environmental impact statement: wyman’s pei growth ... · environmental impact statement:...

Stantec Consulting Ltd. 165 Maple Hills Avenue Charlottetown PE C1C 1N9 Tel: (902) 566-2866 Fax: (902) 566-2004

Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI

Report prepared for: Fitzgerald and Snow (2010) Ltd. PO Box 1325 190 Greenwood Drive Summerside PE C1N 4K2 Job No. 121810928 - File No. 92107

Prepared by:

Stantec Consulting Ltd. 165 Maple Hills Road Charlottetown PE C1C 1N9

June 24, 2013

Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI

June 24, 2013

i

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 PROJECT TITLE, PROJECT PROPONENT, AND AUTHOR OF EIS .................................. 1

1.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 2 1.2.1 Project Summary .................................................................................................... 2 1.2.2 Project Location ...................................................................................................... 2 1.2.3 Project Purpose ...................................................................................................... 2

1.3 REGULATORY CONTEXT .................................................................................................... 3 1.3.1 Provincial Environmental Assessment .................................................................... 3 1.3.2 Federal Environmental Assessment ....................................................................... 3

1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THIS EIS .............................................................................................. 4

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................... 5

2.1 OVERVIEW OF PROJECT .................................................................................................... 5

2.2 ALTERNATIVES TO AND ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF CARRYING OUT THE PROJECT .. 5 2.2.1 Alternative Building Designs ................................................................................... 6

2.3 PROJECT SCHEDULE .......................................................................................................... 6

2.4 CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................................................. 6 2.4.1 Site Preparation ...................................................................................................... 6 2.4.2 Building Renovation ................................................................................................ 6 2.4.3 Construction of New Truck Access Road ............................................................... 7 2.4.4 Installation of New Production Well ........................................................................ 7 2.4.5 Modification of Wash Water Dissipation Channels ................................................. 7 2.4.6 Installation of New Septic Tank ............................................................................... 8 2.4.7 Re-vegetation .......................................................................................................... 8 2.4.8 Emissions and Wastes ............................................................................................ 8

2.5 OPERATION .......................................................................................................................... 9 2.5.1 Use of Facility ......................................................................................................... 9 2.5.2 Processing .............................................................................................................. 9 2.5.3 Emissions and Wastes .......................................................................................... 10

2.6 DECOMMISSIONING AND ABANDONMENT .................................................................... 11

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODS, SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT,

AND CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT .................................................................... 12

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT METHODS ................................................................. 12 3.1.1 Overview of Approach ........................................................................................... 12

3.2 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT .............................................................................. 13 3.2.1 Regulatory Consultation ........................................................................................ 14 3.2.2 Public and Stakeholder Engagement .................................................................... 14 3.2.3 First Nations Consultation ..................................................................................... 14


June 24, 2013

ii

4.0 SUMMARY OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ............................................................... 15

4.1 TOPOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................... 15

4.2 SUBSURFACE GEOLOGY ................................................................................................. 15

4.3 GROUNDWATER RESOURCES ........................................................................................ 16

4.4 WASH WATER RETAINMENT POND ................................................................................ 16

4.5 ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT ....................................................................................... 20

4.6 TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT ......................................................................................... 21 4.6.1 Breeding Birds ...................................................................................................... 21 4.6.1.1 Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre .......................................................... 21 4.6.1.2 Site visit ................................................................................................................. 23 4.6.2 Vegetation ............................................................................................................. 23 4.6.3 Wetlands ............................................................................................................... 27

4.7 FRESHWATER ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................ 27

4.8 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................................... 28 4.8.1 Land Use ............................................................................................................... 28 4.8.2 Archaeological, Heritage, or Cultural Resources .................................................. 28 4.8.3 Transportation ....................................................................................................... 28

5.0 PROJECT INTERACTIONS WITH THE ENVIRONMENT .................................................. 29

5.1 PROJECT-ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION MATRIX ........................................................ 29 5.1.1 VECs with No Interaction, or No Significant Interaction, with the Project ............. 30 5.1.1.1 VECs with No Interaction with the Project (Ranking of 0) ..................................... 30 5.1.1.2 VECs with No Significant Interaction with the Project (Ranking of 1) ................... 30 5.1.1.3 Determination of Significance ............................................................................... 35 5.1.2 VECs Which May Result in an Interaction with the Project that Requires Further

Evaluation (Ranking of 2) ...................................................................................... 35

5.2 ACCIDENTS, MALFUNCTIONS, AND UNPLANNED EVENTS .......................................... 36 5.2.1 Methodology ......................................................................................................... 36 5.2.2 Identification of Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events ......................... 37 5.2.3 Environmental Effects Assessment ...................................................................... 37 5.2.3.1 Interactions Ranked as 0 ...................................................................................... 38 5.2.3.2 Interactions Ranked as 1 ...................................................................................... 38 5.2.4 Determination of Significance ............................................................................... 42

6.0 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 44

6.1 SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT .......................................... 44

6.2 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ................................................................... 44

6.3 OVERALL CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 45

7.0 CLOSING ............................................................................................................................. 45

8.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 47

8.1 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS ....................................................................................... 47


June 24, 2013

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Concentrations of General Chemistry Parameters ............................................ 17

Table 2 Dissolved Metals Concentrations ...................................................................... 18

Table 3 BOD, TSS, TP, and TKN Concentrations .......................................................... 19

Table 4 Species at Risk and Species of Special Concern Recorded Within 5 km

of the Project (AC CDC 2013, CESCC 2011, SAR Public Registry 2012) ........ 22

Table 5 Bird Species Recorded at the Project Site ........................................................ 23

Table 6 Vascular Plant Species Recorded at the Project Site ........................................ 24

Table 7 Vascular Plant Species of Conservation Concern Recorded Within 5 km

of the Project (AC CDC 2013) ........................................................................... 25

Table 8 Potential Interactions of the Project with the Environment ................................ 30

Table 9 Potential Interactions of Project-Related Accidents, Malfunctions, and

Unplanned Events with the Environment........................................................... 38

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Figures

Appendix B Analytical Results of Wash Water Quality


June 24, 2013

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report is an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative in

West St. Peters, Kings County, Prince Edward Island (PEI) (“the Project”) proposed by

Wyman’s PEI (Wyman’s) and being commissioned by Fitzgerald and Snow (2010) Ltd.

(Fitzgerald and Snow; the “Proponent”).

Wyman’s is proposing to expand their current blueberry processing facility in West St. Peters,

PEI and is expecting to operate and maintain the facility for several decades. Currently, the

amount of blueberries that Wyman’s grows and purchases each year is exceeding the capability

of their facility to process the berries. The Project will allow them to process the current supply

of blueberries and will also allow them to process the anticipated increase in product from

agricultural lands that have yet to reach their full production potential.

This document is intended to fulfill the requirements for the Project under the PEI Environmental

Protection Act (EPA), thereby initiating the environmental impact assessment (EIA) review and

approval process. The information provided herein will assist the PEI Department of

Environment, Labour, and Justice (PEIDELJ) in reviewing the environmental effects of the

Project, in determining required mitigation, and ultimately deciding whether an approval will be

issued for the Project to proceed.

1.1 Project Title, Project Proponent, and Author of EIS

Project Title: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St.

Peters, Kings County, PEI

Project Proponent: Fitzgerald and Snow (2010) Ltd. PO Box 1325, 190 Greenwood Drive Summerside, PE C1N 4K2

Proponent’s Principal Contact Person for the purposes of this EIS:

Mr. Vernon McQuillan, P.Eng Senior Project Manager Tel: (902) 436-9256 Fax: (902) 436-7678 Email: [email protected]

mailto:vernon@fitzgerald


June 24, 2013

2

Environmental Consultant and Principal Contact Person for this EIS:

Mr. Dale Conroy, M.Sc. Associate, Environmental Management Stantec Consulting Ltd. 165 Maple Hills Road Charlottetown, PE C1C 1N9 Tel: (902) 566-2866 Fax: (902) 566-2004

Email: [email protected]

1.2 Project Overview

A brief overview, including a summary description of the Project, as well as its location, purpose,

and schedule, is provided below.

1.2.1 Project Summary

The Project involves the construction, and operation and maintenance of an expansion to

Wyman’s blueberry processing facility in West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI.

The Project will include a new storage area, processing area, parking, and a truck access road

leading to a truck dock. Wyman’s is currently proposing to increase the processing capability

from approximately 3,628,739 kg (8 million lbs) of blueberries per year to 9,071,847 kg (20

million lbs) per year. At this time it is expected that water usage will increase upon completion

of the Project. It is anticipated that an additional production well will be installed to meet the

new water demand and/or be used as a back-up well.

1.2.2 Project Location

The Project will be located at Wyman’s PEI, 41 North McEwen Road in West St. Peters, Kings

County, PEI. The facility is located adjacent to Route 2 between the communities of Mount

Stewart and Morell. The general location of the Project is shown in Figure 1 (Appendix A).

1.2.3 Project Purpose

The Project will increase the processing capacity at the existing facility. The increased

processing and storage areas will allow Wyman’s to process all of their current blueberry

supply, which includes berries purchased from other growers, as well as Wyman’s own crop.

mailto:[email protected]


June 24, 2013

3

1.3 Regulatory Context

1.3.1 Provincial Environmental Assessment

The regulatory framework for conducting EIAs in PEI is set forth in Section 9 of the PEI EPA

(the Act).

The interpretation of the Act is provided in Section 1. The term “undertaking” is interpreted to

include any project which (i) may cause the emission or discharge of any contaminant into the

environment; (ii) have an effect on any unique, rare, or endangered feature of the environment;

(iii) have a significant effect on the environment or necessitate further development which is

likely to have a significant effect on the environment; or (iv) cause public concern because of its

real or perceived effect or potential effect on the environment.

Section 9(1) of the Act states that “no person shall initiate any undertaking unless that person

first files a written proposal with the Department and obtains from the Minister written approval

to proceed with the proposed undertaking”.

Furthermore, Section 9(2) of the Act states that the Minister, in considering a proposal

submitted pursuant to Section 9(1), may require the Proponent to carry out an EIA, submit an

EIS, notify the public of the proposed undertaking, and to provide opportunity for the public to

comment.

Section 9(3) of the Act states that “an environmental assessment and environmental impact

statement shall have such content as the Minister may direct”.

Based on the PEI EPA, an EIA must be conducted for the Project, and an EIS must be

presented to the Minister for approval of the undertaking.

An EIA must be completed and the corresponding EIS prepared and submitted so as to enable

a review of the Project by the Technical Review Committee (TRC), comprised of provincial

regulatory agencies as well as federal regulatory agencies, if required. The outcome of the EIA

review process will determine if the Project should be approved, including any approval

conditions.

1.3.2 Federal Environmental Assessment

There is no known trigger for the Project to require an environmental assessment under the

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). The Project is not listed under the


June 24, 2013

4

Regulations Designating Physical Activities under CEAA 2012, so an environmental

assessment is not required under CEAA.

1.4 Organization of this EIS

This EIS is organized to reflect the process by which the assessment has been conducted. It is

organized into eight sections and a references section, as follows.

• Section 1 provides background information on the Project including the purpose for the

Project and the regulatory context.

• Section 2 provides a description of the Project. Construction and operation activities are

discussed, as is the location and schedule for the Project.

• Section 3 provides a description of the methodology employed to carry out this EIA, the

scope of the assessment (scope of Project, factors to be considered, and scope of factors to

be considered), and a summary of consultation and engagement activities and initiatives

undertaken for the Project.

• Section 4 provides an overview of the existing environment in which the Project is located.

• Section 5 provides the environmental effects assessment for the Project, including Project-

related environmental effects during Construction, and Operation and Maintenance of the

Project, including Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events. A discussion of the

effects of the environment on the Project is also provided.

• Section 6 presents the conclusions of the EIS.

• Section 7 presents closing remarks.

• Section 8 details references cited in the report.


June 24, 2013

5

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

This section provides a preliminary description of the facilities that comprise the Project, based

on the available information at the time of writing.

It is important to recognize that the project description, equipment, and layout described below

may change slightly with detailed engineering design. The key aspects of the Project, as

currently conceived, are provided below.

This section describes the key aspects of the Project, as currently conceived, including:

• a description of the Project components, including the likely infrastructure, facilities, assets,

and components associated with the Project, and proposed mitigation for potential

environmental effects;

• a discussion of the activities that will be carried out during construction, and operation and

maintenance of the Project; and

• a discussion of the Project-related emissions and wastes.

2.1 Overview of Project

The Project involves the construction and operation of an expansion to Wyman’s PEI blueberry

processing facility in West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI. Currently, the supply of blueberries is

exceeding the processing capabilities at the facility. Wyman’s PEI currently processes

approximately 3,628,739 kilograms (kg) (8 million pounds (lbs)) of fresh and frozen wild

blueberries per year. It is anticipated that once the Project is complete, approximately

9,071,847 kg (20 million lbs) of blueberries will be processed per year. These berries will be

sourced from existing suppliers as well as Wyman’s own existing crop. The proposed layout of

the Project is shown on Figure 2 (Appendix A). Construction will involve the addition of a new

truck loading dock and truck access road, new storage area, new processing area, and

modification to the existing wash water dissipation channels.

2.2 Alternatives To and Alternative Means of Carrying out the Project

Alternatives to the Project are functionally different ways of achieving the same end. The only

alternative to the Project is the “do nothing” scenario (null alternative).

The null alternative to the Project would result in no effect on the environment in the area as this

alternative would result in no change of environmental features. This alternative does not


June 24, 2013

6

address the purpose of the Project (subsection 1.2.3) as the requirement to process the existing

supply of blueberries would not be met.

Alternative building designs would be the potential alternative means of carrying out the Project.

These are discussed in the following subsection.

2.2.1 Alternative Building Designs

One variation of the building design was considered. The alternative design involved turning the

building 90 degrees and building it over top of the existing structure. Once construction was

complete, the existing structure would have been removed. This option was abandoned due to

economic considerations.

2.3 Project Schedule

The Project is scheduled to begin in July 2013 upon receipt of all permits and approvals.

Currently, Fitzgerald and Snow are anticipating a one year construction period. The building will

be weather tight by Fall 2013 to continue construction during winter.

Operation of the Project will begin in July 2014 (i.e., for the peak harvesting season) following

construction and will continue for several decades. Though not currently envisioned,

decommissioning and abandonment of the Project will be at the end of its useful service life.

2.4 Construction

Equipment used during construction may include, but is not limited to excavators, tandem

trucks, and bulldozers. A brief description of construction activities is provided below.

2.4.1 Site Preparation

Site work will involve grubbing and the placement of fill. Approximately 22,937 cubic metres

(m3) of select borrow will be required to build up the construction area to bring the building pads

up to design grade. An additional 5,352 m3 of material will be required for the parking areas and

miscellaneous site work.

