statement: seafood processing facility, west prince … · statement: seafood processing facility,...

Draft Environmental Impact Statement: Seafood Processing Facility, West Prince Business Park (Bloomfield Industrial Park), Prince County, PEI

Job No. 121616389

Prepared for: South Shore Seafoods Ltd. 6 Foy Road Bloomfield Corner PE C0B 1E0

Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Ltd. 165 Maple Hills Avenue Charlottetown PE C1C 1N9

April 23, 2014

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT: SEAFOOD PROCESSING FACILITY, WEST PRINCE BUSINESS PARK (BLOOMFIELD INDUSTRIAL PARK), PRINCE COUNTY, PEI

pm 121616389_eis_dft_04232014_master.docx 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 ................................................................................................. 3

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 .................................................................................................... 4 2.1 OVERVIEW OF PROJECT ..................................................................................................... 5 2.2 ALTERNATIVES TO AND ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF CARRYING OUT THE

PROJECT ................................................................................................................................ 6 2.2.1 Null Alternative .................................................................................................. 6 2.2.2 Alternative Site .................................................................................................. 6

2.3 PROJECT SCHEDULE ............................................................................................................ 6 2.4 CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................................................... 6

2.4.1 General ............................................................................................................... 6 2.4.2 Emissions and Wastes ....................................................................................... 7

2.5 OPERATION ........................................................................................................................... 7 2.5.1 Use of Facility ..................................................................................................... 7 2.5.2 Processing .......................................................................................................... 7 2.5.3 Emissions and Wastes ....................................................................................... 8

2.6 DECOMMISSIONING AND ABANDONMENT .................................................................... 9

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODS, SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT, AND CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT ................................................................... 10

3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT METHODS ..................................................................... 10 3.1.1 Overview of Approach .................................................................................. 11

3.2 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT .............................................................................. 12 3.2.1 Regulatory Consultation ................................................................................ 12 3.2.2 Public and Stakeholder Engagement ......................................................... 12 3.2.3 First Nations Consultation ............................................................................... 12

4.0 SUMMARY OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ................................................................ 13 4.1 4.1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMNENT ........................................................................................ 13

4.1.1 4.1.1 Project Site ............................................................................................. 13 4.1.2 Wastewater Disposal Site (Seacow Pond) ................................................. 14

4.2 WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION ............................................................................... 16 4.3 ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT ......................................................................................... 17 4.4 TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................. 18


pm 121616389_eis_dft_04232014_master.docx ii

4.4.1 Breeding Birds .................................................................................................. 18 4.4.2 Mammals .......................................................................................................... 21 4.4.3 Vegetation ....................................................................................................... 22 4.4.4 Wetlands........................................................................................................... 25

4.5 FRESHWATER ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................ 25 4.6 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................................... 25

4.6.1 Land Use ........................................................................................................... 25 4.6.2 Archaeological, Heritage or Cultural Resources ...................................... 25 4.6.3 Transportation .................................................................................................. 26

5.0 PROJECT INTERACTIONS WITH THE ENVIRONMENT ..................................................... 27 5.1 PROJECT-ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION MATRIX ........................................................... 27

5.1.1 VECs with No Interaction, or No Significant Interaction, with the Project ............................................................................................................... 28

5.1.2 VECs Which May Result in an Interaction with the Project that Require Further Evaluation (Ranking of 2) .................................................. 34

5.2 ACCIDENTS, MALFUNCTIONS AND UNPLANNED EVENTS ............................................ 34 5.2.1 Methodology ................................................................................................... 34 5.2.2 Identification of Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events ........ 35 5.2.3 Environmental Effects Assessment ............................................................... 35 5.2.4 Determination of Significance ...................................................................... 40

6.0 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 41 6.1 SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT .............................................. 41 6.2 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ......................................................................... 41 6.3 OVERALL CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 41

7.0 CLOSING ........................................................................................................................ 42

8.0 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................... 43 8.1 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS ....................................................................................... 43

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Key Parameter Analysis ........................................................................................ 17 Table 2 Bird Species at Risk and Species of Special Concern Recorded Within 5 km of the Project (AC CDC 2014, CESCC 2011, SAR Public Registry 2012) ......................................................................................................... 20 Table 3 Mammal Species of Conservation Concern within 5 km of the Project (AC CDC 2014) ...................................................................................................... 21 Table 4 Vascular Plant Species of Conservation Concern Recorded within 5 km of the Project (AC CDC 2014) ................................................................... 23 Table 5 Potential Interactions of the Project with the Environment ........................... 28 Table 6 Potential Interactions of Project-Related Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events with the Environment ................................................. 36


pm 121616389_eis_dft_04232014_master.docx iii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Figures

Appendix B Fish Processing Effluent Sampling – South Shore Seafoods Ltd.


Introduction April 23, 2014

pm 121616389_eis_dft_04232014_master.docx 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report is an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Seafood Processing Facility in the Bloomfield Industrial Park, Prince County, Prince Edward Island (“the Project”) proposed by South Shore Seafoods Ltd. (the “Proponent”).

South Shore Seafoods Ltd. is proposing to retrofit the former sandwich plant located in the West Prince Business Park to permit the processing of raw lobster at the facility. The building is to be leased from Finance PEI by the Proponent. The Proponent intends to continue to process cooked lobster at their existing facility located approximately 2 km to the north of the proposed facility. The Project should enable the Proponent to increase their overall seafood processing capability in coming years. Process water from the existing facility has been discharged (land spread) on a Provincially approved site (farmland) located in Seacow Pond since 2011. The proponent intends to dispose of the process wastewater associated with the proposed facility at the same site until such time that an alternative disposal option is available.

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: Seafood Processing Facility, 75 Griffin Drive, West Prince Business Park (Bloomfield Industrial Park), Prince County, PEI

Project Proponent: South Shore Seafoods Ltd. 6 Foy Road, Bloomfield Corner, Prince County, PEI C0B 1E0

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

Mr. David Dalton Tel: (902) 853-4052 Fax: (902) 853-2444 Email: [email protected]




Environmental Consultant and Principal Contact Person for this EIS:

Mr. Dale Conroy, M.Sc. Associate, Environmental Management Stantec Consulting Ltd. 165 Maple Hills Avenue 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 retrofit of the former sandwich plant in the Bloomfield Industrial Park in Western PEI so that it can be utilized for the processing of raw lobster.

The retrofit will include the installation of a butchering area, three or four 5,000 gallon water tanks, and a small conveyer system. The existing facility processes approximately 25,000 to 26,000 pounds of raw lobster per day resulting in the generation of approximately 4,000 imperial gallons per day (igpd) of wastewater. It has been proposed to transfer the processing of raw lobster to the new facility, while the existing facility will continue to process cooked lobster. The quantity of raw lobster to be processed at the new facility and associated wastewater will not exceed the above notes values in 2014, but may be increased in future years.

