Speak Out in Solidarity
Partnership for the Sustainable Development of Digby Neck and Islands Society
Deficiency Statement 72133
EIS Guidelines
10.3.1 – Community Profile – “Describe and evaluate the beneficial and adverse effects of the Project on those VECs selected for the human environment, explaining the rationale used.” “Describe and evaluate changes to health and social and economic conditions that may occur as a result of Project-related impacts to the biological and physical environments.”
EIS
9.3 – Human Environment and Impact Analysis – The EIS argues that Digby Neck is a community in decline using indicators such as out-migration, income and education as evidence for this claim. What it does not address is the extent to which Digby Neck is a resilient or healthy community despite these challenges. It does not address the impact which the building of the quarry or the process that will lead to the final decision will have on the overall well being of the community. It does not address the extent to which the people of Digby Neck have the capacity to figure this one out for themselves. The analysis used to support the EIS findings of insignificant or neutral for the human environment VECs fails to recognize the integrated and complex nature of a vital community. The questions that need to be asked when a new opportunity arises are: will the opportunity be one that offers improved community vitality? Or, will the development harm existing healthy patterns in the community?
Supplemental Information
This deficiency has not been addressed.134
Deficiency Statement 73135
EIS Guidelines
10.3.3.2 - Tourism and Recreation - ‘Describe and evaluate the predicted effects the Project will have on current and projected tourism and recreation activities and opportunities in the region and the province (e.g. whale watching, bird-watching, kayaking, coastal trail development, tourism-related businesses). Discuss the effects of the quarry operation on landscape aesthetics and views from land and water.”
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 identifies that ‘the proposed onshore infrastructure and marine terminal development will be visible from the Bay of Fundy waters.”136 It is argued that the environmental effects from this will be minimal, given that there are few whales and correspondingly few whale-watching boats in this area.
The EIS fails to identify other important receptors for visual impacts that may be associated with the Project. The Princess of Acadia ferry crosses daily between Digby and Saint John, New Brunswick, serving as principle entry route tourists to southwestern Nova Scotia. During 2006, the Port of Saint John is scheduled to receive 33 cruise ships, carrying 90,400 visitors.137 This represents a very significant tourism population to region, which will pass the quarry site twice, as they enter and leave the Bay of Fundy.
The Town of Digby have made active strides to attract cruise ships to the Port of Digby.138 If successful, cruise ships calling at Digby would pass along the North Mountain coast of the Bay of Fundy, in viewing distance of the proposed Project site.
The EIS clearly fails to address the visual, light and noise impacts on current and future visitors to the region travelling by ferry and cruise ship. The EIS requires amendment to consider both the direct impacts on these visitors and the secondary impacts on tourist’s perceptions of the region as an eco-tourism destination.
Supplemental Information
The Supplemental Information focuses only on visual aesthetics and does not address this deficiency. The proponent indicates that it would be willing to work with tourist associations in the event of tourist decline; however, the benefit of that is unclear and unsubstantiated.139
Deficiency Statement 75140
EIS Guidelines
10.3.3- Economy - ‘Describe the consistency of the Project with goals and objectives identified in provincial, regional and community economic development plans and strategies.”
EIS
9.3.9.1.2 - Consistency of the Project with Goals and Objectives Identified in Economic Plans and Strategies - It is interesting that the Proponent does not refer to even one of the 13 economic plans and strategies that were published by the Regional Development Authority between 1994 and 2005. This is odd, given that the Authority had a mandate sanctioned by the Minister of Economic Development to lead economic development in Annapolis and Digby counties. The Board of the RDA was comprised of representatives from the seven participating municipalities (including elected officials and CAOs), the provincial Office of Economic Development and other provincial agencies, ACOA and other federal agencies, and individual citizens appointed by the municipalities.
