Petitcodiac River Causeway EIA-Frequently Asked Questions

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)

What is the purpose of the EIA process?

The purpose of the EIA is to identify long-term solutions to fish passage and other environmental issues associated with the causeway.

Isn't this just 'another study'?

This is a full Environmental Impact Assessment. No study of the Petitcodiac River Causeway of this scale has been done before. The EIA study will be independent: the study will be submitted to the provincial and federal agencies by the proponent and will be done by a third party (consultants).

This appears to be a lengthy process. How will we (the public) be kept informed as the different steps of the EIA proceed?

Throughout the Petitcodiac River Causeway EIA Study there will be on going consultation by the following methods of communication:

Regularly scheduled meetings, town hall meetings, open houses and workshops;

Interactive Bilingual Website www.petitcodiac.com that provides access to all key project documents and frequently asked questions;

Toll free number 888-638-7700 and Moncton office number 855-3070;

Media Relations including press releases, radio and television interviews Liaison with public, stakeholders and aboriginal community; and

Liaison with public, stakeholders and aboriginal community; and

Presentations to various groups.

Public, stakeholder and aborginal community input is encouraged.

The proposed harmonized process looks much like the provincial process. How does it actually differ from the provincial one?

The harmonized process in fact combines the requirements of both the provincial and federal process, in terms of information and process steps. To the provincial process, for example, has been added the identification of the federal authorities involved, as required by the Federal Coordination Regulations [box 2(b) in the Federal/Provincial Process flow chart]. Also the need to prepare a federal decision making document ( the screening report) and to solicit public comment on the draft screening report has been added to the provincial steps [box 13 in the Federal/Provincial process flow chart].

Who is the proponent?

The New Brunswick Department of Supply and Services is the proponent of the project, on the province's behalf.

Why choose the New Brunswick Department of Supply and Services as the proponent?

The New Brunswick Department of Supply and Services (NBDSS) has proven expertise in project management. The Petitcodiac River Causeway EIA needs strong management skills. NBDSS has those skills and has outside resources it can call upon when needed. As well, NBDSS has expressed no opinion on the Petitcodiac River issues and has no vested interest in the outcome of the EIA. It can operate at arm's length.

Is the proponent bound to carry out the project once the EIA is completed?

The ultimate decision to proceed or not to proceed is separate from the EIA process. If the proponent does proceed with the project, however, it must abide by the recommendations of the EIA report.

Why isn't there a panel review?

The project is not of a scale or of a nature that would normally be subject to a federal panel review. The federal government may refer a project to a panel review if an environmental assessment (like a screening or a comprehensive review) identifies large or unknown environmental risks or impacts, or a high level of public concern. The harmonized process that is proposed for the Petitcodiac River Causeway will provide the information needed to make an informed decision.

But a screening is not an independent review!

The EIA study will be independent: the study will be submitted to the provincial and federal agencies by the proponent and will be done by a third party (consultants); the study will be critically reviewed by a Technical Review Committee (comprised of experts from a variety of agencies); and many checks and balances have been added to the basic process to ensure that objectivity is maintained. Participation of the public, stakeholders, and the aboriginal community throughout the EIA process is an important part of these checks and balances.

What issues are being studied through this EIA process?

The Guidelines issued for this Environmental Impact Assessment by the NB Department of the Environment and Local Government provide a comprehensive list of the subject areas, which the study must address. To access the full document, click on the following link: Final Guidelines on the Petitcodiac River Causeway website. The primary goal of the study is to assess the environmental and socio-economic impacts associated with four possible modifications to the existing Petitcodiac River Causeway, which are identified in the Final Guidelines. Each modification is aimed at achieving a long term solution to fish passage and other ecosystem issues related to the existing causeway. These four ‘Project Options’ are:

replacing the existing fishway

opening the existing gates at peak periods of fish migration

permanently opening the gates

replacing part of the existing causeway with a partial bridge.

In addition to assessing the impacts of these options, and any other options identified during the preliminary ‘scoping’ phase of the EIA, the study must also identify measures to ‘mitigate’ or overcome such impacts, and compare the estimated cost of any mitigation measures proposed, both initially and over time. The environmental and socio-economic information obtained through this study will then be compiled in a final EIA report and submitted to the Provincial and Federal Governments to assist their decision-making process regarding the future of the Causeway.

