PETITCODIAC RIVER CAUSEWAY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

  Roughly twenty-five people attended the two-hour discussion held at the J.M. Armstrong Regional High School auditorium on Monday, January 27, 2003. The meeting began at 7:05 p.m. and served as the first in a series of four public sessions held across the Petitcodiac River Watershed in late January.

  Individuals who approached the microphone to make comments; voice their concerns, and ask questions regarding the study included: Connie Colpitts, Bethany Dykster, Willard Estey, Dick McCabe, Eric McCann, Merrill Short, and Lawrence Workman.

  While few disputed the view that originally building the causeway was a mistake, participants who live along the existing head pond, also known as ‘Lake Petitcodiac’, shared their strong appreciation for the scenic surroundings and the importance of the freshwater-based ecosystem which has developed there in recent decades.

  Potential negative impacts related to sediment transport were voiced as a major concern, should the existing Petitcodiac River Causeway be removed in favour of a partial bridge, or the present operating system for its gates be significantly altered. Many of the expressed concerns related to opening the causeway gates on a permanent basis.

Sediment Transport

  Participants had serious reservations about more extensive opening of the causeway gates. Soil disturbances associated with the tidal flow were seen as major concerns by many of those who participated. They feared that restoring free flow of the river will erode neighbouring land, cause flooding of farmland upriver; carry leachate from the old Moncton dump; silt other contaminants into Shepody Bay and the upper Bay of Fundy, as well as narrowing the watershed west of Moncton. One participant expressed concern that the movement of silt downriver would also provide increased breeding areas for saltwater mosquitoes. In her view, this was a potential health hazard due to recent concerns associated with the West Nile Virus.

  Some local residents pointed out that large mud flats were common on the Petitcodiac River prior to construction of the causeway. Fishermen who walked out onto the flats could use a pitchfork rather than fishing gear to catch salmon and shad. It was stated that, over the years, the river has continued to narrow east of the causeway. From the perspective of these residents……if the causeway is removed, the silt will move further up river. The use of dredging was an option suggested by one participant to remove silt build-up east of the causeway. He also felt that after 34 years…..the area west of the causeway ought to remain in its current state.

  Members of the Study Team explained that, through the environmental impact assessment study, they should gain a detailed understanding of sediment dynamics in the Petitcodiac system, and examine a wide range of ecological issues associated with the river.

  Dredging of sediments could be an option, they noted, but……....if it became a recurring process……...associated impacts to the ecosystem, as well as the costs involved, could be significant.

  Team members reviewed some direct NB experience in this area and noted that dredging is typically driven by economic factors, such as supporting commercial access to major facilities like Saint John Harbour. The Team members also confirmed that they will be investigating the potential impact of each identified project option on the old Moncton dump, together with various measures required to protect it.

Land Use Issues

  Many participants identified the head pond, which was created after the causeway construction in 1968, as a valuable asset for the communities nearby. The fact that most of the new homes and subdivisions built in the last 30 years are located on the upper side of the causeway was specifically noted. The threat of flooding on the marshlands of the area, which farmers rely on for hay production, was another expressed concern. It was stated that compensation for any such expenses, incurred by opening the causeway gates, needs to be explored. One participant reported that when the causeway gates were opened in 1998, residents downwind of the mud flats experienced substantial dust impacts, which reduced visibility and forced homeowners to keep their windows closed. Another resident of the area adjacent to ‘Lake Petitcodiac’ stated that he had a right to enjoy his property without government interference.

  The Study Team indicated that the right to property enjoyment; recreational values; scenic views, and property values would all be considered during the socio-economic component of the EIA study.

  It was also confirmed by Team members that the value of crops and utilization of land, together with the various impacts, economic costs, and benefits associated with each project option, would be examined in detail. The values associated with various other aspects of the pre-causeway and existing ecosystem, downstream of the causeway, will also be addressed as part of this environmental impact assessment.

