Project 4 - All-Season Road Connecting Berens River to Poplar River First Nation
From the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to Manitoba East Side Road Authority re: EIS Technical Review Information Requests
Document reference number: 17
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Prairie and Northern Region
Suite 1145, 9700 Jasper Avenue
Edmonton, Alberta T5J 4C3
Agence canadienne d'évaluation environnementale
Région des Prairies et du Nord
Pièce 1145, 9700 rue Jasper
Edmonton (Alberta) T5J 4C3
Registry File #: 80094
July 14, 2016
Ms. Leanne Shewchuk
Manager, Special Projects and Environmental Services
Manitoba East Side Road Authority
20 0-155 Carleton Street
Winnipeg MB R3C 3H8
Dear Ms. Shewchuk:
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (the Agency) and federal authorities have conducted a technical review of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Project 4 – All-season Road Connecting Berens River and Poplar River First Nation (the Project), received from Manitoba East Side Road Authority on May 9, 2016. The federal authorities participating in the review are Environment and Climate Change Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Health Canada, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, and Transport Canada.
The EIS Guidelines issued on March 10, 2015, describe the information required to support the assessment of effects described in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012) and section 79 of the Species at Risk Act, and for Canada to fulfil its Crown consultation obligations to the extent possible during the environmental assessment (EA).
While the EIS Guidelines subject areas are covered in the EIS, the Agency and federal authorities have identified gaps in the information provided. This information is necessary to determine whether the Project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects and to inform the Agency's preparation of the EA report under CEAA 2012.
Please find attached a table of Information Requests (IRs) with context for the requested information. Comments received from Indigenous groups were taken into account by the Agency in developing these IRs. A table of Federal Authority Advice to the Proponent is also included, for your information.
In accordance with CEAA 2012, time taken by Manitoba East Side Road Authority to provide the requested information is not included in the legal timeframe within which the Minister of the Environment must make her EA decision. Although issuance of these IRs pauses the timeline at day 113 of 365, the Agency and federal authorities will continue to work on the Project EA, with a focus on Aboriginal consultation and technical working group meetings to improve the Agency's understanding of the environmental effects of the Project.
Upon request, the Agency would be happy to arrange a meeting to discuss and answer questions regarding the IRs and to understand and resolve issues as required. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact the Agency.
Sincerely,
<Original signed by>
Janet Scott
Project Manager, Prairie and Northern Region
Enclosures:
1. Project 4 EIS – Information Requests /
2. Project 4 EIS – Advice to the Proponent from Federal Authorities
3. Supporting document related to Health Canada's advice to the proponent
cc:
Nicole Deschenes, Environment and Climate Change Canada
Tara Schweitzer, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Graham Irvine, Health Canada
Angela Bidinosti, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada
Jackie Barker, Transport Canada
Federal Environmental Assessment of Project 4 – All-Season Road Connecting Berens River to Poplar River First Nation
IR Number (e.g. HC-IR-01) |
Project Effects Link to CEAA 2012 |
Reference to EIS Guidelines |
Reference to EIS |
Context and Rationale |
Specific Question / Request for Information |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Project Description |
|||||
CEAA-01 |
EIS Guidelines, Part 1, Section 3.1 |
Chapter 4 |
