environmental impact statement: wyman’s pei growth ... · environmental impact statement:...
TRANSCRIPT
Stantec Consulting Ltd. 165 Maple Hills Avenue Charlottetown PE C1C 1N9 Tel: (902) 566-2866 Fax: (902) 566-2004
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
Report prepared for: Fitzgerald and Snow (2010) Ltd. PO Box 1325 190 Greenwood Drive Summerside PE C1N 4K2 Job No. 121810928 - File No. 92107
Prepared by:
Stantec Consulting Ltd. 165 Maple Hills Road Charlottetown PE C1C 1N9
June 24, 2013
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
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 ...................................................................................................... 2
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 .................................................................................................... 5
2.1 OVERVIEW OF PROJECT .................................................................................................... 5
2.2 ALTERNATIVES TO AND ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF CARRYING OUT THE PROJECT .. 5 2.2.1 Alternative Building Designs ................................................................................... 6
2.3 PROJECT SCHEDULE .......................................................................................................... 6
2.4 CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................................................. 6 2.4.1 Site Preparation ...................................................................................................... 6 2.4.2 Building Renovation ................................................................................................ 6 2.4.3 Construction of New Truck Access Road ............................................................... 7 2.4.4 Installation of New Production Well ........................................................................ 7 2.4.5 Modification of Wash Water Dissipation Channels ................................................. 7 2.4.6 Installation of New Septic Tank ............................................................................... 8 2.4.7 Re-vegetation .......................................................................................................... 8 2.4.8 Emissions and Wastes ............................................................................................ 8
2.5 OPERATION .......................................................................................................................... 9 2.5.1 Use of Facility ......................................................................................................... 9 2.5.2 Processing .............................................................................................................. 9 2.5.3 Emissions and Wastes .......................................................................................... 10
2.6 DECOMMISSIONING AND ABANDONMENT .................................................................... 11
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODS, SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT,
AND CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT .................................................................... 12
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT METHODS ................................................................. 12 3.1.1 Overview of Approach ........................................................................................... 12
3.2 CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT .............................................................................. 13 3.2.1 Regulatory Consultation ........................................................................................ 14 3.2.2 Public and Stakeholder Engagement .................................................................... 14 3.2.3 First Nations Consultation ..................................................................................... 14
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
ii
4.0 SUMMARY OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ............................................................... 15
4.1 TOPOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................... 15
4.2 SUBSURFACE GEOLOGY ................................................................................................. 15
4.3 GROUNDWATER RESOURCES ........................................................................................ 16
4.4 WASH WATER RETAINMENT POND ................................................................................ 16
4.5 ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT ....................................................................................... 20
4.6 TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT ......................................................................................... 21 4.6.1 Breeding Birds ...................................................................................................... 21 4.6.1.1 Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre .......................................................... 21 4.6.1.2 Site visit ................................................................................................................. 23 4.6.2 Vegetation ............................................................................................................. 23 4.6.3 Wetlands ............................................................................................................... 27
4.7 FRESHWATER ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................ 27
4.8 HUMAN ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................................... 28 4.8.1 Land Use ............................................................................................................... 28 4.8.2 Archaeological, Heritage, or Cultural Resources .................................................. 28 4.8.3 Transportation ....................................................................................................... 28
5.0 PROJECT INTERACTIONS WITH THE ENVIRONMENT .................................................. 29
5.1 PROJECT-ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION MATRIX ........................................................ 29 5.1.1 VECs with No Interaction, or No Significant Interaction, with the Project ............. 30 5.1.1.1 VECs with No Interaction with the Project (Ranking of 0) ..................................... 30 5.1.1.2 VECs with No Significant Interaction with the Project (Ranking of 1) ................... 30 5.1.1.3 Determination of Significance ............................................................................... 35 5.1.2 VECs Which May Result in an Interaction with the Project that Requires Further
Evaluation (Ranking of 2) ...................................................................................... 35
5.2 ACCIDENTS, MALFUNCTIONS, AND UNPLANNED EVENTS .......................................... 36 5.2.1 Methodology ......................................................................................................... 36 5.2.2 Identification of Accidents, Malfunctions, and Unplanned Events ......................... 37 5.2.3 Environmental Effects Assessment ...................................................................... 37 5.2.3.1 Interactions Ranked as 0 ...................................................................................... 38 5.2.3.2 Interactions Ranked as 1 ...................................................................................... 38 5.2.4 Determination of Significance ............................................................................... 42
6.0 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 44
6.1 SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT .......................................... 44
6.2 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT ................................................................... 44
6.3 OVERALL CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 45
7.0 CLOSING ............................................................................................................................. 45
8.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 47
8.1 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS ....................................................................................... 47
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Concentrations of General Chemistry Parameters ............................................ 17
Table 2 Dissolved Metals Concentrations ...................................................................... 18
Table 3 BOD, TSS, TP, and TKN Concentrations .......................................................... 19
Table 4 Species at Risk and Species of Special Concern Recorded Within 5 km
of the Project (AC CDC 2013, CESCC 2011, SAR Public Registry 2012) ........ 22
Table 5 Bird Species Recorded at the Project Site ........................................................ 23
Table 6 Vascular Plant Species Recorded at the Project Site ........................................ 24
Table 7 Vascular Plant Species of Conservation Concern Recorded Within 5 km
of the Project (AC CDC 2013) ........................................................................... 25
Table 8 Potential Interactions of the Project with the Environment ................................ 30
Table 9 Potential Interactions of Project-Related Accidents, Malfunctions, and
Unplanned Events with the Environment........................................................... 38
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Figures
Appendix B Analytical Results of Wash Water Quality
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report is an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative in
West St. Peters, Kings County, Prince Edward Island (PEI) (“the Project”) proposed by
Wyman’s PEI (Wyman’s) and being commissioned by Fitzgerald and Snow (2010) Ltd.
(Fitzgerald and Snow; the “Proponent”).
Wyman’s is proposing to expand their current blueberry processing facility in West St. Peters,
PEI and is expecting to operate and maintain the facility for several decades. Currently, the
amount of blueberries that Wyman’s grows and purchases each year is exceeding the capability
of their facility to process the berries. The Project will allow them to process the current supply
of blueberries and will also allow them to process the anticipated increase in product from
agricultural lands that have yet to reach their full production potential.
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: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St.
Peters, Kings County, PEI
Project Proponent: Fitzgerald and Snow (2010) Ltd. PO Box 1325, 190 Greenwood Drive Summerside, PE C1N 4K2
Proponent’s Principal Contact Person for the purposes of this EIS:
Mr. Vernon McQuillan, P.Eng Senior Project Manager Tel: (902) 436-9256 Fax: (902) 436-7678 Email: [email protected]
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
2
Environmental Consultant and Principal Contact Person for this EIS:
Mr. Dale Conroy, M.Sc. Associate, Environmental Management Stantec Consulting Ltd. 165 Maple Hills Road 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 construction, and operation and maintenance of an expansion to
Wyman’s blueberry processing facility in West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI.
The Project will include a new storage area, processing area, parking, and a truck access road
leading to a truck dock. Wyman’s is currently proposing to increase the processing capability
from approximately 3,628,739 kg (8 million lbs) of blueberries per year to 9,071,847 kg (20
million lbs) per year. At this time it is expected that water usage will increase upon completion
of the Project. It is anticipated that an additional production well will be installed to meet the
new water demand and/or be used as a back-up well.
1.2.2 Project Location
The Project will be located at Wyman’s PEI, 41 North McEwen Road in West St. Peters, Kings
County, PEI. The facility is located adjacent to Route 2 between the communities of Mount
Stewart and Morell. The general location of the Project is shown in Figure 1 (Appendix A).
1.2.3 Project Purpose
The Project will increase the processing capacity at the existing facility. The increased
processing and storage areas will allow Wyman’s to process all of their current blueberry
supply, which includes berries purchased from other growers, as well as Wyman’s own crop.
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
3
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 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
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
4
Regulations Designating Physical Activities under CEAA 2012, so an environmental
assessment is not required under CEAA.
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 Project-
related environmental effects during Construction, and Operation and Maintenance of the
Project, including 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.
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
5
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, equipment, and layout described below
may change slightly with detailed engineering design. The key aspects of the Project, as
currently conceived, are provided below.
This section describes the key aspects of the Project, as currently conceived, including:
• 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; and
• a discussion of the Project-related emissions and wastes.
2.1 Overview of Project
The Project involves the construction and operation of an expansion to Wyman’s PEI blueberry
processing facility in West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI. Currently, the supply of blueberries is
exceeding the processing capabilities at the facility. Wyman’s PEI currently processes
approximately 3,628,739 kilograms (kg) (8 million pounds (lbs)) of fresh and frozen wild
blueberries per year. It is anticipated that once the Project is complete, approximately
9,071,847 kg (20 million lbs) of blueberries will be processed per year. These berries will be
sourced from existing suppliers as well as Wyman’s own existing crop. The proposed layout of
the Project is shown on Figure 2 (Appendix A). Construction will involve the addition of a new
truck loading dock and truck access road, new storage area, new processing area, and
modification to the existing wash water dissipation channels.
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. The only
alternative to the Project is the “do nothing” scenario (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
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
6
address the purpose of the Project (subsection 1.2.3) as the requirement to process the existing
supply of blueberries would not be met.
Alternative building designs would be the potential alternative means of carrying out the Project.
These are discussed in the following subsection.
2.2.1 Alternative Building Designs
One variation of the building design was considered. The alternative design involved turning the
building 90 degrees and building it over top of the existing structure. Once construction was
complete, the existing structure would have been removed. This option was abandoned due to
economic considerations.
2.3 Project Schedule
The Project is scheduled to begin in July 2013 upon receipt of all permits and approvals.
Currently, Fitzgerald and Snow are anticipating a one year construction period. The building will
be weather tight by Fall 2013 to continue construction during winter.
Operation of the Project will begin in July 2014 (i.e., for the peak harvesting season) following
construction and will continue for several decades. Though not currently envisioned,
decommissioning and abandonment of the Project will be at the end of its useful service life.
2.4 Construction
Equipment used during construction may include, but is not limited to excavators, tandem
trucks, and bulldozers. A brief description of construction activities is provided below.
