Q&A
If the results from the Spiranthes prove that it is indeed that plant, can the plant be successfully transplanted, or will it be anhiliated?
Date Posted: November 16, 2018 3:35 PMUnfortunately, as indicated in the EIA document, due to the timing of the surveys we were unable to confirm the identification of the sample. Identification will occur this spring. There are six species of Ladies tresses (Spiranthes sp.) in New Brunswick; none of these are listed as species at risk provincially or federally. There would be no requirement to transplant samples, although avoidance will be explored if feasible.
What are the "suitable adaptive measures" that will be implemented when residents' property values decrease? Please elaborate.
Date Posted: November 16, 2018 3:35 PMThe suitable adaptive measures that would be appropriate are unique and are determined on a case-by-case basis considering the conditions observed at the time. It should be noted that Hammond River Holdings has taken the same approach on the real estate values portion of the EIA as similar projects across the province. Property values can be influenced by multiple market forces that may be at play at any given time, and it is difficult to attribute a specific cause to such changes. Also, as stated in the EIA Registration, the body of evidence relating to whether property values are generally positively or negatively affected by the presence of a nearby industrial operation is highly uncertain.
In the unlikely event that property values in the area experience significant change during the life of the Project, the root cause of those changes would be determined, and actions would then be defined if the Project is determined to be responsible for a change. In such a case, it is likely that a market study would need to be conducted by a qualified real estate professional to determine a cause-and-effect, and to define appropriate response mechanisms and adaptive measures to be considered. Residents would need to be consulted directly to determine their needs and desires, since individuals may have different wishes. For example, one may want assistance in selling their home whereas another may simply enjoy lower property taxes. Such issues are individual concerns that are best addressed on a case-by-case basis.
"The effects on the socio-economic environment during all phases of the Project are rated not significant, with a high level of confidence" (5.7.3.1 147)- a group of 1.1k people opposing this project is not significant? The community outcry against this Project IS significant- how are you able to say otherwise, especially with a high level of confidence?
Date Posted: November 16, 2018 3:34 PMNeither Hammond River Holdings or its consultant, Dillon, mean to imply by this statement that some people in the area or elsewhere may not be concerned about the Project. “Significance” determination is made based on comparing the anticipated effects of the Project to the defined thresholds for the socioeconomic environment (Section 5.7.1.3). This is standard EIA practice, and is consistent with the following methodological steps of EIA practice (Section 4.2.4):
- define boundaries and significance threshold (i.e., threshold of acceptability),
- establish baseline conditions,
- identify effects that would occur without mitigation,
- identify mitigation to reduce effects,
- and compare the residual effect (i.e., effects that remain after mitigation has been applied) to the significance threshold to determine if the effect remains within the defined threshold of acceptability.
If a level of confidence is less than high, it does not mean that the effects are unacceptable, but rather that a follow-up measure needs to be defined to verify the effects prediction or the effectiveness of mitigation.
Individual perceptions of the presence of an industrial operation in a community are unique from one person to another and should be considered as such. The “significance determination” presented in the EIA Registration relates to meeting the requirements of the legislation and accepted EIA practice. We encourage those concerned to fully understand the issues and how they will be managed and/or mitigated and communicate concerns through the formal channels provided.
Please define what a pre-blast survey is, conducted on nearby residences- what does this entail?
Date Posted: November 16, 2018 3:33 PMA pre-blast survey involves the documentation of the property condition prior to the proposed quarry. It is a written record of what a home and other structures (if present) on the property is like before any quarrying occurs at the project site. It is done by a certified, independent professional. Having a record of the pre-blast condition of a property is a good due diligence measure for both the homeowner and the quarry operator. However, property owners retain the right to waive their participation in this due diligence program being offered by the Hammond River Holdings.
"Other methods are available for removal of suspended sediments in the water are technically feasible (filtration, centrifuging, decantation, or other methods)" (2.8.4 36-37)- yet they are not being implemented. I argue that given J.D. Irving Ltd's current court case of discharging effluent into the Saint John River, and being put on the Environmental Offender's Registry, that ALL methods should be applied to ensure minimum sediment discharge. How expensive are these alternate methods? Why are they not being pursued as contingency or supplemental to the gravity-based sedimentation process? I argue that water quality trumps any price tag.
Date Posted: November 16, 2018 3:33 PMPotential effects at other types of industrial facilities in the province of New Brunswick or elsewhere are not relevant to the Project under consideration. However, this link does provide more information regarding the Saint John pulp mill. https://jdirving.com/BlogPage.aspx?id=5302&blogid=74
Discharge water at the proposed quarry will be subject to strict discharge standards that will be defined in the facility’s Approval to Operate, regardless of method by which those standards are achieved. In this regard, Hammond River Holdings has suggested a total suspended sediment concentration, but the Province will determine what it considers appropriate for complying with environmental legislation.
Gravity sedimentation (i.e., settling) is a well-established and effective method of removing suspended sediments from water, provided that the sediments can settle for a suitable period of time. Typically, 24 hours within a settling pond or sump is more than sufficient to settle suspended sediments from water. In addition, gypsum and related compounds are often used as flocculants in industrial wastewater treatment processes to assist suspended sediments to precipitate out of water. The composition of the material for this Project inherently aids in the effective settling of solids. It should be noted that gravity sedimentation is used extensively at quarries throughout the Province and has been proven effective at controlling sedimentation from surface runoff in a variety of locations.
Hammond River Holdings is confident that gravity sedimentation will be successful at meeting discharge requirements. Additionally, there is operational flexibility within the project that would allow the water to settle for a longer period, if required, to meet the discharge requirements as laid out by the Department of Environment. Other methods for solids removal remain technically feasible and will be explored as a contingency in the unlikely event that gravity sedimentation does not meet discharge standards.