The EIS should include a consolidated summary of all changes that have been made to the Project since originally proposed, including the benefits of these changes to the environment, Aboriginal peoples, and the public. The EIS should document any additional issues and concerns raised by Indigenous groups in relation to the environmental effects assessment and the potential adverse impacts of the project on potential or established rights. The EIS (Chapter 4, p. 4-38) states "The APEP will continue throughout the development of the Project, and will provide updated information and opportunities for all interested parties to continue commenting on the Project. Comments and input received will be reviewed to assess whether the information alters the effects assessment and/or warrants modifications to proposed mitigation measures". Project changes are described throughout the EIS document but a consolidated summary is absent. |
|
|
CEAA-02 |
EIS Guidelines, Part 2, Section 1.1 |
EIS Summary, Chapter 1. Introduction and Overview |
The proponent information in the EIS should identify the legal entity that would develop, manage, and operate the project as well as specify the mechanism used to ensure that corporate policies will be implemented and respected for the project. Manitoba issued a press release in May 2016 noting that ESRA is dissolved and its mandate is repatriated into Manitoba Infrastructure. The EIS references ESRA as the proponent throughout the document and in Environmental Protection Procedures describing mitigation commitments. |
|
|
CEAA-03 |
1 9(1)(g) – alternative means and environmental effects of alternative means |
EIS Guidelines, Part 2, Section 2.2 |
Chapter 2, Project Justification and Alternatives Considered Chapter 5, Appendices, Environmental Protection Procedures |
The EIS describes alternative means for the project as a whole (EIS, Chapter 2, Project Justification and Alternatives Considered) but does not evaluate environmental effects associated with the alternative means for project components, including alternative siting and locations for potential quarry and borrow areas, and temporary construction camps and staging areas. Instead, the EIS states "potential quarry and borrow areas will be selected using a variety of factors." (p. 2-9), and that temporary camps and staging areas ".will be selected for the construction of the proposed road and crossings based on consideration of factors." (p. 2-9). |
|
CEAA-04/ INAC-01 |
5(1)(b) – a change that may be caused to the environment that would occur on federal lands 5(2) |
EIS Guidelines, Part 2, Section 6.3.5, Trans-boundary Environment EIS Guidelines, Part 2, Section 6.3.6, Other valued components that may be affected as a result of a federal decision |
Chapter 3, p.3-28, EIS Summary p.10. |
The EIS should describe changes that may be caused to the environment that would occur on federal lands, not limited to changes to ambient air quality and changes to interprovincial wildlife. The EIS (Chapter 3, p.3-28) indicates that project components with undefined locations (quarries, camps, access roads) may be sited on Federal Reserve Lands. The EIS (Section 3.9, page 3-30) also describes that waste will be transported to and disposed of at the nearest approved landfill and provides as examples reserve lands (e.g. Berens River or Poplar River First Nations facilities). Poplar River First Nation and Berens River First Nation communities are the closest communities to the proposed road and contractors (including sub-contractors) would be expected to select locations for liquid and solid waste disposal, fuel and materials storage, and construction of any provincial highway operations or maintenance yards near the Project and in or near these communities. If project components are to be located on Federal Reserve Lands, permits would be required under s.58(4) of the Indian Act and if federal reserve lands are to be included in the Project Footprint, other valued components need to be considered with respect to environmental receptors on those federal lands (EIS Guidelines, Part 2, Section 6.3.6). |
|
CEAA-05 |
5(1) |
EIS Guidelines, Part 1, Section 3.1; Part 2, Section 1.2 |
Chapter 3, Section 3.3 and 3.11 |
