Revised Project Description fails to provide any further information on blasting, to address the Guideline requirement of “Describe all drilling and blasting…” Without this information, a balanced consideration of the effects of blasting cannot be made.

The potential difficulty of meeting the goal of producing 2 million tons of aggregate per year – using 26 blasts – while respecting the environmental restraints, needs to be acknowledged and brought to the attention of the public and the Panel now. A solution for resolving this difficulty needs to be provided in the form of a preliminary mining plan, including the design of a typical blast. In our opinion, a preliminary (representative) blast design is the fundamental aspect of the EIS for any quarry and, therefore, it is very appropriate for us to request its delivery by the Proponent.

EIS Guidelines – Section 8.0 – Impact Assessment Methodology

Deficiency Statement 37⁶⁷

EIS Guidelines

8.1 - Methods - ‘Indicate the degree of certainty in the impact predications and determination of significance (identify measures used).” 

EIS

The EIS provides impact predictions on 76 Valued Environmental Components.⁶⁸ As noted above, the EIS Guidelines require an indication of the level of certainty with impact predictions and significance determination. The EIS addresses this requirement with the single statement ‘Considering the amount and quality of on-site investigations, baseline data collected, modelling and trend analysis within the region, the reliability of effect prediction is high.”⁶⁹ A mere reference to studies and analysis undertaken does not satisfy the EIS Guidelines requirement to identify the measures used to indicate the degree of certainty of impact predictions. A clear and detailed rationale is required to support the statement “reliability of effect prediction is high.” The individual sections of the EIS which deal with specific VECs (Chapter 9) appear to provide no further information on the level of certainty with impact predictions and significance determination. The Proponent should revise impact predictions for the 76 VECs to include an estimate of certainty. 

Supplemental Information

While the Supplemental Information in addressing this deficiency makes reference to Section 8.1 (Volume II), no information can be found in this material on the degree of certainty of impact predictions. The above deficiency has not been addressed.⁷⁰

Deficiency Statement 41⁷¹

EIS Guidelines

8.1 – Methods – “Explain and justify the methods used to predict potential impacts of the Project on the VECs…”

EIS

8.0 – Impact Assessment Methodology – The EIS defines the term “local” to “…include Project effects on valued environmental components on the quarry and marine terminal site and adjacent surrounding land and water area.”⁷² To meet the requirements of the section 8.1 of the EIS Guidelines the spatial boundary “adjacent surrounding land and water area” must be defined.

Supplemental Information

The proponent refers to their “…response to the Panel…” to address this deficiency. We were unable to find any definition of “adjacent surrounding land and water areas” in that response. The deficiency has not been addressed.⁷³

Deficiency Statement 45⁷⁴

EIS Guidelines

8.1 – Methods – “Identify which studies included the assistance of communities and who was involved, specify and reference sources for any contributions based on traditional knowledge”

EIS

8.1 – Methods – There is no clear indication in section 8.1 of the EIS of the assistance of communities in studies undertaken for the EIS. The EIS states that, “All studies including scientific, engineering and traditional knowledge are referenced in relevant sections of the EIS.”⁷⁵ References to traditional and community knowledge studies may be made in other sections of the EIS but this approach makes it almost impossible for the reader to evaluate how the Proponent used those studies to inform their methodology. The studies and sources should be clearly referenced in the Methods section of the EIS in order to meet the requirements of section 8.1 of the EIS Guidelines.

Supplemental Information

This deficiency has not been addressed.⁷⁶

Deficiency Statement 46⁷⁷

EIS Guidelines

8.2 – Public Participation – “Describe the methods used to identify, inform and solicit input to the assessment process.”

EIS

8.2.1 – Requirements, Approach and Methodology – Approach – The EIS describes the public consultation principles used by Bilcon. Included in the list of principles is “A systematic public consultation process is rigorously followed based on a work plan that includes specific milestones, locations, dates, times, responsibilities, audiences, intended outcomes and communication tools.”⁷⁸ There are several tables provided in the section 8.2 of the EIS but none of them appear to be a work plan with specific milestones. To meet the requirements of section 8.2 of the EIS Guidelines, this work plan should be included in the EIS.