2.4.1 Site Preparation
Site work will involve grubbing and the placement of fill. Approximately 22,937 cubic metres
(m3) of select borrow will be required to build up the construction area to bring the building pads
up to design grade. An additional 5,352 m3 of material will be required for the parking areas and
miscellaneous site work.
2.4.2 Building Renovation
The size of the existing facility is 3,321 square metres (m2) (35,751 square feet (ft2)).
Construction at the blueberry processing facility will include the addition of a storage area and a
new processing area. The following areas will be added to the facility:
• new processing area – 6,077 m2 (65,412 ft2); and
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
7
• new storage area – 2,025 m2 (21,794 ft2).
The building will be constructed with pre-engineered steel, including 10 centimetre (cm) (4-inch)
insulated sandwich panels for the storage and processing areas.
The new processing area is expected to be approximately 8 to 9 m in height. There will be a
drop ceiling in the processing facility to act as a barrier between the processing area and any
mechanical devices installed in the ceiling (e.g., HVAC).
2.4.3 Construction of New Truck Access Road
A new truck access road will be constructed off of North MacEwen Road to allow trucks to
access the new truck docks.
2.4.4 Installation of New Production Well
A new production well will be installed to meet the increased water demand and/or as a backup
well. Currently, the annual water usage at the facility is approximately 42,775,153 litres per
year; this is expected to increase by half. The facility is currently utilizing a high volume of water
for wash down and is proposing to install a high pressure wash system which will consume
significantly less water.
Additionally, the facility has been experiencing operational problems with the main cooling tower
condenser in the plant. As a result, a significant amount of water was being used to make up
for the cooling tower. The condenser is currently being replaced and as a result, significant
water savings will be realized and available to serve the process expansion.
Prior to the installation of the well, an extraction permit will be acquired and all conditions of the
permit will be met.
2.4.5 Modification of Wash Water Dissipation Channels
As part of the proposed project, the location of the wash water dissipation channels will need to
be relocated, as sections of the existing drainage area (i.e., dissipation channels) are currently
located within the footprint of the Project. Currently, there are approximately 335 m of
dissipation channels measuring 7.5 m in width. Approximately 215 to 245 m of the dissipation
channels will be relocated. The location of the dissipation channels will be moved from the east
side of the wash water retainment pond to the west side.
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
8
2.4.6 Installation of New Septic Tank
The Project will allow for an increase in the number of employees at the facility. Due to the
expected increase in sewage waste a new septic tank will be installed on the property. The new
septic system will be located close to the new staffing area of the building.
2.4.7 Re-vegetation
Once construction activities are complete, re-vegetation of the disturbed areas will include
spreading grass seed and/or placing sod. Re-vegetation efforts at the site will involve the use of
non-invasive plant species.
2.4.8 Emissions and Wastes
Few emissions and wastes are expected as a result of construction activities. Emissions will be
limited to air contaminants and noise from the operation of heavy equipment, and fugitive dust
as a result of site preparation activities. The emissions and noise will remain largely confined to
the work site and immediately adjacent areas, but as these activities will be conducted between
7 am and 7 pm Monday through Friday, the emissions are not expected to cause a significant
nuisance to nearby residents. Generally, the noise emitted from the onsite equipment will fall
between 80 to 100 dBA, which is within normal allowances for commercial zones.
Construction wastes will be generated during site preparation and construction 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. Fugitive dust from the movement of equipment
on unpaved surfaces during construction and demolition has the potential to cause adverse
environmental effects to ambient air quality if dust mitigation measures are not used. Waste oil
will not be used for dust control under any circumstances.
Potentially hazardous materials could be present during construction activities, including fuels
and lubricants for project related vehicles and equipment. All potentially hazardous materials
will be handled in a manner consistent with current accepted practices. Hazardous materials
will be stored in a secure area when not in use to prevent accidents and vandalism. Spill kits
will be present onsite in case of accidental release of hazardous materials. The Proponent will
comply with all conditions of required permits. Waste oils will be disposed of in accordance with
provincial regulations.
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
9
2.5 Operation
2.5.1 Use of Facility
During the operation of the processing facility (several decades or longer) activities are
expected to include processing of fresh blueberries, processing of frozen blueberries, and
minimal processing of fresh cranberries.
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 repairs and upkeep, and vegetation management on the property.
2.5.2 Processing
From the storage area berries enter the production line and are fed onto a distribution shaker.
While on the shaker the berries are cleaned with air to remove debris. The berries are then fed
onto vibrating scalping decks which allow the berries to fall through, while larger debris remains
on the decks. The berries then continue through a washing process, moving over a dewatering
deck and riffle boards, which remove sediment, small pebbles, and other small debris. Once
through the washing process, berries are transferred to flotation tanks. The flotation tanks allow
good berries to sink to the bottom of the tank and undesirable berries (e.g., green berries) and
other residual debris to float. The good berries continue to a dewatering shaker where they are
sprayed with chlorinated water and then continue through an air blower system before entering
the freezing tunnels. The berries enter the freezing tunnel at approximately 21 degrees Celsius
(°C) and exit the tunnel at approximately –26°C. The frozen berries are sorted and either
deposited into totes for storage or into 13.6 kg (30 lb) boxes. The stored frozen berries are
re-run for processing during the off season.
Wash water from processing flows through grate covered drains out of the facility and collects in
a 20 m3 basin. Twice daily, during clean up, the water is pumped through a cylindrical screen
(mesh size 2.3 millimetres) to remove solids. The solids are deposited into compost bins while
the filtered wash water is then gravity fed into a wash water retainment pond.
Once the peak blueberry processing season is complete, there is a much shorter (i.e., 5 to 8
days per year) cranberry processing season in late November or early December. During this
short time frame, approximately 305,822 to 458,733 kg of cranberries are frozen at the facility.
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
10
2.5.3 Emissions and Wastes
All solid wastes generated from the processing facility will be disposed of according to provincial
requirements. Waste items will be recycled or composted, where applicable. Currently, the
facility generates approximately 39 tonnes (t) of cardboard, 8 t of waste, and 52 roll off
dumpsters of organic material (e.g., leaves, culls). This number is expected to double once the
Project is complete. Currently the dumpsters containing organic material are located at the
edge of the gravel parking area adjacent to North McEwen Road and runoff from the dumpsters
enters the ditch along the roadway. Once the Project is complete, the dumpsters will be located
in the vicinity of drainage areas being installed near the truck loading docks. These drainage
areas will flow towards a holding tank and pump to the onsite wash water retainment pond, as
necessary.
Chlorine is used at the facility for cleaning and also for inhibiting bacterial growth on the berries.
Atlantic 12 (12% Chlorine) is used in four applications. Chlorine is:
1. Injected directly into the main water line using a chemical pump. This dose is controlled with
a flow meter and is set to achieve a 3 parts per million (ppm) free chlorine concentration at
the end water source.
2. Administered as a direct contact spray at approximately 75 ppm to the berries at their
cleanest point in the line just prior to entering the freezer tunnel to achieve the most effective
removal of bacteria.
3. Mixed into a foaming agent that is applied to the processing equipment during cleanup for
disinfection.
4. Applied to field boxes at approximately 100 ppm prior to transportation of the empty boxes
back into fields.
Consideration is being given to the installation of an ozone generator to treat the process water
in order to reduce the amount of chlorine used at the facility. Additionally, berries may also be
treated directly with ozone as it is an extremely effective bacterial inhibitor and can extend the
shelf life of berries to be exported. Approval from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)
will be in place prior to the ozone treatment being used at the facility.
The Project has been proposed to meet the current need for processing of available product.
There is not expected to be an increase in vehicle traffic associated with the operation of the
newly expanded processing facility. At this time, there is steady truck traffic transporting frozen
berries to the Wyman’s facility. Berries that have been frozen and stored at offsite locations are
transported to Wyman’s for processing. The decreased truck traffic transporting frozen berries
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
11
to the facility will be offset with the increase in delivery of fresh berries during the peak harvest
season.
An additional fuel tank will be installed to heat the building. Approximately 40,000 L of furnace
oil is used annually at the existing facility. The increase in fuel is expected to be nominal as
there is not a large heating demand at the facility.
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
The Project will be designed, built, and maintained to be in operation for several decades. 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 Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
12
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; and
• 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 as determined by RAs; and
• 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
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
13
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 is 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.
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
14
3.2.1 Regulatory Consultation
On May 6, 2013, a 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 be determined after reviewing a project description. An
additional meeting was held with the environmental assessment coordinator from the PEIDELJ
on June 10, 2013, to discuss the scope of the environmental assessment and the requirements
for field surveys. It was determined at this time (based on the proposed scope of the Project)
that full plant and bird surveys would not be required for the assessment, and that a site visit
would provide sufficient information.
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,
Fitzgerald and Snow 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
Due to the proposed scope of the Project, the private land ownership, and private funding, the
PEIDELJ has determined that First Nations consultation for the Project is not required (pers.
comm. J. Carr 2013).
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
15
4.0 SUMMARY OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
A summary of existing environmental conditions in the vicinity of the Project is provided in this
chapter. The summary is based on existing literature and sources of information that are
available in the area of the Project.
4.1 Topography
The site specific (1:5,000) topographical mapping shows that the subject property is relatively
level with a maximum surface relief of 2 m indicated. Ground surface elevations range from a
low of elevation 22 m to a high of elevation 24 m.
The larger-scale regional (1:55,000) topographical mapping shows that the predominant surface
gradient in the vicinity of the site slopes downward form south to north, towards the Gulf of St.
Lawrence.
4.2 Subsurface Geology
The results of a subsurface investigation (Stantec 2013) show that the project site is underlain
by a naturally occurring rootmat and topsoil layer that averages 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.
Localized areas of loose existing fill materials, up to 1 m in thickness, were encountered at
some test locations. The fill was generally intermixed with topsoil and is likely the result of
previous building construction and grading activities at the site. Neither bedrock nor the
groundwater table were encountered within the depth investigated (i.e., up to 2.7 m below
ground surface).
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) also indicates 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 the most abundant. The rocks are 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.
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
16
A review of available agricultural soils information for the area (Prince Edward Island Soil
Survey 1988; 1:5,000 mapping) indicates that the surficial soil type throughout the subject site
consists of the Charlottetown (Ch) soils map unit. Ch soils typically occur on gently undulating
to undulating relief and are moderately well drained. Ch 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 3 m within the Ch map
unit.