2.4.2 Building Renovation

The size of the existing facility is 3,321 square metres (m2) (35,751 square feet (ft2)).

Construction at the blueberry processing facility will include the addition of a storage area and a

new processing area. The following areas will be added to the facility:

• new processing area – 6,077 m2 (65,412 ft2); and


June 24, 2013

7

• new storage area – 2,025 m2 (21,794 ft2).

The building will be constructed with pre-engineered steel, including 10 centimetre (cm) (4-inch)

insulated sandwich panels for the storage and processing areas.

The new processing area is expected to be approximately 8 to 9 m in height. There will be a

drop ceiling in the processing facility to act as a barrier between the processing area and any

mechanical devices installed in the ceiling (e.g., HVAC).

2.4.3 Construction of New Truck Access Road

A new truck access road will be constructed off of North MacEwen Road to allow trucks to

access the new truck docks.

2.4.4 Installation of New Production Well

A new production well will be installed to meet the increased water demand and/or as a backup

well. Currently, the annual water usage at the facility is approximately 42,775,153 litres per

year; this is expected to increase by half. The facility is currently utilizing a high volume of water

for wash down and is proposing to install a high pressure wash system which will consume

significantly less water.

Additionally, the facility has been experiencing operational problems with the main cooling tower

condenser in the plant. As a result, a significant amount of water was being used to make up

for the cooling tower. The condenser is currently being replaced and as a result, significant

water savings will be realized and available to serve the process expansion.

Prior to the installation of the well, an extraction permit will be acquired and all conditions of the

permit will be met.

2.4.5 Modification of Wash Water Dissipation Channels

As part of the proposed project, the location of the wash water dissipation channels will need to

be relocated, as sections of the existing drainage area (i.e., dissipation channels) are currently

located within the footprint of the Project. Currently, there are approximately 335 m of

dissipation channels measuring 7.5 m in width. Approximately 215 to 245 m of the dissipation

channels will be relocated. The location of the dissipation channels will be moved from the east

side of the wash water retainment pond to the west side.


June 24, 2013

8

2.4.6 Installation of New Septic Tank

The Project will allow for an increase in the number of employees at the facility. Due to the

expected increase in sewage waste a new septic tank will be installed on the property. The new

septic system will be located close to the new staffing area of the building.

2.4.7 Re-vegetation

Once construction activities are complete, re-vegetation of the disturbed areas will include

spreading grass seed and/or placing sod. Re-vegetation efforts at the site will involve the use of

non-invasive plant species.

2.4.8 Emissions and Wastes

Few emissions and wastes are expected as a result of construction activities. Emissions will be

limited to air contaminants and noise from the operation of heavy equipment, and fugitive dust

as a result of site preparation activities. The emissions and noise will remain largely confined to

the work site and immediately adjacent areas, but as these activities will be conducted between

7 am and 7 pm Monday through Friday, the emissions are not expected to cause a significant

nuisance to nearby residents. Generally, the noise emitted from the onsite equipment will fall

between 80 to 100 dBA, which is within normal allowances for commercial zones.

Construction wastes will be generated during site preparation and construction activities.

Potential sources of non-hazardous or solid wastes generated by Project activities include

packing/crating materials, scrap metals, and domestic wastes. All Project waste will be

disposed of in a provincially approved manner. Waste will be reused or recycled, if possible. All

trucks hauling waste or debris will be covered. Fugitive dust from the movement of equipment

on unpaved surfaces during construction and demolition has the potential to cause adverse

environmental effects to ambient air quality if dust mitigation measures are not used. Waste oil

will not be used for dust control under any circumstances.

Potentially hazardous materials could be present during construction activities, including fuels

and lubricants for project related vehicles and equipment. All potentially hazardous materials

will be handled in a manner consistent with current accepted practices. Hazardous materials

will be stored in a secure area when not in use to prevent accidents and vandalism. Spill kits

will be present onsite in case of accidental release of hazardous materials. The Proponent will

comply with all conditions of required permits. Waste oils will be disposed of in accordance with

provincial regulations.


June 24, 2013

9

2.5 Operation

2.5.1 Use of Facility

During the operation of the processing facility (several decades or longer) activities are

expected to include processing of fresh blueberries, processing of frozen blueberries, and

minimal processing of fresh cranberries.

Operation of the building will include heating/cooling of the facility and maintenance activities.

During operation, maintenance activities that may be performed to upkeep the facility include

building repairs and upkeep, and vegetation management on the property.

2.5.2 Processing

From the storage area berries enter the production line and are fed onto a distribution shaker.

While on the shaker the berries are cleaned with air to remove debris. The berries are then fed

onto vibrating scalping decks which allow the berries to fall through, while larger debris remains

on the decks. The berries then continue through a washing process, moving over a dewatering

deck and riffle boards, which remove sediment, small pebbles, and other small debris. Once

through the washing process, berries are transferred to flotation tanks. The flotation tanks allow

good berries to sink to the bottom of the tank and undesirable berries (e.g., green berries) and

other residual debris to float. The good berries continue to a dewatering shaker where they are

sprayed with chlorinated water and then continue through an air blower system before entering

the freezing tunnels. The berries enter the freezing tunnel at approximately 21 degrees Celsius

(°C) and exit the tunnel at approximately –26°C. The frozen berries are sorted and either

deposited into totes for storage or into 13.6 kg (30 lb) boxes. The stored frozen berries are

re-run for processing during the off season.

Wash water from processing flows through grate covered drains out of the facility and collects in

a 20 m3 basin. Twice daily, during clean up, the water is pumped through a cylindrical screen

(mesh size 2.3 millimetres) to remove solids. The solids are deposited into compost bins while

the filtered wash water is then gravity fed into a wash water retainment pond.

Once the peak blueberry processing season is complete, there is a much shorter (i.e., 5 to 8

days per year) cranberry processing season in late November or early December. During this

short time frame, approximately 305,822 to 458,733 kg of cranberries are frozen at the facility.


June 24, 2013

10

2.5.3 Emissions and Wastes

All solid wastes generated from the processing facility will be disposed of according to provincial

requirements. Waste items will be recycled or composted, where applicable. Currently, the

facility generates approximately 39 tonnes (t) of cardboard, 8 t of waste, and 52 roll off

dumpsters of organic material (e.g., leaves, culls). This number is expected to double once the

Project is complete. Currently the dumpsters containing organic material are located at the

edge of the gravel parking area adjacent to North McEwen Road and runoff from the dumpsters

enters the ditch along the roadway. Once the Project is complete, the dumpsters will be located

in the vicinity of drainage areas being installed near the truck loading docks. These drainage

areas will flow towards a holding tank and pump to the onsite wash water retainment pond, as

necessary.

Chlorine is used at the facility for cleaning and also for inhibiting bacterial growth on the berries.

Atlantic 12 (12% Chlorine) is used in four applications. Chlorine is:

1. Injected directly into the main water line using a chemical pump. This dose is controlled with

a flow meter and is set to achieve a 3 parts per million (ppm) free chlorine concentration at

the end water source.

2. Administered as a direct contact spray at approximately 75 ppm to the berries at their

cleanest point in the line just prior to entering the freezer tunnel to achieve the most effective

removal of bacteria.

3. Mixed into a foaming agent that is applied to the processing equipment during cleanup for

disinfection.

4. Applied to field boxes at approximately 100 ppm prior to transportation of the empty boxes

back into fields.

Consideration is being given to the installation of an ozone generator to treat the process water

in order to reduce the amount of chlorine used at the facility. Additionally, berries may also be

treated directly with ozone as it is an extremely effective bacterial inhibitor and can extend the

shelf life of berries to be exported. Approval from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)

will be in place prior to the ozone treatment being used at the facility.

The Project has been proposed to meet the current need for processing of available product.

There is not expected to be an increase in vehicle traffic associated with the operation of the

newly expanded processing facility. At this time, there is steady truck traffic transporting frozen

berries to the Wyman’s facility. Berries that have been frozen and stored at offsite locations are

transported to Wyman’s for processing. The decreased truck traffic transporting frozen berries


June 24, 2013

11

to the facility will be offset with the increase in delivery of fresh berries during the peak harvest

season.

An additional fuel tank will be installed to heat the building. Approximately 40,000 L of furnace

oil is used annually at the existing facility. The increase in fuel is expected to be nominal as

there is not a large heating demand at the facility.

During operation and maintenance, a small increase in the emissions of air contaminants,

greenhouse gases (GHGs), and sound may occur locally, primarily as a result of the emissions

of combustion gases (including GHGs) in the immediate vicinity of the Project. These emissions

are expected to be nominal.

2.6 Decommissioning and Abandonment

The Project will be designed, built, and maintained to be in operation for several decades. While

decommissioning or abandonment of the Project is not currently envisioned, the Project will at

some point be decommissioned at the end of its useful service life, in accordance with the

applicable standards and regulations current at that time. A decommissioning and

abandonment plan, to be developed for the Project at the end of its service life, will specify the

procedures that will be followed with respect to the decommissioning, removal, and disposal of

site infrastructure and for site remediation based on the requirements current at that time. The

decommissioning and abandonment plan will also contain measures to achieve targeted

environmental goals. As a result, Decommissioning and Abandonment of the Project is

therefore not considered further in the assessment.


June 24, 2013

12

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODS, SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT,

AND CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT

3.1 Environmental Assessment Methods

An overview of the methods used to conduct the environmental impact assessment (EIA) of the

Project is provided in this section. The EIA has been completed using the methodological

framework developed by Stantec to meet the requirements of environmental assessments in

federal and provincial jurisdictions in Canada, including the requirements of the PEI EPA.

These methods are based on a structured approach that:

• focuses on issues of greatest concern;

• considers the issues raised by the public and stakeholders; and

• integrates engineering design and programs for mitigation and follow-up into a

comprehensive environmental planning process.

The EIA focuses on specific valued environmental components (VECs) that are of particular

value or interest to regulatory agencies, the public, and other stakeholders. VECs are broad

components of the biophysical and human environments that, if altered by the Project, may be

of concern to regulatory agencies, Aboriginal persons, resource managers, scientists, and/or the

general public. VECs are selected on the basis of:

• regulatory issues, guidelines, and requirements;

• knowledge of the project, its components and activities;

• knowledge of existing conditions where the project will be located;

• issues raised by regulatory agencies, the public and stakeholders;

• the scope of factors to be considered in the EIA as determined by RAs; and

• the professional judgment of the Study Team.

It is noted that “environment” is defined to include not only biological systems (air, land, and

water) but also human conditions that are affected by changes in the biological environment.

The VECs relate to ecological, social, or economic systems that comprise the environment.

3.1.1 Overview of Approach

Project-related environmental effects are assessed using a standardized methodological

framework for each VEC, with standard tables and matrices used to facilitate and support the

evaluation. The residual Project-related environmental effects (i.e., after mitigation has been

applied) are characterized using specific criteria (e.g., direction, magnitude, geographic extent,

duration, frequency, and reversibility) that are defined for each VEC. The significance of the

Project-related environmental effects is then determined based on pre-defined criteria or


June 24, 2013

13

thresholds for determining the significance of the environmental effects (also called significance

criteria).

The environmental effects assessment methodology involves the following generalized steps.

• Scope of Assessment - This involves the scoping of the overall assessment, including the

selection of VECs; description of measurable parameters; description of temporal, spatial,

and administrative/technical boundaries; definition of the parameters that are used to

characterize the Project-related environmental effects; and identification of the standards or

thresholds that are used to determine the significance of environmental effects. This step

relies upon the scoping undertaken by regulatory authorities; consideration of the input of

the public, stakeholders, and First Nations (as applicable); and the professional judgment of

the Study Team.

• Existing Conditions - Establishment of existing (baseline) environmental conditions for the

VEC. In many cases existing conditions expressly and/or implicitly include those

environmental effects that may be or may have been caused by other past or present

projects or activities that have been or are being carried out.

• Assessment of Project-Related Environmental Effects - Project-related environmental

effects are assessed. The assessment includes descriptions of how an environmental effect

will occur, the mitigation and environmental protection measures proposed to reduce or

eliminate the environmental effect, and the characterization of the residual environmental

effects of the Project. The focus is on residual environmental effects, i.e., the environmental

effects that remain after planned mitigation has been applied. All phases of the Project are

assessed (i.e., Construction, and Operation and Maintenance), as are Accidents,

Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events. The evaluation also considers the effects of the

environment on the Project. For each VEC, a determination of significance is then made,

based on the identified significance criteria.

• Determination of Significance - The significance of residual Project-related is then

determined, in consideration of the significance criteria.

Further details on the environmental assessment methodologies that were used in this EIS can

be provided upon request to Stantec.

3.2 Consultation and Engagement

The Consultation and engagement plan in support of the EIA of the Project has been developed

following the guidance of the EIA guidelines (PEIDELJ 2010). A summary of the planned

activities and initiatives is provided in the following sections.


June 24, 2013

14

3.2.1 Regulatory Consultation

On May 6, 2013, a meeting was held with representatives of the PEIDELJ to discuss the Project

and determine if an EIA would be required. At that time it was determined that an EIA would be

required and that the scope would be determined after reviewing a project description. An

additional meeting was held with the environmental assessment coordinator from the PEIDELJ

on June 10, 2013, to discuss the scope of the environmental assessment and the requirements

for field surveys. It was determined at this time (based on the proposed scope of the Project)

that full plant and bird surveys would not be required for the assessment, and that a site visit

would provide sufficient information.

3.2.2 Public and Stakeholder Engagement

Stakeholders and the general public will be invited to participate in the environmental

assessment process of the Project. The PEIDELJ has determined that a Level I Public

Consultation will be required for the Project. Public consultation informs the public about the

project and any potential environmental issues. Once the EIS document is submitted,

Fitzgerald and Snow will post a notice in the Guardian to advise the public of the proposed

project and provide contact information for the PEIDELJ so the public can contact the

environmental assessment coordinator to provide comments or request additional information.

The EIS will be posted on the website of the government of PEI (www.gov.pe.ca) along with

other Project-related information. A copy of the EIS will also be available for public review at the

Charlottetown office of PEIDELJ, which is located on the fourth floor of the Jones building at 11

Kent Street.

3.2.3 First Nations Consultation

Due to the proposed scope of the Project, the private land ownership, and private funding, the

PEIDELJ has determined that First Nations consultation for the Project is not required (pers.

comm. J. Carr 2013).


June 24, 2013

15

4.0 SUMMARY OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

A summary of existing environmental conditions in the vicinity of the Project is provided in this

chapter. The summary is based on existing literature and sources of information that are

available in the area of the Project.

4.1 Topography

The site specific (1:5,000) topographical mapping shows that the subject property is relatively

level with a maximum surface relief of 2 m indicated. Ground surface elevations range from a

low of elevation 22 m to a high of elevation 24 m.