Supplemental Information

The consultation work plan provided indicates that “meetings will be held at a minimum of once a month upon project approval and no less that four times a year when operational”; however it goes on to say that “one of these meetings must be held with local residents on an annual basis”. It is unclear who would be invited to participate in the monthly or quarterly meetings or the purpose of such meetings. The description of the Outcomes defies comprehension.

The proponent has failed to address the recruitment of CLC members. This was a problem with the previous CLC and no evidence is provided that this difficulty can be overcome.⁷⁹

Deficiency Statement 47⁸⁰

EIS Guidelines

8.2 – Public Participation - “Public participation plays a vital role in the assessment process.” “Document the role of public engagement in identifying VECs, issues, impact prediction and mitigation.”

EIS

8.2.1 – Requirements, Approaches and Methodology – Geographical Scope – The EIS states, “As a general principle, the scale and effort of public consultation decreases with increasing distance from the Project.”⁸¹ As described above, see Deficiency Statement 17, spatial scale is the primary basis for the determination of significant or insignificant in the EIS. The EIS states, “…to be considered significant the influence of effect would have to be greater than a regional scale.”⁸² How can public participation play a vital role in the assessment process and particularly in impact prediction, as required by the EIS Guidelines, if the focus of the public consultation is local/regional but significant effects can only occur at the provincial, national or international scale? The public consultation approach taken by the Proponent is not consistent with their approach to impact assessment methodology. How can the public participation program described in the EIS be considered anything other than an exercise in public relations with local community members?

Supplemental Information

Reference to the response provided to the Panel is considered non-responsive and the proponent has failed to adequately “document the role of public engagement in identifying VEC’s, issues, impact prediction and mitigation” as required by the Guidelines. The Supplemental Information responded only to the Panel, departments and the Partnership for Sustainable Development of Digby Neck & Islands Society and has virtually ignored submissions from other environmental organizations and hundreds of individuals. The Quick Reference Table 1.2 (Vol. 1) simply lists the relevant section on the general topic. Many deficiencies identified by other organizations and individuals are not addressed at all.⁸³

Deficiency Statement 48⁸⁴

EIS Guidelines

8.4.1 - Spatial Boundaries – ‘When determining appropriate spatial boundaries for the assessment of potential environmental effects, consider (but do not be limited to) the following criteria; - the physical extent (terrestrial and marine) of the proposed Project, including any offsite facilities or activities (such as shipping)…”

10.2.1 Species at Risk – ‘Consider any change the Project might cause to a listed species, its critical habitat….”

EIS

9.2.13.2 – Analyses – The EIS states, “Therefore, for the purpose of this EIS, the possible area of effects regarding ship/whale interactions is defined as the spatial area between the designated inbound/outbound shipping lanes and the Whites Point marine terminal.”⁸⁵ 

The assessment of likely damages associated with shipping traffic focuses only on the relatively small area between the shipping lane and the loading terminal. Clearly, dangers to organisms such as the Right and Blue whales and other species may result from the increase in ship traffic offshore away from the terminal. Right whales are highly endangered and shipping traffic is considered to be one of the primary problems in their recovery. So, I believe the risk to Right whales and possibly other marine mammals has been underestimated in this EIA and needs to be reassessed. My sense is that the limited amount of traffic (once a week) added by the quarry may not be a problem but I’d be a lot happier if this was actually assessed and put in the context of overall shipping traffic on the Bay. The Proponent should expand & justify the scale of the area being considered for ship-whale interactions.

Supplemental Information

The proponent states (in Section 9.3.4 Transportation) that “there may be a possibility of ship/whale interactions in the shipping lanes as presently located”. However, no consideration appears to be given to ship/whale strikes in the shipping lanes, only in the transit lanes between the shipping lanes and the marine terminal. Section 11.0 Environmental Management (Table 1b) indicates issue as requiring additional consideration but unable to locate any consideration of shipping lane interactions with whales.⁸⁶

EIS Guidelines – Section 9.0 – Description of Existing Environments

Deficiency Statement 50⁸⁷

EIS Guidelines

9.1.1 – Terrain, Geology, and Soils – ‘For the Project site, provide specific information on the bedrock geology that includes geologic structures (e.g. faults, joint patterns and frequency), bedrock type (lithology), and stratigraphy.”

