Mactaquac Dam Future Options Prepared by MSES Inc on Behalf of the Maliseet First Nation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Independent Technical Review Key Findings – NB Power’s Mactaquac Dam Future Options Prepared by MSES Inc on behalf of the Maliseet First Nation Background Information Technical Review Findings For almost 50 years, the Mactaquac dam has Overall, review of the CER found that: changed the flow of the Saint John River and 1) to adequately assess Options, more been a barrier for fish. Dam construction information is needed on current conditions, submerged parts of the Woodstock reserve, the 2) the impact assessment in the CER is too Maliseet settlement at Meductic, and many general to make informed decisions, and culturally/ historically significant areas to the 3) there is some uncertainty about what the Maliseet. Recently, problems were detected with actual impacts would be from each Option. the concrete used to build the dam and NB Power needs to assess future plans for the dam. NB Power has proposed 4 Options – 3 Options are assessed in a report called a Comparative Environmental Review (CER). The 4th Option was not assessed in the CER. Traditional Land & Resource Use The Options are: •Options 1 & 2 may have negative impacts Option 1: Repowering Continue generating on traditional lands due to construction of electricity, build new powerhouse, spillway, fish new dam facilities near Kingsclear. passage facility & switchyard near Kingsclear – 10 •Option 3 may reveal culturally important years for construction. lands/ archaeological sites that are currently Option 2: No Power Maintain dam without underwater. electricity generation, build new spillway & fish •All Options may disrupt transportation passage facility near Kingsclear – 7 years for routes during construction. construction. •Historical, ongoing & cumulative effects of Option 3: Restore River Remove dam the dam on Maliseet resources & land uses completely – 4 years for construction/demolition not assessed in the CER. A process to Option 4: Lifetime Achievement Extend life measure historical impacts from the dam of dam by continuing to replace failing structures should be developed. This is critical because (Impacts not considered in CER & little info provided Options 1, 2 & 4 involve the continuation of by NB Power) existing impacts from the dam. •For Option 3, unclear how/when the exposed islands & river banks would be Who is MSES? restored to conditions that are suitable for traditional use. The Maliseet hired MSES as their independent •Unclear how Maliseet input will be science advisors in 2012. For this project, MSES reviewed the CER in order to assess how well NB meaningfully considered in Option selection, Power evaluated each proposed Option in terms of including info from the Traditional Land & potential impacts to Maliseet culture and Resource Use (TLU) study currently being environment. completed. Water & Fish Wildlife & Plants • Options 1 & 2 involve construction near/in • Options 1 & 2 involve removing vegetation the river and may result in the continuation of during construction but also downstream current impacts. vegetation may be impacted due to increases • Option 3 may result in drastic changes to in erosion & sediment deposition. Could river flows, sediment, fish habitat & result in potential loss of plants & wildlife movement, navigation & possible increased ice habitat near Kingsclear. jams. • Option 3 both negative & positive effects on • Option 3: Unclear whether Kingsclear & vegetation depending on how different plants Woodstock would have water wells adapt to changes in water levels. negatively impacted due to drop in water • All Options: details needed on presence & levels. abundance of key Maliseet plant resources in • Options 1, 2 & 4 may result in downstream the areas to be affected by each Option. erosion impacts, especially at Kingsclear. • Option 3: difficult to assess where forests & These impacts were not addressed in CER. wetlands may develop after water drawdown • All Options: Information needed on how occurs; pre-dam vegetation maps/images sediment moves in the river and how this may needed to understand what landscape may affect fish & fish habitat. look like after dam removal. • Options 1, 2 & 4: the potential for methyl- • Options 1 & 2: reclamation methods not mercury generation in the headpond should provided. be researched and evaluated. • Option 3: Preliminary reclamation plans • All Options: sediments in the headpond may provided but unclear how plant communities contain relatively high concentrations of would be re-established after water contaminants. Potential for human exposure drawdown. Evidence that methods for re- to contaminants should be measured. establishing plant & wetland communities and • Options 1, 2 & 4: includes building fish use by wildlife are successful is needed. passage structures, whereas Option 3 would • All Options: current habitat use by wildlife allow connectivity for migrating fish. should be collected in order to assess *Note – Critical info from the Mactaquac whether changes in wildlife abundance, Aquatic Ecosystem Study (MAES) being distribution or movement may occur under conducted at the University of NB on water & each Option. sediment quality impacts not available. Air & Noise NB Power did not directly assess noise impacts on traditional resources or land users. Air quality impacts related to construction activities. • Options 1 & 2 and possibly 4 have long construction periods - may impact traditional land users and access to traditional wildlife species such as deer and moose. • Option 3 has relatively short construction period and removing the dam would likely reduce sound levels from existing conditions..