The larger-scale regional (1:55,000) topographical mapping shows that the predominant surface

gradient in the vicinity of the site slopes downward form south to north, towards the Gulf of St.

Lawrence.

4.2 Subsurface Geology

The results of a subsurface investigation (Stantec 2013) show that the project site is underlain

by a naturally occurring rootmat and topsoil layer that averages 0.3 m in thickness. The

rootmat/topsoil layer is in turn underlain by a compact reddish brown silt and sand (glacial till)

stratum that contains trace to some gravel, trace clay, and occasional sandstone cobbles.

Localized areas of loose existing fill materials, up to 1 m in thickness, were encountered at

some test locations. The fill was generally intermixed with topsoil and is likely the result of

previous building construction and grading activities at the site. Neither bedrock nor the

groundwater table were encountered within the depth investigated (i.e., up to 2.7 m below

ground surface).

Geological mapping for the area (Prest 1973) indicates that the parent soil at the site is

comprised of glacial derived till of the clay-sand phase which contains a relatively high

percentage of fines (silt and clay sizes). Prest (1973) also indicates that the underlying bedrock

of PEI includes sedimentary strata of Pennsylvania and Permian ages. The regional dip is 1 to

4 degrees to the northeast. These rocks are part of an extensive sedimentary basin that covers

most of PEI, east central New Brunswick, and the Northumberland Strait. Lithologies of the

strata include sandstone, siltstone, claystone, conglomerate, and mudstone breccias with

sandstones the most abundant. The rocks are predominantly reddish brown in colour due to the

oxidation of iron (hematite). The depth below ground surface to the bedrock is variable but an

overburden (soil cover) thickness of 3 to 9 m would be typical in this region.


June 24, 2013

16

A review of available agricultural soils information for the area (Prince Edward Island Soil

Survey 1988; 1:5,000 mapping) indicates that the surficial soil type throughout the subject site

consists of the Charlottetown (Ch) soils map unit. Ch soils typically occur on gently undulating

to undulating relief and are moderately well drained. Ch soils are well suited for a variety of

crops but are susceptible to erosion due to a relatively high percentage of non-plastic fines. The

groundwater table is generally encountered at depths of greater than 3 m within the Ch map

unit.

4.3 Groundwater Resources

The existing facility has three production wells to supply the water required for processing as

well as general use (e.g., washrooms). These wells are capable of discharging approximately

757 litres per minute (200 US gallons per minute). Two of the wells have 5,593 watt (W) pumps

in 20 centimetre (cm) (8-inch) wells, while the third well has one 7,457 W pump in a 25.4 cm

(10-inch) well.

In the vicinity of the Project, drinking water is obtained from domestic wells. Project activities

are not expected to interact with groundwater quantity or quality at any residential wells.

4.4 Wash Water Retainment Pond

On May 14, 2013, water samples were collected from three locations at the Wyman’s facility.

Sample Sa-1 was collected from within the wash water holding basin prior to screening, Sa-2

was collected at the discharge point of the water after flowing through the screen, and Sa-3 was

collected from the wash water retainment pond. All samples were analyzed for biological

oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), general chemistry, total phosphorus, and

total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN). The results were compared against the Guidelines for Canadian

Drinking Water Quality and the Canadian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of

Freshwater Aquatic Life. See Appendix B for analytical results.


June 24, 2013

17

Table 1. Concentrations of General Chemistry Parameters

Sodium mg/L 200 (AO) n/a 62.70 65.00 56.60

Potassium mg/L n/a n/a 9.36 12.70 10.40

Calcium mg/L n/a n/a 34.10 33.60 32.50

Magnesium mg/L n/a n/a 17.50 16.50 15.90

Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L n/a n/a 140 140 98

Sulfate mg/L 500 (AO) n/a 5.2 4.5 4.0

Chloride mg/L 250 (AO) 120 97 110 98

Reactive Silica (as SiO2) mg/L n/a n/a 7.8 8.5 8.0

Ortho Phosphate (as P) mg/L n/a n/a 0.22 0.48 <0.010

Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) mg/L n/a n/a 0.46 0.46 <0.050

Nitrate (as N) mg/L as N 10 (MAC) 3.0 0.46 0.46 <0.050

Nitrite (as N) mg/L 1 (MAC) 0.06 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010

Ammonia (as N) mg/L n/avaries with temperature

and pH*0.058 <0.50(0.50) <0.50(0.50)

Color TCU 15 (AO) n/a 71 270 170

Total Organic Carbon mg/L n/a n/a 170 340 170

Turbidity NTU 0.1 (NTU)> 8 NTUs above

background6.8 8.8 17

Conductance (RCAp) uS/cm n/a n/a 610 640 590

pH Units 6.5 - 8.5 6.5 - 9.0 7.76 7.32 5.58

Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L n/a n/a 160 150 150

Bicarbonate (as CaCO3) mg/L n/a n/a 140 140 98

Carbonate (as CaCO3) mg/L n/a n/a <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

TDS Calculated mg/L 500 (AO) n/a 322 339 285

Cation Sum meq/L n/a n/a 6.12 6.19 5.69

Anion Sum meq/L n/a n/a 5.74 6.07 4.82

Ion Balance % n/a n/a 3.20 0.980 8.28

Langlier Index @ 4C - n/a n/a -0.229 -0.690 -2.58

Langlier Index @ 20C - n/a n/a 0.0200 -0.441 -2.33

Saturation pH @ 4C Units n/a n/a 7.99 8.01 8.16

Saturation pH @ 20C Units n/a n/a 7.74 7.76 7.91

Notes:

Bold values exceed guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality

( ): elevated detection limit

MAC:Maximum Acceptable Concentration

<: less than the reportable detection limit

AO: Aesthetic Objective

n/a - not available

*: concentrations compared to temperature/pH graph, no exceedence

Sa-1Guidelines for

Canadian Drinking

Water Quality

(August 2012)

Sa-3

RCAp 30 Computed Indexes

RCAp 30 Computed Analytes

RCAp 30 Analytes

Parameter Units

Canadian Water

Quality Guidelines for

the Protection of

Freshwater Aquatic

Life

Sa-2

May 14, 2013


June 24, 2013

18

Table 2. Dissolved Metals Concentrations

Sa-1 Sa-2 Sa-3

Aluminum ug/L n/a 5 (pH<6.5)/100 (pH≥6.5) 48.6 61.4 119

Antimony ug/L 6 (MAC) - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

Arsenic ug/L 10 (MAC) 5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

Barium ug/L 1,000 (MAC) - 70.4 69.5 88.9

Beryllium ug/L n/a - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

Bismuth ug/L - - <2.0 <2.0 <2.0

Boron ug/L 5,000 (MAC) 1,500 <50 <50 <50

Cadmium ug/L 5 (MAC)0.0496 (hardness of 160)

0.0470 (hardness of 150)0.049 0.019 <0.017

Chromium ug/L 50 (MAC) 1 (Cr(VI)), 8.9 (Cr(III)) 1.1 1.2 1.3

Cobalt ug/L n/a - <0.40 <0.40 <0.40

Copper ug/L 1,000 (AO) 3 6.3 5.6 <2.0

Iron ug/L 300 (AO) 300 76 57 647

Lead ug/L 10 (MAC) 4 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50

Manganese ug/L 50 (AO) - 68.1 143 164

Molybdenum ug/L n/a 73 4.1 6.9 62.9

Nickel ug/L n/a 110 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0

Selenium ug/L 10 (MAC) 1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0

Silver ug/L n/a 0.1 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10

Strontium ug/L n/a - 24.9 24.7 26.2

Thallium ug/L n/a 0.8 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10

Tin ug/L n/a - <2.0 <2.0 <2.0

Titanium ug/L n/a - <2.0 <2.0 <2.0

Uranium ug/L 20 (MAC) 15 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10

Vanadium ug/L n/a - <2.0 <2.0 <2.0

Zinc ug/L 5,000 (AO) 30 71.1 61.5 42.1

Notes:

Bold values exceed Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality

Shaded values exceed Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for Freshwater Aquatic Life

MAC:Maximum Acceptable Concentration

"-": no guideline available

"<": less than the reportable detection limit

n/a: not available

AO:Aesthetic Objective

Canadian Water Quality

Guidelines for the

Protection of

Freshwater Aquatic

Life

Parameter

Guidelines for

Canadian Drinking

Water Quality

(August 2012)May 14, 2013

Units


June 24, 2013

19

Table 3. BOD, TSS, TP and TKN Concentrations

Carbonaceous BOD mg/L n/a n/a 230 570 280

Total Suspended Solids mg/L n/a n/a 15 21 130

Total phosphorous mg/L n/a n/a 0.38 0.64 0.51

Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/L n/a n/a 0.97 1.4 3.1

Notes:

n/a - not available

Inorganic Analytes

Sa-3

May 14, 2013

Sa-1

Parameter

Guidelines for

Canadian

Drinking Water

Quality (August

2012)

Canadian Water

Quality Guidelines

for the Protection of

Freshwater Aquatic

Life

Sa-2

Units


June 24, 2013

20

The majority of the analytical results were well within the acceptable guidelines, with the

exception of seven parameters. The levels of turbidity (all samples), iron (Sa-1 and Sa-2),

manganese (all samples), and colour (all samples) exceeded the aesthetic objective of the

Canadian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines. These elevated concentrations do not represent

a concern at this time as the water is not being used for human consumption. The

concentrations of aluminum (Sa-3), copper (Sa-1 and Sa-2), zinc (all samples) in all three

samples exceeded the guidelines found in the Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the

Protection of Freshwater Aquatic Life. The water in the wash water retainment pond is not

released into the freshwater environment. Additionally, there are no freshwater sources in the

vicinity of the wash water retainment pond.

Additional samples will be collected once the Project is complete. The results will be submitted

to PEIDELJ at that time.

4.5 Atmospheric Environment

In the vicinity of the Project local road traffic, industrial, and agricultural emissions are the

predominant sources of air contaminant emissions. In general, the air quality in the vicinity of

the Project meet the air quality standards, set forth by the PEI EPA–Air Quality Regulations,

most of the time. Steady wind patterns tend to disperse most pollutants released into the region

at most times of the year. Generally, climate conditions provide good dispersion of air

contaminants and frequent rainfall scavenges air contaminants from the atmosphere. The

ambient air quality also benefits from the infusion of relatively clean oceanic air masses from the

North Atlantic. Occasionally, air masses from central Canada or the eastern seaboard to the

south may transport contaminants such as ozone into the area, causing a reduction in air

quality. At other times, the weather is dominated by high-pressure air masses that produce low

wind speed and poor dispersion of local emissions, which can lead to elevated concentrations of

air contaminants and reduced air quality.

Annual climate normals for the Environment Canada weather station nearest to the Project site

(Bangor) indicate that February is typically the coldest month, with a mean daily temperature of

-7.9 degrees Celsius (°C). July is typically the hottest month having a mean daily temperature

of 18.2°C. The mean annual precipitation is 1,251.6 millimeters (mm). October is typically the

wettest month with an average rainfall amount of 125.4 mm, while January is the snowiest

month with an average recorded snowfall of 68.1 centimeters (cm) (Environment Canada 2012).

Sound monitoring is not known to have been conducted in the vicinity of the Project; however,

ambient sound levels in the area are influenced by road traffic, and to a lesser extent by

agricultural activities.


June 24, 2013

21

4.6 Terrestrial Environment

The terrestrial environment includes vascular plant and wildlife (including birds) species and

communities, and their habitats, including both upland and wetland habitats. The assessment

focuses on important habitats, and vascular plant and wildlife species at risk (SAR), as defined

by the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA), or species of conservation concern (SOCC), defined

here as species ranked S1, S2, or S3 by the Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre (AC

CDC), and with a status rank of At Risk, May Be At Risk, or Sensitive in PEI as determined by

the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC). Other species,

communities, and habitats in PEI are secure, and although they may be affected by the Project,

are not particularly sensitive to potential environmental effects.

4.6.1 Breeding Birds

Bird habitat in the area of the proposed project includes residential properties, agricultural land,

old field, grasslands, hedgerows, and forest. These areas may be used by migratory birds for

both nesting and feeding. Migratory birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Convention

Act (MBCA), 1994. The MBCA states that no person shall disturb, destroy or take a nest, egg,

nest shelter, eider duck shelter, or duck box of a migratory bird.

Information on birds within or near the project site has been gathered from a review of

information obtained by the Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre (AC CDC) and a visit to

the site.

4.6.1.1 Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre

The AC CDC assembles and provides objective and understandable data about species,

ecological communities of conservation concern, and significant areas in Atlantic Canada.

Existing information on wildlife and wildlife habitat was obtained from AC CDC occurrence

records for rare and uncommon species within 5 km of the PDA.

Available information on the historic records of rare or uncommon bird species near the

proposed project was compiled and reviewed. Table 4 lists four bird species SAR and SOCC

reported by the AC CDC within a 5 km radius of the PDA. There is one endangered species

protected under the SARA (Piping Plover). The remaining SOCC are not specifically protected

by endangered species legislation.


June 24, 2013

22

Table 4. Species at Risk and Species of Special Concern Recorded Within 5 km of

the Project (AC CDC 2013, CESCC 2011, SAR Public Registry 2012)

Common Name Scientific Name COSEWIC

Rank SARA Rank CESCC Rank

AC CDC S-Rank

Species At Risk

Piping Plover Charadrius

melodus melodus Endangered Endangered At Risk S1B

Species of Conservation Concern

Common Tern Sterna hirundo Not at Risk Not at Risk May be at Risk S2B

Killdeer Charadrius

vociferus Not at Risk Not at Risk Sensitive S3B

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularius Not at Risk Not at Risk Sensitive S3S4B

Notes: S1 = Extremely rare throughout its range in the province (typically 5 or fewer occurrences or very few remaining individuals). May be especially vulnerable to extirpation. S2 = Rare throughout its range in the province (6 to 20 occurrences or few remaining individuals). May be vulnerable to extirpation due to rarity or other factors. S3 = Uncommon throughout its range in the province, or found only in a restricted range, even if abundant in at some locations. (21 to 100 occurrences). S4 = Usually widespread, fairly common throughout its range in the province, and apparently secure with many occurrences, but the Element is of long-term concern (e.g., watch list). (100+ occurrences). S#S# = Numeric range rank: A range between two consecutive numeric ranks. Denotes range of uncertainty about the exact rarity of the Element (e.g., S1S2). B = Breeding: Basic rank refers to the breeding population of the element in the province. M = Migratory: Basic rank refers to the migratory stopover population in the province. Wild Species: The General Status of Wild Species in Canada At Risk: Species for which a formal, detailed risk assessment (COSEWIC status assessment or provincial or territorial equivalent) has been completed and that have been determined to be at risk of extirpation or extinction (i.e., Endangered or Threatened). A COSEWIC designation of Endangered or Threatened automatically results in a Canada General Status Rank (Canada rank) of At Risk. Where a provincial or territorial formal risk assessment finds a species to be Endangered or Threatened in that particular region, then, under the general status program, the species automatically receives a provincial or territorial general status rank of At Risk. May Be At Risk: Species that may be at risk of extirpation or extinction and are therefore candidates for a detailed risk assessment by COSEWIC, or provincial or territorial equivalents. Sensitive: Species that are not believed to be at risk of immediate extirpation or extinction but may require special attention or protection to prevent them from becoming at risk. Source Wild Species: The General Status of Wild Species in Canada’ website Available at: http://www.wildspecies.ca/ranks.cfm?lang=e (CESCC 2011)


June 24, 2013

23

4.6.1.2 Site visit

A site visit was conducted on June 11, 2013. Bird species were recorded within the wooded

area to be cut in order to relocate the wash water dissipation channels as well as the area

where the new processing facility will be constructed. Particular attention was given to areas

suitable for nesting Killdeer. Table 5 outlines the bird species heard or observed during the site

visit. All species recorded within the area are common throughout PEI.