The Proponent intends to utilize as much of the existing infrastructure (e.g., water well, underground tanks, HVAC system, parking facilities, etc.) as possible.

The Proponent intends to dispose of the process water associated with the proposed facility at a designated site in Seacow Pond until such time that an alternative disposal option is available.

1.2.2 Project Location

The Project will be located at 75 Griffin Drive in the West Prince Business Park (Bloomfield Industrial Park), Prince County, PEI. The facility is located in close proximity to Route 2 (Western Road) which is accessed via Gard Road. The general location of the Project is shown relative to the existing facility and the wastewater disposal site in Seacow Pond on Figure 1 (Appendix A).




1.2.3 Project Purpose

Although no increase in the net (i.e., existing and new facilities combined) processing capacity is anticipated in the initial year of operation, it is expected that the new facility will allow the Proponent to increase the overall volume of seafood being processed in future years.

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 Environmental Protection Act (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 Regulations Designating Physical Activities under CEAA 2012, so an environmental assessment is not required.


Project Description April 23, 2014


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 potential effects resulting from 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.

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 may change slightly as design and construction activities are finalized. The key aspects of the Project, as currently defined, are provided below and include:

• 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




• a discussion of the Project-related emissions and wastes

2.1 OVERVIEW OF PROJECT

The Project involves retrofitting the former sandwich plant located in the Bloomfield Industrial Park, Prince County, PEI to accommodate the processing of raw lobster. The proposed facility is expected to process 25,000 to 26,000 pounds of raw lobster per day in 2014. The Proponent intends to ultimately increase the quantity of raw lobster processed at the new facility to up to 50,000 pounds per day over the next number of years. Wastewater associated with the proposed and existing facilities will continue to be disposed by means of land-spreading at a designated site in Seacow Pond. All organic waste solids associated with the processing operation are also land-spread on farmland (e.g., shells).

The Proponent recognizes that no increase in the quantity of raw lobster being processed will be permitted until such time that an alternative means of approved wastewater disposal is available. Since the Proponent does not intend to increase production during the initial year (2014) of operating the new facility, this EIS focuses on the initial year of operation. A separate assessment will be conducted once an alternative method of wastewater disposal is determined.

If the processing of raw lobster increases in future years, it is understood that a peak water usage of up to 15,000 imperial gallons per day (igpd) may be required for the new facility which would be supplied by the existing site well. This equates to approximately 10 imperial gallons per minute (10 igpm) of water usage. For the upcoming 2014 season the water usage will remain the same as current operation levels (i.e., up to 8,000 igpd).

The general location of the Project is shown relative to the existing facility and the wastewater disposal site in Seacow Pond on Figure 1 (Appendix A). Also included in Appendix A are:

Figure 2 - Plan showing the location of the Project relative to the surrounding properties in the Business Park

Figure 3 – Site Plan for the Project showing existing conditions

Figure 4 – Regional Contour Plan for the Project and surrounding areas

Figure 5 – Ortho Plan of the wastewater disposal site in Seacow Pond

New construction for the project will be limited to interior renovations to the existing building such as the installation of water holding tanks, a butchering table, a conveyor system, and the wastewater holding tanks. Some modifications to the existing underground concrete tanks at the site are also to be undertaken.




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. Alternatives to the Project would include the “do nothing” scenario (null alternative) or selecting a different location for the new facility.

2.2.1 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 address the purpose of the Project (subsection 1.2.3) as the requirement to increase the Proponent’s net seafood processing capacity would not be met.

2.2.2 Alternative Site

An alternative site could be considered for the new facility. If an undisturbed site with no existing building is selected for this purpose, additional environmental effects associated with site development and building construction would have to be considered.

Utilizing an existing site and structure, as is proposed, is considered to be preferable from an environmental standpoint.

2.3 PROJECT SCHEDULE

The building retrofit is scheduled to commence as soon as possible so that the facility is available to process raw lobster for the upcoming season, ideally May 1, 2014 or shortly thereafter, subject to environmental approvals.

Though not currently envisioned, decommissioning and abandonment of the Project will be at the end of its useful service life.

2.4 CONSTRUCTION

2.4.1 General

The Proponent intends to utilize as much of the existing infrastructure (e.g., water well, onsite septic system, underground tanks, HVAC system, parking facilities, etc.) as possible. Consequently, construction for the project will be limited to interior renovations of the existing building with no requirement for building exterior alterations or site works with the exception of some planned modifications to the underground tanks.




The interior renovations/retrofit will include the installation of a butchering area, three or four 5,000 gallon water tanks and a small conveyer system. The three existing underground tanks at the site are to be converted to serve as holding tanks for the processing wastewater and are to be modified to permit daily pumping of the contents.

2.4.2 Emissions and Wastes

No significant emissions are expected as a result of construction activities.

Some construction waste will be generated during construction (retrofit) 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.

2.5 OPERATION

2.5.1 Use of Facility

During the operation of the processing facility, the primary activity is expected to consist of the processing of raw lobster.

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 and equipment repairs and upkeep. Although the building is to be leased, the Proponent will also be responsible for all exterior maintenance activities, such as a parking lot repairs, lawn maintenance, snow removal, etc. Lawn maintenance at the site will be conducted by mechanical means only; no herbicides/pesticides will be used on the site.

2.5.2 Processing

The plant is expected to operate each year from early May to late December or early January. Up to 4 weeks of “downtime” at the end of October and early November are typically experienced during the annual processing period. Normal hours of operation are from 6:30 am to 5:30 pm.

Raw lobster will arrive at the facility by means of refrigerated transport trucks. The lobster will be maintained in a refrigerated area for next-day processing. From the refrigerated area, the lobsters are taken to the butchering area where the claws and arms are extracted, following which the tails are removed. The extracted claws and arms will be trucked on a regular basis to the existing facility for further processing.

The lobster tails continue along a conveyor belt where any remaining debris is removed as the lobster meat moves through a series of three processes that involve holding and purging tanks.




Finally, they are soaked in a brine solution (1.5 to 2% salinity) in a holding tank overnight. The lobster tails will then be transported to the existing facility by means of refrigerated trucks for freezing and packaging.

Salt for the brine solution will continue to be stored (dry storage) at the existing facility. A relatively small quantity of salt (one 20 kg per three days) is used in the processing of raw lobster at present.