‘Lake Petitcodiac’ Wildlife

  Some participants stated that opening the gates and draining the head pond would destroy the local ecosystem, which has developed over the past 34 years. Residents described the area as a sanctuary for ducks, Canada geese, bald eagles, muskrats and various other waterfowl, fish and wildlife species.

  Another participant expressed concern, however, about the possible existing contamination effect of ‘non-native fish,’ such as bass, in the head pond.

  The Study Team explained that EIA process is designed to clearly understand what “valued environmental components” would be potentially impacted, if there is a modification of the water level in the head pond from any of the identified project options. It was pointed out that although there appears to be extensive information on ‘Lake Petitcodiac,’ the Team does expect to find some gaps in that data. ‘Biophysical component studies’ will be designed in the early stages of the EIA to fill in those data gaps, regarding both wildlife and fish populations.

  A Team member also stated that he would investigate and determine whether small mouth bass were native to the Petitcodiac River Watershed, adding that they are native to parts of southern New Brunswick.

Validity of Study

  Some participants asked for assurances from both levels of governments that they are prepared to implement whatever option is ultimately recommended through the EIA Study process. The need for such a commitment at this point from the decision-makers involved, before the major costs of this assessment are incurred, was stressed. Some expressed the view that this EIA would end up as “just another study,”…. to add to the long list of similar efforts, and “phenomenal amount” of tax dollars, already spent on the issue.

  One participant also expressed concern about government’s view regarding the status quo as a possible option. Another questioned whether the government might use fiscal restraint as a reason not to pursue the option recommended at the end of the process. Concerns were expressed as well that a possible change in administration could halt the outcome of the study. Whether or not the federal and provincial governments could possibly arrive at ‘two different decisions’….. once the final EIA information was compiled….was another potential problem identified.

  The Study Team confirmed that there are four options presently on the table and they are also ready to consider others brought forward during the initial stage of EIA public and stakeholder consultations. It was noted as well that, while the ‘status quo’ will be used as the baseline for the study to which other options will be compared, it does not, in itself, meet the Federal or Provincial criteria which apply to the process as outlined in the EIA Guidelines.

  Each of the identified options, which do meet these requirements, will be looked at from a comparative point of view. In the final stage of the EIA Study, it is likely that a comparison of the options will be prepared from the perspective of capital costs, operational costs and environmental impacts. Each of the options studied may, or may not, pass through the EIA screening criteria. On the other hand, they may all be found acceptable from an environmental point of view, which would make the cost comparisons critically important.

  Study Team members stated that EIA process is designed to include a rigorous and fair comparison, which, in the end, will put the final decision clearly in the hands of the responsible elected authorities, both provincially and federally. In the case of the Province, this would be the Cabinet. The Study Team explained that, technically-speaking, each level of government involved must make its own decision, because each has different legally-based responsibilities to the river and its related environment.

  It was also emphasized, however, that the final decisions by both governments will be based on exactly the same information collected during the EIA. Team members fully expect both governments to take the same basic decision, when it comes to a final outcome.

  They noted that, in their extensive experience with such ‘harmonized’ EIA processes, the federal and provincial authorities concerned have never disagreed with each another on the basic decision.

Stakeholder Participation

  One participant who identified himself as an agricultural producer asked for an opportunity to participate in further consultations. As stewards of the land, he felt that he and other producers would like to be a part of the process. Another participant asked for a list of the stakeholders identified by the Study Team.

  Participants were advised that public input at this early stage is most valuable in identifying key issues as the study moves forward. Study Team members indicated that the initial list of all stakeholders was identified in the Niles Report and is available to the public. It was also stated that the stakeholder list is continually being updated. Those wishing to be added to list can contact Jacques Paynter, AMEC Study Facilitator and/or Sherry Sparks DSS EIA Manager.

  It was noted that the Study Team will be holding additional workshops to address various aspects concerning the EIA, including Terms of Reference for individual component studies within the overall process. In order to keep the workshops manageable, the Study Team asked that stakeholder groups nominate one or two representatives to participate. If there is an overwhelming response, however, more than one workshop will be held.