The EIS includes numerous references to timing of construction and operation activities as planned mitigation measures that would result in negligible residual environmental effects (e.g. EIS section 3.2.3, page 3-3: "Right-of-way clearing will be conducted in similar segments with clearing being completed during the winter months to minimize potential adverse environmental effects"; EIS section 3.4.2., page 3-20: "To the extent possible, the timing of blasting activities will consider area-specific environmental sensitivities"; Appendix 8-1, page 50: "placement and removal of temporary crossing structures will be timed to avoid high fish migration periods"; Appendix 8-1, Table 7). The EIS also provides a general schedule of project activities in Table 3.9 which states that construction of the all-season road between Berens River First Nation and Poplar River First Nation is scheduled to begin in November 2016 (EIS, section 3.11, page 3-31). Section 6 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012) prohibits proponents from undertaking any act or thing in connection with the carrying out of a designated project, in whole or in part, if that act or thing may cause an environmental effect unless the Agency has determined that no environmental assessment is required or the proponent is complying with the conditions included in the decision statement issued to the proponent with respect to that project. |
|
Effect Assessment -Methodology |
|||||
CEAA-06 |
5(1) |
EIS Guidelines, Part 1, Section 4.2 |
Chapter 6, Environmental Impact Assessment Scope and Approach Chapters 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 |
Table 6.3 in Chapter 6 of the EIS includes a description of assessment criteria and levels of potential environmental effects but it does not present VC-specific definitions for the three-level ranking system used by the proponent to qualify the degree or level of residual effects. For the criteria "Magnitude", for example, levels of effect are described by comparison of the change to a baseline reference, standards/guidelines, or established thresholds of acceptable change. These limits or thresholds are not defined for each VC in summary tables presented in Chapters 7, 8, 9, 10, and 15. A table evaluating significance of effects for all VCs assessed in the EIS is required. |
|
Proponent Mitigation Commitments |
|||||
CEAA-07 |
5(1), 19(1) |
EIS Guidelines, Part 2, Section 6.4 Mitigation |
Chapters 5 through 15 |
Mitigation measures should be specific, achievable, measurable and verifiable, and described in a manner that avoids ambiguity in intent, interpretation, and implementation." |
|
Fish and Fish Habitat |
|||||
CEAA-08 |
5(1)(a)(i) Fish and Fish Habitat |
EIS Guidelines, Part 2, Sections 6.1 Project setting and baseline conditions, 6.1.5 Fish and Fish Habitat EIS Guidelines, Part 2, Sections 6.3 Predicted effects on valued components, 6.3.1 Fish and Fish Habitat |
Chapter 8 and Appendix 8-1 Chapter 3, 3.4.5 and 3,4,6 |
Within the Project Footprint and Local Assessment Area, waterbodies include wetlands, watercourses, streams and lakes. The EIS describes watercourse crossings in Chapter 3 (sections 3.4.5 and 3.4.6), potential effects to fish and fish habitat in Chapter 8, and an appended Technical Report (Appendix 8-1). Area waterbodies intersected by the project are described as either fish-bearing watercourses containing fish habitat (ten crossing locations), non-fish bearing watercourses (at 23 crossing locations), or where there are no defined channels but drainage equalization is required, i.e. wetlands (approximately 284 drainage equalization culverts). Field data collected in July 2014 was a small sample of the total proposed crossing locations and effects to fish habitat (fish-bearing waterbodies and waterbodies supporting habitat quality in downstream waterbodies) may be underestimated. As mitigation measures presented in Chapter 5 are to be applied to known fish bearing waters and potential fish-bearing waters (Chapter 5, Environmental Protection Procedures, EP6 to 12), the assumption of non-fish bearing status for 23 watercourses and numerous wetlands within the Project Footprint may also result in unanticipated residual effects to fish and fish habitat. |
|
CEAA-09 |
5(1)(a)(i) Fish and Fish Habitat |
EIS Guidelines, Part 2, Section 6.1.5 EIS Guidelines, Part 2, Section 6.3.1 |