It is expected that the quantity of raw lobster to be processed will eventually increase from the 25,000 to 26,000 pounds per day that is currently processed at the existing facility to up to 50,000 pounds per day. The resulting volume of wastewater produced would be expected to increase from the present volume of approximately 4,000 igpd to up to 8,000 igpd.

2.5.3 Emissions and Wastes

It is understood that the existing site infrastructure includes three underground concrete tanks as follows:

a grease tank (3,600 gallons)

a nibbler tank (4,000 gallons)

a clarifier tank (2,000 gallons)

These tanks are to be disconnected from the Business Park’s wastewater treatment system and will be utilized for wastewater storage. The tanks will be modified to permit daily pumping from each.

Wastewater from the existing facility is currently being discharged (land spread) on farmland located in Seacow Pond since 2011. This land application was approved by the PEIDELJ as a short-term wastewater disposal option for the existing facility. Through consultation and after receiving approval from the PEIDELJ the Proponent intends to dispose of the process water associated with the proposed facility at the same site until such time as a long term disposal option is designed and approved. The PEIDELJ has verbally agreed to the continued disposal option of land spreading in the short term, but only after the proponent installs groundwater monitoring wells and implements a groundwater monitoring program at the disposal site.

It is understood that the central portion of the Seacow Pond property is utilized for the wastewater disposal. Three tanker trucks of wastewater are transported to the disposal containing every two days. The wastewater is spread using farm spray equipment at the rate of approximately 2,500 imperial gallons per hour (ipgh) over an area of approximately 7 to 14 acres. The application rate is approximately 0.1 to 0.01 in/hr. Refer to Figure 5 showing the two 7 acres disposal locations on the property.




All municipal wastewater generated at the processing facility will be treated by the Business Park’s existing wastewater treatment system; the existing septic tank at the site will be connected to the Park’s system.

All solid wastes generated from the processing facility will be disposed of according to Provincial requirements. At present, the lobster shell fragments are supplied to local farmers for land spreading.

Since the processing of raw lobster is simply being transferred from the existing facility to the new facility, there is not expected to be an increase in truck traffic on Route 2 (Western Road) during the initial year of operation. Some additional traffic between the new and existing facilities (i.e., 10 to 12 roundtrips per day with a 1-ton truck) is expected during current processing activities. This truck traffic would be expected to increase proportionally with any increases in production in future years and will likely also involve the use of larger vehicles for transportation between the two facilities.

The Proponent intends to utilize the existing heating and cooling systems within the building. Since most of the processing facility, with the exception of office and washroom areas, will be maintained at a low temperature for refrigeration purposes, the consumption for oil for heating purposes is expected to decrease. Conversely, electrical use to power the refrigeration units is expected to increase.

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

It is expected that the processing facility will be maintained to be in operation for several years. 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.


Environmental Impact Assessment Methods, Scope of Assessment, and Consultation and Engagement April 23, 2014


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

• 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 input from the provincial regulators

• 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 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 environmental effects are 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.

3.2.1 Regulatory Consultation

On April 4, 2014, a phone 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 include the assessment of the retrofit of an existing building. Additional phone meetings were held with the environmental assessment coordinator from the PEIDELJ on April 14 and 22, 2014, to discuss the scope of the assessment for the short term disposal option (i.e., land spreading wastewater). It was determined at this time (based on the proposed scope of the Project) that the assessment would only focus on the short term disposal option which has been previously approved by the PEIDELJ and that once the long term disposal plan is designed around the future expansion of the facilities that option will be required to be assessed further at that time.

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, the Proponent 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

The PEIDELJ has advised that they are working in conjunction with Finance PEI (i.e., the property owners) to address the proposed Project, the final lease agreement and the requirements associated with the Provincial Duty to Consult Policy (pers. comm. G. Wilson 2014).


Summary of the Existing Environment April 23, 2014


4.0 SUMMARY OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

A summary of existing environmental conditions in the vicinity of the Project site and the wastewater disposal site in Seacow Pond are provided in this section. The summary is based on existing literature and sources of information that are available for these areas.

4.1 4.1 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMNENT

4.1.1 4.1.1 Project Site

4.1.1.1 4.1.1.1 Topography and Drainage

The site specific (1:1,000) topographical mapping shows that the Project Site is relatively level with a maximum surface relief of 2 m indicated. Ground surface elevations range from a low of elevation 24 m to a high of elevation 26 m.

The topographical mapping indicates the predominant regional groundwater flow direction in the vicinity of the Project site is to the east/southeast, towards the Mill River. The larger-scale regional (1:75,000) topographical mapping shows that the predominant surface gradient in the vicinity of the site slopes downward from northwest to southeast, towards the Mill River.

4.1.1.2 4.1.1.2 Subsurface Geology

The results of a subsurface investigation (Jacques Whitford Stantec Limited 2004) showed the subject site to be underlain by a naturally occurring rootmat and topsoil layer that averaged 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. Sandstone bedrock was encountered at depths ranging from 2.1 to 2.4 m below ground surface along the southern side of the site. The groundwater table was not encountered within the depth investigated (i.e., 3 m).

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) and Van de Pol (1983) also indicate 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 being the most abundant. The bedrock is 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.




A review of available agricultural soils information for the subject site (Prince Edward Island Soil Survey 1988; 1:1,000 mapping) indicates that the surficial soil type consists of the Tignish (Ti) soils map unit. Ti soils typically occur on gently undulating to undulating relief and are well drained. Ti 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 6 m within the Ti map unit.

4.1.1.3 Groundwater Resources

The existing facility has a single water well to supply water for general use (e.g., washrooms). The existing well is also to be utilized to supply the water required for processing. Following is a summary of the information provided by the PEIDELJ pertaining to the existing well:

Date Installed: 27 May 2004

Well depth: 190 ft. (57.9 m)

Well Diameter: 6 in. (15.2 cm)

Casing Length: 40 ft. (12.1 m)

Static Water Level: 25 ft. (7.6 m) below grade

Since the water requirements for the former sandwich plant were relatively low, no pump testing to determine well yield was undertaken. The peak expected water requirement for the proposed processing facility is 15,000 imperial gallons per day (igpd) which equates to approximately 10 imperial gallons per minute (10 igpm). This water requirement is also relatively low for a commercial application and well within the potential yield of a typical PEI well. To our knowledge, there have been no reports of water shortages at this facility.

In the vicinity of the Project site, drinking water is obtained from domestic wells. In consideration of the relatively low water demands, and the absence of an onsite commercial waste disposal operations, the Project activities are not expected to interact with groundwater quantity or quality at any residential wells.