Data Concerns

  Participants discussed issues surrounding the types of studies carried out in the past and those planned for the current assessment. They questioned if population surveys of wildlife and fish in the head pond had ever been conducted, or if chemical studies on the marine side of estuary are planned. In their view, such studies could determine the real reason for the decline in fish stocks and aquatic life.

  One participant felt that if there is limited fish migration, an exhaustive EIA to aid fish passage through the causeway may not be warranted. Questions about the lack of impact studies prior to the causeway construction were also raised.

  The Study Team responded that they hope to gain an understanding of the chemistry of sediments in the head pond under various scenarios. They will also be considering the characteristic land use patterns to determine the likelihood of chemical usage and its possible impacts on aquatic life. According to the EIA guidelines, the cumulative environmental effect on the quality of water in the head pond will be also analysed. It was noted that there have been a number of investigations on the inventory of fish in the head pond.

  In addition to these studies, Team Members hope to have extensive dialogue during this initial scoping phase through workshops and expert interviews. It was noted that the Terms of Reference for the component studies will clarify how the Study Team proposes to deal with any data gaps and assessments.

  Team members stressed the importance of establishing a good understanding, at the onset of the EIA, of how the project options are evaluated, and if the various objectives are being met.

  Responding to other concerns, the Study Team stated that the project didn’t have the benefit of an EIA prior to 1968, because there were no such laws in place requiring same. It wasn’t until the mid-70’s that EIA legislation was first developed in Canada.

  The participants were assured that the Study Team has no intention of draining the head pond in the near future, since they must examine every aspect first before any such action is undertaken. Members of the Study Team agreed with participants that a field trip to the area concerned would be very worthwhile.

Fish Way Options

  A variety of issues were raised by participants regarding fish passage and migration. What happens if fish get caught below the gates when they’re closed? If fish were able to get over the causeway, would they actually live to reach their spawning grounds or would the water temperature be too warm for them survive?

  Has there ever been a lake established with the number of dams and causeways on feeding rivers like those of the Bay of Fundy system? Questions regarding the destination of the Atlantic salmon in the river were also raised.

  One resident of the area felt that a spillway could be an effective fish passage option, since it would allow for efficient oxygen levels in the head pond. Members of the Study Team noted that a spillway mechanism wouldn’t aid species such as shad, gaspereaux and other fish which don’t have the ability to jump.

  Responding to concerns regarding fish habitat in the lake, it was indicated that the Team would first determine why there was an oxygen problem and then identify measures to mitigate the problem. They would also need to understand the hydrodynamic situation in the head pond area. Addressing the lake siltation issue to determine if it is filling in and if so, at what rate…would be part of the assessment.

  The Team members stated that they are very conscious of trends in the Bay of Fundy salmon stocks and elsewhere. This will certainly be an important aspect of the study. Past investigations have also identified various options for fish passage facilities that will be examined more closely in the component studies. With regard to dams and causeways on rivers…. in the Team’s experience….these structures do impact on fish stocks. The difficulty, they stated, is trying to precisely quantify that loss, where there are confounding issues associated with it.

Navigation Issues

  One participant asked the Study Team to consider navigation issues. He noted that it was often difficult for vessels to access the rivers long before the causeway was built due to high levels of silt. He felt that the silt build up in the river was going to occur regardless of where the causeway was placed, adding that its construction in 1968 merely sped up the process.

  The Study Team noted that hydrodynamic modelling would be used to understand many facets of sediment transport resulting from the various project options

Water Supply

  The potential for ‘Lake Petitcodiac’ to serve as a future reservoir for the Greater Moncton area was noted by one participant. As well, he pointed out that the headpond was the only body of water large enough to allow water bombers to supply water for fighting nearby forest fires. The Study Team recognizes that water supply is limited in the Moncton region and agreed to review this issue during the study process.