Who is responsible for conducting this EIA ?

Under the ‘harmonized’ federal-provincial process established for this study, the New Brunswick Department of Supply and Services (NBDSS) has been designated as the proponent of the Environmental Impact Assessment. A consortium of New Brunswick scientific, environmental, and engineering firms, headed by AMEC Earth and Environmental Ltd., was chosen by NBDSS to conduct the study on its behalf, in November 2002. In addition to AMEC, the EIA Study Team includes Jacques Whitford Environment Ltd., ADI Ltd., and GEMTEC Ltd., as well as the Canadian Hydraulics Centre of the National Research Council, Gardiner Pinfold Consulting Economists Ltd., GPI Atlantic and H.R. Wallingford. Specialists from various Atlantic Canadian universities, as well as international research institutions, are also involved in addressing specific issues. Gregory Gills, AMEC’s Vice-President for Atlantic Canada, is the Study Team Manager, while Jacques Paynter leads the public consultation process as Study Facilitator. Jeff Barnes, Vice-President of Jacques Whitford Environment Ltd., is directing the EIA Study program.

How long will the study take?

The preliminary ‘scoping phase’ of the EIA began in December 2002. Public release of draft Terms of Reference for the study, and an initial series of public consultations, followed in January 2003. Fieldwork began in the winter of 2003. Three major component studies, on the biophysical, socio-economic and modelling aspects of the EIA, are scheduled for completion in 2004. Opportunities for aboriginal community, stakeholder and public involvement are being made available throughout the process. An initial draft report on the EIA study is scheduled for completion by the autumn of 2004. The final EIA report will be prepared and submitted to NBDSS in the Spring of 2005.

What happens after completion of the study itself?

The project schedule requires the AMEC Study Team to complete a draft EIA Report, on behalf of NBDSS, by the autumn of 2004. This draft document will be submitted to a Technical Review Committee (TRC), which has been specifically established for this purpose by the NB Department of Environment and Local Government. The TRC membership includes expert representation from a range of provincial and federal government agencies. All these agencies have regulatory or operational responsibilities, which touch on the Petitcodiac River and its Causeway. The TRC review process of the draft EIA report is expected to be complete in early 2005. Once the Committee’s response is received, the Study Team will begin preparing its final EIA report. Submission of this final document to NBDSS is expected in the Spring of 2005. As provided for under this ‘harmonized’ federal-provincial process, NBDSS will present the final EIA report to both the federal and provincial governments for regulatory review and consideration.

Why is this EIA study different than studies previously completed on the Petitcodiac River Causeway?

Environmental Impact Assessment is a thorough and meticulous process. It typically combines a wide range of scientific, engineering and socio-economic expertise to focus on major environmental challenges; identify specific solutions to handle them; compare the benefits and costs of these solutions, and predict their impact over time. An EIA study such as this also provides significant opportunities for members of the aboriginal community, stakeholders and the public to participate in the process, as it goes forward. Many other studies have been carried out on the Petitcodiac River since the Causeway was built and have generated useful scientific data in terms of defining specific fish passage issues and/or the environmental setting. Such studies, however, are not structured to provide the kind of comprehensive problem-solving information governments require in determining a course of action on issues as complex as the Petitcodiac River Causeway. By undertaking a thorough review of the four options and the Status Quo, the EIA will serve as a useful tool to assist governments in planning for the future of the causeway.

Why was an Environmental Impact Assessment not carried out, prior to the construction of the Petitcodiac River Causeway in 1968?

The concept of conducting Environmental Impact Assessments prior to undertaking major development projects, like the Petitcodiac River Causeway, was not introduced in New Brunswick and across Canada until the mid-1970's, several years after its construction.

What specific goals for future fish passage on the Petitcodiac River have been established in connection with this EIA Study?

