Speak Out in Solidarity
Partnership for the Sustainable Development of Digby Neck and Islands Society
Deficiency Statement 5395
EIS Guidelines
9.1.3.2 – Groundwater - “Also, identify and describe the hydrostratigraphic units in the region that could potentially be affected by the Project in terms of depth and thickness of the aquifers, their water quality and yield characteristics”.
EIS
The multi-stage, 49-year quarrying operation will remove a significant portion of the rock mass on the quarry site from about 10-15m elevation to about 95-100m elevation above sea level (see Appendix I, Exhibit Two to this Report). [Note that Exhibit Two was prepared by changing the horizontal scale of Figure 5, Vol. III of EIS, to match it with the scale of Figures 6A and 7 and to enable the reader to readily compare the group of figures. The existing water table outline was drawn by superimposition with Figure 6A.]. Because the water table follows the topography, the drastic change in the topography of the quarry site (depicted in Exhibit Two) will lower the water table on the NW (Bay of Fundy) side to near the sea level, from the sea shore to the boundary of the property. The significant lowering of the water table on the Bay of Fundy side will also lower the water table on St. Mary’s Bay side of the EHD to a measurable extent.
As shown in Appendix I, Exhibit Five to this Report, the bottom outline of the Quarry Area crosses the contact between the Upper Flow Unit (UFU) and the Middle Flow Unit (MFU). Excavation of columnar basalt near the (probably) highly permeable bottom of the UFU will create a conduit for rapid drawdown and lowering of the water table on both sides (Bay of Fundy and St. Mary’s Bay) of the EHD.
The reduced recharge on the NW side of the EHD and the sustained drawdown of water by the community wells on the NE (or Little River) side of the EHD will lower the water table on both sides of the Divide. The Proponent should redraft the EIS to a common scale on diagrams and assess the implications as required by the EIS.
Supplemental Information
The deficiency is not addressed. No attempt was made to use a numerical model to determine the cumulative influence of the multi-stage, 49-year quarrying operation on the potential shift of the existing hydrologic divide (EHD) and lowering of the water table.
Deficiency Statement 5496
EIS Guidelines
9.1.3.2 – Groundwater - “Synthesize the groundwater and surface water data to produce a conceptual/analytical model of the hydrological cycle under and around the Project site”.
EIS
The Conceptual Quarry Plans shown in EIS Vol. III Maps OP-1 to OP-7 (depicted collectively in Appendix I, Exhibit Three to this Report) are in fact “conceptual” and provide no design or scheme for quarrying the basalt during stages 1 to 7 over a period of 49 years. Therefore, the EIS does not address the issue of cumulative impact of drawdown of water on the neighbouring lands and communities.
Research on the cumulative impact of drawdown needs to be done by using numerical models and software for ground flow analysis. An example of widely accepted software for this purpose is MODFLOW, which was developed by US Geological Survey. It is important that the input data should have a statistically meaningful base. The opinion expressed in Reference Volume V, Tab. 29, and p.14: “--- groundwater models can have serious limitations in crystalline bedrock” cannot be used as an excuse for not performing the basic research on this issue.
There is a noticeable discrepancy between the hydrogeology Section of Vol. III, Fig. 6A of 2005 and the hydrogeology Section A-A, Drawing 17221-2 of Reference Volume V, Tab.28 of 2002. A superimposition of Drawing 17221-2 on Figure 6A is provided in Exhibit Four of this submission. A part of the discrepancy between these figures may be attributed to the data obtained from two additional “monitoring” wells as well as a slight difference in the azimuth of the Section AA used in developing the two figures. However, the magnitude of the discrepancy points to an insufficiency of the database. The statement made in the EIS, “The two cross-sections – see Map 12 – (i.e., Figures 6A & 6B showing Sections A-A & B-B) depict a ‘snapshot’ of the water table, the hydraulic gradient etc. in the fall of 2005”97 does not help in creating confidence in the database.
A clear demonstration of the low degree of confidence associated with the hydrogeologic parameters used by the Proponent is furnished in Exhibit Five, which is a superimposition of Figures 6A and 7 of the EIS. Both figures relate to Section AA (of Map 12) and use the same scales (Horizontal and Vertical). However, there is a significant difference in the topographic outline of the two figures. Since the topography influences the outline of the water table, the baseline data used for the EIS appears to be inadequate; it needs to be examined for its accuracy and statistical significance.