Riparian vegetation is described in the EIS (p. 8-24) as consisting of "a variety of streamside grasses, forbs, shrubs and trees that contribute nutrients to lakes, rivers and creeks through leaf litter, woody debris and terrestrial insect drop. The removal of riparian vegetation to accommodate temporary crossings, culvert crossings, bridge approaches, or line of sight requirements may reduce nutrient inputs into the aquatic food web." The EIS describes the permanent destruction of approximately 180 m of riparian habitat to accommodate construction of bridge and culvert crossings and the alteration of approximately 192 m of riparian habitat as part of initial right-of-way clearing activities at only five of the ten watercourses described as providing fish habitat. |
|
|
DFO-01 |
5(1)(a)(i) Fish and Fish Habitat |
EIS Guidelines, Part 2, Section 6.1.5 EIS Guidelines, Part 2, Section 6.3.1 |
Chapter 8, Section 8.3 Summary of Residual Effects and Conclusion |
As noted in the EIS, there will be residual effects remaining after mitigation for fish habitat following construction. DFO understands that the proponent has noted the residual footprint of the watercourse crossing structures following construction. However, it is probable that there will also be instream footprints from temporary impacts during the construction phase of the project. If there is an alteration of fish habitat during construction that results in serious harm (i.e., instream cofferdams/working platforms, etc.), a DFO Fisheries Act Authorization may be required, as well as mandatory offsetting. |
|
DFO-02 |
5(1)(a)(i) Fish and Fish Habitat |
EIS Guidelines, Part 2, Section 6.1.5 EIS Guidelines, Part 2, Section 6.3.1 |
Chapter 8. Table 8.6 |
No estimates have been provided for temporary and permanent footprints below the high water level (HWL) for the five culvert crossings in fish bearing streams. |
|
DFO-03 |
5(1)(a)(i) Fish and Fish Habitat |
EIS Guidelines, Part 2, Section 6.1.5 EIS Guidelines, Part 2, Section 6.3.1 |
Chapter 8, Section 8.3 Appendix 8-1 |
EIS states that residual effects remaining after mitigation for fish habitat include permanent destruction of 206.5 m² of instream habitat and 180 m of riparian zone habitat (p.8-39), as well as a temporary increase in total suspended solids as a result of construction sedimentation of streams (Appendix 8-1., Table 8). The final decision regarding the determination of serious harm to a commercial, recreational or aboriginal (CRA) fishery and residual effects lies with DFO once all final details regarding each watercourse crossing design and construction methodology are finalized. Offsetting measures may be required under the Fisheries Act in the event a Fisheries Act Authorization is required for the Project. |
|
DFO-04 |
5(1)(a)(i) Fish and Fish Habitat 5(1)(a)(ii) Aquatic Species |
EIS Guidelines, Part 2, Section 6.1.5 EIS Guidelines, Part 2, Section 6.3.1 |
Section 5. Appendix 5-3 ESRA's Environmental Protection Procedures (EPP). |
The EIS does not currently contain Environmental Protection Procedures for Mussel Salvage. |
|
ECCC-WQ-IR-01 |
5(1)(a)(i) Fish and Fish Habitat |
EIS Guidelines, Part 2, Sections 6.1.4 Groundwater and Surface Water and 6.2.2 Changes to Groundwater and Surface Water |
Chapter 8 Aquatic Environment, Section 8.1 Existing Conditions and Appendix 8-1 Aquatic Environment Report |
Project effects to water quality are predicted by the proponent for waterbodies including streams, rivers, lakes, and wetlands throughout the Project Footprint and Local Assessment Area (EIS Chapter 8, Chapter 5). Environmental Protection Procedures (Chapter 5 Appendices, GR130.15.8 Water Quality Monitoring) includes:
Post-construction monitoring of water quality as it relates to fish habitat is described in the EIS in Chapter 14 (p.14-4 to 14-5) to evaluate Project effects and the effectiveness of mitigations measures. This monitoring requires sufficient detail to characterize pre-construction baseline in the receiving waterbodies found within the Project Footprint and Local Assessment Area. The current baseline dataset does not meet the EIS Guidelines requirements to describe "seasonal water quality. at several representative local stream and water body monitoring stations established at the project site" and "sediment quality analysis for key sites likely to receive road effluents." |
|
ECCC-WQ-IR-02/ CEAA-10 |
5(1)(a)(i) Fish and Fish Habitat – water quality |
EIS Guidelines, Part 2, 6.2.2 Changes to Groundwater and Surface Water and 6.3.1 Fish and Fish Habitat |
Chapter 5 Environmental Projection Chapter 8 Fish and Fish Habitat Chapter 14 Monitoring and Follow-up |