Table 5. Bird Species Recorded at the Project Site

Common Name Scientific Name COSEWIC

Rank SARA Rank

CESCC Rank

AC CDC S-Rank

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina Not at Risk Not at Risk Secure S5B

American Robin Turdus migratorius Not at Risk Not at Risk Secure S5B

Savannah Sparrow Passerculus

sandwichensis Not at Risk Not at Risk Secure S5B

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia Not at Risk Not at Risk Secure S5B

Black-capped Chickadee

Poecile atricapillus Not at Risk Not at Risk Secure S5

American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla Not at Risk Not at Risk Secure S5B

Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus Not at Risk Not at Risk Secure S5B

Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia Not at Risk Not at Risk Secure S5B

Common Yellowthroat

Geothlypis trichas Not at Risk Not at Risk Secure S5B

Notes: S5 = Widespread, abundant, and secure, under present conditions B = Breeding: Basic rank refers to the breeding population of the element in the province. Secure: Species that are not believed to belong in the categories Extinct, Extirpated, At Risk, May Be At Risk, Sensitive, Accidental or Exotic. This category includes some species that show a trend of decline in numbers in Canada but remain relatively widespread or abundant. Source Wild Species: The General Status of Wild Species in Canada’ website Available at: http://www.wildspecies.ca/ranks.cfm?lang=e (CESCC 2011)

4.6.2 Vegetation

For the purposes of this report, vegetation is defined as vascular plants and their habitats. The

lack of baseline botanical surveys on PEI, combined with the high percentage of land devoted to

agricultural development, has resulted in rare rankings for many species that are common in

adjacent provinces, so that there is typically strong potential to find species that are listed as

rare on the provincial status list (AC CDC 2010).


June 24, 2013

24

A site visit was conducted on June 11, 2013. Vascular plants were recorded in the wooded

area to be cleared for the relocation of the wash water dissipation channels. Table 6 outlines

the plants found within the footprint of the dissipation channels. All species identified are

common throughout PEI and are typical species of upland wooded areas in the province.

Table 6. Vascular Plant Species Recorded at the Project Site

Common Name Scientific Name AC CDC S-Rank

CESCC

Bracken Fern Pteridium aquilinum S5 Secure

Wild Lily-of-The-Valley Maianthemum

canadense

S5 Secure

Bunchberry Cornus canadensis S5 Secure

Wood Fern Dryopteris sp. - -

Wild Strawberry Fragaria virginiana S5 Secure

Yellow Bluebead Lily Clintonia borealis S5 Secure

Wild Sarsaparilla Aralia nudicaulis S5 Secure

Sugar Maple Acer saccharum S5 Secure

Red Raspberry Rubus idaeus S5 Secure

Northern Starflower Trientalis borealis S5 Secure

White Spruce Picea glauca S5 Secure

Northern Wild Raisin Viburnum nudum S5 Secure

American Mountain Ash Sorbus americana S5 Secure

Unidentified moss - - -

Aster sp. Symphyotrichum sp. - -

Goldenrod sp. Solidago sp. - -

Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides S5 Secure

Blackberry Rubus sp. - -

Hawkweed sp. Hieracium sp. - -

Unidentified grass - - -

Unidentified sedge - - -

Creeping Snowberry Gaultheria hispidula S5 Secure

Notes: S5 = Widespread, abundant, and secure, under present conditions ‘-‘ = Not available. Secure: Species that are not believed to belong in the categories Extinct, Extirpated, At Risk, May Be At Risk, Sensitive, Accidental or Exotic. This category includes some species that show a trend of decline in numbers in Canada but remain relatively widespread or abundant. Source Wild Species: The General Status of Wild Species in Canada’ website Available at: http://www.wildspecies.ca/ranks.cfm?lang=e (CESCC 2011)


June 24, 2013

25

Additionally, a search of the AC CDC database (AC CDC 2013) revealed 61 vascular plant

SOCC that have been previously recorded within a 5 km radius of the PDA (Table 7). None of

the plants are listed and protected by the SARA and none of the species were recorded at the

project site.

Table 7. Vascular Plant Species of Conservation Concern Recorded Within 5 km of

the Project (AC CDC 2013)


CESCC

Floating Burreed Sparganium fluctuans S1 May be at Risk

Slender Wedge Grass Sphenopholis

intermedia

S1 May be at Risk

Dense Sedge Carex cumulata S1 May be at Risk

Livid Sedge Carex livida S1 May be at Risk

Slender Cottongrass Eriophorum gracile S1 May be at Risk

Swamp Milkweed Asclepias incarnata S1 May be at Risk

Dwarf Clearweed Pilea pumila S1 Sensitive

Shaved Sedge Carex tonsa var. tonsa S1? -

Running Serviceberry Amelanchier stolonifera S1? Undetermined

Hooked Buttercup Ranunculus recurvatus S1? May be at Risk

Canada Serviceberry Amelanchier

canadensis S1? Undetermined

Common Hop Humulus lupulus var.

lupuloides S1? -

Large St. John’s-wort Hypericum majus S1? May be at Risk

Starved Panic Grass Dichanthelium

depauperatum S1S2 May be at Risk

Labrador Bedstraw Galium labradoricum S1S2 May be at Risk

Northern Water-starwort Callitriche

hermaphroditica S1S2 May be at Risk

Canada Manna Grass Glyceria canadensis S2 May be at Risk

Virginia Chain Fern Woodwardia virginica S2 May be at Risk

White Fringed Orchid Platanthera

blephariglottis S2 Sensitive

Slender Wild Rye Elymus trachycaulus S2 Sensitive

Red Pine Pinus resinosa S2 Sensitive

Rose Pogonia Pogonia

ophioglossoides S2 Sensitive

Tall Northern Green Orchid

Platanthera aquilonis S2 Sensitive

Seaside Spurge Chamaesyce

polygonifolia S2 Sensitive


June 24, 2013

26


CESCC

Broom Crowberry Corema conradii S2 Sensitive

Heart-leaved Twayblade Listera cordata S2 Sensitive

Broad-leaved Twayblade Listera convallarioides S2 May be at Risk

Loesel's Twayblade Liparis loeselii S2 May be at Risk

Showy Lady’s-Slipper Cypripedium reginae S2 Sensitive

Green-keeled Cottongrass

Eriophorum

viridicarinatum S2 May be at Risk

Gmelin's Water Buttercup

Ranunculus gmelinii S2 Sensitive

Pink Pyrola Pyrola asarifolia S2 Sensitive

Downy Willowherb Epilobium strictum S2 Sensitive

Lesser Bladderwort Utricularia minor S2 Sensitive

Common Mare's-Tail Hippuris vulgaris S2 Sensitive

Bog Birch Betula pumila S2 Sensitive

Boreal Aster Symphyotrichum

boreale S2 May be at Risk

Connecticut Beggarticks Bidens heterodoxa S2 May be at Risk

Dwarf Ginseng Panax trifolius S2 May be at Risk

American Burreed Sparganium

americanum S2? Undetermined

Canada Rush Juncus canadensis S2? Sensitive

Fernald's Hay Sedge Carex foenea S2? May be at Risk

Tussock Sedge Carex stricta S2S3 May be at Risk

Northern Mannagrass Glyceria borealis S2S3 Sensitive

Golden Sedge Carex aurea S2S3 Sensitive

Hooded Ladies’-tresses Spiranthes

romanzoffiana S2S3 Sensitive

Gaspé Arrowgrass Triglochin gaspensis S2S3 Sensitive

Green Adder’s-Mouth Malaxis unifolia S2S3 Sensitive

Deep Green Sedge Carex tonsa S2S3 Sensitive

Northern Beaked Sedge Carex utriculata S2S3 Sensitive

White Avens Geum canadense S2S3 Sensitive

Seabeach Sandwort Honckenya peploides

ssp. robusta S2S3 -

Silvery Glade Fern Deparia acrostichoides S3 Sensitive

White Bog Orchid Platanthera dilatata S3 Sensitive

Club Spur Orchid Platanthera clavellata S3 Sensitive

Low Rough Aster Eurybia radula S3 Sensitive

Canada Lettuce Lactuca canadensis S3? Sensitive

Lake Sedge Carex lacustris S3S4 Sensitive

Fleshy Hawthorn Crataegus succulenta S3S4 Undetermined


June 24, 2013

27


CESCC

Canada Rice Grass Piptatherum canadense SH May be at Risk

Fleshy Stitchwort Stellaria crassifolia SH May be at Risk

Notes: S1 = Extremely rare throughout its range in the province (typically 5 or fewer occurrences or very few remaining individuals). May be especially vulnerable to extirpation. S2 = Rare throughout its range in the province (6 to 20 occurrences or few remaining individuals). May be vulnerable to extirpation due to rarity or other factors. S3 = Uncommon throughout its range in the province, or found only in a restricted range, even if abundant in at some locations (21 to 100 occurrences). S4 = Usually widespread, fairly common throughout its range in the province, and apparently secure with many occurrences, but the Element is of long-term concern (e.g., watch list). (100+ occurrences). S#S# = Numeric range rank: A range between two consecutive numeric ranks. Denotes range of uncertainty about the exact rarity of the Element (e.g., S1S2). ? = Inexact or uncertain: for numeric ranks, denotes inexactness, e.g., SE? denotes uncertainty of exotic status. (the “?” qualifies the character immediately preceding it in the S-RANK). SH = Historical: Previously occurred in the province but may have been overlooked during the past 20-70 years. Presence is suspected and will likely be rediscovered; depending on species/community. ‘-‘ = Not included in CESCC plant list. Wild Species: The General Status of Wild Species in Canada May Be At Risk: Species that may be at risk of extirpation or extinction and are therefore candidates for a detailed risk assessment by COSEWIC, or provincial or territorial equivalents. Sensitive: Species that are not believed to be at risk of immediate extirpation or extinction but may require special attention or protection to prevent them from becoming at risk. Source Wild Species: The General Status of Wild Species in Canada’ website Available at: http://www.wildspecies.ca/ranks.cfm?lang=e (CESCC 2011)

4.6.3 Wetlands

There are no wetlands within or adjacent to the proposed project site. The closest wetland is a

provincially identified wetland approximately 1.5 kilometres (km) from the existing processing

facility. This wetland is located southwest of the facility, across the highway (Route 2) and has

been identified as an open water marsh approximately 5 hectares in size. The field

identification number is 137916.

4.7 Freshwater Environment

There are no freshwater streams within or adjacent to the proposed project site. The closest

stream is a tributary that drains into St. Peters Lake. The stream is located to the north,

approximately 750 m from the existing processing facility, and approximately 360 m from the

edge of Wyman’s property. There are two parcels in between the Wyman’s property and the

location of the stream.


June 24, 2013

28

4.8 Human Environment

4.8.1 Land Use

Land use in the vicinity of the Project is a mixture of residential, agricultural, and forested

properties.

4.8.2 Archaeological, Heritage, or Cultural Resources

The Historic Places of Prince Edward Island Mapping Application (Historic Places of Prince

Edward Island nd) did not reveal any sites of historic importance in the vicinity of the Project.

Additionally, a search of the Canadian Register of Historic Places (Canada’s Historic Places

nd), did not reveal any registered significant historic sites in the vicinity of the Project.

Field investigations for archaeological, heritage, or cultural resources were not carried out for

the Project. Any discovery of an archaeological, heritage, or cultural resource as part of the

Project would be an unplanned event; however, given the disturbed nature of the site, such

discoveries are highly unlikely to occur.

4.8.3 Transportation

The proposed project is located on North MacEwen Road, adjacent to Route 2. The average

daily traffic on Route 2 between Mount Stewart and the Morrell Bridge is approximately 3,600

vehicles per day. This number increases during the summer months to approximately 5,200

vehicles per day (A. Aitken pers. comm. 2013).


June 24, 2013

29

5.0 PROJECT INTERACTIONS WITH THE ENVIRONMENT

The potential for and the nature of interactions between the Project and the environment, were

determined by the Study Team by employing a qualitative rating system. The Study Team rated

each interaction between the Project and each VEC based on the following rating system, with a

rating assigned for each interaction based on the professional judgment and experience of the

Study Team, as follows.

0 = No interaction. The environmental effects are not significant and not considered further

in this report.

1 = Interaction occurs; however, based on past experience and professional judgment the

interaction would not result in a significant environmental effect (in consideration of their

magnitude, frequency, duration, geographic extent, reversibility, and ecological and

socio-economic context), even without mitigation; or interaction would not be significant

due to application of codified environmental protection practices that are known to

effectively mitigate the predicted environmental effects. The environmental effects are

not significant and not considered further in this report.

2 = Interaction could result in an environmental effect of concern even with mitigation; the

potential environmental effects are considered further in this report.

Where a potentially significant Project-VEC interaction (i.e., a rating of 2) may occur, further

analysis is provided to assess the environmental effect more thoroughly. Where no interaction

or no significant interaction is identified (i.e., a rating of 0 or 1) the rationale of why no interaction

exists, or why a limited interaction can be adequately mitigated without resulting in significant

environmental effects, is provided, but the environmental effects are rated not significant and

are not considered beyond that discussion in this assessment.

The assessment is provided in a tabular format for ease in evaluation and communication.

5.1 Project-Environment Interaction Matrix

Based on the activities outlined in Section 2 and the methodology described above, the potential

interactions between the Project and the environment were ranked and are summarized in

Table 8.