For a reasonable assessment of the environmental impact of the 50-year quarrying operation, it is essential to define the hydrogeologic parameters with an assigned and acceptable “degree of confidence”. This would require the use of a database that would be significantly larger than the one hitherto used by the Proponent. Numerical & water flow analysis needs to be performed to determine the cumulative impact of the quarry operations on the water table over a period that goes beyond the 50 year life of the quarry.
Supplemental Information
The Proponent has tried to give a rationale for the discrepancy between the hydrogeologic sections of 2005 and 2002 (EIS, Vol. III, Fig.6A and EIS, Ref. Vol. V, Tab 28, drawing 17221-2, respectively). However, the hydrogeologic data is still of too small an extent to allow a judgement to be made with a credible degree of confidence. There is no indication of why the Proponent has not made a numerical analysis of the cumulative effects of the quarry on the groundwater regime.98
Deficiency Statement 5599
EIS Guidelines
9.1.3.2 – Groundwater – ‘Synthesize the groundwater and surface water data to produce a conceptual/analytical model of the hydrological cycle under and around the Project site.”
10.1.3.2 – Ground Water – Provide information on anticipated changes in yield characteristics of aquifers due to Project-related groundwater withdrawal or topographic and terrain changes.”
8.1 – Methods – Indicate the degree of certainty in the impact predictions and determination of significance (identify measures used).
EIS
The EIS states that ‘The ground water regime and the hydrostratigraphic units are shown on Figure 6A and 6B. The two cross-sections – see Map 12 – depict a ‘snapshot’ of the water table, the hydraulic gradient etc. in the fall of 2005.” No comment is made though on the degree to which the ‘snapshot’ representative of the temporal scale (50 years) of the Project. The EIS does not provide a numerical analysis or model to support the conclusions drawn concerning impacts on groundwater.
Supplemental Information
The deficiency is not addressed by the conceptual hydrogeologic model of Vol. IV, Sec. 12.100
Deficiency Statement 57101
EIS Guidelines
9.2.1 - Species at Risk – ‘Conduct appropriate surveys to identify the presence of floral and faunal species, including any species at risk that might occur at or near the Project site, a well as throughout other areas that may be affected by the Project. Conduct surveys during appropriate times of the year.”
EIS
9.2.1.1.3 - Flora and Fauna - The floral survey was too short to realistically expect an accurate assessment of the species at risk that may be present on the site. The survey took place during three days in July and would likely have resulted in missing spring or late summer species and three days seems far short of the time needed to do a comprehensive survey of mid-summer species, particularly since this survey appears to have been conducted by a single individual (Ruth Newall).
A similar criticism must be made of the faunal survey. Four days in June is simply not enough time to do a comprehensive survey. What about species that are present only at other times of year?
The same can be said for the Odonate survey. Mr Brunelle is an excellent odonate taxonomist and naturalist but even he could only do so much with a 2 day survey. This was not adequate.
The above comments are relevant to any monitoring that would be done after operations begin. If monitoring is not more frequent and intense than was conducted for the EIA then they will not provide sufficient data to accurately determine whether any real change has taken place due to the operation of the quarry. Right now, the baseline is insufficient, so I don’t see how there can be any realistic hope of detecting change following the beginning of operations. The baseline needs to be done more comprehensively and the follow up surveys will not to be considerably more comprehensive as well. Given the current situation it is not surprising the conclusions from all of this are “long-term insignificant effects” but I don’t think we really have enough information gathered to actually draw this conclusion.
Supplemental Information
The Supplemental Information refers to additional Odonata, Plant and Butterfly surveys conducted in 2006102. We were unable to locate these surveys in the Supplemental Information and therefore cannot evaluate these reports with respect to the above deficiency.103
Deficiency Statement 60104
EIS Guidelines
9.3.3- Economy - ‘Describe the local and regional economies and their performance.”
8.1 - Methods - ‘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 EIS states that ‘Under a new policy directive from the provincial government, the Towns and Counties of Annapolis and Digby (including Clare) combined to create the Western Valley Development Authority (WVDA) and in 1995, the WVDA produced a Development Plan for the Western Valley (title).…However, new business failed to materialize and the various municipal units removed their support for the WVDA in 2005, and collapsed the organization.”105 Missing is evidence to support the argument that “new business failed to materialize”. The WVDA’s 2005 Business Plan, approved by its Board of Directors, states that more than 300 new businesses opened in Annapolis and Digby counties between 2001 and 2004.
The Investor’s Business Case106, states ‘The number of net job creation since 2001 in the Western Valley is almost 2,500... During this time period, the unemployment rate in the Western Valley has dropped by an estimated 2.5%, while the participation rate increased by 6.6%. This estimated growth in employment is 14.9% over the past three years.”