In conjunction with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the AMEC Study Team has determined that the goal for fish passage associated with any of the modification options proposed for the Petitcodiac River Causeway should be: “the unimpeded and safe movement upstream and downstream of fish between aquatic habitats required to complete their life cycle.” Fish species in the Petitcodiac River system that require passage for spawning purposes were identified in consultation with Fisheries and Oceans Canada and input from the public, stakeholders and the aboriginal community through the consultation process. These species include:

American eel;

American shad;

Atlantic salmon;

Atlantic sturgeon;

Atlantic tomcod;

Alewife and Blueback herring (gaspereau);

Brook trout;

Rainbow smelt

Sea Lamprey

What type of fish passage facility design would be required to successfully meet the fish passage goals established for this EIA?

At present, there are only a few fishway facilities operating in the world that offer practical passage opportunities for the type of broad species diversity identified in connection with fish passage goals for this EIA. In examining this issue, the AMEC Study Team will be focused on a number of key requirements such as:

Ensuring that there is sufficient water flowing from the headpond through the fish passage facility to attract the fish.

Ensuring that there is adequate depth in the river channel between the Petitcodiac River Causeway and Gunningsville Bridge during the summer to permit passage.

Ensuring that fish can travel far enough upstream to avoid being washed back down the river during the next gate opening.

Accommodation for potentially rapid changes in salt content of the water at the causeway

Would construction of a spillway be a practical alternative to a new fishway?

A fishway is designed to meet fish passage requirements over a range of river flows and significant differences in elevation, which a spillway would not accommodate.

How will ‘Full Cost Accounting’ methods be used in carrying out this study?

For the Petitcodiac River Causeway EIA Study, Full Cost Accounting (FCA) will provide an approximate estimate of the costs and benefits associated with implementing each Project Option that meets the project objectives, in place of the Status Quo. The analysis will identify and value (in dollar terms wherever possible) a full range of social, economic, and environmental parameters associated with the specific modification proposed for the Causeway, as compared to the Status Quo. The FCA comparisons will only consider the incremental costs and benefits attributable to each Project Option that meets the project objectives.

Who is going to restore the dykes along the river if the causeway gates are opened or a partial bridge is installed?

The AMEC Study Team is working to identify all potential biophysical and socio-economic impacts that could be associated with the four Project Options. Various methods of ‘mitigating’ or overcoming the possible negative impacts are also being examined, together with the comparative cost of each approach. In assessing the potential restoration of dykes on agricultural lands in shoreline areas, the AMEC Study Team would not see the affected landowners as financially responsible for such work. As the study goes forward, alternative public sources of funding for such potential activity will be examined.

Will the Shepody Bay and Alma area be included in the study?

Both these areas are included in the study and the effects of each Project Option in relation to them will be evaluated as part of the EIA. Data for Shepody Bay and other areas of the Bay of Fundy are available on fisheries, marine ecology aspects, historical water depths and bottom conditions.

Will the existing Causeway gates be opened during the summer of 2003 for the purposes of this EIA study, beyond the normal gate-opening schedule?

Currently, the gates are operated by the New Brunswick Department of Transportation (NBDOT) in conjunction with the Department of Fisheries and Ocean (DFO) to control the level in the headpond and permit fish passage during the incoming and outgoing tides. The gates are operated in accordance with a gate management plan that is developed by NBDOT and DFO to facilitate the migration of the following fish species: smelt, shad, striped bass, gaspereau, adult salmon, tomcod and salmon smolts.

No additional opening of the gates will take place specifically related to the EIA study. For additional details on the gate management plan visit the project website

How does an individual or association become recognized as a ‘stakeholder’ for the purposes of this EIA?

The definition of a stakeholder for this Environmental Impact Assessment process is very informal and covers all groups or individuals with an interest in the project. Stakeholders who wish to become active participants in the process (i.e. receive information about the EIA study as it progresses; provide comments to the AMEC Study Team; ask questions about the EIA Study, or take part in specific public consultation events) are encouraged to contact Jacques Paynter by phone at 855-3070 or 1-888-638-7700, or by e-mail at jacques.paynter@amec.com.

How is the AMEC Study Team recording the input received from the aboriginal community, stakeholders and the public as the EIA process goes forward? (town hall meetings, open houses, workshops, telephone calls, mail, faxes, emails, etc.)