June 24, 2013

30

Table 8. Potential Interactions of the Project with the Environment

Project Phase, or Activities/Physical Works Associated with the Project

Atm

os

ph

eri

c

En

vir

on

men

t

Te

rre

str

ial

En

vir

on

men

t

Gro

un

dw

ate

r

Res

ou

rce

s

La

nd

Us

e

Arc

ha

eo

log

y a

nd

Heri

tag

e R

eso

urc

es

Cu

rre

nt

Us

e o

f L

an

d

an

d R

eso

urc

es

fo

r

Tra

dit

ion

al P

urp

os

es

by

Ab

ori

gin

al

Pe

rso

ns

Ro

ad

Tra

ns

po

rta

tio

n

Pu

bli

c H

ea

lth

an

d

Safe

ty

Eff

ects

of

En

vir

on

men

t

on

th

e P

roje

ct

Construction 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Operation and Maintenance

1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0

5.1.1 VECs with No Interaction, or No Significant Interaction, with the Project

5.1.1.1 VECs with No Interaction with the Project (Ranking of 0)

Based on the ratings provided in Table 8 above, during Operation and Maintenance the Project

is not expected to result in any interaction (i.e., a ranking of 0) with the Terrestrial Environment,

Land Use, Archaeology and Heritage Resources, Current Use of Land and Resources for

Traditional Purposes by Aboriginal Persons, and Effects of the Environment on the Project.

Due to the nature of the Project and the environmental setting, the environmental effects of the

Project on these VECs are rated not significant and are not considered further in this EIS.

5.1.1.2 VECs with No Significant Interaction with the Project (Ranking of 1)

The Project is not expected to result in an interaction that could lead to significant environmental

effects (i.e., a ranking of 1) for the following VECs:

• Atmospheric Environment;

• Terrestrial Environment (Construction);

• Groundwater Resources;

• Land Use (Construction);

• Archaeology and Heritage Resources (Construction);

• Current Use of Land Resources for Traditional Purposes by Aboriginal Persons

(Construction);

• Road Transportation;


June 24, 2013

31

• Public Health and Safety; and

• Effects of the Environment on the Project (Construction).

Further discussion is provided in the sub-sections that follow.

Atmospheric Environment

Interactions between the Project and the Atmospheric Environment have been ranked as 1 in

Table 8. Emissions of air contaminants from Project activities are expected to be minimal and

limited to emissions from the operation of equipment and fugitive dust during Construction and

from the infrequent operation of maintenance equipment during Operation. Air contaminant

emissions from the Project will not affect the local air quality. Sound emissions during

Construction will occur as a result of the operation of equipment. The sound levels are

expected to be consistent with existing levels because of the route’s proximity to roadways.

Sound emissions from the Project are not expected to interact substantively with nearby

residences or other receptors. The Proponent has committed to limiting Construction activities

to day time hours, in order to prevent nuisance noise to Project neighbours. Sound emissions

during Operation will be limited to those from continued truck traffic to the facility, maintenance

vehicles, and employees.

Accordingly, there are no substantive interactions between the Project and the Atmospheric

Environment. In consideration of existing regulatory frameworks, legislation, and policies in PEI,

substantive interactions between the Project and the Atmospheric Environmental are not

expected. Therefore, the potential adverse environmental effects of the Project on the

Atmospheric Environment during all phases of the Project are rated not significant, and are not

considered further in this EIS.

Terrestrial Environment

Interactions between the Project and the Terrestrial Environment have been ranked as 1 in

Table 8. Ground disturbance will be minimal and limited to previously disturbed areas including

maintained grassland and a small portion of a regenerated wooded area on the east side of the

wash water retainment pond. The wooded area is dominated by old field white spruce and

there are no sensitive environmental features observed. Additionally, there are no wetlands in

the vicinity of the site. No rare or uncommon plant or wildlife species were recorded at the

project site.

Accordingly, no substantive interactions between the Project and the Terrestrial Environment

are anticipated. Therefore, potential adverse environmental effects of the Project on the


June 24, 2013

32

Terrestrial Environment are rated not significant for all phases of the Project, and are not

considered further in this EIS.

Groundwater Resources

Interactions between the Project and Groundwater Resources have been ranked as 1. At this

time it is expected that water usage at the facility will increase by a maximum of half of the

current water usage. Prior to the installation of the additional well, a Groundwater Extraction

Permit will be acquired and conditions of the permit will be adhered to. The Project is not

expected to affect groundwater quantity or quality in the vicinity of the Project. Additional

sampling of the water being released into the wash water retainment pond will be conducted

once the expanded facility is in operation. These samples will be collected in order to verify that

the general chemistry of the wash water remains the same as that of the currently operating

facility. Therefore, the potential adverse environmental effects of the Project on Groundwater

Resources during all phases of the Project are rated not significant, and are not considered

further in this EIS.

Land Use

Interactions between the Project and Land Use have been ranked as 1 in Table 8 because the

Project is consistent with the existing land use at the site.

The project footprint is located on the property where the current facility is in operation. The

land within the footprint of the processing area is currently maintained grassland, while the

wooded area in the footprint of the wash water dissipation channels has been previously

disturbed and left to regenerate.

While there are several residential properties in the vicinity of the Project, Fitzgerald and Snow

has committed to limiting Construction activities to day time hours in order to minimize potential

disturbance to Project neighbours.

Accordingly, no substantive interactions between the Project and Land Use are anticipated.

Therefore, the potential adverse environmental effects of the Project on Land Use are rated not

significant for all phases of the Project, and are not considered further in this EIS.

Archaeology and Heritage Resources

Interactions between the Project and Archaeology and Heritage Resources have been ranked

as 1 in Table 8 because the Project involves only minimal ground disturbance. The Project will

require excavation of the topsoil layer in order to place structural fill. The site is a previously


June 24, 2013

33

disturbed area and it is unlikely that the Project will interact with Archaeology and Heritage

Resources. Accordingly, in consideration of existing regulatory frameworks and policies in

respect of Archaeology and Heritage Resources, the potential adverse environmental effects of

the Project on Archaeology and Heritage Resources during all phases of the Project are thus

rated not significant. Archaeology and Heritage Resources will not be assessed further in this

EIS.

Current Use of Land Resources for Traditional Purposes by Aboriginal Persons

Current Use of Land and Resources for Traditional Purposes by Aboriginal Persons is ranked

as 1 in Table 8 because of the limited potential historical use of the land and resources by

Aboriginal persons.

There is no specific known current use of the land and resources at the Project location for

traditional purposes by Aboriginal persons. The Project is being conducted on privately owned

land such that any potential current use of these land and resources by Aboriginal persons

would be at the convenience of the land owner. There is no Crown land to be used for the

Project.

In consideration of provincial policy and regulatory frameworks relating to Aboriginal land and

resource use, the potential adverse environmental effects of the Project on Current Use of Land

and Resources for Traditional Purposes by Aboriginal Persons during all phases of the Project

are rated not significant. Current Use of Land and Resources for Traditional Purposes by

Aboriginal Persons will not be assessed further in this EIS.

Road Transportation

Interactions between the Project and Road Transportation have been ranked as 1 because

project vehicles will follow existing roadways and the total amount of truck traffic to the facility is

not expected to increase.

During Construction, materials and supplies will be transported to the site by truck and

construction workers will travel to the site by passenger vehicle. Truck traffic due to

Construction is expected to be very nominal. The Project site will be accessed by existing

roadways and all Project related vehicles will obey traffic laws.

During Operation the amount of truck traffic transporting berries to the facility is not expected to

increase. Currently, frozen berries stored at offsite locations are transported to the facility year

round. This traffic is expected to decrease as a result of the added cold storage areas. Truck


June 24, 2013

34

traffic will increase during the peak processing season; however, this is expected to balance out

with the decrease in traffic throughout the remainder of the year.

In consideration of existing frameworks and policies with respect to Road Transportation, the

potential adverse environmental effects of the Project on Transportation are rated not significant

for all phases of the Project, and are not considered further in this EIS.

Health and Safety

Interactions between the Project and Public Health and Safety have been ranked as 1 in

Table 8. Project activities, if not carried out in a careful and safe manner, could result in risks to

the public or workers. As with any project in PEI, Construction of the Project is subject to

provincial occupational health and safety legislation that is aimed at the protection of public and

worker safety.

The Project will comply with all requirements of the PEI Occupational Health and Safety Act,

thus the potential environmental effects of the Project on Public Health and Safety during

Construction, and Operation and Maintenance are considered not significant from the

perspective of worker safety. There are no features of the Project that would result in a higher

potential for Accidents, Malfunctions, or Unplanned Events to occur as compared to existing

operation of the facility. Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events are addressed in

Section 5.2.

Based on the above, no substantive interactions between the Project and Public Health and

Safety are anticipated. Therefore, in consideration of existing regulatory frameworks and

policies in respect of Public Health and Safety, the potential adverse environmental effects of

the Project on Public Health and Safety during all phases of the Project are rated not significant,

and are not considered further in this EIS.

Effects of the Environment on the Project

Interactions between the Project and the environment, with respect to potential effects of the

environment on the Project, have been ranked as 1 in Table 8. Effects of the Environment on

the Project refers to the environmental forces and/or forces of nature that could affect the

Project physically or hamper the ability to carry out the Project activities in their normal, planned

manner.

While environmental forces (e.g., severe weather, seismic events) have the potential to

adversely affect the Project, good engineering design considers and accounts for these effects

and the associated loadings or stresses on the Project that may be caused by these


June 24, 2013

35

environmental forces. The methodologies used for mitigating potential effects of the

environment on the Project are inherent in the planning, engineering design (i.e., designed to

meet CSA Standards), construction, and planned operation of a well-designed Project expected

to be in service for several decades.

During Construction there is the potential for extreme weather to cause delays. While some

weather related delays are possible, they are not likely to adversely affect the Project

construction, schedule, or cost.

During Operation, the facility will be exposed to potentially harsh weather conditions, including

high winds, ice, and snow. Engineering design will take these factors into consideration to

minimize adverse effects of the environment on the Project. The Project will be designed in

compliance with applicable codes and standards (i.e., CSA Standards) that address specific

issues related to environmental forces and activities that could affect the Project.

Compliance with codes, standards, and best management practices inherently accounts for

environmental forces that, had they not been accounted for, could cause significant adverse

environmental effects on the Project. Therefore, the Effects of the Environment on the Project

are rated not significant, and are not considered further in this EIS.

5.1.1.3 Determination of Significance

All VECs for which no interaction (i.e., ranked as 0) or no substantive interaction (i.e., ranked

as 1) with the Project during Construction, and Operation and Maintenance, as well as the

environmental effects of the Project have been rated not significant, with a high level of

confidence. This includes the Atmospheric Environment, Terrestrial Environment, Groundwater

Resources, Land Use, Archaeology and Heritage Resources, Current Use of Land and

Resources for Traditional Purposes by Aboriginal Persons, Road Transportation, Public Health

and Safety, and Effects of the Environment on the Project. The environmental effects of the

Project on these VECs are thus not carried forward or discussed further in this EIS.

5.1.2 VECs Which May Result in an Interaction with the Project that Requires Further

Evaluation (Ranking of 2)

Based on the ratings provided in Table 8 above, there are no VECs that are expected to result

in a potential significant interaction with the environment.


June 24, 2013

36

5.2 Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events are accidents or upset events or conditions that

are not planned as a part of routine Project activities during any Project phase. Even with the

best planning and application of mitigation, Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

could occur during any phase of the Project. These could occur as a result of abnormal

operating conditions, wear and tear, human error, equipment failure, and other possible causes.

Many accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events are preventable and can be readily

addressed or prevented by good planning, design, equipment selection, hazards analysis and

corrective action, emergency response planning, and mitigation.

5.2.1 Methodology

In this section, the potential Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events that could occur

during any phase of the Project and potentially result in significant adverse environmental

effects are described, discussed, and assessed. The focus is on credible accidents that have a

reasonable probability of occurrence, and for which the resulting environmental effects could be

significant in relation to the identified thresholds of significance for each VEC (previously

identified, as applicable).

It is noted that Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events are evaluated individually, in

isolation of each other, as the probability of a series of accidental events occurring in

combination with each other is not likely to occur. It is not credible to assess the occurrence of

a series of accidental events occurring in parallel or as a result of each other, nor would it be

possible to predict or prevent such occurrences, even with the best of planning. These possible

events, on their own, generally have a very low probability of occurrence and thus their

environmental effects are of low likelihood. They have an even lower probability or likelihood of

occurring together, therefore their combination is not considered credible, nor of any

measurable likelihood of occurrence.

Various credible accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events have been selected by the

Study Team to complete the assessment. Since it is impossible to review and assess all

possible accidents, malfunctions, and upset conditions, the Study Team has conservatively

selected scenarios that represent higher consequence events that would more than adequately

address the consequences of less likely or lower consequence scenarios.


June 24, 2013

37

5.2.2 Identification of Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

The Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events that have been selected by the Study

Team, based on its experience and professional judgment, are as follows.

Worker Accident: Worker accidents may occur during either Construction or Operation and

Maintenance, and may result in harm, injury, or death to one or more Project workers.

Fire: Includes a fire in a Project component or facility. The focus is on the consequence, and

not the mechanism by which it occurs.

Hazardous Materials Spill: Spills of fuel, petroleum products, and/or other chemicals used

onsite.

Vehicle Accident: Project-related vehicle accidents that could occur on road transportation

network.

Discovery of Heritage Resource: The discovery of a previously undiscovered heritage or

archaeological resource that could occur during Construction.

5.2.3 Environmental Effects Assessment

The potential interactions between the selected Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events

that could occur during the Construction or Operation and Maintenance of the Project and each

relevant VEC are identified in Table 9, below.


June 24, 2013

38

Table 9 Potential Interactions of Project-Related Accidents, Malfunctions, and

Unplanned Events with the Environment

Accident, Malfunction, or Unplanned Event

Atm

os

ph

eri

c E

nv

iro

nm

en

t

Gro

un

dw

ate

r R

es

ou

rce

s

Terr

es

tria

l E

nv

iro

nm

en

t

Lan

d U

se

Arc

ha

eo

log

y a

nd

Heri

tag

e R

eso

urc

es

Cu

rre

nt

Us

e o

f L

an

d a

nd

Res

ou

rce

s f

or

Tra

dit

ion

al

Pu

rpo

ses

by

Ab

ori

gin

al

Pers

on

s

Ro

ad

Tra

ns

po

rta

tio

n

Pu

bli

c H

ea

lth

an

d S

afe

ty

Worker Accident 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Fire 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

Hazardous Material Spill 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

Vehicle Accident 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

Discovery of a Heritage Resource

0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

5.2.3.1 Interactions Ranked as 0

There are no Project-related Accidents, Malfunctions, or Unplanned Events that will have no

interactions with the various VECs in Table 9.

5.2.3.2 Interactions Ranked as 1

5.2.3.2.1.1 Worker Accident A Worker Accident has the potential to interact only with Public Health and Safety as it may

result in harm, injury, or death to workers. A Worker Accident will not interact with any other

VEC and thus its environmental effects on these other VECs for which the interactions were

ranked as 0 in Table 9 are rated not significant, and are not discussed further.