The EIS does reference a 2000 evaluation report of the WVDA, prepared by PRAXIS Research. Only one section from that document is referenced in the EIS: “Appendix A: WVDA Sector Goals and Examples of Activities.” It is noted that under the category of Natural Resources, the activities and accomplishments that PRAXIS chose to highlight are in the forestry, fisheries, and agriculture sectors. ‘Forestry, fisheries, and agriculture are noted but there is no mention of any mineral resource extraction’141, states the EIS. From this one piece of “evidence”, the Proponent concludes that ‘In fact, it is clear that the staff of the WVDA did not support the project and refused to consult with the Proponent on any of the issues raised by the community.”142
The EIS concludes that the reason there were no projects listed in the mining sector was not because the sector does not comprise as large a portion of the regional economy as the forestry, fisheries and agriculture sectors, but rather as evidence that the “staff of the WVDA did not support the project”. No mention is made of the fact that the Bilcon of Nova Scotia Corporation never contacted the RDA for assistance in any way. The agency was, however, approached by numerous individuals, organizations, and businesses from the Digby Neck and Islands region with respect to the quarry proposal.
The EIS goes on to claim that “… the approach to community economic development adopted by the staff of the WVDA did not reflect the community’s approach as expressed by the various councils in the area and the organization has been disbanded.”143
It is noteworthy that the EIS does not mention that the WVDA Board, which was responsible to setting its strategic agenda, was comprised of “the various councils”. The EIS also chooses not mention the fact that the council responsible for the geographic area in which the proposed activity is to take place, the Municipality of the District of Digby, passed a motion against the Whites Point quarry proposal. It is also curious that the only excerpt from the PRAXIS document that is quoted in the EIS is the statement above. Omitted are the statements throughout the document that suggest that the “…approach to community economic development adopted by the staff” did indeed “reflect the community’s approach”.
The EIS is deficient in its analysis of local and regional economic development strategies. The document makes a number of statements which are misleading, unsubstantiated or not referenced. The Proponent should revise the EIS to fully address the Guidelines.
Supplemental Information
This deficiency is not addressed. The WVDA continues to receive negative comments and the issue of The proponent never having approached WVDA for assistance is brushed off with the statement that “the reality is that the RDA was asked to sit on the Community Liaison Committee but refused the opportunity…It is clear that the Executive Director of the RDA was opposed to the project…” The fact that the project was anathema to the sustainable development strategy formulated in a UNESCO-praised development plan is ignored in the discussion. (Reference: 9.3.5 Economy, p. 49)144
Deficiency Statement 76145
EIS Guidelines
10.3.5 – Land Use and Value - ‘Assess effects of the Project on site, local and regional land values during operation and after decommissioning.”
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).”
EIS
The EIS presents a summary of property sale statistics for the periods of 1999 to 2002 and 2002 to mid 2005. In summarizing these statistics, the EIS concluded: ‘Due to the variable nature of the individual properties sold, it is not possible to compare values in the two time periods….”146 The EIS later states that ‘It would appear from the real estate statistics for Digby Neck and the Islands referenced above, there is no general perception among buyers that the proposed quarry and marine terminal at Whites Point is likely to negatively affect property values on Digby Neck and the Islands.”147
The EIS makes reference to three case studies contained in the Gardner Pinfold Report, concerning impacts of quarry activity on property values.148 Of the three case studies, the Auld’s Cove (Canso) example does not mention property values; the Hantsport example identified no adverse effect on property values, while the Sechelt case cited clear impacts on real estate values. In consulting with Sechelt real estate agents, the Gardner Pinfold study found ‘proximity to the mine site does have a negative impact on property value. Given a choice, people will prefer to neither see nor hear the Sechelt operation.”149 It is interesting to note that the adverse effects noted in the Reference volume are not reflected in the text of the main EIS.
The EIS also cites the example of Parker Mountain Aggregates near Annapolis Royal, NS as a comparative quarry. In its analysis of property development the EIS fails to identify that the Parker Mountain quarry is in fact quite different from the proposed quarry at Whites Point. The Parker Mountain quarry is much smaller and is not permitted to use blasting for aggregate removal. Based in part on complaints from neighbours, Parker Mountain Aggregates was subject to prosecution by the Department of Environment and Labour in 2005 over alleged illegal blasting.
By is own conclusion, the EIS identifies that the property sale are of limited use given the small and variable dataset. Of the three case studies cited in the Gardner Pinfold report, only two address impacts on property values, one positively, one negatively. The comparability of the Parker Mountain quarry is limited, given its differences in scale and lack of regular blasting. Based on the above evidence, the EIS concludes, ‘While property values in general on Digby Neck and Islands are unlikely to be affected, those properties within 800 m of the active quarry could be marginally affected resulting in an insignificant negative effect in the local area.”150
The methodology employed to assess the impacts on property values is clearly insufficient to support the conclusions made. Assumptions made within the methodology are not documented and no estimation of certainty is provided for the final conclusion. The Proponent should revise the EIS, incorporating a more comprehensive and transparent methodology to assess the impacts on local and regional property values.
