Independant Scientific Panel: reveals disturbing shortcomings with AMEC's EIA on the Petitcodiac River

The following report, "Independent EIA Petitcodiac Panel Report, Public Meeting, Petitcodiac River Causeway, Prepared by: George Bouchard (Panel Chair), Graham R. Daborn, Ph.D., and Michael Davies, Ph.D., P.Eng. on February 13, 2006." shows that LAPPA's concerns have merit, and that there are many shortcomings in AMEC's EIA.

Disturbingly, LAPPA had to go through Freedom of Information before receiveing this report which Jacques Paynter of AMEC's recently (November 2008) indicated that the Independant Scientific Panels conclusions have all been discredited by them!

The key conclusions of the independent EIA Petitcodiac panel report are as follows:

"Public concern that the accounts of water contamination presented in the EIA are misleading, or unduly influenced by transient events, may have merit;"

"Public concern that the EIA understates the risks for continued contamination of water following adoption of Project Option 4B is well founded."

"In fact water quality will decrease upstream of the causeway due to exposure to the more contaminated water that exists downstream"

"Uncertainties about the rate of increase in the tidal prism, and therefore the effective dilution of contaminated water, require that model predictions of channel widening be confirmed by further study."

"Public concern that the leachate from the Moncton landfill may enter the Petitcodiac Estuary as a result of Project Option 4B is unfounded, unless the erosion of the adjacent wetland is greater than forecast in the EIA."

Note that:

a) the rip-rap or armour rock put in at the toe of the landfill, in preparation for opening the causeway, is already being undermined by the river and garbage is ALREADY being exposed (photo's attached taken October 2009).

b) City of Moncton was recently sued because it was determined by Environment Canada Environmental Protection Agency that contaminated chemical leachate IS entering the river from these landfills.

c) River modelling problems highlighted by the review panel suggest that AMEC or the Province can not predict where the river channel will go.


"The public concerns about flooding in the greater Moncton area are valid and the EIA recommends that a flood risk assessment be undertaken to examine these issues in more detail and to develop an appropriate flood response strategy."

"The EIA conclusions concerning the fate of sediments leaving Hopewell Cape and entering Shepody and Chignecto Bays are not adequately supported by either the modeling work or by other technical analysis."

"There are significant shortcomings in the modeling of river sedimentation and morphology. As such, there is significant uncertainty regarding the rate and extent of changes to the river channel and mudflats under the Project Options."

"The effects of Project Options on the occurrence and frequency of disease vectors may not have been considered adequately in the EIA, and it is recommended that the NB health authorities reassess the risk of mosquito-borne diseases."

"Public concern that the EIA did not assess the impact on the fishery may have merit. The EIA assumes that the fishery in the Bay of Fundy will not be affected."

"Public concern that costs for a secondary waste treatment facility was not an integral part of the cost options. In reference to the Water Quality section of this report the Panel
recommends that the secondary sanitary sewage treatment cost be part of any option selected."

"This review process has identified several shortcomings in the EIA process which will need further consideration."

http://www.gnb.ca/0009/0377/0002/0026-e.pdf