1 April 29, 2021 Fifteen Mile Stream Gold Project Impact
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
April 29, 2021 Fifteen Mile Stream Gold Project Impact Assessment Agency of Canada 200-1801 Hollis Street Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3J 3N4 To Whom it May Concern, On behalf of the Atlantic Salmon Federation (ASF) and the Nova Scotia Salmon Association (NSSA), we are writing to provide our comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Fifteen Mile Stream Gold Project that is proposed by Atlantic Mining NS Corp (reference number 80152). ASF’s primary mandate is the conservation of wild Atlantic Salmon populations. As part of this mandate ASF advocates for habitat restoration; population and sub-population recovery efforts; and for improving the overall health of rivers, estuaries, and marine environments. Our comments reflect our concerns of environmental impacts of the proposed project to ecosystem health and restoration/recovery potential. Wild Atlantic Salmon have experienced a dramatic decline since the 1990’s. The four distinct populations or designatable units (DU) within Nova Scotia (Inner Bay of Fundy - IBoF, Southern Upland - SU, Eastern Cape Breton - ECB, and Gaspe-Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence – Gulf) are not any different. In 2011, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) evaluated these populations and recommended that the IBoF, SU, and ECB DU be listed under the Species at Risk Act (SARA) as endangered (IBoF had been previously listed under SARA). The East River Sheet Harbour, including 15 Mile Stream where the project is proposed, is part of the SU DU which essentially contains all rivers south of a line drawn from Canso to Kentville. Within the SU, the Eastern Shore region (Halifax to Canso) shows the best promise for salmon and ecosystem recovery. This region has been less impacted by acid rain that has devastated the SU and is, in general terms, more ecologically intact and is facing less issues for recovery (invasive species, fish passage, warming temperatures, etc.). Stock status and recovery potential assessment work conducted by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) in response to the COSEWIC assessment and as part of the SARA listing process identified that the some of the largest remnant populations of wild Atlantic Salmon in the SU are on the Eastern Shore and that freshwater restoration improvements will significantly reduce the risk of species extirpation. The importance of the Eastern Shore region was further confirmed by the Nova Scotia Salmon Association (NSSA). Their Watershed Assessments Towards Ecosystem Recovery for Aquatic Species at Risk (W.A.T.E.R.) project identified 8 priority watersheds for recovery in the SU, 4 of which are located within the Eastern Shore region (Musquodoboit, West River Sheet Harbour, Moser, St Mary’s Rivers). Two of these systems, the West River Sheet Harbour (NSSA) and the St. Mary’s River (St. Mary’s River Association - SMRA), already have large-scale research, restoration, and recovery programs in place. DFO is also engaged in research 1 in the area as they are currently exploring a 200km2 Area of Interest (AOI) for a potential Marine Protected Area in the marine environment that receives water from the proposed project area. With its degree of intactness, lower number of barriers to recovery, larger remnant populations, and with a potential MPA and large scale restoration programs already in place, the Eastern Shore region, and all the rivers it contains including 15 Mile Stream, are of strategic importance in the broader species level restoration and recovery effort. This broader conservation context needs to be considered in evaluating the impacts of this project. Additionally, the assessment for the proposed Fifteen Mile Stream Gold Project should take into consideration the context of the proponent’s other proposed developments in this region, the Beaver Dam and Cochrane Hill mines that are currently undergoing environmental assessments. Based on statements by the proponent in the media, this 15 Mile Stream proposal is connected, if not dependant, on these other developments gaining approval. While we will not address those other proposals here, they pose an even greater risk to conservation and ecosystem integrity due to the nature of those proposals and the proximity to the NSSA and SMRA’s recovery projects. In reviewing the EIS and developing the environmental assessment report for this project, it must first be determined that this project is achievable on a stand-alone basis from these other proposals. If this project is not determined to be independent, then the EIS must be redeveloped to incorporate these other projects. In the EIS, it is made clear that diadromous species such as Atlantic Salmon and American Eel are not present within the study area. This absence is attributed to decline in water quality and lack of fish passage around the four major dams between the proposed project site and the estuary. While this is currently true, there is no guarantee that this will always be the case, especially as the tailings pond facility that will be constructed