4.3 Groundwater Resources
The existing facility has three production wells to supply the water required for processing as
well as general use (e.g., washrooms). These wells are capable of discharging approximately
757 litres per minute (200 US gallons per minute). Two of the wells have 5,593 watt (W) pumps
in 20 centimetre (cm) (8-inch) wells, while the third well has one 7,457 W pump in a 25.4 cm
(10-inch) well.
In the vicinity of the Project, drinking water is obtained from domestic wells. Project activities
are not expected to interact with groundwater quantity or quality at any residential wells.
4.4 Wash Water Retainment Pond
On May 14, 2013, water samples were collected from three locations at the Wyman’s facility.
Sample Sa-1 was collected from within the wash water holding basin prior to screening, Sa-2
was collected at the discharge point of the water after flowing through the screen, and Sa-3 was
collected from the wash water retainment pond. All samples were analyzed for biological
oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), general chemistry, total phosphorus, and
total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN). The results were compared against the Guidelines for Canadian
Drinking Water Quality and the Canadian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of
Freshwater Aquatic Life. See Appendix B for analytical results.
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
17
Table 1. Concentrations of General Chemistry Parameters
Sodium mg/L 200 (AO) n/a 62.70 65.00 56.60
Potassium mg/L n/a n/a 9.36 12.70 10.40
Calcium mg/L n/a n/a 34.10 33.60 32.50
Magnesium mg/L n/a n/a 17.50 16.50 15.90
Alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L n/a n/a 140 140 98
Sulfate mg/L 500 (AO) n/a 5.2 4.5 4.0
Chloride mg/L 250 (AO) 120 97 110 98
Reactive Silica (as SiO2) mg/L n/a n/a 7.8 8.5 8.0
Ortho Phosphate (as P) mg/L n/a n/a 0.22 0.48 <0.010
Nitrate + Nitrite (as N) mg/L n/a n/a 0.46 0.46 <0.050
Nitrate (as N) mg/L as N 10 (MAC) 3.0 0.46 0.46 <0.050
Nitrite (as N) mg/L 1 (MAC) 0.06 <0.010 <0.010 <0.010
Ammonia (as N) mg/L n/avaries with temperature
and pH*0.058 <0.50(0.50) <0.50(0.50)
Color TCU 15 (AO) n/a 71 270 170
Total Organic Carbon mg/L n/a n/a 170 340 170
Turbidity NTU 0.1 (NTU)> 8 NTUs above
background6.8 8.8 17
Conductance (RCAp) uS/cm n/a n/a 610 640 590
pH Units 6.5 - 8.5 6.5 - 9.0 7.76 7.32 5.58
Hardness (as CaCO3) mg/L n/a n/a 160 150 150
Bicarbonate (as CaCO3) mg/L n/a n/a 140 140 98
Carbonate (as CaCO3) mg/L n/a n/a <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
TDS Calculated mg/L 500 (AO) n/a 322 339 285
Cation Sum meq/L n/a n/a 6.12 6.19 5.69
Anion Sum meq/L n/a n/a 5.74 6.07 4.82
Ion Balance % n/a n/a 3.20 0.980 8.28
Langlier Index @ 4C - n/a n/a -0.229 -0.690 -2.58
Langlier Index @ 20C - n/a n/a 0.0200 -0.441 -2.33
Saturation pH @ 4C Units n/a n/a 7.99 8.01 8.16
Saturation pH @ 20C Units n/a n/a 7.74 7.76 7.91
Notes:
Bold values exceed guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality
( ): elevated detection limit
MAC:Maximum Acceptable Concentration
<: less than the reportable detection limit
AO: Aesthetic Objective
n/a - not available
*: concentrations compared to temperature/pH graph, no exceedence
Sa-1Guidelines for
Canadian Drinking
Water Quality
(August 2012)
Sa-3
RCAp 30 Computed Indexes
RCAp 30 Computed Analytes
RCAp 30 Analytes
Parameter Units
Canadian Water
Quality Guidelines for
the Protection of
Freshwater Aquatic
Life
Sa-2
May 14, 2013
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
18
Table 2. Dissolved Metals Concentrations
Sa-1 Sa-2 Sa-3
Aluminum ug/L n/a 5 (pH<6.5)/100 (pH≥6.5) 48.6 61.4 119
Antimony ug/L 6 (MAC) - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Arsenic ug/L 10 (MAC) 5 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Barium ug/L 1,000 (MAC) - 70.4 69.5 88.9
Beryllium ug/L n/a - <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Bismuth ug/L - - <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
Boron ug/L 5,000 (MAC) 1,500 <50 <50 <50
Cadmium ug/L 5 (MAC)0.0496 (hardness of 160)
0.0470 (hardness of 150)0.049 0.019 <0.017
Chromium ug/L 50 (MAC) 1 (Cr(VI)), 8.9 (Cr(III)) 1.1 1.2 1.3
Cobalt ug/L n/a - <0.40 <0.40 <0.40
Copper ug/L 1,000 (AO) 3 6.3 5.6 <2.0
Iron ug/L 300 (AO) 300 76 57 647
Lead ug/L 10 (MAC) 4 <0.50 <0.50 <0.50
Manganese ug/L 50 (AO) - 68.1 143 164
Molybdenum ug/L n/a 73 4.1 6.9 62.9
Nickel ug/L n/a 110 <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
Selenium ug/L 10 (MAC) 1 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Silver ug/L n/a 0.1 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10
Strontium ug/L n/a - 24.9 24.7 26.2
Thallium ug/L n/a 0.8 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10
Tin ug/L n/a - <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
Titanium ug/L n/a - <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
Uranium ug/L 20 (MAC) 15 <0.10 <0.10 <0.10
Vanadium ug/L n/a - <2.0 <2.0 <2.0
Zinc ug/L 5,000 (AO) 30 71.1 61.5 42.1
Notes:
Bold values exceed Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality
Shaded values exceed Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for Freshwater Aquatic Life
MAC:Maximum Acceptable Concentration
"-": no guideline available
"<": less than the reportable detection limit
n/a: not available
AO:Aesthetic Objective
Canadian Water Quality
Guidelines for the
Protection of
Freshwater Aquatic
Life
Parameter
Guidelines for
Canadian Drinking
Water Quality
(August 2012)May 14, 2013
Units
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
19
Table 3. BOD, TSS, TP and TKN Concentrations
Carbonaceous BOD mg/L n/a n/a 230 570 280
Total Suspended Solids mg/L n/a n/a 15 21 130
Total phosphorous mg/L n/a n/a 0.38 0.64 0.51
Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/L n/a n/a 0.97 1.4 3.1
Notes:
n/a - not available
Inorganic Analytes
Sa-3
May 14, 2013
Sa-1
Parameter
Guidelines for
Canadian
Drinking Water
Quality (August
2012)
Canadian Water
Quality Guidelines
for the Protection of
Freshwater Aquatic
Life
Sa-2
Units
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
20
The majority of the analytical results were well within the acceptable guidelines, with the
exception of seven parameters. The levels of turbidity (all samples), iron (Sa-1 and Sa-2),
manganese (all samples), and colour (all samples) exceeded the aesthetic objective of the
Canadian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines. These elevated concentrations do not represent
a concern at this time as the water is not being used for human consumption. The
concentrations of aluminum (Sa-3), copper (Sa-1 and Sa-2), zinc (all samples) in all three
samples exceeded the guidelines found in the Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the
Protection of Freshwater Aquatic Life. The water in the wash water retainment pond is not
released into the freshwater environment. Additionally, there are no freshwater sources in the
vicinity of the wash water retainment pond.
Additional samples will be collected once the Project is complete. The results will be submitted
to PEIDELJ at that time.
4.5 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
(Bangor) indicate that February is typically the coldest month, with a mean daily temperature of
-7.9 degrees Celsius (°C). July is typically the hottest month having a mean daily temperature
of 18.2°C. The mean annual precipitation is 1,251.6 millimeters (mm). October is typically the
wettest month with an average rainfall amount of 125.4 mm, while January is the snowiest
month with an average recorded snowfall of 68.1 centimeters (cm) (Environment Canada 2012).
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.
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
21
4.6 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.
4.6.1 Breeding Birds
Bird habitat in the area of the proposed project includes residential properties, agricultural land,
old field, grasslands, hedgerows, and forest. These areas may be used by migratory birds for
both nesting and feeding. 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 project site has been gathered from a review of
information obtained by the Atlantic Canada Conservation Data Centre (AC CDC) and a visit to
the site.
4.6.1.1 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 PDA.
Available information on the historic records of rare or uncommon bird species near the
proposed project was compiled and reviewed. Table 4 lists four bird species SAR and SOCC
reported by the AC CDC within a 5 km radius of the PDA. There is one endangered species
protected under the SARA (Piping Plover). The remaining SOCC are not specifically protected
by endangered species legislation.
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
22
Table 4. Species at Risk and Species of Special Concern Recorded Within 5 km of
the Project (AC CDC 2013, 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
Species of Conservation Concern
Common Tern Sterna hirundo Not at Risk Not at Risk May be at Risk S2B
Killdeer Charadrius
vociferus Not at Risk Not at Risk Sensitive S3B
Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularius 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. M = Migratory: Basic rank refers to the migratory stopover population 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, 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. Source Wild Species: The General Status of Wild Species in Canada’ website Available at: http://www.wildspecies.ca/ranks.cfm?lang=e (CESCC 2011)
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
23
4.6.1.2 Site visit
A site visit was conducted on June 11, 2013. Bird species were recorded within the wooded
area to be cut in order to relocate the wash water dissipation channels as well as the area
where the new processing facility will be constructed. Particular attention was given to areas
suitable for nesting Killdeer. Table 5 outlines the bird species heard or observed during the site
visit. All species recorded within the area are common throughout PEI.
Table 5. Bird Species Recorded at the Project Site
Common Name Scientific Name COSEWIC
Rank SARA Rank
CESCC Rank
AC CDC S-Rank
Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina Not at Risk Not at Risk Secure S5B
American Robin Turdus migratorius Not at Risk Not at Risk Secure S5B
Savannah Sparrow Passerculus
sandwichensis Not at Risk Not at Risk Secure S5B
Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia Not at Risk Not at Risk Secure S5B
Black-capped Chickadee
Poecile atricapillus Not at Risk Not at Risk Secure S5
American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla Not at Risk Not at Risk Secure S5B
Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus Not at Risk Not at Risk Secure S5B
Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia Not at Risk Not at Risk Secure S5B
Common Yellowthroat
Geothlypis trichas Not at Risk Not at Risk Secure S5B
Notes: S5 = Widespread, abundant, and secure, under present conditions B = Breeding: Basic rank refers to the breeding population of the element in the province. 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)
4.6.2 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).