Supplemental Information
The approach to land value in the Supplemental Information has changed from the EIS in that property sales figures are replaced with property assessment values. Statistics cited in the Supplemental Information reveal increasing assessments in surrounding communities; however, it is unclear whether either sales or assessment values during this period would have been affected by the proposed project. Buyers and assessors would need to be aware of the proposed project and, in some cases; it appears that buyers were not informed. It is argued that the method of property evaluation described in the Supplemental Information is unlikely to be affected as the environment was not identified as a variable of influence in property assessment. The number of variables identified as relevant to a property’s assessed value (Reference: 9.3.5 Economy, p. 36) not only exclude environmental considerations but appear to render it almost impossible to ascribe cause in the case of declining property values.151
Deficiency Statement 77152
EIS Guidelines
10.3.7 – Human Health and Community Wellness – “Describe and evaluate potential health impacts that may arise from changes in water quality and quantity.”
EIS
9.3.18.5 - Impact Statement - The EIS uses water results from one borehole in 2002 to conclude that there is no long-term effect on drinking water quality for on-site sources. Using current conditions to make future predictions, when the soil cover, landscape, topography, land use, and geology of the area will change in the future is totally inappropriate. No predictive modeled or future scenarios are discussed. Similarly for the impact statement for off-site drinking water quality and quantity – the EIS assumes that the till and three flow units are completely distinct and always will be – without offering adequate evidence. The information provided fails to meet the requirements of section 10.3.7 of the EIS Guidelines by failing to adequately consider potential impacts.
Supplemental Information
This deficiency has not been addressed in the Supplemental Information (Reference: Sec. 9.1.2.)153
Deficiency Statement 78154
EIS Guidelines
Section 12.2 - Accidents and Malfunctions - ‘Identify and discuss, for each Project phase and activity, the potential accidents or malfunctions that may occur as a result of the Project, including consideration of risks such as spills of hazardous materials (on land and in water), explosion and/or fire, use of explosives and timing of blasts, transportation accidents, destruction of fishing gear, collision with marine mammals, release of invasive or hazardous species through ballast-water. ‘Evaluate worst case-scenarios.” ‘Where potentially significant impacts could occur as a result of an accident or malfunction, assess the probability of such an occurrence, taking into account weather or external events that present contributing factors.”
Section 8.1 - Methods - ‘Indicate the degree of certainty in the impact predictions and determination of significance (identify measures used).”
EIS
Section 11.2.5 - Accidental or Malfunction Events – In a single sentence, the EIS addresses the likelihood and implications of severe weather on shipping at the marine terminal. ‘If storm conditions are forecast, the master has other options; to stay at sea, go to anchor, to delay docking or departure awaiting more favourable conditions.”155 The Bay of Fundy is a body of water subject to high winds, significant nearshore currents and considerable tidal action. The EIS is inadequate in its examination of the implications of severe weather on its operations.
In order to address the above noted sections of the EIS Guidelines, the Proponent should revise the EIS to:
- examine the predicted frequency and duration that severe weather will hamper ship docking, loading and departure at the marine terminal,
- clearly address what alternative measures will be taken in which situations,
- examine the environmental effects of these alternatives. For example, should the vessel go to anchor, what will be the predicted impact on bottom habitat? If the vessel opts to stay at sea, what will be the predicted impact on fouling of fishing gear, interactions with marine mammals, etc?
The EIS fails to address the likelihood of a failure of main engines or thrusters during docking and departure and the associated environmental implications.
Supplemental Information
Tables 1a and 1b as well as Tables 2a and 2b (Reference: Section 11Environmental Management, pp.18-37) address some of the deficiencies described above. At first glance, they appear to be a sound basis for an environmental management plan. However, they do not address many worst-case scenarios. For example, in describing the consequences of vehicle accident and fuel spill on land, “the severity of the consequences would depend on the location (e.g., spill onto a watercourse) and the time of year (e.g., spawning of fish, fishing seasons, seasonal occupations”. The conclusion is that despite precautions, it is likely that a vehicular accident will occur resulting in the potential for an environmental effect due to fuel spillage. The statement is then made that “EMP and established practices will mitigate the risks to insignificant levels” and “no further consideration is required.”