4.1.2 Wastewater Disposal Site (Seacow Pond)

4.1.2.1 Topography and Drainage

The site specific (1:15,000) topographical mapping shows that the disposal site to be relatively level with a maximum surface relief of 4 m indicated. Ground surface elevations range from 8 to 12 m above sea level.




The larger-scale regional (1:75,000) topographical mapping shows that the predominant surface gradient in the vicinity of the site slopes downward from west to east, towards the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

Drainage is essentially east and northeast along an un-named northeast-flowing water course and towards Seacow Pond about 800 m east of the center of the lot, thence draining east under Highway No. 12 to the Gulf.

4.1.2.2 Subsurface Geology

Geological mapping (Prest 1973) of the disposal site indicates that the parent soil is comprised of glaciomarine and early post glacial marine deposits comprised of sandy soils with minor silts and clays. Prest (1973) and Van de Pol (1983) also indicate that the underlying bedrock of PEI includes sedimentary strata of Pennsylvania and Permian ages. The regional dip is 1 to 4 degrees to the east and northeast in the Seacow Pond area. Lithologies of the strata include sandstone, siltstone, claystone, conglomerate, and mudstone breccias with sandstones the most abundant. The depth below ground surface to the bedrock is variable but an overburden (soil cover) thickness of 1 to 5 m would be typical in this region.

A review of available agricultural soils information for the disposal site (Prince Edward Island Soil Survey 1988) indicates that the surficial soil types in the vicinity consist of moderately coarse textured soils of the Halliburton (Ha) and Mossy Point (Mp) soil map units. Ha soils have good drainage characteristics and are suitable for a wide range of agricultural crops whereas the drainage of Mp soils is considered poor to very poor. Consequently, Mp soils are dominantly forested and unsuitable for crops.

4.1.2.3 Groundwater Resources

Shallow groundwater flow pathways typically mirror topography on PEI, flowing from inland elevated areas towards the coastlines or intervening streams and ponds. The depth to groundwater would vary with topographic elevation, being shallowest near streams and the shore line, and deepest in upland areas. Based on topography, the majority of groundwater flow from the east area (e.g., area east of the stream) would be east and northeast towards the Gulf of St. Lawrence; west of the stream it should be essentially east towards the stream. Water supplies in this area are almost entirely drilled water supply wells. Approximately 8 residences with water supply wells are identified within 500 m of the disposal site boundaries. The residential wells are 15.3 to 48.9 m deep with 8.3 to 24.4 m of casing. Static water level ranges from 4.0 to 6.1 m below grade, and generally resides within the bedrock aquifer (i.e., the overburden is dry).

Conceptually, groundwater recharging as rainfall or as land-spread seepages from the waste area should migrate vertically down-ward through the overburden soil into the underlying bedrock, thence horizontally towards points of natural discharge, including the un-named stream and the shoreline to the east.




Assuming a mean glacial till transmissivity of 10 m2/day, a horizontal gradient in the order of 1 percent between the disposal area and the coastline (assumed water tables 5 m below grade) and a bedrock effective porosity of 25%, an average linear groundwater velocity of 0.4 m/day is suggested.

Assuming a mean bedrock aquifer transmissivity of 400 m2/day (PEI Pumping Tests), a horizontal gradient in the order of 1 percent between the disposal area and the coastline (assumed water tables 5 m below grade) and a bedrock effective porosity of 10%, an average linear groundwater velocity of 40 m/day is suggested.

4.2 WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION

In June 2009, a sampling program for the wastewater handling system was conducted over a three-day period at the existing lobster processing facility. The program was designed to collect and analyze existing wastewater to help design appropriate disposal options based on wastewater quantities and quality. The program included the collection of three separate 24 hour composite samples designated as SA-1, SA-2 and SA-3. The composite sample (Comp-1; June 9-10, 2009) collected from the wastewater stream of the packaging area drain was analyzed for select parameters as allowed by the limited volume of water. Sample Sa-1 (June 10, 2009) was collected from the same location as the Comp-1; Sa-2 (June 10, 2009) was collected from the lobster sorting area drain in the processing/sorting, and Sa-3 (June 11, 2009) was collected from the same location as Comp-1 and Sa-1. All samples were analyzed for general chemistry, select metals, carbonaceous biological oxygen demand (cBOD), total suspended solids (TSS), total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), ammonia, total phosphorous (TP), salinity, and alkalinity. Specific indicator parameter results are presented in Table 1. A copy of the monitoring report including a complete list of the results can be found in Appendix B, attached.




Table 1 Key Parameter Analysis

Parameter Units Sample Identification

Sa-1 Sa-2 Sa-3 Comp-1

cBOD mg/L 410 200 780 n/a

TSS mg/L 72 59 300 n/a

TKN mg/L n/a 39 110 31

Ammonia mg/L 16 9.3 13 1.3

Total Phosphorous

mg/L 7.5 5.0 22 5.1

Salinity n/a <2 o/oo <2 o/oo <2 o/oo n/a

Alkalinity mg/L 240 240 280 n/a n/a = not analyzed; 0/00 – parts per thousand salinity

Note: Comp-1 was analyzed for only three parameters due to the small volume of sample obtained. Ammonia and total phosphorous are indicative of cleaning agents that may be used during after production hours, so the limited composite sample was submitted for these parameters.

In general, the chemistry is characterized as a colored (mean color 393 TCU), hard (mean hardness 260 mg/L), alkaline (mean alkalinity 253 mg/L), sodium-calcium-bicarbonate water type of moderate dissolved solids (mean TDS 529 mg/L). The effluent has a low to moderate suspended solids load (mean TSS 144 mg/L, mean turbidity 44 NTU). The water is also considered to be generally anoxic with a carbonaceous BOD averaging 463 mg/L), predominantly ammonia nitrogen (mean ammonia 12.8 mg/L) and mean TOC of 127 mg/L. Other higher than background non-regulated parameters include potassium (mean 21.6 mg/L compared to typical groundwater of 1.5 mg/L; and total P mean 11.5 mg/L compared to typical groundwater of 0.1 mg/L).

Additional samples will be collected once Project is complete. These samples will be collected in order to verify that the general chemistry of the wastewater remains the same as that of the currently operating facility. The results will be submitted to PEIDELJ at that time.

4.3 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 (Alberton) indicate that January is typically the coldest month, with a mean daily temperature of -8.2 degrees Celsius (°C). July is typically the hottest month having a mean daily temperature of 18.7°C. The mean annual precipitation is approximately 1,050 millimeters (mm). October is typically the wettest month with an average rainfall amount of 96.1 mm, while January is the snowiest month with an average recorded snowfall of 73.6 centimeters (cm) (Environment Canada 2014).

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.

4.4 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.