All issues communicated to the AMEC Study Team are recorded in an Issues Tracking Log. A description of the issue, and the date it was noted, are included in this log, which is updated on regular basis. As the study proceeds, each of these issues is considered and the actions taken to address them included in the EIA study documentation. Summaries of feedback received at various public sessions are also prepared. Both the Issues Tracking Log and the Public Session Summaries are located on the Petitcodiac River Causeway project website and can be accessed directly by clicking on the following links: Issues Tracking Log Town Hall Meetings

Has the AMEC Study Team examined other fish passage facilities during the course of the EIA study?

During the course of this EIA project, the AMEC Study Team has examined fish passage Facilities in Canada, the United States and Europe. These included several facilities in New Brunswick, the Grand Falls facility in Newfoundland, the Richelieu River facility in Quebec, the Hell’s Gate facility on the Fraser River in British Columbia, the Turners Falls facility on the Saco River in Maine, USA and the Cardiff fish pass in Wales. A member of the AMEC Study Team visited the Cardiff fish pass facility that is located on a tidal river with similar tidal characteristics as those of the Petitcodiac River. A report on this visit has also been posted on the project website (Cardiff).

How does the total suspended solids (TSS) in the Petitcodiac River compare to other tidal rivers and why is the TSS level so high? How does the sediment concentration in the Petitcodiac River compare to those in the Shubenacadie River?

The Petitcodiac River exhibits a fairly high suspended sediment concentrations in relation to other tidal rivers. This characteristic is most likely related to the type of geology in the upper Bay of Fundy. An evaluation of the total suspended sediment concentration in the Shubenacadie River, NS was undertaken by the AMEC Study Team. This evaluation was based on the interpretation of a satellite image supplemented by available actual suspended sediment measurements in the Petitcodiac River, Cumberland Basin, Chignecto Bay, Minas Basin and the Debert River. The one set of measurements on the Shubenacadie River, obtained from Acadia University, was also used in this evaluation. The sources of the data included the Atlantic Tidal Power Study (1969), research work at the Nova Scotia Agriculture College (1997) and research work at Acadia University (2003). Utilizing the data obtained from the above sources in the interpretation of the satellite image, it can be concluded that the total suspended sediment concentration in the Shubenacadie River is in the order of 6000 mg/l. It is to be noted that the total suspended sediments in the upper portion of the Petitcodiac River Estuary is in the order of 30,000 mg/l.

Has the AMEC Study Team investigated the Avon River Causeway in Windsor N.S?

The AMEC Study Team has evaluated the Avon River Causeway in Windsor Nova Scotia. The Causeway was constructed in the 1960’s, equipped with bottom-opening gates similar to those at the Petitcodiac River Causeway. There is no fishway associated with the Avon River Causeway. Due to other previously impassable barriers on the Avon River, anadromous fish runs are low. Spawning and nursery habitat on the Avon River is characterized as poor. The gates are operated by the NS Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for gaspereau migration.

Was there any dredging conducted in the past on the Petitcodiac River?

Based on the research carried out by the AMEC Study Team, it appears there was no dredging program carried out on the Petitcodiac River. Dredging, however, was carried out near wharfs on a regular basis.

Has the AMEC Study Team been able to identify a fishway system, which would satisfy the ‘fish passage requirements’ of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)?

The AMEC Study Team has conducted a thorough investigation of available fish passage technologies and evaluated the effectiveness of existing fish passage facilities in Canada, the United States and Europe. The applicability of such facilities in the Peticodiac River was also evaluated. The AMEC Study Team was not able to identify a direct technology or a combination of technologies that would satisfy the fish passage requirements of the EIA to provide for upstream and downstream migration of the fish species that were identified for the EIA study. This finding was based on the biology of the identified fish species and the specific characteristics of the Petitcodiac River (availability of fresh water flow, tidal levels, headpond levels, water quality and the unique nature of the sediments within the system as a whole).

Has the AMEC Study Team identified any other of the four original Project Options, which would not meet the primary objective of the EIA?