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
24
A site visit was conducted on June 11, 2013. Vascular plants were recorded in the wooded
area to be cleared for the relocation of the wash water dissipation channels. Table 6 outlines
the plants found within the footprint of the dissipation channels. All species identified are
common throughout PEI and are typical species of upland wooded areas in the province.
Table 6. Vascular Plant Species Recorded at the Project Site
Common Name Scientific Name AC CDC S-Rank
CESCC
Bracken Fern Pteridium aquilinum S5 Secure
Wild Lily-of-The-Valley Maianthemum
canadense
S5 Secure
Bunchberry Cornus canadensis S5 Secure
Wood Fern Dryopteris sp. - -
Wild Strawberry Fragaria virginiana S5 Secure
Yellow Bluebead Lily Clintonia borealis S5 Secure
Wild Sarsaparilla Aralia nudicaulis S5 Secure
Sugar Maple Acer saccharum S5 Secure
Red Raspberry Rubus idaeus S5 Secure
Northern Starflower Trientalis borealis S5 Secure
White Spruce Picea glauca S5 Secure
Northern Wild Raisin Viburnum nudum S5 Secure
American Mountain Ash Sorbus americana S5 Secure
Unidentified moss - - -
Aster sp. Symphyotrichum sp. - -
Goldenrod sp. Solidago sp. - -
Trembling Aspen Populus tremuloides S5 Secure
Blackberry Rubus sp. - -
Hawkweed sp. Hieracium sp. - -
Unidentified grass - - -
Unidentified sedge - - -
Creeping Snowberry Gaultheria hispidula S5 Secure
Notes: S5 = Widespread, abundant, and secure, under present conditions ‘-‘ = Not available. 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)
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
25
Additionally, a search of the AC CDC database (AC CDC 2013) revealed 61 vascular plant
SOCC that have been previously recorded within a 5 km radius of the PDA (Table 7). None of
the plants are listed and protected by the SARA and none of the species were recorded at the
project site.
Table 7. Vascular Plant Species of Conservation Concern Recorded Within 5 km of
the Project (AC CDC 2013)
Common Name Scientific Name AC CDC S-Rank
CESCC
Floating Burreed Sparganium fluctuans S1 May be at Risk
Slender Wedge Grass Sphenopholis
intermedia
S1 May be at Risk
Dense Sedge Carex cumulata S1 May be at Risk
Livid Sedge Carex livida S1 May be at Risk
Slender Cottongrass Eriophorum gracile S1 May be at Risk
Swamp Milkweed Asclepias incarnata S1 May be at Risk
Dwarf Clearweed Pilea pumila S1 Sensitive
Shaved Sedge Carex tonsa var. tonsa S1? -
Running Serviceberry Amelanchier stolonifera S1? Undetermined
Hooked Buttercup Ranunculus recurvatus S1? May be at Risk
Canada Serviceberry Amelanchier
canadensis S1? Undetermined
Common Hop Humulus lupulus var.
lupuloides S1? -
Large St. John’s-wort Hypericum majus S1? May be at Risk
Starved Panic Grass Dichanthelium
depauperatum S1S2 May be at Risk
Labrador Bedstraw Galium labradoricum S1S2 May be at Risk
Northern Water-starwort Callitriche
hermaphroditica S1S2 May be at Risk
Canada Manna Grass Glyceria canadensis S2 May be at Risk
Virginia Chain Fern Woodwardia virginica S2 May be at Risk
White Fringed Orchid Platanthera
blephariglottis S2 Sensitive
Slender Wild Rye Elymus trachycaulus S2 Sensitive
Red Pine Pinus resinosa S2 Sensitive
Rose Pogonia Pogonia
ophioglossoides S2 Sensitive
Tall Northern Green Orchid
Platanthera aquilonis S2 Sensitive
Seaside Spurge Chamaesyce
polygonifolia S2 Sensitive
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
26
Common Name Scientific Name AC CDC S-Rank
CESCC
Broom Crowberry Corema conradii S2 Sensitive
Heart-leaved Twayblade Listera cordata S2 Sensitive
Broad-leaved Twayblade Listera convallarioides S2 May be at Risk
Loesel's Twayblade Liparis loeselii S2 May be at Risk
Showy Lady’s-Slipper Cypripedium reginae S2 Sensitive
Green-keeled Cottongrass
Eriophorum
viridicarinatum S2 May be at Risk
Gmelin's Water Buttercup
Ranunculus gmelinii S2 Sensitive
Pink Pyrola Pyrola asarifolia S2 Sensitive
Downy Willowherb Epilobium strictum S2 Sensitive
Lesser Bladderwort Utricularia minor S2 Sensitive
Common Mare's-Tail Hippuris vulgaris S2 Sensitive
Bog Birch Betula pumila S2 Sensitive
Boreal Aster Symphyotrichum
boreale S2 May be at Risk
Connecticut Beggarticks Bidens heterodoxa S2 May be at Risk
Dwarf Ginseng Panax trifolius S2 May be at Risk
American Burreed Sparganium
americanum S2? Undetermined
Canada Rush Juncus canadensis S2? Sensitive
Fernald's Hay Sedge Carex foenea S2? May be at Risk
Tussock Sedge Carex stricta S2S3 May be at Risk
Northern Mannagrass Glyceria borealis S2S3 Sensitive
Golden Sedge Carex aurea S2S3 Sensitive
Hooded Ladies’-tresses Spiranthes
romanzoffiana S2S3 Sensitive
Gaspé Arrowgrass Triglochin gaspensis S2S3 Sensitive
Green Adder’s-Mouth Malaxis unifolia S2S3 Sensitive
Deep Green Sedge Carex tonsa S2S3 Sensitive
Northern Beaked Sedge Carex utriculata S2S3 Sensitive
White Avens Geum canadense S2S3 Sensitive
Seabeach Sandwort Honckenya peploides
ssp. robusta S2S3 -
Silvery Glade Fern Deparia acrostichoides S3 Sensitive
White Bog Orchid Platanthera dilatata S3 Sensitive
Club Spur Orchid Platanthera clavellata S3 Sensitive
Low Rough Aster Eurybia radula S3 Sensitive
Canada Lettuce Lactuca canadensis S3? Sensitive
Lake Sedge Carex lacustris S3S4 Sensitive
Fleshy Hawthorn Crataegus succulenta S3S4 Undetermined
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
27
Common Name Scientific Name AC CDC S-Rank
CESCC
Canada Rice Grass Piptatherum canadense SH May be at Risk
Fleshy Stitchwort Stellaria crassifolia SH May be at Risk
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). SH = Historical: Previously occurred in the province but may have been overlooked during the past 20-70 years. Presence is suspected and will likely be rediscovered; depending on species/community. ‘-‘ = Not included in CESCC plant list. 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. Source Wild Species: The General Status of Wild Species in Canada’ website Available at: http://www.wildspecies.ca/ranks.cfm?lang=e (CESCC 2011)
4.6.3 Wetlands
There are no wetlands within or adjacent to the proposed project site. The closest wetland is a
provincially identified wetland approximately 1.5 kilometres (km) from the existing processing
facility. This wetland is located southwest of the facility, across the highway (Route 2) and has
been identified as an open water marsh approximately 5 hectares in size. The field
identification number is 137916.
4.7 Freshwater Environment
There are no freshwater streams within or adjacent to the proposed project site. The closest
stream is a tributary that drains into St. Peters Lake. The stream is located to the north,
approximately 750 m from the existing processing facility, and approximately 360 m from the
edge of Wyman’s property. There are two parcels in between the Wyman’s property and the
location of the stream.
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
28
4.8 Human Environment
4.8.1 Land Use
Land use in the vicinity of the Project is a mixture of residential, agricultural, and forested
properties.
4.8.2 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.
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.
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 site, such
discoveries are highly unlikely to occur.
4.8.3 Transportation
The proposed project is located on North MacEwen Road, adjacent to Route 2. The average
daily traffic on Route 2 between Mount Stewart and the Morrell Bridge is approximately 3,600
vehicles per day. This number increases during the summer months to approximately 5,200
vehicles per day (A. Aitken pers. comm. 2013).
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
29
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 8.
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
30
Table 8. Potential Interactions of the Project with the Environment
Project Phase, or Activities/Physical Works Associated with the Project
Atm
os
ph
eri
c
En
vir
on
men
t
Te
rre
str
ial
En
vir
on
men
t
Gro
un
dw
ate
r
Res
ou
rce
s
La
nd
Us
e
Arc
ha
eo
log
y a
nd
Heri
tag
e R
eso
urc
es
Cu
rre
nt
Us
e o
f L
an
d
an
d R
eso
urc
es
fo
r
Tra
dit
ion
al P
urp
os
es
by
Ab
ori
gin
al
Pe
rso
ns
Ro
ad
Tra
ns
po
rta
tio
n
Pu
bli
c H
ea
lth
an
d
Safe
ty
Eff
ects
of
En
vir
on
men
t
on
th
e P
roje
ct
Construction 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Operation and Maintenance
1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0
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 8 above, during Operation and Maintenance the Project
is not expected to result in any interaction (i.e., a ranking of 0) with the Terrestrial Environment,
Land Use, Archaeology and Heritage Resources, Current Use of Land and Resources for
Traditional Purposes by Aboriginal Persons, and Effects of the Environment on the Project.
Due to the nature of the Project and the environmental setting, the environmental effects of the
Project on these 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;
• Terrestrial Environment (Construction);
• Groundwater Resources;
• Land Use (Construction);
• Archaeology and Heritage Resources (Construction);
• Current Use of Land Resources for Traditional Purposes by Aboriginal Persons
(Construction);
• Road Transportation;
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
31
• Public Health and Safety; and
• Effects of the Environment on the Project (Construction).
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 8. 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, maintenance
vehicles, and employees.
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.