4.4.1 Breeding Birds

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 disposal site has been gathered from a review of information obtained by the Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre (AC CDC). Bird habitat in the area of the disposal site includes residential properties, agricultural land, old fields,




grasslands, hedgerows, and forest. These areas may be used by migratory birds for both nesting and feeding. Information was not collected for the proposed processing facility, as it is located in the Bloomfield Industrial Park, which covers 50 acres of developed land. No bird surveys were conducted in support of this Project due to the existing use and disturbance of the proposed PDAs.

4.4.1.1 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 existing disposal site.

Available information on the historic records of rare or uncommon bird species near the proposed project was compiled and reviewed. Table 2 lists three bird SAR and 12 bird SOCC reported by the AC CDC within a 5 km radius of the existing disposal site. There is one endangered species protected under the SARA (Piping Plover), one threatened species (Canada Warbler), and one species of special concern (Short-eared Owl). The remaining SOCC are not specifically protected by endangered species legislation.




Table 2 Bird Species at Risk and Species of Special Concern Recorded Within 5 km of the Project (AC CDC 2014, 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

Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis Threatened Threatened At Risk S3B

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Special Concern

Special Concern Sensitive S1S2B

Species of Conservation Concern Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Threatened Not at Risk Sensitive S3B

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus Threatened Not at Risk Sensitive S3B

Bank Swallow Riparia riparia Threatened Not at Risk Secure S4B

Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus Not at Risk Not at Risk May be at Risk S1S2B

Great Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo Not at Risk Not at Risk May be at Risk S2B

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus Not at Risk Not at Risk Sensitive S3B

Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus Not at Risk Not at Risk Sensitive S3B

Tennessee Warbler Vermivora peregrina Not at Risk Not at Risk Sensitive S3B

Rose-breasted Grosbeak

Pheucticus ludovicianus Not at Risk Not at Risk Sensitive S3B

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularius Not at Risk Not at Risk Sensitive S3S4B Wilson's Snipe Gallinago delicata 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. 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,




Common Name Scientific Name COSEWIC Rank SARA Rank CESCC Rank AC CDC

S-Rank 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. 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)

4.4.2 Mammals

Two mammalian SOCC were identified by AC CDC in the vicinity of the Project disposal site, the northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and the little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus).

Table 3 Mammal Species of Conservation Concern within 5 km of the Project (AC CDC 2014)

Common Name Scientific Name COSEWIC Rank SARA Rank CESCC Rank AC CDC S-Rank

Northern long-eared bat

Myotis septentrionalis

Endangered Not at Risk Sensitive S1

Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus Endangered Not at Risk At Risk S1 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. 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. 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)




The northern long-eared bat and little brown bat were assessed by COSEWIC in February 2012 and given a status of Endangered. Neither species is included in a SARA schedule. No winter hibernacula are known to exist in PEI, although northern long-eared bat and little brown bat are known to roost and form maternity colonies in PEI during summer months. North American bats have low rates of reproduction, with female Myotis spp. typically giving birth to one young each year. Young are reared in colonies; northern long-eared bat typically occurs in tree cavities and little brown bat typically occurs in buildings and other man-made structures, or tree cavities.

Buildings are often preferred for use as maternity colonies by little brown bat, where available. The destruction or disturbance of an active maternity colony could potentially result in a considerable reduction in the local population.

4.4.3 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).

No site visits were conducted in support of this Project due to the existing nature of the proposed Project areas. Additionally, a search of the AC CDC database (AC CDC 2014) revealed 52 vascular plant SOCC that have been previously recorded within a 5 km radius of the existing disposal site (Table 4). None of the plants are listed and protected by the SARA.

No plant SAR or SOCC are expected to be present within the site of the proposed processing facility, as the business park covers 50 acres of developed land. Therefore, an AC CDC search was not conducted for that site.




Table 4 Vascular Plant Species of Conservation Concern Recorded within 5 km of the Project (AC CDC 2014)

Common Name Scientific Name AC CDC S-Rank CESCC

Twisted Whitlow-grass Draba incana S1 May be at Risk Sage Willow Salix candida S1 May be at Risk

Marsh Grass-of-Parnassus Parnassia palustris var. parviflora S1 May be at Risk

Lance-leaved Violet Viola lanceolata S1 May be at Risk Northern Long Sedge Carex folliculata S1 May be at Risk Northern Bog Sedge Carex gynocrates S1 May be at Risk Loose-flowered Alpine Sedge Carex rariflora S1 May be at Risk

Few-flowered Spikerush Eleocharis quinqueflora S1 May be at Risk Alpine Clubrush Trichophorum alpinum S1 May be at Risk Greene's Rush Juncus greenei S1 May be at Risk Least Moonwort Botrychium simplex S1 May be at Risk

Knotted Pearlwort Sagina nodosa ssp. borealis S1S2 May be at Risk

Labrador Bedstraw Galium labradoricum S1S2 May be at Risk Porcupine Sedge Carex hystericina S1S2 May be at Risk

Spiked Muhly Muhlenbergia glomerata S1S2 May be at Risk

Connecticut Beggar-Ticks Bidens heterodoxa S2 May be at Risk

Golden Groundsel Packera aurea S2 May be at Risk

Boreal Aster Symphyotrichum boreale S2 May be at Risk

Pink Crowberry Empetrum eamesii S2 Sensitive

Pink Crowberry Empetrum eamesii ssp. atropurpureum S2 Undetermined

Bog Rosemary Andromeda polifolia var. glaucophylla S2 May be at Risk

Seaside Spurge Chamaesyce polygonifolia S2 Sensitive

Common Mare's-Tail Hippuris vulgaris S2 Sensitive Black Ash Fraxinus nigra S2 May be at Risk Pink Pyrola Pyrola asarifolia S2 Sensitive Gmelin's Water Buttercup Ranunculus gmelinii S2 Sensitive Creeping Juniper Juniperus horizontalis S2 May be at Risk Yellow Sedge Carex flava S2 May be at Risk Mud Sedge Carex limosa S2 May be at Risk

Tufted Clubrush Trichophorum caespitosum S2 Sensitive

Early Coralroot Corallorhiza trifida S2 Sensitive

Loesel's Twayblade Liparis loeselii S2 May be at Risk

Tall Northern Green Orchid Platanthera aquilonis S2 Sensitive

Rose Pogonia Pogonia ophioglossoides S2 Sensitive





Daisy-leaved Moonwort Botrychium matricariifolium S2 May be at Risk

Common Juniper Juniperus communis var. montana S2? Undetermined

Water Sedge Carex aquatilis S2? May be at Risk

American Burreed Sparganium americanum S2? Undetermined

Sea-Side Dock Rumex maritimus S2S3 Sensitive Golden Sedge Carex aurea S2S3 Sensitive Deep Green Sedge Carex tonsa S2S3 Sensitive

Hooker's Iris Iris setosa var. canadensis S2S3 Undetermined

Gaspé Arrowgrass Triglochin gaspensis S2S3 Sensitive Star Duckweed Lemna trisulca S2S3 Sensitive Slim-stemmed Reed Grass Calamagrostis stricta S2S3 Sensitive

Northern Clubmoss Lycopodium complanatum S2S3 Sensitive

Labrador Violet Viola labradorica S3 Sensitive Canada Lettuce Lactuca canadensis S3? Sensitive Smooth Serviceberry Amelanchier laevis S3? Undetermined

Common Juniper Juniperus communis var. depressa S3? Undetermined

Blue Groundcedar Lycopodium tristachyum S3? Sensitive

Eastern White Cedar Thuja occidentalis S3S4 Sensitive 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).