Based on the assessment process at this stage, the AMEC Study Team believes that Option 2 (opening of the Causeway gates during peak fish migratory periods) would not meet the fish passage objectives of the EIA. As is the case with Option 1 (replacing the Fishway), the AMEC Study Team is very confident in the exhaustive nature of the investigations carried out through the EIA process. A fish migration chart was developed and it clearly shows that upstream and downstream migration of the identified fish species occur during all months of the year.

Would Options 1 and 2 become more practical to consider if the number of different migrating fish species identified for the EIA ‘fish passage requirement’ was reduced?

As discussed with the public, stakeholders and the aboriginal community in the early stages of the EIA study, the list of fish species identified for the ‘fish passage requirement’ was based on the primary objective of the EIA. This was clearly defined as “the unimpeded and safe movement, upstream and downstream, of fish between aquatic habitats required to complete their life cycle”. Based on the overall analysis conducted by the AMEC Study Team to date, however, and the physical characteristics of the Petitcodiac River System (availability of fresh water flow, tidal levels, headpond levels, water quality, the high suspended sediment concentrations and the rapid deposition of sediments), it is not believed that Options 1 and 2 would be viable, even if the number of different fish species identified in the EIA requirement was dramatically reduced.

If Options 1 and 2 do not meet the primary objective of the EIA, why don’t you fully open the gates now?

Such a decision could not be made at this stage, since the AMEC Study Team is still in the process of carrying out the hydrodynamic and sediment modelling component of the EIA. Results from these modelling exercises will be required to fully identify the potential impacts, and the required mitigative measures, associated with Project Options 3 and 4 (opening the causeway gates permanently and replacing the Causeway structure with a partial bridge).

Can the gate management plan be adjusted to resolve the fish passage issue in order to meet the objective of the EIA study?

The gate management plan has five objectives. These are: maintain the water levels within the headpond, mud management, ice control, flood control and then, fish passage. Those five objectives, combined with the conflicting migration patterns between fish species, are very difficult to achieve and may well be impossible to achieve considering the volume of fresh water available in the Petitcodiac River system. Therefore, adjustment of the gate management plan would not help in resolving the fish passage issue to meet the objective of the EIA study.

Is the fish population declining due to climate change, acid rain, spruce budworm spraying, fertilizers, mud filling their gills or the causeway?

Although these factors may have a relationship with the decline of a fish species, available evidence point to the Petitcodiac River Causeway as the major contributing factor in the decline of fish population. The AMEC Study Team presented historical information on recreational and commercial salmon catches at the Fish Passage Workshop. The recreational salmon catch information was presented for the Petitcodiac, Big Salmon and Stewiacke rivers from 1951 to 1993. This information showed a sharp decline in catches on the Petitcodiac River beginning in 1969, following the construction of the Causeway, while no decline was observed on either the Big Salmon River or the Stewiacke River. Historical information on commercial salmon catches on the Petitcodiac River from 1958 to 1983 was also presented and showed a decline in catches beginning in 1969 as well.

Why is Option 3 being modified?

Option 3 is described as “gates open permanently”. Considering the width of the gates (8.84 m each) and the large sizes of ice cakes floating in the estuary and within the headpond, it is anticipated that ice jamming could occur due to the restriction created by the size of the gate openings. It is, therefore, being recommended that in addition to the removal of the gates, three of the existing piers be removed as well. This modification would provide for a wider opening and would minimize the likelihood of ice jamming at the structure.

What type of peer review of the modeling process will be carried out?

The peer review is carried out by the Technical Review Committee (TRC) which is comprised of technical specialists from federal and provincial departments and agencies, whose jurisdictions may be affected by the project. For more details on the membership of the Technical Review Committee please visit the project web site www.petitcodiac.com. This committee plays a key role in ensuring that the study examines all the issues, and approves the study methodology and approach including the modelling process. The proposed modelling process and preliminary modelling results have been presented to and reviewed by the TRC.

In addition to the TRC, the modelling process is reviewed by the AMEC advisory team which includes Dr. Carl Amos, University of Southampton, Dr. Alan Cooper, HR Wallingford, and Dr. Nabil Elhadi, AMEC Earth and Environmental.