Terrestrial Environment
Interactions between the Project and the Terrestrial Environment have been ranked as 1 in
Table 8. Ground disturbance will be minimal and limited to previously disturbed areas including
maintained grassland and a small portion of a regenerated wooded area on the east side of the
wash water retainment pond. The wooded area is dominated by old field white spruce and
there are no sensitive environmental features observed. Additionally, there are no wetlands in
the vicinity of the site. No rare or uncommon plant or wildlife species were recorded at the
project site.
Accordingly, no substantive interactions between the Project and the Terrestrial Environment
are anticipated. Therefore, potential adverse environmental effects of the Project on the
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
32
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. At this
time it is expected that water usage at the facility will increase by a maximum of half of the
current water usage. Prior to the installation of the additional well, a Groundwater Extraction
Permit will be acquired and conditions of the permit will be adhered to. The Project is not
expected to affect groundwater quantity or quality in the vicinity of the Project. Additional
sampling of the water being released into the wash water retainment pond will be conducted
once the expanded facility is in operation. These samples will be collected in order to verify that
the general chemistry of the wash water 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.
Land Use
Interactions between the Project and Land Use have been ranked as 1 in Table 8 because the
Project is consistent with the existing land use at the site.
The project footprint is located on the property where the current facility is in operation. The
land within the footprint of the processing area is currently maintained grassland, while the
wooded area in the footprint of the wash water dissipation channels has been previously
disturbed and left to regenerate.
While there are several residential properties in the vicinity of the Project, Fitzgerald and Snow
has committed to limiting Construction activities to day time hours in order to minimize potential
disturbance to Project neighbours.
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.
Archaeology and Heritage Resources
Interactions between the Project and Archaeology and Heritage Resources have been ranked
as 1 in Table 8 because the Project involves only minimal ground disturbance. The Project will
require excavation of the topsoil layer in order to place structural fill. The site is a previously
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
33
disturbed area and it is unlikely that the Project will interact with Archaeology and Heritage
Resources. Accordingly, in consideration of existing regulatory frameworks and policies in
respect of Archaeology and Heritage Resources, the potential adverse environmental effects of
the Project on Archaeology and Heritage Resources during all phases of the Project are thus
rated not significant. Archaeology and Heritage Resources will not be assessed 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 8 because of the limited potential historical use of the land and resources by
Aboriginal persons.
There is no specific known current use of the land and resources at the Project location for
traditional purposes by Aboriginal persons. The Project is being conducted on privately owned
land such that any potential current use of these land and resources by Aboriginal persons
would be at the convenience of the land owner. There is no Crown land to be used for the
Project.
In consideration of provincial policy and regulatory frameworks relating to Aboriginal land and
resource use, the potential adverse environmental effects of the Project on Current Use of Land
and 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 facility is
not expected to increase.
During Construction, materials and supplies will be transported to the site by truck and
construction workers will travel to the site by passenger vehicle. Truck traffic due to
Construction is expected to be very nominal. The Project site will be accessed by existing
roadways and all Project related vehicles will obey traffic laws.
During Operation the amount of truck traffic transporting berries to the facility is not expected to
increase. Currently, frozen berries stored at offsite locations are transported to the facility year
round. This traffic is expected to decrease as a result of the added cold storage areas. Truck
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
34
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.
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 8. 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
operation 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 8. 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 Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
35
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 there is the potential for extreme weather to cause delays. While some
weather related delays are possible, they are not likely to adversely affect the Project
construction, schedule, or cost.
During 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 Requires Further
Evaluation (Ranking of 2)
Based on the ratings provided in Table 8 above, there are no VECs that are expected to result
in a potential significant interaction with the environment.
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
36
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.
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
37
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 Construction.
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 9, below.
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
38
Table 9 Potential Interactions of Project-Related Accidents, Malfunctions, and
Unplanned Events with the Environment
Accident, Malfunction, or Unplanned Event
Atm
os
ph
eri
c E
nv
iro
nm
en
t
Gro
un
dw
ate
r R
es
ou
rce
s
Terr
es
tria
l E
nv
iro
nm
en
t
Lan
d U
se
Arc
ha
eo
log
y a
nd
Heri
tag
e R
eso
urc
es
Cu
rre
nt
Us
e o
f L
an
d a
nd
Res
ou
rce
s f
or
Tra
dit
ion
al
Pu
rpo
ses
by
Ab
ori
gin
al
Pers
on
s
Ro
ad
Tra
ns
po
rta
tio
n
Pu
bli
c H
ea
lth
an
d S
afe
ty
Worker Accident 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Fire 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Hazardous Material Spill 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
Vehicle Accident 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Discovery of a Heritage Resource
0 0 0 0 1 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 9.
5.2.3.2 Interactions Ranked as 1
5.2.3.2.1.1 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 9 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 Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
39
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 9 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 kilometres, 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.
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
40
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 9 are rated not significant, and are not discussed further.
A spill of fuel, oil, lubricants, or other hazardous materials may occur during Construction or
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. Prior to the commencement of Construction activities, Fitzgerald and
Snow will ensure that spill response equipment is readily available. 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; and
• waste material will be disposed of at approved disposal facilities.
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.
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
41
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
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 9 are rated not significant, and are not discussed further.
The potential for a Vehicle Accident to occur exists during Construction and/or Operation and
Maintenance of the Project.
Worker traffic and truck traffic to and from the site and the operation of heavy equipment onsite
during Construction, though very limited given the straightforward nature of the Project, have the
potential to result in a vehicle accident during Construction. 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, 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 Current Use of Land and Resources for Traditional Purposes by
Aboriginal Persons and was assigned a ranking of 1 in Table 9, 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 9 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
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
42
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 Fitzgerald and Snow
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.
5.2.3.2.6 Interactions Ranked as 2 There were no interactions ranked as 2 in Table 9. 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, constructed, 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 Construction, and 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.
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
43
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.
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
44
6.0 CONCLUSION
In this EIS, Stantec conducted an environmental impact assessment (EIA) of the Wyman’s PEI
Growth Initiative (“the Project”) commissioned by Fitzgerald and Snow in Kings County, PEI.
The Project involves the construction, and operation and maintenance of an expansion to
Wyman’s blueberry 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.
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
45
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. 7.0 CLOSING
This report has been prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) for the sole benefit of
Fitzgerald and Snow (2010) Ltd. (Fitzgerald and Snow). 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 Fitzgerald and Snow.
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.
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
46
The information provided in this report was compiled from existing documents and data
provided by Fitzgerald and Snow, 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 the 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 ___________________________ _________________________ Pam MacDonald, M.Sc. Dale Conroy, M.Sc. Environmental Scientist Associate, Senior Reviewer
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
47
8.0 REFERENCES
AC CDC. 2013. Species Location Data. Ordered through
http://www.accdc.com/products/dataproducts.html
Canada’s Historic Places. No date (nd). Accessed May 8, 2013 at:
http://www.historicplaces.ca/en/pages/register-repertoire.aspx
Environment Canada. 2012. Bangor, PEI. National Climate Data and Information Archive.
Accessed online at: http://www.climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.htm
Historic Places of Prince Edward Island. No date (nd). Accessed May 8, 2013 at:
http://www.gov.pe.ca/hpo/app.php?nav=details&p=2796
Prest, V.K. 1973. Surficial Deposits of Prince Edward Island. Geological Survey of Canada.
Stantec Consulting Ltd. 2013. Geotechnical survey results for Wyman’s PEI. File number
3469 – Project number 121614283.
Wild Species. 2010. Accessed March 19, 2012 from http://www.wildspecies.ca
8.1 Personal Communications
Alan Aitken. Personal Communication. 2013. Traffic Operations Engineer, Prince Edward
Island Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal.
Jay Carr. Personal Communication. 2013. Environmental Assessment Officer, Prince Edward Island
Department of Environment, Labour, and Justice.