EIS

The possibility exists for a weak geological fault to result in ground water contamination on the south side of the North Mountain. Such a fault may or may not follow the bedding planes. The EIS fails to establish if such a problem exists or not. The Proponent should undertake field geological and geotechnical investigations to establish the presence or absence of such a fault and revise the EIS accordingly.

Supplemental Information

This deficiency has not been addressed in the Supplemental Information (Vol. III, Sec. 9.1.2, p.34) where it is noted: “refer to Bilcon’s responses to the Panel and Agencies in this section”.⁸⁸ 

Deficiency Statement 51⁸⁹

EIS Guidelines

9.1.1 – Terrain, Geology, and Soils – ‘For the Project site, provide specific information on the bedrock geology that includes geologic structures (e.g. faults, joint patterns and frequency), bedrock type (lithology), and stratigraphy.”

12.5 – ‘Indicated which mitigative measures are proven and which are experimental. Provide any analysis that supports any statements regarding the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures.”

EIS

The EIS identifies that ‘Concussion and ground vibration from blasting activities will meet the criteria established by the Nova Scotia Department of Environment and Labour….”⁹⁰ The EIS does not provide engineering design work to support this conclusion. Without the detail of engineering design, it is difficult to make a judgement on whether or not the Proponent can achieve the goal and it is also not possible in the future to evaluate the performance of the Proponent whether it has achieved the goal. It is recommended that detailed engineering design and planning work be provided on drilling pattern, use of explosives, blasting sequence, etc, plus any measures to be taken to avoid excessive vibrations and air concussions.

Supplementary Information

This deficiency has not been addressed in the Supplementary Information.⁹¹ 

Deficiency Statement 52⁹²

EIS Guidelines

9.1.3.2 – Groundwater - “Describe the characteristics of surface water and groundwater interactions (e.g., physical features or mechanisms influencing recharge or discharge characteristics potentially affecting shallow and deep groundwater resources…) under different climatic and seasonal conditions”.

EIS

9.1.3 – Hydrogeology - Stripping of the land (removal of trees and overburden) will essentially drain off all future precipitation, thereby reducing the recharge into the basalt aquifer from the NW (Bay of Fundy) side of the Existing Hydrologic Divide (EHD), which is illustrated in Map 12, Vol. III of the EIS. This process has been going on since the stripping of the hills in the originally proposed, 3.9-hectare quarry site in 2002 (see Appendix I, Exhibit One, to this Report derived from Fig.5 of Mahtab et. al, 2004).

Removal of the rock mass by the quarry operation will reduce the recharge area for the aquifer, which provides the common water storage to both sides of the EHD. The vertical recharge into the aquifer from the un-mined basalt, adjacent to the quarry walls, will also be reduced due to the increased flow of water out of the quarry walls because of: (i) the fractures induced, or opened, by blasting, (ii) eventual tensile fracturing of the quarry walls due to lack of horizontal confinement, and (iii) the increased hydraulic gradient resulting from the excavation.

The cumulative impact of the lack of recharge, the sustained pumping of water by the community, and lowering of the water table during and beyond the life of the proposed quarry are some of the critical issues that need to be examined in detail. The recharge from the quarry site constitutes only a part of the source for storage of water in the basalt aquifer. However, as pointed out by Fetter (1994, p.26), “As the well draws water only from storage in the aquifer, drawdown proceeds as a function of the logarithm of time”.⁹³

Supplemental Information

This deficiency is not adequately addressed by the conceptual hydrogeologic model provided in the Conestoga-Rovers & Assoc. (CRA) report in Vol. IV, Sec.12. Removal of the rock mass from the quarry site, the consequent loss of recharge of the aquifer, and lowering of the water table are not recognized as significant impacts.⁹⁴