If “new businesses failed to materialize”, as the EIS claims, then existing businesses must have expanded. Either way, the data suggests a positive, not negative, change in the business environment between 2001 and 2005. The Proponent should revise the EIS, making use of all relevant information and substantiating all conclusions.
Supplemental Information
The Supplemental Information states that it does not accept that there has been a positive change in the business environment in the Western Valley area between 2002 and 2005 and point to various business closures to support this contention. However, significant job creation in the retail and call centre sectors has been ignored. The proponent has not addressed the 14.9% growth in employment put forward by this deficiency (Reference: 9.3.5 Economy, p.46).107
Deficiency Statement 61108
EIS Guidelines
9.3.3- Economy - ‘Discuss local and regional economic development goals and objectives as identified in public consultations, and community, regional and territorial economic development plans and strategies.”
EIS
In its consideration of local and regional economic development plans, the EIS fails to consider Vision 2000-Building Tomorrow: A multi-year action plan for Annapolis and Digby counties.109 The document was developed through an extensive community consultation process involving hundreds of individuals and detailed surveys of more than 500 businesses. The strategy was named the best community-based economic development plan in Canada in 2000 by the Economic Developers Association of Canada and the Royal Bank. The document contains numerous sections that are relevant to the Project, including: Business Development, Environment, Natural Resources, and Tourism, Heritage and Culture.
Section 9.3.9 of the EIS quotes heavily from the provincial government’s Opportunities for Prosperity issued in 2001. It is curious to note that the Province’s updated strategy document, entitled Opportunities for Sustainable Prosperity110, was not addressed. Likewise, the EIS fails to incorporate input from the province’s Green Plan Towards a Sustainable Environment.111
The EIS is deficient in its consideration of local, regional and provincial economic development strategies. The Proponent should revise the document to include these documents.
Supplemental Information
The reply is non-responsive noting that the plans referenced which were developed in 2000 simply do not address the reality and ignoring the two recent publications which they were encouraged to incorporate. (Reference: 9.3.5 Economy, p.47)112
Deficiency Statement 63113
EIS Guidelines
10.1.3.2 – Groundwater – “Describe and evaluate the potential impacts of the Project on groundwater quantity and quality through alteration to the groundwater regime(s) and neighboring regimes by Project-related changes in topography, terrain and soil cover.”
EIS
9.1.3.2 – Analyses – The EIS states “…the quarry will not adversely impact the relevant recharge regime.”114 The EIS does not provide clear information on the type of methodology that was used to determine recharge/discharge patterns. For example, if seasonal groundwater level measurements were collected, if there is sufficient data, if enough wells were drilled, etc. Furthermore, conclusions regarding the future well water quality and quantity for the area are based on a ‘Preliminary Hydrogeological Assessment’ completed by Jacques Whitford in 2002.115 Section 6.1.1 of the JW Assessment appears to be a theoretical/conceptual discussion of the impacts two quarry scenarios may have on water level impacts. The JW assessment does not provide diagrams showing the potential future groundwater flow scenarios and relative neighboring well locations. Nor does it provide the well depth, yield, construction type, etc. for those wells located closest to the quarry Project to provide an evaluation of potential impact to those specific (and most susceptible) wells.
More detailed information must be presented in the EIS to meet the requirements of section 10.1.3.2 of the EIS Guidelines.
Supplemental Information
A clear methodology is not provided for determining the recharge/discharge patterns. No diagrams are provided for indicating the potential scenarios of groundwater flow around the quarry.116
Deficiency Statement 64117
EIS Guidelines
10.1.3.2 – Ground Water - “Provide information on anticipated changes in yield characteristics of aquifers due to Project-related groundwater withdrawal or topographic and terrain changes.”
EIS
The EIS states that pump or aquifer testing will not be included as part of the monitoring program.118 The EIS states that since the yield in the upper flow unit is very low and that quarrying will not occur in the middle flow unit, the yield of the middle flow unit will not be impacted. The evidence to support this finding is not clearly referenced. Quarrying will change the topography, soil cover, and geology of the area, which may or may not affect the yield of the middle flow unit. Failure to include pump testing as part of the monitoring program is not consistent with the requirements of Section 10.1.3.2 of the EIS Guidelines.
Supplemental Information
The February 2, 2007 report of Conestoga-Rovers included in Vol. IV, Sec. 12, recommends the use of a small number of monitoring holes, with a potential use of some for aquifer testing. However, the commitment to these tests needs to be confirmed by the Proponent.119
Deficiency Statement 65120
EIS Guidelines
10.1.4 – Climate – ‘Describe and evaluate the potential impacts of the Project on climate by identifying sources, quantities and frequencies of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and halocarbons) by on-site activities as well as land-based and marine transportation related to Project activities, on an annual basis and over the lifespan of the Project from a regional perspective.”