On another topic, Vessel collisions: collisions with dock and grounding, it is acknowledged that Marine Diesel Oil would flow in the case of a tank rupture. “In the worst-case scenario, 100 tons of the MDO fuel would be discharged to the environment. In calm seas this can be contained by booms and collected by absorbent materials. In the more likely case of rough seas causing the hypothetical accident, dispersal of the MDO would be extensive particularly in the wave zone near the shoreline. The MDO like all diesel fuel will evaporate quickly. The spilled material and any contaminated material may be hazardous to animal/aquatic life”. However, the analysis goes on to note that modern vessels with advanced communications and other equipment and operated by experienced and certified personnel do not present a significant hazard for accidental dock collision and the potential for environmental damage is considered low; therefore, no further consideration is required. This is an inadequate risk assessment and mitigation plan.
Some environmental effects are not considered. Item 1 {Accidents resulting in personal injury (on site)} does not include risks of injury from flyrock, for example. Also, no consideration is given to risks of injury from flyrock to fishers or others in adjacent waters or land areas.
Activity #8 (Table 1b) Collision with marine mammals indicates that this scenario has been identified as requiring further consideration. However, unable to locate where such further consideration was given.
Deficiency Statement 79156
EIS Guidelines
12.3 – Environmental Protection – ‘Describe plans to control air emissions (including greenhouse gases) from the Project.”
EIS
11.3 – The cross reference Volume II indicates that plans to control greenhouse gases emitted from the Project are included in section 11.3 of the EIS. Section 11.3 does not provide these plans but further references sections 11.0.1, 11.1, and 11.2. Greenhouse gas emissions are not mentioned in any of the referenced sections.
Supplemental Information
Reference is made to EIS Volume VI, Chapter 9.1.1 and responses to the Panel and Agencies. There is no comment on control of GHG emissions in these references. The deficiency has not been addressed.157
Deficiency Statement 80158
EIS Guidelines
12.4 – Monitoring – “Describe timing, frequency, methods and agents responsible for monitoring.” “Describe the criteria used in selecting subjects and indicators.” “Describe quality assurance and quality control measures to be applied to monitoring programs.”
EIS
9.1.3.4 – Monitoring – In the discussion of hydrogeology issues, the EIS indicates that the Proponent will use six monitoring wells to implement a multi-level monitoring program.159 The depths and locations of the monitoring wells relative to neighbouring wells are unclear. It is uncertain if these wells provide adequate monitoring coverage for all potentially affected neighbouring residents, including those with shallow dug wells, drilled wells, wells in different units…etc. The lack of detailed information provided for this proposed monitoring program fails to meet the requirements of Section 12.4 of the EIS Guidelines.
Supplemental Information
This deficiency has not been addressed (Reference: Supplemental Information, Vol. IV, Sec. 12).160
Deficiency Statement 81161
EIS Guidelines
12.4 – Monitoring – Describe the proposed approach for monitoring each of the VECs identified.
EIS
9.2.3 – Aquatic Ecology – Marine Intertidal Zone - The EIS provides predictions of insignificant effects, but no ongoing monitoring to ensure it happens. How will the Proponent know if conveyor construction impacts exist or if they are local or if they are insignificant? The EIS provides description of species such as lobster, but does not quantify densities, etc. Without this information the Proponent cannot monitor effectively or manage adaptively. The monitoring information must be included in the EIS.
Supplemental Information
The EIS proposes to make use of adaptive management techniques to respond to adverse changes in VECs, such as lobsters. Such an approach necessitates a clear understanding of pre-construction population levels. This has not been provided in the EIS or in the Supplemental Information. For example “Bilcon has not to this date conducted any analysis of the lobster catches in the immediate area of the project.”162 The above deficiency has not been addressed.163
Deficiency Statement 86164
EIS Guidelines
12.5 – Mitigation – “Outline proposed rehabilitation and revegetation procedures for the Project site.”