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
APPENDIX A Figures
!(
Fitzgerald and SnowClient:
±
NOTE: THIS DRAWING ILLUSTRATES SUPPORTING INFORMATION SPECIFIC TO A STANTEC PROJECT AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
Legend!( Blueberry Processing Facility
Scale:
Date:
Project No.:
Fig. By: Appd. By:
Fig. No.:
1121810928
MMS DCMap: NAD83 CSRS UTM Zone 20N
1:50,000Data Sources:
(dd/mm/yyyy)
Stantec Consulting Ltd. © 2013
Path:
U:\1
2181
0928
\3_dra
wing
s\3_d
raft_f
igures
\mxd
\pln\f
ig1_W
yman
sFac
ilityLo
catio
n_20
1306
04.m
xd
ArcGIS OnlineBingWyman's of PEI Growth Initiative
25/06/2013Kings County, PEI
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Metres
Project Location
FITZGERALD AND SNOWClient:
NOTE: THIS DRAWING ILLUSTRATES SUPPORTING INFORMATION SPECIFIC TO A STANTEC PROJECT AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR OTHER PURPOSES.Scale:
Date:
Project No.:
Dwn. By: Appd. By:
Fig. No.:
2121810928
MMS DC
1:40Data Sources:
(dd/mm/yyyy)
Stantec Consulting Ltd. © 2013
Path:
U:\1
2181
0928
\3_dra
wing
s\3_d
raft_f
igures
\mxd
\rpt\fi
g_2_
Prop
osed
Expa
nsion
_201
3053
0.mxd
FITZGERALD AND SNOWProposed Layout
25/06/2013
±
Wyman's of PEI Growth Initiative
Environmental Impact Statement: Wyman’s PEI Growth Initiative, West St. Peters, Kings County, PEI
June 24, 2013
APPENDIX B Analytical Results
Your P.O. #: 16300R-20 Your Project #: 121810928 Your C.O.C. #: 411650-01-01
Attention: Pam MacDonaldStantec Consulting LtdCharlottetown - Standing Offer165 Maple Hills AveCharlottetown, PEC1C1N9
Report Date: 2013/05/27
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS
MAXXAM JOB #: B373504Received: 2013/05/15, 09:03
Sample Matrix: SEWAGE# Samples Received: 3
Date Date MethodAnalyses Quantity Extracted Analyzed Laboratory Method ReferenceCarbonate, Bicarbonate and Hydroxide 3 N/A 2013/05/16 CAM SOP-00102 APHA 4500-CO2 D Alkalinity 3 N/A 2013/05/22 ATL SOP 00013 Based on EPA310.2 Carbonaceous BOD 2 N/A 2013/05/21 ATL SOP 00041 Based on APHA 5210B Chloride 3 N/A 2013/05/21 ATL SOP 00014 Based on SM4500-Cl- Colour 3 N/A 2013/05/17 ATL SOP 00020 Based on SM2120C Conductance - water 3 N/A 2013/05/16 ATL SOP-00004 Based on SM2510B * Carbonaceous BOD ( 1 ) 1 N/A 2013/05/27 ATL SOP 00041 Based on APHA 5210B Hardness (calculated as CaCO3) 1 N/A 2013/05/17 ATL SOP 00048 Based on SM2340B Hardness (calculated as CaCO3) 2 N/A 2013/05/21 ATL SOP 00048 Based on SM2340B Metals Water Diss. MS ( 2 ) 1 N/A 2013/05/16 ATL SOP 00059 Based on EPA6020A Metals Water Diss. MS ( 2 ) 2 N/A 2013/05/17 ATL SOP 00059 Based on EPA6020A Ion Balance (% Difference) 3 N/A 2013/05/22 Anion and Cation Sum 3 N/A 2013/05/22 Nitrogen Ammonia - water 3 N/A 2013/05/22 ATL SOP 00015 Based on USEPA 350.1Nitrogen - Nitrate + Nitrite 3 N/A 2013/05/21 ATL SOP 00016 Based on USGS - Enz.Nitrogen - Nitrite 3 N/A 2013/05/17 ATL SOP 00017 Based on SM4500-NO2BNitrogen - Nitrate (as N) 3 N/A 2013/05/21 ATL SOP 00018 Based on ASTMD3867 pH 3 N/A 2013/05/16 ATL SOP 00003 Based on SM4500H+B Phosphorus - ortho 3 N/A 2013/05/17 ATL SOP 00021 Based on USEPA 365.2Sat. pH and Langelier Index (@ 20C) 3 N/A 2013/05/22 ATL SOP-00049 . Sat. pH and Langelier Index (@ 4C) 3 N/A 2013/05/22 ATL SOP-00049 . Reactive Silica 3 N/A 2013/05/21 ATL SOP 00022 Based on EPA 366.0 Sulphate 3 N/A 2013/05/21 ATL SOP 00023 Based on EPA 375.4 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS calc) 3 N/A 2013/05/22 Nitrogen TKN - water (as N) 2 N/A 2013/05/16 ATL SOP 00019 Based on USEPA 351.2Nitrogen TKN - water (as N) 1 N/A 2013/05/22 ATL SOP 00019 Based on USEPA 351.2Organic carbon - Total (TOC) 3 N/A 2013/05/24 ATL SOP 00037 Based on SM5310C Phosphorus Total Colourimetry 3 2013/05/22 2013/05/24 ATL SOP 00057 Based on EPA365.1 Total Suspended Solids 3 N/A 2013/05/16 ATL SOP 00007 based on EPA 160.2 Turbidity 3 N/A 2013/05/24 ATL SOP 00011 based on EPA 180.1
Remarks:
Reporting results to two significant figures at the RDL is to permit statistical evaluation and is not intended to be anindication of analytical precision.
Page 1 of 11
Your P.O. #: 16300R-20 Your Project #: 121810928 Your C.O.C. #: 411650-01-01
Attention: Pam MacDonaldStantec Consulting LtdCharlottetown - Standing Offer165 Maple Hills AveCharlottetown, PEC1C1N9
Report Date: 2013/05/27
CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS-2-
* RPDs calculated using raw data. The rounding of final results may result in the apparent difference.
(1) * Analysis performed using frozen aliquot due to Hold Time and/or QC issues.(2) Sample filtered in laboratory prior to analysis for dissolved metals.
Encryption Key
Please direct all questions regarding this Certificate of Analysis to your Project Manager.
Marie (McNair) Muise, Project ManagerEmail: [email protected]# (902) 420-0203 Ext:253
====================================================================Maxxam has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per section5.10.2 of ISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page.
Total cover pages: 2
Page 2 of 11
Stantec Consulting LtdMaxxam Job #: B373504 Client Project #: 121810928Report Date: 2013/05/27
Your P.O. #: 16300R-20Sampler Initials: PM
ATL. RCAP-MS DISSOLVED (LABFILT) IN W
Maxxam ID R N 2 8 5 2 R N 2 8 5 3 R N 2 8 5 4Sampling Date 2013/05/14 2013/05/14 2013/05/14
11:00 11:00 11:00COC Number 411650-01-01 411650-01-01 411650-01-01
U n i t s SA-1 RDL SA-2 RDL QC Batch SA-3 RDL QC Batch
Calculated Parameters
Anion Sum me/L 5.74 N/A 6.07 N/A 3213118 4.82 N/A 3213118
Bicarb. Alkalinity (calc. as CaCO3) mg/L 140 1.0 140 1.0 3213114 98 1.0 3213114
Calculated TDS mg/L 322 1.0 339 1.0 3213123 285 1.0 3213123
Carb. Alkalinity (calc. as CaCO3) mg/L <1.0 1.0 <1.0 1.0 3213114 <1.0 1.0 3213114
Cation Sum me/L 6.12 N/A 6.19 N/A 3213118 5.69 N/A 3213118
Hardness (CaCO3) mg/L 160 1.0 150 1.0 3213116 150 1.0 3213116
Ion Balance (% Difference) % 3.20 N/A 0.980 N/A 3213117 8.28 N/A 3213117
Langelier Index (@ 20C) N/A 0.0200 -0.441 3213121 -2.33 3213121
Langelier Index (@ 4C) N/A -0.229 -0.690 3213122 -2.58 3213122
Nitrate (N) mg/L 0.46 0.050 0.46 0.050 3213119 <0.050 0.050 3213119
Saturation pH (@ 20C) N/A 7.74 7.76 3213121 7.91 3213121
Saturation pH (@ 4C) N/A 7.99 8.01 3213122 8.16 3213122
Inorganics
Total Alkalinity (Total as CaCO3) mg/L 140 25 140 25 3215914 98 5.0 3215914
Dissolved Chloride (Cl) mg/L 97 1.0 110 1.0 3215927 98 1.0 3215927
Colour TCU 71 25 270 50 3215930 170 25 3215930
Nitrate + Nitrite mg/L 0.46 0.050 0.46 0.050 3215933 <0.050 0.050 3215933
Nitrite (N) mg/L <0.010 0.010 <0.010 0.010 3215934 <0.010 0.010 3215934
Nitrogen (Ammonia Nitrogen) mg/L 0.058 0.050 <0.50 ( 1 ) 0.50 3218833 <0.50 ( 1 ) 0.50 3218833
Total Organic Carbon (C) mg/L 170 5.0 340 ( 2 ) 10 3223412 170 ( 2 ) 10 3223412
Orthophosphate (P) mg/L 0.22 0.010 0.48 0.010 3215931 <0.010 0.010 3215931
pH pH 7.76 N/A 7.32 N/A 3215572 5.58 N/A 3215528
Reactive Silica (SiO2) mg/L 7.8 0.50 8.5 0.50 3215929 8.0 0.50 3215929
Dissolved Sulphate (SO4) mg/L 5.2 2.0 4.5 2.0 3215928 4.0 2.0 3215928
Turbidity NTU 6.8 0.10 8.8 0.10 3222813 17 0.10 3222813
Conductivity uS/cm 610 1.0 640 1.0 3215538 590 1.0 3215538
Metals
Dissolved Aluminum (Al) ug/L 48.6 5.0 61.4 5.0 3215149 119 5.0 3215149
Dissolved Antimony (Sb) ug/L <1.0 1.0 <1.0 1.0 3215149 <1.0 1.0 3215149
RDL = Reportable Detection LimitQC Batch = Quality Control Batch( 1 ) Elevated RDL due to sample matrix.( 2 ) Elevated reporting limit due to sample matrix.