EIS
9.1.1.2 – Analysis – The EIS states ‘Based on the nature of the operations taking place at this quarry, carbon dioxide emissions will be the primary focus.”121 Does this statement mean that there will be no GHG emissions, other than carbon dioxide, during the construction, operation and decommissioning of the quarry and marine terminal? This is not clearly stated. If there are other GHG emissions anticipated, such as CH4, NO2 they must be in included in the EIS and a breakdown provided.
The EIS does not provide information on the frequency of GHG emissions as required by the EIS Guidelines.
The EIS does not include any information on GHG emissions from marine transportation as required by the EIS Guidelines.
The EIS does not include any information on GHG emissions from vehicular traffic associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of the quarry and marine terminal. For example, employees travelling to the job site, truck traffic to bring construction materials to the site, truck traffic to bring blasting materials to the site, etc.
The EIS does not address the impact of deforestation required to establish the quarry site on GHG emissions.
The EIS Guidelines require that all information on GHG emissions be provided on an annual basis and over the lifespan of the Project. Table GHG-1 appears to provide some information on carbon dioxide emissions on an annual basis but there is no life cycle GHG analysis provided.
Supplemental Information
The deficiencies raised in this statement have not been addressed. The Supplemental Information provides an annual figure for carbon dioxide emissions (Reference: 9.1.1 Climate, p. 6) but does not provide any comprehensive quantitative information on GHG emissions from the proposed quarry and marine terminal projects. The Supplement Information notes wood material will be chipped and composted, a process that may produce methane, a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The quantification of individual sources and types of greenhouse gases arising from the project has not been addressed. 122
Deficiency Statement 66123
EIS Guidelines
10.1.4 – Climate – Evaluate how changes in climate could affect the Project, or particular Project components’
EIS
9.1.1 – There is no information provided on how changes in climate could affect the Project, or particular Project components’.
Supplemental Information
While the Supplemental Information makes general reference to Section 9.1.1 (Climate) and the Revised Project Description in addressing this deficiency, no new data is presented on how changes in climate could affect the Project and its components, as required by the EIS Guidelines. Based on this, the above deficiency has not been addressed.124
Deficiency Statement 68125
EIS Guidelines
10.2.1 - Species at Risk – ‘Consider any change the Project might cause to a listed species, its critical habitat….”
EIS
9.2.1.3 – Mitigation – The EIS fails to address whether the proposed 30 metre environmental preservation zone is sufficient to protect the identified rare flora. Specific issues to be considered include: edge effects, habitat fragmentation, changes in microclimates, dust, disruption of pollinators etc.
Section 9.1.5.3 mentions a 30 metre buffer as a mitigation tool to minimize the influence of quarry operations on adjacent habitats. An operation of this size would no doubt require a much larger buffer than this to minimize impacts on adjacent habitats and biodiversity. There is a lot of scientific literature on the subject and the effects vary with habitat and organism type but the weight of evidence suggests at least 100 metre buffer should be required and it would not be hard to justify a 500 metre or even a 1000 metre buffer if there was real concern about not impacting biodiversity in adjacent habitats.126
Supplemental Information
The project design proposes the use of 30 m buffers to protect watercourses and rare flora identified at the site. The justification for the 30 m width is cited as the Nova Scotia Wildlife Habitat and Watercourse Protection Regulations and Pit and Quarry Guidelines.127 The Regulations and Guidelines must be viewed as a minimum for the protection of typical forests. The Proponent cites the use of the 30 m buffers extensively as a mitigation measure, including the protection of rare flora. No justification of adequacy of the 30 m is provided though in the protection of rare flora and other VECs, as required by the EIS Guidelines (Section 8.1). The above deficiency has not been addressed.128
Deficiency Statement 71129
EIS Guidelines
10.2.7 – Biodiversity - “Describe and assess the ways in which the Project might influence biodiversity, through changes in ecosystem and habitat loss; habitat fragmentation and barriers to movement; the recovery capacity of habitats or species; edge effect responses; species distributions; the occurrence of invasive or non native species; polluting emissions to water and air; species of concern; harvest levels; and important habitats.”