Interactions between a Worker Accident and Public Health and Safety will be mitigated by

compliance with health and safety legislation, safety by design, and implementation of


June 24, 2013

39

environmental management measures aimed at protecting human health. Safety risks to

workers will be reduced by complying with the requirements of various governing standards

including the federal Canada Labour Code, the federal Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act,

the Prince Edward Island Occupational Health and Safety Act, and the Prince Edward Island

Workers Compensation Act, and all associated regulations. Adherence to public safety codes

and regulations will help ensure that the Project is carried out in a safe manner to protect

workers and the public.

With the application of, and compliance with, these Acts, regulations, and standards, including the application of safety and security measures that are known to effectively mitigate the potential environmental effects, the potential adverse environmental effects of a Worker Accident on Public Health and Safety during all phases of the Project are rated not significant. 5.2.3.2.2 Fire A Fire at the Project location could interact with the Atmospheric Environment (because of

smoke emissions), Public Health and Safety (because of potential safety risks to workers), and

the Terrestrial Environment (because of potential contamination with sediment-laden water used

in extinguishing the fire). A Fire will not interact with any other VEC and thus its environmental

effects on these other VECs for which the interactions were ranked as 0 in Table 9 and are

rated not significant, and are not discussed further.

A Fire may arise from Project heavy equipment or from natural causes such as a lightning

strike. In the unlikely event that a Fire occurred, the immediate concern for a fire would be for

human health and safety. Local air quality conditions may deteriorate through the duration of

the fire.

The emissions from a fire would likely consist mainly of smoke (particulate matter) and CO2 but

could also include CO, NOX, SO2, and other products of incomplete combustion. A large fire

could create particulate matter levels greater than the ambient air quality standard over

distances of several kilometres, but such situations would be of short duration, infrequent, and

are not expected to occur because of the limited nature of the Project, planned mitigation, and

prevention measures.

Therefore, the potential adverse environmental effects of a Fire on Atmospheric Environment,

Public Health and Safety, and the Terrestrial Environment during all phases of the Project are

rated not significant.


June 24, 2013

40

5.2.3.2.3 Hazardous Material Spill A Hazardous Material Spill may interact with Groundwater Resources, Land Use, and the

Terrestrial Environment. A Hazardous Material Spill will not interact with any other VEC and

thus its environmental effects on these other VECs for which the interactions were ranked as 0

in Table 9 are rated not significant, and are not discussed further.

A spill of fuel, oil, lubricants, or other hazardous materials may occur during Construction or

Operation and Maintenance activities, through damage to vehicles or leaks from Project

components. Any spill is usually highly localized and easily cleaned up by onsite crews using

standard equipment. Large quantities of hazardous materials will not be used by or stored as

part of the Project, therefore a large spill is not considered to be a possibility.

Environmental training, as well as training in spill prevention and response, will be provided to

Construction personnel. Prior to the commencement of Construction activities, Fitzgerald and

Snow will ensure that spill response equipment is readily available. All spills will immediately be

contained, cleaned, and reported to applicable authorities as per the following guidelines:

• all contaminated material or potentially hazardous material will be contained;

• proper safety precautions (e.g., protective clothing and footwear) will be taken;

• contaminated wastes, such as used cleaning cloths, absorbents, and pads, will be stored in

proper waste containers; and

• waste material will be disposed of at approved disposal facilities.

Construction equipment will be cleaned and maintained in good working condition, with visual

inspections of equipment performed on a regular basis. Petroleum products such as gasoline,

diesel fuel, and oil will be properly labeled in accordance with WHMIS. Servicing of equipment

(e.g., oil changes and hydraulic repairs) will be completed off site when possible; however,

when required at the site, work will be completed over an impervious tarp or a tray. Vehicles will

be equipped with spill containment and cleanup materials.

Personnel handling fuels and hazardous wastes will be trained in WHMIS and qualified to

handle these materials in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and applicable

regulations. Hazardous waste and storage area(s) will be clearly marked and secured.

Industrial waste will be reused or recycled on a priority basis. Where reuse or recycling

opportunities are not available, industrial waste will be collected and disposed of at an approved

facility. Garbage receptacles for solid non-hazardous wastes will be available. These wastes

will be collected on a regular basis or as they are generated and will be disposed of at approved

locations.


June 24, 2013

41

With these mitigation measures and emergency response procedures implemented, and

because of the low likelihood of such events, the potential adverse environmental effects of a

Hazardous Material Spill on Groundwater Resources, Land Use, and the Terrestrial

Environment during all phases of the Project are rated not significant.

5.2.3.2.4 Vehicle Accident A Vehicle Accident arising from Project-related activities may interact with Road Transportation

and Public Health and Safety. A Vehicle Accident will not interact with any other VEC and thus

its environmental effects on these other VECs for which the interactions were ranked as 0 in

Table 9 are rated not significant, and are not discussed further.

The potential for a Vehicle Accident to occur exists during Construction and/or Operation and

Maintenance of the Project.

Worker traffic and truck traffic to and from the site and the operation of heavy equipment onsite

during Construction, though very limited given the straightforward nature of the Project, have the

potential to result in a vehicle accident during Construction. The Project-related vehicles will

observe all traffic rules and provincial and federal highway regulations. Trucking activity will

take place on designated truck routes, and observe all speed limits and weight restrictions.

Because the Project will comply with all applicable traffic rules and regulations, and the nominal

increase in traffic volumes as a result of the Project, the potential adverse environmental effects

of a Vehicle Accident on Road Transportation, and Public Health and Safety during all phases of

the Project are rated not significant.

5.2.3.2.5 Discovery of a Heritage Resource The discovery of a heritage resource has the potential to interact only with Archaeological and

Heritage Resources, and Current Use of Land and Resources for Traditional Purposes by

Aboriginal Persons and was assigned a ranking of 1 in Table 9, reflecting the low probability that

a previously undiscovered heritage resource (archaeological or paleontological) may be

uncovered as a result of the Project. Such a discovery would be most likely to occur from

earthwork conducted during Construction. Discovery of a Heritage Resource will not interact

with any other VEC and thus its environmental effects on these other VECs for which the

interactions were ranked as 0 in Table 9 are rated not significant, and are not discussed further.

A significant heritage resource is defined as a site that contains features (non-removable

indications of past human use and activity, such as a fire hearth, a living floor, or a burial site) in


June 24, 2013

42

addition to artifacts determined by the provincial regulatory agency to be significant. The

disturbance of an individual artifact is not normally considered significant.

In the unlikely event that a heritage resource is discovered; all work will cease in the immediate

area of the discovery, and the provincial Archaeologist will be contacted by Fitzgerald and Snow

immediately at (902) 368-5378. Work in the area will only continue if approval is received from

the authorities having jurisdiction to resume these activities, and the Project will continue in

compliance with mitigation strategies required by the provincial regulators or other regulatory

bodies having an interest in heritage resource protection.

With the low probability of encountering heritage resources during Project-related activities, and

in consideration of the nature of the Project, planned mitigation, and the emergency and

contingency response procedures that would be used in the unlikely event of such a discovery,

the potential adverse environmental effects of a Discovery of a Heritage Resource during all

phases of the Project are rated not significant.

5.2.3.2.6 Interactions Ranked as 2 There were no interactions ranked as 2 in Table 9. Accordingly, by definition, the potential

environmental effects of all Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events are rated not

significant.

5.2.4 Determination of Significance

The Project will be designed, constructed, and operated with the utmost regard for health,

safety, and environmental protection to minimize its potential environmental effects that could

result during the normal course of Construction, and Operation and Maintenance as well as

those that could result from Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events.

The careful planning of the Project and the implementation of proven and effective mitigation will

minimize the potential for Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned events to occur. There are

no potential adverse environmental effects that could occur as a result of Accidents,

Malfunctions, or Unplanned Events during any phase of the Project. In the very unlikely and

improbable event that an Accident, Malfunction, or Unplanned Event of any considerable

magnitude were to occur, it would be of a short duration, low frequency, or limited geographic

extent such that significant adverse environmental effects to any VEC would be very unlikely to

occur.


June 24, 2013

43

Overall, given the nature of the Project and credible Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned

Events considered, and in light of the nature of the Project and proposed mitigation, the

potential adverse environmental effects of all Project-related Accidents, Malfunctions, and

Unplanned Events on all VECs during all phases are rated not significant with a high level of

confidence.


June 24, 2013

44

6.0 CONCLUSION

In this EIS, Stantec conducted an environmental impact assessment (EIA) of the Wyman’s PEI

Growth Initiative (“the Project”) commissioned by Fitzgerald and Snow in Kings County, PEI.

The Project involves the construction, and operation and maintenance of an expansion to

Wyman’s blueberry processing facility.

6.1 Scope of the Environmental Impact Assessment

An EIA of the Project is required under Section 9(1) of the PEI Environmental Protection Act

(PEI EPA). This EIS follows Stantec EIA Methodology that has been adapted to meet the

requirements of the PEI EPA.

The EIA evaluated the potential environmental effects of the Project. The scope of the

assessment included all activities necessary for the Construction, and Operation and

Maintenance of the Project. Environmental effects were assessed for each phase of the Project

(i.e., Construction, and Operation and Maintenance), where relevant, as well as for credible

accidents, malfunctions, and unplanned events. The assessment was conducted within defined

boundaries (spatial, temporal, administrative, and technical) for the assessment and in

consideration of defined residual environmental effects rating criteria aimed at determining the

significance of the environmental effects. The EIA considered measures that are technically

and economically feasible that would mitigate any significant adverse environmental effects of

the Project.

6.2 Environmental Effects Assessment

The EIA concluded that the potential environmental effects of the Project for all VECs would be

not significant during all phases of the Project and for all activities to be conducted as part of the

Project. These conclusions were reached in consideration of the nature of the Project itself, the

nature and extent of its environmental effects, and the planned implementation of proven and

effective mitigation as part of the Project throughout its design, construction, commissioning,

operation, and maintenance. The environmental effects of accidents, malfunctions, and

unplanned events were also rated not significant. Effects of the Environment on the Project

were rated not significant due to design consideration and compliance with codes and standards

that will mitigate against a significant adverse effect on the Project. In all cases, the

environmental effects and significance predictions were made with a high level of confidence by

the Study Team.


June 24, 2013

45

6.3 Overall Conclusion

Based on the results of this EIA, it is concluded that, with planned mitigation, the residual environmental effects of the Project during all phases are rated not significant. 7.0 CLOSING

This report has been prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) for the sole benefit of

Fitzgerald and Snow (2010) Ltd. (Fitzgerald and Snow). The report may not be relied upon by

any other person or entity, other than for its intended purposes, without the express written

consent of Stantec, and Fitzgerald and Snow.

This report was undertaken exclusively for the purpose outlined herein and was limited to the

scope and purpose specifically expressed in this report. This report cannot be used or applied

under any circumstances to another location or situation or for any other purpose without further

evaluation of the data and related limitations. Any use of this report by a third party, or any

reliance on decisions made based upon it, are the responsibility of such third parties. Stantec

accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions

made or actions taken based on this report.

Stantec makes no representation or warranty with respect to this report, other than the work

was undertaken by trained professional and technical staff in accordance with generally

accepted engineering and scientific practices current at the time the work was performed. Any

information or facts provided by others and referred to or used in the preparation of this report

were assumed by Stantec to be accurate. Conclusions presented in this report should not be

construed as legal advice.


June 24, 2013

46

The information provided in this report was compiled from existing documents and data

provided by Fitzgerald and Snow, and by applying currently accepted industry standard

mitigation and prevention principles. This report represents the best professional judgment of

Stantec personnel available at the time of its preparation. Stantec reserves the right to modify

the contents of this report, in whole or in part, to reflect the any new information that becomes

available. If any conditions become apparent that differ significantly from our understanding of

conditions as presented in this report, we request that we be notified immediately to reassess

the conclusions provided herein.

STANTEC CONSULTING LTD.

DRAFT - NOT SIGNED DRAFT - NOT SIGNED ___________________________ _________________________ Pam MacDonald, M.Sc. Dale Conroy, M.Sc. Environmental Scientist Associate, Senior Reviewer


June 24, 2013

47

8.0 REFERENCES

AC CDC. 2013. Species Location Data. Ordered through

http://www.accdc.com/products/dataproducts.html

Canada’s Historic Places. No date (nd). Accessed May 8, 2013 at:

http://www.historicplaces.ca/en/pages/register-repertoire.aspx

Environment Canada. 2012. Bangor, PEI. National Climate Data and Information Archive.

Accessed online at: http://www.climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.htm

Historic Places of Prince Edward Island. No date (nd). Accessed May 8, 2013 at:

http://www.gov.pe.ca/hpo/app.php?nav=details&p=2796

Prest, V.K. 1973. Surficial Deposits of Prince Edward Island. Geological Survey of Canada.

Stantec Consulting Ltd. 2013. Geotechnical survey results for Wyman’s PEI. File number

3469 – Project number 121614283.

Wild Species. 2010. Accessed March 19, 2012 from http://www.wildspecies.ca

8.1 Personal Communications

Alan Aitken. Personal Communication. 2013. Traffic Operations Engineer, Prince Edward

Island Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal.