Page 3 of 11
Stantec Consulting LtdMaxxam Job #: B373504 Client Project #: 121810928Report Date: 2013/05/27
Your P.O. #: 16300R-20Sampler Initials: PM
ATL. RCAP-MS DISSOLVED (LABFILT) IN W
Maxxam ID R N 2 8 5 2 R N 2 8 5 3 R N 2 8 5 4Sampling Date 2013/05/14 2013/05/14 2013/05/14
11:00 11:00 11:00COC Number 411650-01-01 411650-01-01 411650-01-01
U n i t s SA-1 RDL SA-2 RDL QC Batch SA-3 RDL QC Batch
Dissolved Arsenic (As) ug/L <1.0 1.0 <1.0 1.0 3215149 <1.0 1.0 3215149
Dissolved Barium (Ba) ug/L 70.4 1.0 69.5 1.0 3215149 88.9 1.0 3215149
Dissolved Beryllium (Be) ug/L <1.0 1.0 <1.0 1.0 3215149 <1.0 1.0 3215149
Dissolved Bismuth (Bi) ug/L <2.0 2.0 <2.0 2.0 3215149 <2.0 2.0 3215149
Dissolved Boron (B) ug/L <50 50 <50 50 3215149 <50 50 3215149
Dissolved Cadmium (Cd) ug/L 0.049 0.017 0.019 0.017 3215149 <0.017 0.017 3215149
Dissolved Calcium (Ca) ug/L 34100 100 33600 100 3215149 32500 100 3215149
Dissolved Chromium (Cr) ug/L 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.0 3215149 1.3 1.0 3215149
Dissolved Cobalt (Co) ug/L <0.40 0.40 <0.40 0.40 3215149 <0.40 0.40 3215149
Dissolved Copper (Cu) ug/L 6.3 2.0 5.6 2.0 3215149 <2.0 2.0 3215149
Dissolved Iron (Fe) ug/L 76 50 57 50 3215149 647 50 3215149
Dissolved Lead (Pb) ug/L <0.50 0.50 <0.50 0.50 3215149 <0.50 0.50 3215149
Dissolved Magnesium (Mg) ug/L 17500 100 16500 100 3215149 15900 100 3215149
Dissolved Manganese (Mn) ug/L 68.1 2.0 143 2.0 3215149 164 2.0 3215149
Dissolved Molybdenum (Mo) ug/L 4.1 2.0 6.9 2.0 3215149 62.9 2.0 3215149
Dissolved Nickel (Ni) ug/L <2.0 2.0 <2.0 2.0 3215149 <2.0 2.0 3215149
Dissolved Phosphorus (P) ug/L 339 100 662 100 3215149 <100 100 3215149
Dissolved Potassium (K) ug/L 9360 100 12700 100 3215149 10400 100 3215149
Dissolved Selenium (Se) ug/L <1.0 1.0 <1.0 1.0 3215149 <1.0 1.0 3215149
Dissolved Silver (Ag) ug/L <0.10 0.10 <0.10 0.10 3215149 <0.10 0.10 3215149
Dissolved Sodium (Na) ug/L 62700 100 65000 100 3215149 56600 100 3215149
Dissolved Strontium (Sr) ug/L 24.9 2.0 24.7 2.0 3215149 26.2 2.0 3215149
Dissolved Thallium (Tl) ug/L <0.10 0.10 <0.10 0.10 3215149 <0.10 0.10 3215149
Dissolved Tin (Sn) ug/L <2.0 2.0 <2.0 2.0 3215149 <2.0 2.0 3215149
Dissolved Titanium (Ti) ug/L <2.0 2.0 <2.0 2.0 3215149 <2.0 2.0 3215149
Dissolved Uranium (U) ug/L <0.10 0.10 <0.10 0.10 3215149 <0.10 0.10 3215149
Dissolved Vanadium (V) ug/L <2.0 2.0 <2.0 2.0 3215149 <2.0 2.0 3215149
Dissolved Zinc (Zn) ug/L 71.1 5.0 61.5 5.0 3215149 42.1 5.0 3215149
RDL = Reportable Detection LimitQC Batch = Quality Control Batch
Page 4 of 11
Stantec Consulting LtdMaxxam Job #: B373504 Client Project #: 121810928Report Date: 2013/05/27
Your P.O. #: 16300R-20Sampler Initials: PM
RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF SEWAGE
Maxxam ID R N 2 8 5 2 R N 2 8 5 3 R N 2 8 5 4Sampling Date 2013/05/14 2013/05/14 2013/05/14
11:00 11:00 11:00COC Number 411650-01-01 411650-01-01 411650-01-01
U n i t s SA-1 RDL QC Batch SA-2 RDL QC Batch SA-3 RDL QC Batch
Inorganics
Carbonaceous BOD mg/L 230 49 3220732 570 210 3213382 280 210 3213382
Total Phosphorus mg/L 0.38 0.020 3220395 0.64 0.020 3220395 0.51 0.020 3220395
Total Suspended Solids mg/L 15 1.0 3213661 21 2.0 3213661 130 10 3213661
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/L 0.97 0.10 3214732 1.4 ( 1 ) 0.50 3218463 3.1 0.25 3214732
RDL = Reportable Detection LimitQC Batch = Quality Control Batch( 1 ) Elevated RDL due to sample matrix.
Maxxam ID R N 2 8 5 4Sampling Date 2013/05/14
11:00COC Number 411650-01-01
U n i t s SA-3 Lab-Dup RDL QC Batch
Inorganics
Carbonaceous BOD mg/L 260 210 3213382
Total Suspended Solids mg/L 120 10 3213661
RDL = Reportable Detection LimitLab-Dup = Laboratory Initiated DuplicateQC Batch = Quality Control Batch
Page 5 of 11
Stantec Consulting LtdMaxxam Job #: B373504 Client Project #: 121810928Report Date: 2013/05/27
Your P.O. #: 16300R-20Sampler Initials: PM
Package 1 2.7°CEach temperature is the average of up to three cooler temperatures taken at receipt
GENERAL COMMENTS
Sample RN2854-01: Poor RCAp Ion Balance due to sample matrix.
Results relate only to the items tested.
Page 6 of 11
Stantec Consulting LtdAttention: Pam MacDonald Client Project #: 121810928P.O. #: 16300R-20Site Location:
Quality Assurance ReportMaxxam Job Number: DB373504
QA/QC DateBatch AnalyzedNum Init QC Type Parameter yyyy/mm/dd Value Recovery Units QC Limits
3213382 MBN QC Standard Carbonaceous BOD 2013/05/21 110 % 80 - 120Spiked Blank Carbonaceous BOD 2013/05/21 97 % 80 - 120Method Blank Carbonaceous BOD 2013/05/21 <5.0 mg/LRPD [ R N 2 8 5 4 - 0 1 ] Carbonaceous BOD 2013/05/21 NC % 25
3213661 KBI QC Standard Total Suspended Solids 2013/05/16 100 % 80 - 120Method Blank Total Suspended Solids 2013/05/16 <1.0 mg/LRPD [ R N 2 8 5 4 - 0 2 ] Total Suspended Solids 2013/05/16 9.2 % 25
3214732 ALG Matrix Spike Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 2013/05/16 NC % 80 - 120Spiked Blank Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 2013/05/16 99 % 80 - 120Method Blank Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 2013/05/16 <0.10 mg/LRPD Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 2013/05/16 2.7 % 25
3215149 DLB Matrix Spike Dissolved Aluminum (Al) 2013/05/16 104 % 80 - 120Dissolved Antimony (Sb) 2013/05/16 100 % 80 - 120Dissolved Arsenic (As) 2013/05/16 100 % 80 - 120Dissolved Barium (Ba) 2013/05/16 NC % 80 - 120Dissolved Beryllium (Be) 2013/05/16 99 % 80 - 120Dissolved Bismuth (Bi) 2013/05/16 95 % 80 - 120Dissolved Boron (B) 2013/05/16 96 % 80 - 120Dissolved Cadmium (Cd) 2013/05/16 98 % 80 - 120Dissolved Calcium (Ca) 2013/05/16 NC % 80 - 120Dissolved Chromium (Cr) 2013/05/16 100 % 80 - 120Dissolved Cobalt (Co) 2013/05/16 102 % 80 - 120Dissolved Copper (Cu) 2013/05/16 99 % 80 - 120Dissolved Iron (Fe) 2013/05/16 103 % 80 - 120Dissolved Lead (Pb) 2013/05/16 104 % 80 - 120Dissolved Magnesium (Mg) 2013/05/16 NC % 80 - 120Dissolved Manganese (Mn) 2013/05/16 NC % 80 - 120Dissolved Molybdenum (Mo) 2013/05/16 97 % 80 - 120Dissolved Nickel (Ni) 2013/05/16 99 % 80 - 120Dissolved Phosphorus (P) 2013/05/16 105 % 80 - 120Dissolved Potassium (K) 2013/05/16 104 % 80 - 120Dissolved Selenium (Se) 2013/05/16 99 % 80 - 120Dissolved Silver (Ag) 2013/05/16 95 % 80 - 120Dissolved Sodium (Na) 2013/05/16 107 % 80 - 120Dissolved Strontium (Sr) 2013/05/16 NC % 80 - 120Dissolved Thallium (Tl) 2013/05/16 100 % 80 - 120Dissolved Tin (Sn) 2013/05/16 99 % 80 - 120Dissolved Titanium (Ti) 2013/05/16 104 % 80 - 120Dissolved Uranium (U) 2013/05/16 109 % 80 - 120Dissolved Vanadium (V) 2013/05/16 105 % 80 - 120Dissolved Zinc (Zn) 2013/05/16 100 % 80 - 120
Spiked Blank Dissolved Aluminum (Al) 2013/05/16 102 % 80 - 120Dissolved Antimony (Sb) 2013/05/16 100 % 80 - 120Dissolved Arsenic (As) 2013/05/16 97 % 80 - 120Dissolved Barium (Ba) 2013/05/16 94 % 80 - 120Dissolved Beryllium (Be) 2013/05/16 96 % 80 - 120Dissolved Bismuth (Bi) 2013/05/16 97 % 80 - 120Dissolved Boron (B) 2013/05/16 96 % 80 - 120Dissolved Cadmium (Cd) 2013/05/16 96 % 80 - 120Dissolved Calcium (Ca) 2013/05/16 84 % 80 - 120Dissolved Chromium (Cr) 2013/05/16 99 % 80 - 120Dissolved Cobalt (Co) 2013/05/16 102 % 80 - 120Dissolved Copper (Cu) 2013/05/16 100 % 80 - 120Dissolved Iron (Fe) 2013/05/16 103 % 80 - 120Dissolved Lead (Pb) 2013/05/16 103 % 80 - 120
Page 7 of 11
Stantec Consulting LtdAttention: Pam MacDonald Client Project #: 121810928P.O. #: 16300R-20Site Location:
Quality Assurance Report (Continued)Maxxam Job Number: DB373504
QA/QC DateBatch AnalyzedNum Init QC Type Parameter yyyy/mm/dd Value Recovery Units QC Limits
3215149 DLB Spiked Blank Dissolved Magnesium (Mg) 2013/05/16 110 % 80 - 120Dissolved Manganese (Mn) 2013/05/16 99 % 80 - 120Dissolved Molybdenum (Mo) 2013/05/16 94 % 80 - 120Dissolved Nickel (Ni) 2013/05/16 100 % 80 - 120Dissolved Phosphorus (P) 2013/05/16 102 % 80 - 120Dissolved Potassium (K) 2013/05/16 101 % 80 - 120Dissolved Selenium (Se) 2013/05/16 97 % 80 - 120Dissolved Silver (Ag) 2013/05/16 99 % 80 - 120Dissolved Sodium (Na) 2013/05/16 108 % 80 - 120Dissolved Strontium (Sr) 2013/05/16 99 % 80 - 120Dissolved Thallium (Tl) 2013/05/16 100 % 80 - 120Dissolved Tin (Sn) 2013/05/16 98 % 80 - 120Dissolved Titanium (Ti) 2013/05/16 105 % 80 - 120Dissolved Uranium (U) 2013/05/16 106 % 80 - 120Dissolved Vanadium (V) 2013/05/16 103 % 80 - 120Dissolved Zinc (Zn) 2013/05/16 103 % 80 - 120