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. 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.





Undetermined: Species for which insufficient data, information, or knowledge is available with which to reliably evaluate their general status. Source Wild Species: The General Status of Wild Species in Canada’ website Available at: http://www.wildspecies.ca/ranks.cfm?lang=e (CESCC 2011)

4.4.4 Wetlands

There are no provincially identified wetlands located on the Project sites. The closest wetlands to the disposal site are provincially identified wetlands approximately 100 m from the disposal site (Figure 6). These wetlands are located north and southeast of the disposal site.

4.5 FRESHWATER ENVIRONMENT

There is one freshwater stream located on the property at the disposal site. The stream is located within the forested area of the disposal site, and is contained by a forested buffer zone. Drainage is east and northeast along this unnamed northeast-flowing water course and towards the ocean approximately 800 m east of the center of the lot.

4.6 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT

4.6.1 Land Use

Land use in the vicinity of the Project sites is a mixture of residential, agricultural, and forested properties. The closest resident to the proposed processing facility is located approximately 300 m from the site. The closest resident to the disposal site is located approximately 40 m from the property boundary of the disposal site.

4.6.2 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 sites. 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 sites.

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 sites, such discoveries are highly unlikely to occur.




4.6.3 Transportation

The proposed project is located in close proximity to the intersection of Route 2 (Western Road) and Gard Road. Based on traffic data obtained in June of 2011, the total annual average daily traffic using the intersection is 4,717 vehicles per day, of which 457 vehicles per day (or 9.7%) are heavy trucks. Further traffic information for Route 2, collected approximately 2 km south of Gard Road in 2013, indicates the above values may be up to 9% higher at present. The traffic along Route 2 increases by 13 to 19% during the summer months (pers. comm. A. Aitken 2014). Limited traffic data was available for the surrounding areas of the disposal site.


Project Interactions with the Environment April 23, 2014


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 5.




Table 5 Potential Interactions of the Project with the Environment

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

Atm

osph

eric

En

viro

nmen

t

Fres

hwat

er

Envi

ronm

ent

Terre

stria

l Env

ironm

ent

Gro

undw

ater

Re

sour

ces

Land

Use

Arc

haeo

logy

and

He

ritag

e Re

sour

ces

Cur

rent

Use

of L

and

and

Reso

urce

s fo

r Tr

aditi

onal

Pur

pose

s by

A

borig

inal

Per

sons

Road

Tran

spor

tatio

n

Publ

ic H

ealth

and

Sa

fety

Effe

cts

of E

nviro

nmen

t on

the

Proj

ect

Construction (retrofitting building) 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1

Operation and Maintenance (operating processing facility and disposal of wastewater)

1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1

KEY 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, 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.

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 5 above, during Construction the Project is not expected to result in any interaction (i.e., a ranking of 0) with the Freshwater Environment, Terrestrial Environment, Groundwater Resources, and Archaeology and Heritage Resources. During Operation and Maintenance the Project is not expected to result in any interaction (i.e., a ranking of 0) with Archaeology and Heritage Resources.

Due to the nature of the Project and the environmental setting, the environmental effects of the Project on these project activities with the listed 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 • Freshwater Environment (Operation) • Terrestrial Environment (Operation) • Groundwater Resources (Operation) • Land Use • Current Use of Land and Resources for Traditional Purposes by Aboriginal Persons • Road Transportation • Public Health and Safety • Effects of the Environment on the Project 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 5. 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, as well as maintenance and employee vehicles.

The release of unwanted odours during the Operation of the Project has the potential to interact with the Atmospheric Environment. Such odours would be most likely to occur from an unexpected change in the composition of the processing wastewater. There have been no public complaints, to-date (pers. comm. D. Dalton 2014), concerning wastewater odour, and the composition of the wastewater is not expected to change from what is presently being disposed. Disposal methods and wastewater volumes are also not expected to change.

Therefore, such an odour event is unlikely to occur if the application rates, techniques and quantities remain at their current levels. Additionally, the PEIDELJ has conducted a site visit during the disposal process and did not report any significant odours outside the immediate vicinity of the disposal area.




With the low probability of the release of unwanted odours during Project-related activities, and in consideration of the nature of the Project, planned mitigation, the potential adverse environmental effects of odour during Operation of the Project is rated not significant.

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.

Freshwater Environment

Interactions between the Project and the Freshwater Environment have been ranked as 1 in Table 5 because the stream that lies within the disposal site is surrounded by a forested buffer zone. Also, the wastewater will be dispersed in the center of the disposal site property (pers. comm. D. Dalton 2014), away from the stream. Additionally, there are no wetlands located on either of the Project sites, and no watercourses that lie within the business park property. Once the groundwater well locations are established and the monitoring program is in place, the PEIDELJ may request surface monitoring during the Operation of the Project.

No in-stream work is expected for the Project and standard, proven mitigation measures will be employed as appropriate for the Project; therefore, no substantive interactions between the Project and Freshwater Environment are expected. Therefore, the environmental effects of the Project on the Freshwater 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 5. There will be no ground disturbance, as Project activities will be limited to previously disturbed areas (i.e., existing building in an industrial park and a farm field which has been used as for wastewater disposal from the existing processing facility since 2011.

The AC CDC reported three bird SAR and 12 bird SOCC (Table 2). Although these species were reported within 5 km of the disposal site, the site does not contain suitable nesting habitat; therefore these species are not expected to be found at the disposal site.

No rare or uncommon plant species are expected to be found at either project sites, as they are previously disturbed areas.