Jay Carr. Personal Communication. 2013. Environmental Assessment Officer, Prince Edward Island

Department of Environment, Labour, and Justice.

http://www.accdc.com/products/dataproducts.html

http://www.historicplaces.ca/en/pages/register-repertoire.aspx

http://www.climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html

http://www.wildspecies.ca/


June 24, 2013

APPENDIX A Figures

!(

Fitzgerald and SnowClient:

±

NOTE: THIS DRAWING ILLUSTRATES SUPPORTING INFORMATION SPECIFIC TO A STANTEC PROJECT AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

Legend!( Blueberry Processing Facility

Scale:

Date:

Project No.:

Fig. By: Appd. By:

Fig. No.:

1121810928

MMS DCMap: NAD83 CSRS UTM Zone 20N

1:50,000Data Sources:

(dd/mm/yyyy)

Stantec Consulting Ltd. © 2013

Path:

U:\1

2181

0928

\3_dra

wing

s\3_d

raft_f

igures

\mxd

\pln\f

ig1_W

yman

sFac

ilityLo

catio

n_20

1306

04.m

xd

ArcGIS OnlineBingWyman's of PEI Growth Initiative

25/06/2013Kings County, PEI

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000

Metres

Project Location

FITZGERALD AND SNOWClient:

NOTE: THIS DRAWING ILLUSTRATES SUPPORTING INFORMATION SPECIFIC TO A STANTEC PROJECT AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR OTHER PURPOSES.Scale:

Date:

Project No.:

Dwn. By: Appd. By:

Fig. No.:

2121810928

MMS DC

1:40Data Sources:

(dd/mm/yyyy)

Stantec Consulting Ltd. © 2013

Path:

U:\1

2181

0928

\3_dra

wing

s\3_d

raft_f

igures

\mxd

\rpt\fi

g_2_

Prop

osed

Expa

nsion

_201

3053

0.mxd

FITZGERALD AND SNOWProposed Layout

25/06/2013

±

Wyman's of PEI Growth Initiative


June 24, 2013

APPENDIX B Analytical Results

Your P.O. #: 16300R-20 Your Project #: 121810928 Your C.O.C. #: 411650-01-01

Attention: Pam MacDonaldStantec Consulting LtdCharlottetown - Standing Offer165 Maple Hills AveCharlottetown, PEC1C1N9

Report Date: 2013/05/27

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS

MAXXAM JOB #: B373504Received: 2013/05/15, 09:03

Sample Matrix: SEWAGE# Samples Received: 3

Date Date MethodAnalyses Quantity Extracted Analyzed Laboratory Method ReferenceCarbonate, Bicarbonate and Hydroxide 3 N/A 2013/05/16 CAM SOP-00102 APHA 4500-CO2 D Alkalinity 3 N/A 2013/05/22 ATL SOP 00013 Based on EPA310.2 Carbonaceous BOD 2 N/A 2013/05/21 ATL SOP 00041 Based on APHA 5210B Chloride 3 N/A 2013/05/21 ATL SOP 00014 Based on SM4500-Cl- Colour 3 N/A 2013/05/17 ATL SOP 00020 Based on SM2120C Conductance - water 3 N/A 2013/05/16 ATL SOP-00004 Based on SM2510B * Carbonaceous BOD ( 1 ) 1 N/A 2013/05/27 ATL SOP 00041 Based on APHA 5210B Hardness (calculated as CaCO3) 1 N/A 2013/05/17 ATL SOP 00048 Based on SM2340B Hardness (calculated as CaCO3) 2 N/A 2013/05/21 ATL SOP 00048 Based on SM2340B Metals Water Diss. MS ( 2 ) 1 N/A 2013/05/16 ATL SOP 00059 Based on EPA6020A Metals Water Diss. MS ( 2 ) 2 N/A 2013/05/17 ATL SOP 00059 Based on EPA6020A Ion Balance (% Difference) 3 N/A 2013/05/22 Anion and Cation Sum 3 N/A 2013/05/22 Nitrogen Ammonia - water 3 N/A 2013/05/22 ATL SOP 00015 Based on USEPA 350.1Nitrogen - Nitrate + Nitrite 3 N/A 2013/05/21 ATL SOP 00016 Based on USGS - Enz.Nitrogen - Nitrite 3 N/A 2013/05/17 ATL SOP 00017 Based on SM4500-NO2BNitrogen - Nitrate (as N) 3 N/A 2013/05/21 ATL SOP 00018 Based on ASTMD3867 pH 3 N/A 2013/05/16 ATL SOP 00003 Based on SM4500H+B Phosphorus - ortho 3 N/A 2013/05/17 ATL SOP 00021 Based on USEPA 365.2Sat. pH and Langelier Index (@ 20C) 3 N/A 2013/05/22 ATL SOP-00049 . Sat. pH and Langelier Index (@ 4C) 3 N/A 2013/05/22 ATL SOP-00049 . Reactive Silica 3 N/A 2013/05/21 ATL SOP 00022 Based on EPA 366.0 Sulphate 3 N/A 2013/05/21 ATL SOP 00023 Based on EPA 375.4 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS calc) 3 N/A 2013/05/22 Nitrogen TKN - water (as N) 2 N/A 2013/05/16 ATL SOP 00019 Based on USEPA 351.2Nitrogen TKN - water (as N) 1 N/A 2013/05/22 ATL SOP 00019 Based on USEPA 351.2Organic carbon - Total (TOC) 3 N/A 2013/05/24 ATL SOP 00037 Based on SM5310C Phosphorus Total Colourimetry 3 2013/05/22 2013/05/24 ATL SOP 00057 Based on EPA365.1 Total Suspended Solids 3 N/A 2013/05/16 ATL SOP 00007 based on EPA 160.2 Turbidity 3 N/A 2013/05/24 ATL SOP 00011 based on EPA 180.1

Remarks:

Reporting results to two significant figures at the RDL is to permit statistical evaluation and is not intended to be anindication of analytical precision.

Page 1 of 11

Your P.O. #: 16300R-20 Your Project #: 121810928 Your C.O.C. #: 411650-01-01

Attention: Pam MacDonaldStantec Consulting LtdCharlottetown - Standing Offer165 Maple Hills AveCharlottetown, PEC1C1N9

Report Date: 2013/05/27

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS-2-

* RPDs calculated using raw data. The rounding of final results may result in the apparent difference.

(1) * Analysis performed using frozen aliquot due to Hold Time and/or QC issues.(2) Sample filtered in laboratory prior to analysis for dissolved metals.

Encryption Key

Please direct all questions regarding this Certificate of Analysis to your Project Manager.

Marie (McNair) Muise, Project ManagerEmail: [email protected]# (902) 420-0203 Ext:253

====================================================================Maxxam has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per section5.10.2 of ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page.

Total cover pages: 2

Page 2 of 11

Stantec Consulting LtdMaxxam Job #: B373504 Client Project #: 121810928Report Date: 2013/05/27

Your P.O. #: 16300R-20Sampler Initials: PM

ATL. RCAP-MS DISSOLVED (LABFILT) IN W

Maxxam ID R N 2 8 5 2 R N 2 8 5 3 R N 2 8 5 4Sampling Date 2013/05/14 2013/05/14 2013/05/14

11:00 11:00 11:00COC Number 411650-01-01 411650-01-01 411650-01-01

U n i t s SA-1 RDL SA-2 RDL QC Batch SA-3 RDL QC Batch

Calculated Parameters

Anion Sum me/L 5.74 N/A 6.07 N/A 3213118 4.82 N/A 3213118

Bicarb. Alkalinity (calc. as CaCO3) mg/L 140 1.0 140 1.0 3213114 98 1.0 3213114

Calculated TDS mg/L 322 1.0 339 1.0 3213123 285 1.0 3213123

Carb. Alkalinity (calc. as CaCO3) mg/L <1.0 1.0 <1.0 1.0 3213114 <1.0 1.0 3213114

Cation Sum me/L 6.12 N/A 6.19 N/A 3213118 5.69 N/A 3213118

Hardness (CaCO3) mg/L 160 1.0 150 1.0 3213116 150 1.0 3213116

Ion Balance (% Difference) % 3.20 N/A 0.980 N/A 3213117 8.28 N/A 3213117

Langelier Index (@ 20C) N/A 0.0200 -0.441 3213121 -2.33 3213121

Langelier Index (@ 4C) N/A -0.229 -0.690 3213122 -2.58 3213122

Nitrate (N) mg/L 0.46 0.050 0.46 0.050 3213119 <0.050 0.050 3213119

Saturation pH (@ 20C) N/A 7.74 7.76 3213121 7.91 3213121

Saturation pH (@ 4C) N/A 7.99 8.01 3213122 8.16 3213122

Inorganics

Total Alkalinity (Total as CaCO3) mg/L 140 25 140 25 3215914 98 5.0 3215914

Dissolved Chloride (Cl) mg/L 97 1.0 110 1.0 3215927 98 1.0 3215927

Colour TCU 71 25 270 50 3215930 170 25 3215930

Nitrate + Nitrite mg/L 0.46 0.050 0.46 0.050 3215933 <0.050 0.050 3215933

Nitrite (N) mg/L <0.010 0.010 <0.010 0.010 3215934 <0.010 0.010 3215934

Nitrogen (Ammonia Nitrogen) mg/L 0.058 0.050 <0.50 ( 1 ) 0.50 3218833 <0.50 ( 1 ) 0.50 3218833

Total Organic Carbon (C) mg/L 170 5.0 340 ( 2 ) 10 3223412 170 ( 2 ) 10 3223412

Orthophosphate (P) mg/L 0.22 0.010 0.48 0.010 3215931 <0.010 0.010 3215931

pH pH 7.76 N/A 7.32 N/A 3215572 5.58 N/A 3215528

Reactive Silica (SiO2) mg/L 7.8 0.50 8.5 0.50 3215929 8.0 0.50 3215929

Dissolved Sulphate (SO4) mg/L 5.2 2.0 4.5 2.0 3215928 4.0 2.0 3215928

Turbidity NTU 6.8 0.10 8.8 0.10 3222813 17 0.10 3222813

Conductivity uS/cm 610 1.0 640 1.0 3215538 590 1.0 3215538

Metals

Dissolved Aluminum (Al) ug/L 48.6 5.0 61.4 5.0 3215149 119 5.0 3215149

Dissolved Antimony (Sb) ug/L <1.0 1.0 <1.0 1.0 3215149 <1.0 1.0 3215149

RDL = Reportable Detection LimitQC Batch = Quality Control Batch( 1 ) Elevated RDL due to sample matrix.( 2 ) Elevated reporting limit due to sample matrix.

Page 3 of 11



ATL. RCAP-MS DISSOLVED (LABFILT) IN W


11:00 11:00 11:00COC Number 411650-01-01 411650-01-01 411650-01-01

U n i t s SA-1 RDL SA-2 RDL QC Batch SA-3 RDL QC Batch

Dissolved Arsenic (As) ug/L <1.0 1.0 <1.0 1.0 3215149 <1.0 1.0 3215149

Dissolved Barium (Ba) ug/L 70.4 1.0 69.5 1.0 3215149 88.9 1.0 3215149

Dissolved Beryllium (Be) ug/L <1.0 1.0 <1.0 1.0 3215149 <1.0 1.0 3215149

Dissolved Bismuth (Bi) ug/L <2.0 2.0 <2.0 2.0 3215149 <2.0 2.0 3215149

Dissolved Boron (B) ug/L <50 50 <50 50 3215149 <50 50 3215149

Dissolved Cadmium (Cd) ug/L 0.049 0.017 0.019 0.017 3215149 <0.017 0.017 3215149

Dissolved Calcium (Ca) ug/L 34100 100 33600 100 3215149 32500 100 3215149

Dissolved Chromium (Cr) ug/L 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.0 3215149 1.3 1.0 3215149

Dissolved Cobalt (Co) ug/L <0.40 0.40 <0.40 0.40 3215149 <0.40 0.40 3215149

Dissolved Copper (Cu) ug/L 6.3 2.0 5.6 2.0 3215149 <2.0 2.0 3215149

Dissolved Iron (Fe) ug/L 76 50 57 50 3215149 647 50 3215149

Dissolved Lead (Pb) ug/L <0.50 0.50 <0.50 0.50 3215149 <0.50 0.50 3215149

Dissolved Magnesium (Mg) ug/L 17500 100 16500 100 3215149 15900 100 3215149

Dissolved Manganese (Mn) ug/L 68.1 2.0 143 2.0 3215149 164 2.0 3215149

Dissolved Molybdenum (Mo) ug/L 4.1 2.0 6.9 2.0 3215149 62.9 2.0 3215149

Dissolved Nickel (Ni) ug/L <2.0 2.0 <2.0 2.0 3215149 <2.0 2.0 3215149

Dissolved Phosphorus (P) ug/L 339 100 662 100 3215149 <100 100 3215149

Dissolved Potassium (K) ug/L 9360 100 12700 100 3215149 10400 100 3215149

Dissolved Selenium (Se) ug/L <1.0 1.0 <1.0 1.0 3215149 <1.0 1.0 3215149

Dissolved Silver (Ag) ug/L <0.10 0.10 <0.10 0.10 3215149 <0.10 0.10 3215149

Dissolved Sodium (Na) ug/L 62700 100 65000 100 3215149 56600 100 3215149

Dissolved Strontium (Sr) ug/L 24.9 2.0 24.7 2.0 3215149 26.2 2.0 3215149

Dissolved Thallium (Tl) ug/L <0.10 0.10 <0.10 0.10 3215149 <0.10 0.10 3215149

Dissolved Tin (Sn) ug/L <2.0 2.0 <2.0 2.0 3215149 <2.0 2.0 3215149

Dissolved Titanium (Ti) ug/L <2.0 2.0 <2.0 2.0 3215149 <2.0 2.0 3215149

Dissolved Uranium (U) ug/L <0.10 0.10 <0.10 0.10 3215149 <0.10 0.10 3215149

Dissolved Vanadium (V) ug/L <2.0 2.0 <2.0 2.0 3215149 <2.0 2.0 3215149

Dissolved Zinc (Zn) ug/L 71.1 5.0 61.5 5.0 3215149 42.1 5.0 3215149

RDL = Reportable Detection LimitQC Batch = Quality Control Batch

Page 4 of 11



RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF SEWAGE


11:00 11:00 11:00COC Number 411650-01-01 411650-01-01 411650-01-01

U n i t s SA-1 RDL QC Batch SA-2 RDL QC Batch SA-3 RDL QC Batch

Inorganics

Carbonaceous BOD mg/L 230 49 3220732 570 210 3213382 280 210 3213382

Total Phosphorus mg/L 0.38 0.020 3220395 0.64 0.020 3220395 0.51 0.020 3220395

Total Suspended Solids mg/L 15 1.0 3213661 21 2.0 3213661 130 10 3213661

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/L 0.97 0.10 3214732 1.4 ( 1 ) 0.50 3218463 3.1 0.25 3214732

RDL = Reportable Detection LimitQC Batch = Quality Control Batch( 1 ) Elevated RDL due to sample matrix.

Maxxam ID R N 2 8 5 4Sampling Date 2013/05/14

11:00COC Number 411650-01-01

U n i t s SA-3 Lab-Dup RDL QC Batch

Inorganics

Carbonaceous BOD mg/L 260 210 3213382

Total Suspended Solids mg/L 120 10 3213661

RDL = Reportable Detection LimitLab-Dup = Laboratory Initiated DuplicateQC Batch = Quality Control Batch

Page 5 of 11



Package 1 2.7°CEach temperature is the average of up to three cooler temperatures taken at receipt

GENERAL COMMENTS

Sample RN2854-01: Poor RCAp Ion Balance due to sample matrix.

Results relate only to the items tested.