EIS
9.2.1 – Terrestrial Ecology – According to the EIS, the revegetation scheme would include planting with native trees, but it also states that, “Most of the reclaimed areas will be planted in grasses and legumes.”165 The species of grasses and legumes are likely to be non-native, and should not be used as it would enhance the invasion of alien invasives in the local area.
Supplemental Information
Deficiency Statement # 86 does not appear in the Supplemental Information. Section 9.2.1 Terrestrial Ecology p.57 states that “Significant areas will be planted in herbaceous vegetation with selected areas being planted in native tree species characteristic of the coastal forest”. Page 58 of the reference states that “a thick herbaceous layer (with grasses and legumes) could lead to high populations of meadow voles, which are a primary food source for a number of raptorial bird species and mammals….” The issue of non-native varieties or alien invasive species is not addressed.166
Deficiency Statement 87167
EIS Guidelines
12.5 - Mitigation Measures - ‘Evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation measures by demonstrating how they contribute positively to sustainable development objectives.” ‘Indicate which mitigative measures are proven and which are experimental.”
EIS
The EIS identifies 151 mitigation measures to address environmental effects to VECs. The EIS fails though to assess the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures. No indication is provided as to which are proven and which are experimental. Based on these deficiencies, it is impossible to determine the level of residual effects remaining after mitigation
Supplemental Information
The issue of how mitigation measures contribute positively to sustainable development objectives is not addressed. All mitigation measures are based on an adaptive management approach, even in cases where the consequences of failed mitigation may be irreversible (Reference: Section 11.0, p.97).168
Deficiency Statement 88169
EIS Guidelines
12.5 - Mitigation Measures ‘Identify trigger points when an adverse effect uncovered by monitoring will result in remedial action, mitigation or cessation of activity.”
EIS
The EIS states ‘The proposed environmental monitoring program is designed to detect potential Project impacts measured against an established baseline or threshold as described under each VEC. Exceeding a baseline or a threshold is a trigger for action and requires the Operations Manager to undertake adaptive management (developing improved techniques while conducting management activities) to reduce or eliminate environmental impacts.”170
Adaptive management is not an acceptable substitute for clear monitoring trigger points. A review of Table ECM – 2 (Environmental Component Follow-up Monitoring)171 has failed to identify any monitoring trigger points and corresponding actions. References are provided to impact analysis for VECs. Upon reviewing the section that addresses terrestrial ecology (Section 9.2.1.4), the only actions arising from monitoring is the preparation of a written report for submission to Nova Scotia Department of Environment and Labour. The lack of clear, explicit monitoring trigger points for all monitoring programs represents a clear deficiency with respect to Section 12.5 of the EIS Guidelines.
Supplemental Information
While the Supplemental Information includes details on Follow-up and Monitoring Programs172, no information is provided on the specific thresholds or trigger points that will initiate intervention, as required by the EIS Guidelines. The above deficiency has not been addressed.173
Deficiency Statement 91174
EIS Guidelines
Section 12.7 - Residual Impacts - ‘Describe and document: how significance was determined (i.e. the process carried out or the methods used); the basis for determining significance, along with documentation for existing thresholds (e.g. stakeholder input, traditional knowledge, standards, guidelines or quantitative risk assessment).”
EIS
For the assessment of significance, the EIS Guidelines require the Proponent to document the basis for the assessment, including existing thresholds (e.g. stakeholder input, traditional knowledge, standards, guidelines or quantitative risk assessment). The criteria used within the EIS are more limited than those suggested in the Guidelines, specifically, ‘If the project development or activities are within environmental regulatory regulations or guidelines established for a particular environmental component, a neutral effect would result.”175 It is unlikely the regulatory standards or guidelines exist for all possible impacts. This would necessitate the use of stakeholder input, traditional knowledge and quantitative risk assessment is establishing appropriate thresholds. Based on the EIS methodology, this was not done. The EIS methodology also fails to consider how sub-threshold effects may contribute to cumulative effects. The EIS is deficient in following the Guidelines in this respect.
Supplemental Information
No reference can be found in Section 8.1 (Impact Assessment Methodology) of the Supplemental Information on the thresholds used to assess if impacts are significant. This is particularly relevant where no regulatory threshold exists. The above deficiency has not been addressed.176
Sustainable Development
of Digby Neck and Islands
Society
Top of page