Method Blank Dissolved Aluminum (Al) 2013/05/16 <5.0 ug/LDissolved Antimony (Sb) 2013/05/16 <1.0 ug/LDissolved Arsenic (As) 2013/05/16 <1.0 ug/LDissolved Barium (Ba) 2013/05/16 <1.0 ug/LDissolved Beryllium (Be) 2013/05/16 <1.0 ug/LDissolved Bismuth (Bi) 2013/05/16 <2.0 ug/LDissolved Boron (B) 2013/05/16 <50 ug/LDissolved Cadmium (Cd) 2013/05/16 <0.017 ug/LDissolved Calcium (Ca) 2013/05/16 <100 ug/LDissolved Chromium (Cr) 2013/05/16 <1.0 ug/LDissolved Cobalt (Co) 2013/05/16 <0.40 ug/LDissolved Copper (Cu) 2013/05/16 <2.0 ug/LDissolved Iron (Fe) 2013/05/16 <50 ug/LDissolved Lead (Pb) 2013/05/16 <0.50 ug/LDissolved Magnesium (Mg) 2013/05/16 <100 ug/LDissolved Manganese (Mn) 2013/05/16 <2.0 ug/LDissolved Molybdenum (Mo) 2013/05/16 <2.0 ug/LDissolved Nickel (Ni) 2013/05/16 <2.0 ug/LDissolved Phosphorus (P) 2013/05/16 <100 ug/LDissolved Potassium (K) 2013/05/16 <100 ug/LDissolved Selenium (Se) 2013/05/16 <1.0 ug/LDissolved Silver (Ag) 2013/05/16 <0.10 ug/LDissolved Sodium (Na) 2013/05/16 <100 ug/LDissolved Strontium (Sr) 2013/05/16 <2.0 ug/LDissolved Thallium (Tl) 2013/05/16 <0.10 ug/LDissolved Tin (Sn) 2013/05/16 <2.0 ug/LDissolved Titanium (Ti) 2013/05/16 <2.0 ug/LDissolved Uranium (U) 2013/05/16 <0.10 ug/LDissolved Vanadium (V) 2013/05/16 <2.0 ug/LDissolved Zinc (Zn) 2013/05/16 <5.0 ug/L
RPD Dissolved Aluminum (Al) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Antimony (Sb) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Arsenic (As) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Barium (Ba) 2013/05/16 2.1 % 20Dissolved Beryllium (Be) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Bismuth (Bi) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Boron (B) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Cadmium (Cd) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Calcium (Ca) 2013/05/16 0.6 % 20
Page 8 of 11
Stantec Consulting LtdAttention: Pam MacDonald Client Project #: 121810928P.O. #: 16300R-20Site Location:
Quality Assurance Report (Continued)Maxxam Job Number: DB373504
QA/QC DateBatch AnalyzedNum Init QC Type Parameter yyyy/mm/dd Value Recovery Units QC Limits
3215149 DLB RPD Dissolved Chromium (Cr) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Cobalt (Co) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Copper (Cu) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Iron (Fe) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Lead (Pb) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Magnesium (Mg) 2013/05/16 1.9 % 20Dissolved Manganese (Mn) 2013/05/16 1.6 % 20Dissolved Molybdenum (Mo) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Nickel (Ni) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Phosphorus (P) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Potassium (K) 2013/05/16 1.4 % 20Dissolved Selenium (Se) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Silver (Ag) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Sodium (Na) 2013/05/16 2.1 % 20Dissolved Strontium (Sr) 2013/05/16 3.1 % 20Dissolved Thallium (Tl) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Tin (Sn) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Titanium (Ti) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Uranium (U) 2013/05/16 1.2 % 20Dissolved Vanadium (V) 2013/05/16 NC % 20Dissolved Zinc (Zn) 2013/05/16 NC % 20
3215528 SCR QC Standard pH 2013/05/16 100 % 80 - 120RPD pH 2013/05/16 0.1 % 25
3215538 SCR Spiked Blank Conductivity 2013/05/16 100 % 80 - 120Method Blank Conductivity 2013/05/16 <1.0 uS/cmRPD Conductivity 2013/05/16 0.5 % 25
3215572 SCR QC Standard pH 2013/05/16 100 % 80 - 120RPD pH 2013/05/16 0.7 % 25
3215914 MCY Matrix Spike Total Alkalinity (Total as CaCO3) 2013/05/22 NC % 80 - 120Spiked Blank Total Alkalinity (Total as CaCO3) 2013/05/22 109 % 80 - 120Method Blank Total Alkalinity (Total as CaCO3) 2013/05/22 <5.0 mg/LRPD Total Alkalinity (Total as CaCO3) 2013/05/22 3.1 % 25
3215927 ARS Matrix Spike Dissolved Chloride (Cl) 2013/05/21 96 % 80 - 120QC Standard Dissolved Chloride (Cl) 2013/05/21 103 % 80 - 120Spiked Blank Dissolved Chloride (Cl) 2013/05/21 103 % 80 - 120Method Blank Dissolved Chloride (Cl) 2013/05/21 <1.0 mg/LRPD Dissolved Chloride (Cl) 2013/05/21 0.2 % 25
3215928 JOA Matrix Spike Dissolved Sulphate (SO4) 2013/05/21 106 % 80 - 120Spiked Blank Dissolved Sulphate (SO4) 2013/05/21 105 % 80 - 120Method Blank Dissolved Sulphate (SO4) 2013/05/21 <2.0 mg/LRPD Dissolved Sulphate (SO4) 2013/05/21 NC % 25
3215929 ARS Matrix Spike Reactive Silica (SiO2) 2013/05/21 103 % 80 - 120Spiked Blank Reactive Silica (SiO2) 2013/05/21 101 % 80 - 120Method Blank Reactive Silica (SiO2) 2013/05/21 <0.50 mg/LRPD Reactive Silica (SiO2) 2013/05/21 NC % 25
3215930 ALG QC Standard Colour 2013/05/17 105 % 80 - 120Method Blank Colour 2013/05/17 <5.0 TCURPD Colour 2013/05/17 5.5 % 25
3215931 ARS Matrix Spike Orthophosphate (P) 2013/05/17 94 % 80 - 120Spiked Blank Orthophosphate (P) 2013/05/17 97 % 80 - 120Method Blank Orthophosphate (P) 2013/05/17 <0.010 mg/LRPD Orthophosphate (P) 2013/05/17 NC % 25
3215933 JOA Matrix Spike Nitrate + Nitrite 2013/05/21 103 % 80 - 120Spiked Blank Nitrate + Nitrite 2013/05/21 95 % 80 - 120Method Blank Nitrate + Nitrite 2013/05/21 <0.050 mg/L
Page 9 of 11
Stantec Consulting LtdAttention: Pam MacDonald Client Project #: 121810928P.O. #: 16300R-20Site Location:
Quality Assurance Report (Continued)Maxxam Job Number: DB373504
QA/QC DateBatch AnalyzedNum Init QC Type Parameter yyyy/mm/dd Value Recovery Units QC Limits
3215933 JOA RPD Nitrate + Nitrite 2013/05/21 NC % 253215934 ALG Matrix Spike Nitrite (N) 2013/05/17 103 % 80 - 120
Spiked Blank Nitrite (N) 2013/05/17 103 % 80 - 120Method Blank Nitrite (N) 2013/05/17 <0.010 mg/LRPD Nitrite (N) 2013/05/17 NC % 25
3218463 JOA Matrix Spike Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 2013/05/21 92 % 80 - 120Spiked Blank Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 2013/05/21 103 % 80 - 120Method Blank Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 2013/05/22 0.18, RDL=0.10 mg/LRPD Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 2013/05/22 13.6 % 25
3218833 MCY Matrix Spike Nitrogen (Ammonia Nitrogen) 2013/05/22 95 % 80 - 120Spiked Blank Nitrogen (Ammonia Nitrogen) 2013/05/22 96 % 80 - 120Method Blank Nitrogen (Ammonia Nitrogen) 2013/05/22 <0.050 mg/LRPD Nitrogen (Ammonia Nitrogen) 2013/05/22 NC % 25
3220395 JOA Matrix Spike Total Phosphorus 2013/05/24 113 % 80 - 120Spiked Blank Total Phosphorus 2013/05/24 113 % 80 - 120Method Blank Total Phosphorus 2013/05/24 <0.020 mg/LRPD Total Phosphorus 2013/05/24 6.0 % 25
3220732 MBN QC Standard Carbonaceous BOD 2013/05/27 103 % 80 - 120Spiked Blank Carbonaceous BOD 2013/05/27 86 % 80 - 120Method Blank Carbonaceous BOD 2013/05/27 <5.0 mg/LRPD Carbonaceous BOD 2013/05/27 NC % 25
3222813 SCR QC Standard Turbidity 2013/05/24 107 % 80 - 120RPD Turbidity 2013/05/24 1.1 % 25
3223412 CRA Matrix Spike Total Organic Carbon (C) 2013/05/24 NC % 80 - 120Spiked Blank Total Organic Carbon (C) 2013/05/24 89 % 80 - 120Method Blank Total Organic Carbon (C) 2013/05/24 <0.50 mg/LRPD Total Organic Carbon (C) 2013/05/24 3.5 % 25
Duplicate: Paired analysis of a separate portion of the same sample. Used to evaluate the variance in the measurement.Matrix Spike: A sample to which a known amount of the analyte of interest has been added. Used to evaluate sample matrix interference.QC Standard: A sample of known concentration prepared by an external agency under stringent conditions. Used as an independent check of methodaccuracy.Spiked Blank: A blank matrix sample to which a known amount of the analyte, usually from a second source, has been added. Used to evaluate methodaccuracy.Method Blank: A blank matrix containing all reagents used in the analytical procedure. Used to identify laboratory contamination.NC (Matrix Spike): The recovery in the matrix spike was not calculated. The relative difference between the concentration in the parent sample and thespiked amount was not sufficiently significant to permit a reliable recovery calculation.NC (RPD): The RPD was not calculated. The level of analyte detected in the parent sample and its duplicate was not sufficiently significant to permit areliable calculation.
Page 10 of 11
Validation Signature Page
Maxxam Job #: B373504
The analytical data and all QC contained in this report were reviewed and validated by the following individual(s).
Colleen Acker, Supervisor, General Chemistry
Mike MacGillivray, Scientific Specialist (Inorganics)
====================================================================Maxxam has procedures in place to guard against improper use of the electronic signature and have the required "signatories", as per section 5.10.2 ofISO/IEC 17025:2005(E), signing the reports. For Service Group specific validation please refer to the Validation Signature Page.
Page 11 of 11