Page 6 of 11

Stantec Consulting LtdAttention: Pam MacDonald Client Project #: 121810928P.O. #: 16300R-20Site Location:

Quality Assurance ReportMaxxam Job Number: DB373504

QA/QC DateBatch AnalyzedNum Init QC Type Parameter yyyy/mm/dd Value Recovery Units QC Limits

3213382 MBN QC Standard Carbonaceous BOD 2013/05/21 110 % 80 - 120Spiked Blank Carbonaceous BOD 2013/05/21 97 % 80 - 120Method Blank Carbonaceous BOD 2013/05/21 <5.0 mg/LRPD [ R N 2 8 5 4 - 0 1 ] Carbonaceous BOD 2013/05/21 NC % 25

3213661 KBI QC Standard Total Suspended Solids 2013/05/16 100 % 80 - 120Method Blank Total Suspended Solids 2013/05/16 <1.0 mg/LRPD [ R N 2 8 5 4 - 0 2 ] Total Suspended Solids 2013/05/16 9.2 % 25

3214732 ALG Matrix Spike Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 2013/05/16 NC % 80 - 120Spiked Blank Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 2013/05/16 99 % 80 - 120Method Blank Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 2013/05/16 <0.10 mg/LRPD Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 2013/05/16 2.7 % 25

3215149 DLB Matrix Spike Dissolved Aluminum (Al) 2013/05/16 104 % 80 - 120Dissolved Antimony (Sb) 2013/05/16 100 % 80 - 120Dissolved Arsenic (As) 2013/05/16 100 % 80 - 120Dissolved Barium (Ba) 2013/05/16 NC % 80 - 120Dissolved Beryllium (Be) 2013/05/16 99 % 80 - 120Dissolved Bismuth (Bi) 2013/05/16 95 % 80 - 120Dissolved Boron (B) 2013/05/16 96 % 80 - 120Dissolved Cadmium (Cd) 2013/05/16 98 % 80 - 120Dissolved Calcium (Ca) 2013/05/16 NC % 80 - 120Dissolved Chromium (Cr) 2013/05/16 100 % 80 - 120Dissolved Cobalt (Co) 2013/05/16 102 % 80 - 120Dissolved Copper (Cu) 2013/05/16 99 % 80 - 120Dissolved Iron (Fe) 2013/05/16 103 % 80 - 120Dissolved Lead (Pb) 2013/05/16 104 % 80 - 120Dissolved Magnesium (Mg) 2013/05/16 NC % 80 - 120Dissolved Manganese (Mn) 2013/05/16 NC % 80 - 120Dissolved Molybdenum (Mo) 2013/05/16 97 % 80 - 120Dissolved Nickel (Ni) 2013/05/16 99 % 80 - 120Dissolved Phosphorus (P) 2013/05/16 105 % 80 - 120Dissolved Potassium (K) 2013/05/16 104 % 80 - 120Dissolved Selenium (Se) 2013/05/16 99 % 80 - 120Dissolved Silver (Ag) 2013/05/16 95 % 80 - 120Dissolved Sodium (Na) 2013/05/16 107 % 80 - 120Dissolved Strontium (Sr) 2013/05/16 NC % 80 - 120Dissolved Thallium (Tl) 2013/05/16 100 % 80 - 120Dissolved Tin (Sn) 2013/05/16 99 % 80 - 120Dissolved Titanium (Ti) 2013/05/16 104 % 80 - 120Dissolved Uranium (U) 2013/05/16 109 % 80 - 120Dissolved Vanadium (V) 2013/05/16 105 % 80 - 120Dissolved Zinc (Zn) 2013/05/16 100 % 80 - 120

Spiked Blank Dissolved Aluminum (Al) 2013/05/16 102 % 80 - 120Dissolved Antimony (Sb) 2013/05/16 100 % 80 - 120Dissolved Arsenic (As) 2013/05/16 97 % 80 - 120Dissolved Barium (Ba) 2013/05/16 94 % 80 - 120Dissolved Beryllium (Be) 2013/05/16 96 % 80 - 120Dissolved Bismuth (Bi) 2013/05/16 97 % 80 - 120Dissolved Boron (B) 2013/05/16 96 % 80 - 120Dissolved Cadmium (Cd) 2013/05/16 96 % 80 - 120Dissolved Calcium (Ca) 2013/05/16 84 % 80 - 120Dissolved Chromium (Cr) 2013/05/16 99 % 80 - 120Dissolved Cobalt (Co) 2013/05/16 102 % 80 - 120Dissolved Copper (Cu) 2013/05/16 100 % 80 - 120Dissolved Iron (Fe) 2013/05/16 103 % 80 - 120Dissolved Lead (Pb) 2013/05/16 103 % 80 - 120

Page 7 of 11


Quality Assurance Report (Continued)Maxxam Job Number: DB373504


3215149 DLB Spiked Blank Dissolved Magnesium (Mg) 2013/05/16 110 % 80 - 120Dissolved Manganese (Mn) 2013/05/16 99 % 80 - 120Dissolved Molybdenum (Mo) 2013/05/16 94 % 80 - 120Dissolved Nickel (Ni) 2013/05/16 100 % 80 - 120Dissolved Phosphorus (P) 2013/05/16 102 % 80 - 120Dissolved Potassium (K) 2013/05/16 101 % 80 - 120Dissolved Selenium (Se) 2013/05/16 97 % 80 - 120Dissolved Silver (Ag) 2013/05/16 99 % 80 - 120Dissolved Sodium (Na) 2013/05/16 108 % 80 - 120Dissolved Strontium (Sr) 2013/05/16 99 % 80 - 120Dissolved Thallium (Tl) 2013/05/16 100 % 80 - 120Dissolved Tin (Sn) 2013/05/16 98 % 80 - 120Dissolved Titanium (Ti) 2013/05/16 105 % 80 - 120Dissolved Uranium (U) 2013/05/16 106 % 80 - 120Dissolved Vanadium (V) 2013/05/16 103 % 80 - 120Dissolved Zinc (Zn) 2013/05/16 103 % 80 - 120

Method Blank Dissolved Aluminum (Al) 2013/05/16 <5.0 ug/LDissolved Antimony (Sb) 2013/05/16 <1.0 ug/LDissolved Arsenic (As) 2013/05/16 <1.0 ug/LDissolved Barium (Ba) 2013/05/16 <1.0 ug/LDissolved Beryllium (Be) 2013/05/16 <1.0 ug/LDissolved Bismuth (Bi) 2013/05/16 <2.0 ug/LDissolved Boron (B) 2013/05/16 <50 ug/LDissolved Cadmium (Cd) 2013/05/16 <0.017 ug/LDissolved Calcium (Ca) 2013/05/16 <100 ug/LDissolved Chromium (Cr) 2013/05/16 <1.0 ug/LDissolved Cobalt (Co) 2013/05/16 <0.40 ug/LDissolved Copper (Cu) 2013/05/16 <2.0 ug/LDissolved Iron (Fe) 2013/05/16 <50 ug/LDissolved Lead (Pb) 2013/05/16 <0.50 ug/LDissolved Magnesium (Mg) 2013/05/16 <100 ug/LDissolved Manganese (Mn) 2013/05/16 <2.0 ug/LDissolved Molybdenum (Mo) 2013/05/16 <2.0 ug/LDissolved Nickel (Ni) 2013/05/16 <2.0 ug/LDissolved Phosphorus (P) 2013/05/16 <100 ug/LDissolved Potassium (K) 2013/05/16 <100 ug/LDissolved Selenium (Se) 2013/05/16 <1.0 ug/LDissolved Silver (Ag) 2013/05/16 <0.10 ug/LDissolved Sodium (Na) 2013/05/16 <100 ug/LDissolved Strontium (Sr) 2013/05/16 <2.0 ug/LDissolved Thallium (Tl) 2013/05/16 <0.10 ug/LDissolved Tin (Sn) 2013/05/16 <2.0 ug/LDissolved Titanium (Ti) 2013/05/16 <2.0 ug/LDissolved Uranium (U) 2013/05/16 <0.10 ug/LDissolved Vanadium (V) 2013/05/16 <2.0 ug/LDissolved Zinc (Zn) 2013/05/16 <5.0 ug/L

RPD Dissolved Aluminum (Al) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Antimony (Sb) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Arsenic (As) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Barium (Ba) 2013/05/16 2.1 % 20Dissolved Beryllium (Be) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Bismuth (Bi) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Boron (B) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Cadmium (Cd) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Calcium (Ca) 2013/05/16 0.6 % 20

Page 8 of 11




3215149 DLB RPD Dissolved Chromium (Cr) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Cobalt (Co) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Copper (Cu) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Iron (Fe) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Lead (Pb) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Magnesium (Mg) 2013/05/16 1.9 % 20Dissolved Manganese (Mn) 2013/05/16 1.6 % 20Dissolved Molybdenum (Mo) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Nickel (Ni) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Phosphorus (P) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Potassium (K) 2013/05/16 1.4 % 20Dissolved Selenium (Se) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Silver (Ag) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Sodium (Na) 2013/05/16 2.1 % 20Dissolved Strontium (Sr) 2013/05/16 3.1 % 20Dissolved Thallium (Tl) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Tin (Sn) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Titanium (Ti) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Uranium (U) 2013/05/16 1.2 % 20Dissolved Vanadium (V) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Zinc (Zn) 2013/05/16 NC % 20

3215528 SCR QC Standard pH 2013/05/16 100 % 80 - 120RPD pH 2013/05/16 0.1 % 25

3215538 SCR Spiked Blank Conductivity 2013/05/16 100 % 80 - 120Method Blank Conductivity 2013/05/16 <1.0 uS/cmRPD Conductivity 2013/05/16 0.5 % 25

3215572 SCR QC Standard pH 2013/05/16 100 % 80 - 120RPD pH 2013/05/16 0.7 % 25

3215914 MCY Matrix Spike Total Alkalinity (Total as CaCO3) 2013/05/22 NC % 80 - 120Spiked Blank Total Alkalinity (Total as CaCO3) 2013/05/22 109 % 80 - 120Method Blank Total Alkalinity (Total as CaCO3) 2013/05/22 <5.0 mg/LRPD Total Alkalinity (Total as CaCO3) 2013/05/22 3.1 % 25

3215927 ARS Matrix Spike Dissolved Chloride (Cl) 2013/05/21 96 % 80 - 120QC Standard Dissolved Chloride (Cl) 2013/05/21 103 % 80 - 120Spiked Blank Dissolved Chloride (Cl) 2013/05/21 103 % 80 - 120Method Blank Dissolved Chloride (Cl) 2013/05/21 <1.0 mg/LRPD Dissolved Chloride (Cl) 2013/05/21 0.2 % 25

3215928 JOA Matrix Spike Dissolved Sulphate (SO4) 2013/05/21 106 % 80 - 120Spiked Blank Dissolved Sulphate (SO4) 2013/05/21 105 % 80 - 120Method Blank Dissolved Sulphate (SO4) 2013/05/21 <2.0 mg/LRPD Dissolved Sulphate (SO4) 2013/05/21 NC % 25

3215929 ARS Matrix Spike Reactive Silica (SiO2) 2013/05/21 103 % 80 - 120Spiked Blank Reactive Silica (SiO2) 2013/05/21 101 % 80 - 120Method Blank Reactive Silica (SiO2) 2013/05/21 <0.50 mg/LRPD Reactive Silica (SiO2) 2013/05/21 NC % 25

3215930 ALG QC Standard Colour 2013/05/17 105 % 80 - 120Method Blank Colour 2013/05/17 <5.0 TCURPD Colour 2013/05/17 5.5 % 25

3215931 ARS Matrix Spike Orthophosphate (P) 2013/05/17 94 % 80 - 120Spiked Blank Orthophosphate (P) 2013/05/17 97 % 80 - 120Method Blank Orthophosphate (P) 2013/05/17 <0.010 mg/LRPD Orthophosphate (P) 2013/05/17 NC % 25

3215933 JOA Matrix Spike Nitrate + Nitrite 2013/05/21 103 % 80 - 120Spiked Blank Nitrate + Nitrite 2013/05/21 95 % 80 - 120Method Blank Nitrate + Nitrite 2013/05/21 <0.050 mg/L

Page 9 of 11




3215933 JOA RPD Nitrate + Nitrite 2013/05/21 NC % 253215934 ALG Matrix Spike Nitrite (N) 2013/05/17 103 % 80 - 120

Spiked Blank Nitrite (N) 2013/05/17 103 % 80 - 120Method Blank Nitrite (N) 2013/05/17 <0.010 mg/LRPD Nitrite (N) 2013/05/17 NC % 25

3218463 JOA Matrix Spike Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 2013/05/21 92 % 80 - 120Spiked Blank Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 2013/05/21 103 % 80 - 120Method Blank Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 2013/05/22 0.18, RDL=0.10 mg/LRPD Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 2013/05/22 13.6 % 25

3218833 MCY Matrix Spike Nitrogen (Ammonia Nitrogen) 2013/05/22 95 % 80 - 120Spiked Blank Nitrogen (Ammonia Nitrogen) 2013/05/22 96 % 80 - 120Method Blank Nitrogen (Ammonia Nitrogen) 2013/05/22 <0.050 mg/LRPD Nitrogen (Ammonia Nitrogen) 2013/05/22 NC % 25

3220395 JOA Matrix Spike Total Phosphorus 2013/05/24 113 % 80 - 120Spiked Blank Total Phosphorus 2013/05/24 113 % 80 - 120Method Blank Total Phosphorus 2013/05/24 <0.020 mg/LRPD Total Phosphorus 2013/05/24 6.0 % 25

3220732 MBN QC Standard Carbonaceous BOD 2013/05/27 103 % 80 - 120Spiked Blank Carbonaceous BOD 2013/05/27 86 % 80 - 120Method Blank Carbonaceous BOD 2013/05/27 <5.0 mg/LRPD Carbonaceous BOD 2013/05/27 NC % 25

3222813 SCR QC Standard Turbidity 2013/05/24 107 % 80 - 120RPD Turbidity 2013/05/24 1.1 % 25

3223412 CRA Matrix Spike Total Organic Carbon (C) 2013/05/24 NC % 80 - 120Spiked Blank Total Organic Carbon (C) 2013/05/24 89 % 80 - 120Method Blank Total Organic Carbon (C) 2013/05/24 <0.50 mg/LRPD Total Organic Carbon (C) 2013/05/24 3.5 % 25

Duplicate: Paired analysis of a separate portion of the same sample. Used to evaluate the variance in the measurement.Matrix Spike: A sample to which a known amount of the analyte of interest has been added. Used to evaluate sample matrix interference.QC Standard: A sample of known concentration prepared by an external agency under stringent conditions. Used as an independent check of methodaccuracy.Spiked Blank: A blank matrix sample to which a known amount of the analyte, usually from a second source, has been added. Used to evaluate methodaccuracy.Method Blank: A blank matrix containing all reagents used in the analytical procedure. Used to identify laboratory contamination.NC (Matrix Spike): The recovery in the matrix spike was not calculated. The relative difference between the concentration in the parent sample and thespiked amount was not sufficiently significant to permit a reliable recovery calculation.NC (RPD): The RPD was not calculated. The level of analyte detected in the parent sample and its duplicate was not sufficiently significant to permit areliable calculation.

Page 10 of 11

Validation Signature Page

Maxxam Job #: B373504

The analytical data and all QC contained in this report were reviewed and validated by the following individual(s).

Colleen Acker, Supervisor, General Chemistry

Mike MacGillivray, Scientific Specialist (Inorganics)

====================================================================Maxxam has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per section 5.10.2 ofISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page.

Page 11 of 11

environmental impact statement: wyman’s pei growth ... · environmental impact statement:...

Documents