Accordingly, no substantive interactions between the Project and the Terrestrial Environment are anticipated. Therefore, potential adverse environmental effects of the Project on the 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 in Table 5. At this time it is expected that water usage at the new facility will increase to approximately 15,000 ipgd, for the first year up to 8,000 ipgd will be used. The onsite well should be able to sustain this demand. Options exist to deepen the existing well or add additional wells should more water be needed.

The Project is not expected to affect groundwater quantity or quality in the vicinity of the disposal site, as wastewater volumes are not expected to increase from the current disposal amounts (i.e., up to 8,000 ipgd). Solid waste will be disposed of on farmlands in the surrounding area, and all the wastewater effluent will be disposed of on the current approved disposal site for the existing facility.

A groundwater monitoring plan will be implemented at the disposal site to ensure that groundwater quality deterioration due to salinity, nitrogen or phosphorus increases do not occur. Conceptually, this monitoring system will include a number of shallow bedrock wells similar in design to local residential supply wells, located between the disposal area and down-gradient receptor wells. The location and design of the wells, as well as the parameters to be monitored and frequency of monitoring will be confirmed in consultation with the regulator.

Based on the wastewater sampling results conducted in 2009, effluent salinity is not expected to pose a risk to groundwater quality. Additional sampling of the wastewater being released onto this site will be conducted once the processing facility is in operation. These samples will be collected in order to verify that the general chemistry of the wastewater 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. If waste volumes increase in the future, an alternate disposal method will be introduced and assessed.

Land Use

Interactions between the Project and Land Use have been ranked as 1 in Table 5 because the Project is consistent with the existing land use at both Project sites.

The project footprint of the processing facility is located in an existing 50 acre industrial park, where other facilities are currently operating. The project footprint of the disposal site is consistent with the existing land use at the site – inactive agricultural land currently used as the disposal site for the existing processing facility.




While there are a few residential properties in the vicinity of the Project, Operation activities will be limited to day time hours in order to minimize potential disturbance to Project neighbours. The closest resident is located approximately 300 m from the proposed processing facility, and the closest resident from the disposal site is located 40 m from the property boundary of the disposal site.

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.

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 5 due to the limited potential historical use of the lands and resources by Aboriginal persons.

The approved waste water disposal is being conducted on privately owned land, such that any potential current use of this land and resources by Aboriginal persons would be at the convenience of the land owner. The proposed processing facility is located within an existing designated business park. In addition, both properties have existing land uses and are zoned agricultural and industrial, respectively. Therefore, the potential adverse environmental effects of the Project on Current Use of Land 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 proposed facility during Construction and Operation is not expected to increase relative to the current amount of truck traffic at the existing facility.

During Operation the amount of truck traffic transporting processing waste to the disposal site is not expected to increase. Currently, processing waste is transported to the disposal site by three trucks every two days (pers. comm. D. Dalton 2014) during the 8 month processing period. This traffic is expected to remain the same. Truck 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. If production at the processing facility increases in the future, the truck traffic would be expected to increase; however, would continue to follow existing roadways.

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 5. 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 operations 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 5. 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 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 and 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 Require Further Evaluation (Ranking of 2)

Based on the ratings provided in Table 5 above, there are no VECs that are expected to result in a potential significant interaction with the environment.

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.

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 operation of the disposal site.

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 6, below.




Table 6 Potential Interactions of Project-Related Accidents, Malfunctions and Unplanned Events with the Environment

Accident, Malfunction, or Unplanned Event

Atm

osph

eric

Env

ironm

ent

Fres

hwat

er E

nviro

nmen

t

Gro

undw

ater

Res

ourc

es

Terre

stria

l Env

ironm

ent

Land

Use

Arc

haeo

logy

and

Her

itage

Re

sour

ces

Road

Tran

spor

tatio

n

Publ

ic H

ealth

and

Saf

ety

Worker Accident 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Fire 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

Hazardous Material Spill 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0

Vehicle Accident 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1

Discovery of a Heritage Resource 0 0 0 0 0 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 6.


5.2.3.2.1 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 6 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 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 6 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 kilometers, 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.

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 6 are rated not significant, and are not discussed further.

A spill of fuel, oil, lubricants, or other hazardous materials may occur during 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 is heavy machinery is used at the site during construction. Prior to the commencement of Construction activities, the Proponent will ensure that spill response equipment is readily available when heavy machinery is at the site. 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 • waste material will be disposed of at approved disposal facilities • the Proponent will ensure that the Canadian Coast Guard (Maritimes Region) is notified at

the Environmental Emergencies 24-hour report line (1-800-565-1633) 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.

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, Freshwater Environment, 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 6 are rated not significant, and are not discussed further.

The potential for a Vehicle Accident to occur exists during Construction, and Operation and Maintenance of the Project.

Worker traffic and truck traffic to and from the site has the potential to result in a vehicle accident during Operation. A vehicle accident has the potential to result in the spilling of wastewater into the Freshwater Environment. 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, Freshwater Environment, 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 was assigned a ranking of 1 in Table 6, 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 6 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 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 the Proponent 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.


There were no interactions ranked as 2 in Table 6. 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 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 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.

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.


Conclusion April 23, 2014


6.0 CONCLUSION

In this EIS, Stantec conducted an environmental impact assessment (EIA) of the Seafood Processing Facility (“the Project”) commissioned South Shore Seafoods Ltd. in Prince County, PE. The Project involves the operation and maintenance of a lobster 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.

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.


Closing April 23, 2014


7.0 CLOSING

This report has been prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) for the sole benefit of South Shore Seafoods Ltd. 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 South Shore Seafoods Ltd.

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.

The information provided in this report was compiled from existing documents and data provided by South Shore Seafoods Ltd., 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 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)________ George Zafiris, P.Eng. Dale Conroy, M.Sc. Principal Associate, Senior Reviewer


References April 23, 2014


8.0 REFERENCES

AC CDC. 2014. Species Location Data. Ordered through http://www.accdc.com/products/dataproducts.html Canada’s Historic Places. No date (nd). Accessed April 16, 2014 at: http://www.historicplaces.ca/en/pages/register-repertoire.aspx Environment Canada. 2014. Alberton, PEI. National Climate Data and Information Archive. Accessed April 16, 2014 at: http://www.climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.htm Historic Places of Prince Edward Island. No date (nd). Accessed April 16, 2014 at: http://www.gov.pe.ca/hpo/app.php?nav=details&p=2796 Stantec Consulting Ltd. 2009. Fish Processing Effluent Sampling – South Shore Seafoods Ltd. File number 91616 – Project number 1052491. Wild Species. 2011. Accessed April 16, 2014 at: http://www.wildspecies.ca

8.1 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS Alan Aitken. Personal Communication. 2014. Traffic Operations Engineer, Prince Edward Island Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal. David Dalton. Personal Communication. 2014. South Shore Seafoods Ltd. Greg Wilson. Personal Communication. 2014. Environmental Impact Assessment Manager, Prince Edward Island Department of Environment Labour and Justice.