What is the percentage of royalty the Province will receive if the Project is approved?
Date Posted: November 16, 2018 3:32 PMThe royalties associated with the Project will be determined by the Province of New Brunswick at the appropriate time, and such decisions do not involve Hammond River Holdings. Normally, royalty amounts are maintained confidential by the Province.
Will there be any compensation to adjacent landowners, whose land may suffer as a direct result of the loss of wetlands and watercourses that are on the PDA that connect to neighbouring lands?
Date Posted: November 16, 2018 3:32 PMIt is unclear what direct loss landowners would experience as a result of wetland or watercourse use that would require financial compensation. Current environmental legislation requires that a net loss of wetland function of a regulated wetland must obtain a watercourse and wetland alteration permit and compensate for that net loss of wetland function by enhancing or restoring wetlands in other areas. This mechanism is not financial compensation, but rather in-kind (i.e.., like-for-like) replacement of lost functions. This is the basis for compensating and offsetting the effects of the Project on wetlands.
Should wells within 2km become contaminated, new wells will be drilled. Why? Wouldn't the new wells eventually become contaminated also? Is bottled water the more probable means of a solution to this? What about wells outside of 2km? They, too, are at risk, especially if an unplanned event happens. There are several older homes that have very old wells- the age of these wells may put them at higher risk of contamination- what measures will be in place regarding wells pre-1994? (Some of these wells are from the early 1900's). Shouldn't these older wells be given more consideration? I argue that older wells are at a higher risk of receiving contamination.
Date Posted: November 16, 2018 3:32 PMWhile Hammond River Holdings is confident that residents’ wells will not be affected, we understand that this is a sensitive topic to those in the area. We are committed to monitoring for changes in water quality or quantity and it is challenging to accurately predict if changes were to occur, to what extent those changes would occur, or the appropriate responses to be implemented, until those conditions are observed.
Although the EIA Registration document reports 12 wells within a 2 km radius of the site, it also states that these records are only for those maintained by the New Brunswick Department of Environment and Local Government (NBDELG) and that those records are limited to wells drilled after 1994. All residents or facilities with wells within a 2 km radius, regardless of whether they are in the NBDELG database, will be provided the opportunity to have their well details documented and a baseline water sample taken prior to undertaking the Project, if they so choose. In resident visits that have already started, the offer of baseline and ongoing sampling has been made to residents as part of those sit-down conversations on many wells that are older than 1994.
Response measures to be undertaken in the unlikely event of a change in water quantity or quality in nearby wells would depend on the nature and extent of the observed changes to those wells. For example, if a change were to occur in a nearby well due to the project, it would be most likely to be a change in water quantity, as opposed to a change in water quality(since there is no transformation on-site that could lead to threats to water quality). If a change in well yield were to occur, some possible response measures include provision of water, identification of an alternative water supply, deepening of an existing well, drilling of a new well, or other measures. If a change in water quality were to occur (e.g., increasing water hardness) due to the gypsum resource, installation of a water softener could be a possible solution. This would be determined by testing of well water before the project and water testing following the potential operation of the quarry.
The Project is in a topographic divide whereby precipitation is draining to the west into the Hammond River, and as such, the Hammond River and topography provide a natural hydrogeological barrier. Beyond this barrier, the effects of the Project are unlikely to be distinguishable from current normal conditions.
The EIA document glossed over the effects on livestock- several homes near the PDA have horses, cows, chickens, turkeys etc., all of which may be disturbed by the noise, dust, and general activities of the Project- it is possible that the stress of the activities on these animals may interfere with egg/milk production, and excessive stress can also cause morbidity. Why does the EIA registration document not go into detail on these potential effects on livestock, and what mitigation can be done? I would argue there is no solution to the stress that these animals will experience.
Date Posted: November 16, 2018 3:31 PMNoise and other effects are fully and transparently acknowledged in the EIA Registration, in both the Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat section as well as in the Socioeconomic Environment section. Those effects were determined by the study team (which includes scientists and biologists) to be not significant in their professional judgement. The distance to the nearest farms in the area are such that noise and dust are not expected to be measurable. This was assessed based on noise and air quality tests administered as part of the EIA process.
JDI cited the need for a gypsum quarry, based on Nova Scotia and Colson Cove no longer being viable options- what about the new Flat Bay Mine in NFLD? They claim to have several million tonnes of gypsum and are currently looking for buyers. The gypsum could then be shipped or barged directly into Saint John. Why is this not a viable option? Has it even been considered? How much research, effort, core sampling etc. has been put into gypsum exploration elsewhere in the Province, by the company, to find a deposit that is not so close to a main watercourse (ie: the Hammond)? Is the Upham area the ONLY area in the Province to have a gypsum deposit? Or is it simply the most economical, given its relative proximity to the wallboard plant? Are there no other options in the entire Province, that gypsum may be quarried, AWAY from a main watercourse?
Date Posted: November 16, 2018 3:31 PMIn the past 6 months, Atlantic Wallboard has been in contact with the CEO of Red Moon Resources (Flat Bay Mine). They are not producing wallboard quality gypsum and are shipping solely to the cement industry. They are also not currently capable of shipping the volume of rock required to run the wallboard plant in Saint John.
Additionally, there are a few areas of the Province that are known to have gypsum deposits. However, their quality and properties, and the ability to extract the resource, are unknown to Hammond River Holdings. The viability of a deposit is directly linked to a combination of several factors that include: mineral claim ownership, quality, technical ability for ease of efficient extraction, transportation, and proximity to the wallboard plant in Saint John.