This statement is based on the concept that biological diversity, in its various facets (genetic, species and ecosystem or community diversity), is an indicator of environmental health and, if analyzed with regard to possible Project effects, an integrated measure of relative environmental impact(s). The Guidelines primarily address the various aspects of species and ecosystem diversity. These are no doubt, key components that should be addressed by the proponents in assessing the environmental impact of the proposed Project.
EIS
Since this Project is located at the boundary of terrestrial and aquatic environments, both components and the intertidal zone need to be considered for biodiversity impacts. Surprisingly, the plain language summary makes no reference to this. Indirect reference is made only through “Species at risk” or “endangered”. While this is one aspect, the EIS certainly should not to be restricted to these biodiversity components.
In addition, while there is some reference on the marine component for the Inner Bay of Fundy Salmon and Mammals and water birds, there is a near-absence of summary commentary with regard to invertebrates. The latter represent by far the largest biodiversity component and are the major vertebrate food source, yet only the commercially important lobster is mentioned. I fail to see why only species at risk, endangered, or of direct commercial importance should be investigated in terms of potential impacts. Quarry operations are likely to affect floral (seaweed) and invertebrate faunal components both intertidally and subtidally in the vicinity of operations through transport and deposition of quarried material. This is evident from other similar operations, such as in the St. Croix Estuary. In order to address this, a base line study of the invertebrate community structure in areas surrounding the proposed quarry should be a necessary component in establishing potential impacts (for example the relatively rare Canadian records of the mud shrimps, Callianassa biformis and C. atlantica, are along the Nova Scotian coast of the Bay of Fundy (Squires, 1990)130, but the limited work done (see below) does not constitute an invertebrate baseline study.
A search of the remaining overly voluminous and difficult to follow EI Statement document revealed four sections addressing biological diversity or biodiversity: Volume IV Chapter 3, Section 3.4, Ecosystem Approach; Volume VI Chapter 9.2, Section 9.2.0, Introduction; Volume VI Chapter 9.2, Section 9.2.1; Terrestrial Ecology; Volume VII Chapter 10.0, Cumulative Impacts.
Section 3.4 identifies and recognizes diversity as an ecosystem component and the necessity of its conservation but reveals little else.
Section 9.2 focuses on invasive species and species at risk (why do the proponents not use the ACCDC rankings that “tend to identify more species as being at risk”?). I note that specific studies were conducted to assess the terrestrial fauna and flora but I note a less detailed approach for the intertidal and near-shore marine systems. For example, I see no evaluation of total diversity within these systems; why were tide pools not considered in the intertidal work (there is no mention of them as far as I can tell)? The near-shore assessment in particular seems inadequate, based on apparent interpretation of limited data. A one time sampling of seven successful grab samples does not constitute a characterization of the benthos of the area (while the information may be somewhere amongst the overly complex documentation, I could not find what screen mesh size was used in analyzing the benthos samples – screen size greatly affects what animals are retained and the results seem to indicate that only large components (cm rather than mm) were addressed). Given the predominantly hard or mixed substrate, quadrate studies and those based on suction sampling would likely have been more appropriate and revealing. I also see no attempt at quantification (e.g., how many species are there?). On the plankton side I note that while krill are a major source of whale food not found in the vicinity of the proposed quarry operation, the copepod Calanus finmarchicus is found nearby and is a major source of food of a number of organisms, including whales, sea birds, and several commercial fish species. The recent decline of that largest of copepod species in that part of the Bay of Fundy (Brown et al., 2004)131 is of concern and could potentially be further impacted by the quarry operations. This should be looked at further.
Finally, in Chapter 10 I note a single reference to biodiversity and only in context of the floral species at risk. I see no overall assessment of possible biodiversity impacts in a wider context.
Despite mitigating measures, quarry operations such as the one suggested invariably produce fines (whether from blasting, crushing or shore to ship transport) that eventually end up in the marine environment (e.g. from high winds). I see no attempt in evaluating this impact, or a review of such work elsewhere. I think this is crucial and simple statements that operations are conducted according to some guideline are in my opinion not sufficient. I also saw no reference to a much needed subtidal monitoring program in case the quarry operations should proceed.
I conclude that while an attempt has been made in the EIS to address issues of species at risk, and to a lesser degree habitat loss, there is insufficient conformity to the guidelines in the EI Statement in terms of addressing biodiversity issues in an overall context. Some specific and potentially significant issues (identified above) also are in need of being addressed.
Supplemental Information
The EIS Guidelines (Section 10.2.7) required a consideration of the overall impacts on biodiversity as a result of project activities. This has not been included in the Supplemental Information. The above deficiency has not been addressed.132
Sustainable Development
of Digby Neck and Islands
Society
Top of page