April 23, 2014

Appendix A

Figures

WASTEWATERDISPOSAL SITE

PROPOSEDFACILITY

EXISTINGFACILITY

Client:

THIS DRAWING ILLUSTRATES SUPPORTING INFORMATION SPECIFIC TO A STANTEC CONSULTING LTD. REPORT AND MUST NOT BE USED FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

V:\

0121

6\ac

tive\

3586

-121

6163

89\f

igur

es_d

raw

ings

_log

s\LO

CA

TION

PLA

N R

EGIO

NA

L.d

wg

Job No.:

Scale:

Date:

Dwn. By:

App'd By:

Figure 11 : 175 000

PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND

KEY PLAN

SCALE

0 1000m

REFERENCE MAP© DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCESCANADA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.NORTH CAPE 21 P/01 (PUBLISHED 2013)TIGNISH 21 I/16 (PUBLISHED 2013)OLEARY 21 I/09 (PUBLISHED 2013)

NO

RTH

SITE

SOUTH SHORE SEAFOODS LTD.

LOCATION PLAN (REGIONAL)PROPOSED SEAFOOD PROCESSING FACILITY

PRINCE COUNTY, PE

121616389

17-APR-2014MAGZ

SCALE

0 50m

Client:



PROJECT LOCATION PLANPROPOSED SEAFOOD PROCESSING FACILITY

75 GRIFFIN DRIVE, WEST PRINCE BUSINESS PARK(BLOOMFIELDINDUSTRIAL PARK), PRINCE COUNTY, PE

V:\

0121

6\ac

tive\

3586

-121

6163

89\f

igur

es_d

raw

ings

_log

s\PR

OJE

CT

LOC

ATIO

N P

LAN

.dw

g

Job No.:

Scale:

Date:

Dwn. By:

App'd By:

Figure 21216163891 : 200017-APR-2014MAGZ

472.98'

3500

PARKING LOT

G

r

i

f

f

i

n

D

r

i

v

e

3498

3518

PC

3515PC

155°00'55"

3491

PC3509

CC =

351

4

R = 5

27.2

9'

A = 1

20.7

2'

CC =

351

4

R = 4

61.2

9'

A = 1

67.3

9'

A = 6.31'R = 461.29'CC = 3514

52°28'50" 236.58'

232°28'50"

232°28'50" 137.56'

CC =

351

4

R = 5

27.2

9'

A = 7

7.83

'

NEW PROPER

TY LINE 76°

10'06" 1

94.88'

EXISTING

2.42 ACRES

CC = 3439

30'-0" RAD.6

6

'

-

0

"

W

i

d

e

R

i

g

h

t

o

f

W

a

y

PID No. 897793

26'-5"

125'-0"

60'-0"

80'-1"

60'-0"

45'-0"

39'-5"58'-6"

MH

HP

MHMH

HP

FORMER PR

OPERTY LINE

76°10'06"

106.96'

NEW PROPERTY LINE 377.87'

FORMER PRO

PERTY LINE 3

48°34'35" 3

72.70'

44'-0"

95'-1"±

32'-4" 49.97'

ADDITIONAL PARCEL OF LANDREQUIRED TO ACCOMODATE

TRUCK TURNING

68.4

4'

26'-0"

2'-0"

30'-0" RAD.

22'-0"

HP

100.00'

++96.00'

+96.92'

+96.92'

+

+

95.33'

95.33'

+95.50'

+94.83'

+93.92'

+

+

+

95.83'

95.83'

95.50'

25'-0"

93.25'INV. OUT

A

t

l

a

n

t

i

c

P

r

e

p

a

r

e

d

F

o

o

d

s

L

t

d

.

Client:


V:\

0121

6\ac

tive\

3586

-121

6163

89\f

igur

es_d

raw

ings

_log

s\SI

TE P

LAN

.dw

g

Job No.:

Scale:

Date:

Dwn. By:

App'd By:

Figure 3


SITE PLAN - EXISTING BUILDINGPROPOSED SEAFOOD PROCESSING FACILITY

75 GRIFFIN DRIVE, WEST PRINCE BUSINESS PARK(BLOOMFIELD INDUSTRIAL PARK), PRINCE COUNTY, PE

1216163891" = 60'17-APR-2014MAGZ

REFERENCEFITZGERALD AND SNOW LTD.PROJECT: PROPOSED NEW PRODUCTION FACILITYBLOOMFIELD, P.E.I.DRAWING No.: A-1 REV. 13

V:\

0121

6\ac

tive\

3586

-121

6163

89\f

igur

es_d

raw

ings

_log

s\C

ON

TOUR

PLA

N.d

wg

Reference:

THIS DRAWING ILLUSTRATES SUPPORTING INFORMATION SPECIFIC TO A STANTEC CONSULTING LTD. REPORTAND MUST NOT BE USED FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

AGRICULTURE & FORESTRYRESOURCE INVENTORY & MODELLINGAPRIL, 2014

Client:

Job No.:

Scale:

Date:

Dwn. By:

App'd By:

Figure 4


CONTOUR PLAN (SITE AND SURROUNDING AREAS)PROPOSED SEAFOOD PROCESSING FACILITY

75 GRIFFIN DRIVE, WEST PRINCE BUSINESS PARK(BLOOMFIELD INDUSTRIAL PARK), PRINCE COUNTY, PE

121616389AS SHOWN17-APR-2014MAGZ

NBPE

NS

QC

FIGURE NO. 5

Area ofInterest PREPARED FOR

Last

Modif

ied: 4

/23/20

14 By

: kroz

alska

8610

12

4

2

10

8

10 10

6

6

10

8

6

Seaco

w Pond

121616389

PREPARED BY

PID No. 947218, Route 12Seacow Pond, Prince County, PE

Wastewater Disposal Site

DRAFT - For Internal U

se Only

0 50 100 150 200 250

Metres

±

NAD 1983 CSRS Prince Edward Island 1:5,000

Disclaimer: This map is for illustrative purposes to support this Stantec project; questions can be directed to the issuing agency.Sources: Government of Prince Edward Island.

Subject PropertyApproximate Disposal AreaWatercourseContour (2m)Wetland Boundary

South ShoreSeafoods Ltd.


April 23, 2014

APPENDIX B

Fish Processing Effluent Sampling – South Shore Seafoods Ltd.

statement: seafood processing facility, west prince … · statement: seafood processing facility,...

Documents