as part of this project will need to remain in place, in some form, well beyond the live span of the dams. This longevity must be considered in evaluating the environmental impacts of this proposed project. As indicated, the absence of diadromous species from the freshwater environments of the East River Sheet Harbour is suspected to be caused by declines in water quality and lack of fish passage. Past efforts to address one of these issues, passage, but not the other did not yield success, which creates a catch 22, poor water quality leads to lack of investment in barrier mitigation and barriers to fish passage prevent investment or prioritization for water chemistry treatment. While this is not the responsibility of the proponent there are conditions that can reasonably be added within the context of this environmental assessment that will help address these limiting factors. The first of these conditions concerns water releases. The proponent intends to capture and contain penetrating ground water and all surface waters on the site to attempt to contain the release and prevent contamination from toxicants such as naturally occurring heavy metals unearthed during excavation, acid mine drainage and leachates forming in overburden and material storage piles, and chemicals added during the ore concentration process. These contaminated waters will be held in a tailings pond facility for a period to settle out these toxicants. Waters will need to be periodically released from this tailings pond facility to maintain pond levels, compensating for operational usage and rainfall. Released waters are higher in 2 contaminants and warmer than natural inputs. As indicated by the proponent these released waters are monitored and treated, if necessary, to ensure they are within acceptable margins of background levels. However, as also identified by the proponent and in recent research (Dennis and Clair 2012; Minichiello et al 2014; Sterling et al. 2020) the waterways in the region, and in East River Sheet Harbour specifically, have depressed pH and elevated heavy metals concentrations, such as aluminum. These poor water quality parameters are widely accepted to be the result of acid rain and poor buffering capacity of the soils. So, the current water quality background levels are an artificial manmade condition and should not be considered an acceptable target. The proponent should be required to treat discharged waters to “normal” water quality standards and not just to background levels (e.g. released water should have a circumneutral pH, be at sublethal temperatures for salmonids, etc.). Failure to do so would perpetuate and exacerbate the current water quality issues and prevent recovery of endangered species. Holding the proponent to this reasonable standard will ensure that their activities are not contributing to a negative cumulative effect and are creating a net benefit to the system and the species within. The second of these conditions concerns offsetting. As part of their development plan, the proponent is going to destroy fish and fish habitat, which they acknowledge in their EIS. As a consequence of this destruction the proponent will require authorization under the Fisheries Act from DFO and an offsetting plan to address the loss of fish and 80,573m2 of fish habitat. The proponent currently plans to offset these losses with the realignment of Seloam Brook Channel, constructing off- channel habitat, contributing to fisheries knowledge, and/or rehabilitation and restoration of degraded aquatic habitats. While this meets the requirements under the Fisheries Act for offsetting, it does not necessarily address cumulative effects now required for projects under the Fisheries Act, nor does it address the obvious limiting factor of fish passage. Addressing habitat concerns in this part of the watershed, which are largely inaccessible to most residents of the system and all diadromous species will have limited benefit to conservation or restoration. Under the revised Fisheries Act, offsetting projects are to have a performance-based approach. Therefore, we would suggest that the proponent be required in their offsetting to address fish passage issues. Addressing fish passage at just Ruth Falls Dam, which could be established with 250m natural bypass channel taking advantage of two natural ponds east of the dam, would address a major limiting factor within the system, facilitate further recovery actions, and open dozens of km of habitat. Requiring the proponent to treat discharged water to standard levels as opposed to current background levels and having them address fish passage with their offsetting plan is reasonable expectation under an environmental assessment and the current regulatory regime. These conditions will help ensure the project is not contributing to ongoing water quality issues, is addressing limiting factors, and results in a net benefit for the aquatic environment and endangered species within. In addition to these considerations and recommendations for the environmental assessment report, ASF also has several other concerns with the proposed project and recommendations for the environmental assessment report.