As indicated in the EIS (Chapter 8, p.8-25) "Explosives used in blasting use oxidizing agents such as ammonium nitrate, calcium nitrate and sodium nitrate. Nitrates from these materials may enter the watercourse due to accidental spills, leaching from wet blastholes, or in runoff from undetonated explosives in blast rock. Increased nitrate levels can have toxic effects on aquatic organisms and cause eutrophication of surface waters. In addition, if ammonium nitrate is introduced into water, it dissociates to form ammonia, which can have both lethal and sublethal effects on fish." Without appropriate mitigation and protective measures, ammonium explosives may degrade water quality. Chapter 5 appendices include GR130 Environmental Specification examples provided from Project 1, the all-season road being constructed by the proponent from PR304 to Berens River, which state: "Blasting near watercourses classified as fish habitat shall adhere to set back and weight of explosive charge guidelines as referenced in Fisheries and Oceans Canada document Guidelines for the Use of Explosives in or Near Canadian Fisheries Waters 1998. Where these guidelines cannot be met, blasting plans shall be submitted to the Contract Administrator for ESRA's application to Fisheries and Oceans Canada to obtain necessary approvals prior to commencement of blasting in areas that could affect fish habitat". |
|
CEAA-11 |
5(1)(a)(i) Fish and Fish Habitat – water quality |
Chapter 5 Environmental Projection |
The Chapter 5 Environmental Protection Procedures EP17 Concrete Washout Management note "Where water for concrete washout activities is taken from a watercourse or waterbody, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Freshwater Intake End-of- Pipe Fish Screen Guidelines, the [Provincial] Water Rights Act and other appropriate legislative and mitigative measures must be followed." |
|
|
Migratory Birds |
|||||
CEAA-12 / ECCC-CWS-01 |
5(1)(a)(ii) Migratory Birds |
EIS Guidelines, Part 2, 6.2.3., 6.3.2, and 6.3.3. |
Chapter 9 |
Project effects to the Migratory Bird VC have been evaluated by considering bird species in two sub-groups - Forest birds (including Species at Risk Act listed land birds) and Water birds (Trumpeter Swan and Yellow Rail). The selected bird species within these two groups (species that are rare, uncommon or associated with habitat types not predominant within the Project Footprint) do not adequately represent the Migratory Birds species which may be found within the Project Footprint during construction and operation activities (Chapter 9, Appendix 9-1). Project effects on ducks and geese, bird species valued for current use by Indigenous Peoples within the Regional Assessment Area (Chapter 9, Appendix 9-1), have not been assessed. |
|
Species at Risk |
|||||
CEAA-13 |
5(1)(a) – aquatic Species at Risk, migratory bird Species at Risk |
The environmental assessment must include the following information to support the analysis of potential effects to species at risk: residences, seasonal movements, movement corridors, interprovincial ranges, habitat requirements, key habitat areas, identified critical habitat and/or recovery habitat (where applicable), and general life history of species at risk that may occur in the project area or be affected by the project. The EIS identifies 20 federally listed or assessed species at risk with likely potential to occur and use habitat in the Project Footprint/Local Assessment Area/Regional Assessment Area (Chapter 8, Table 8.4, and Appendix 9-7). The EIS does not carry forward all of these species as a VC or component species within a VC. Two listed bird species at risk (Short-eared Owl, Horned Grebe) are identified in Appendix 9-7 as potentially present in the Project Footprint and Local Assessment Area but are not addressed in the EIS. Another species at risk, Least Bittern, is similarly not addressed in the EIS main text but was described in the appended wildlife technical report (Appendix 9-1), as a species assessed under the Waterbirds VC. This species was also listed in Appendix 9-6: List of Bird Species in the Local Assessment Area and Their Conservation Status. |
|
||
CEAA-14 |
Species at Risk 1 9(a) – cumulative effects 1 9(b) – significance of effects |
Section 6.6.3 (b), (d), (e) |
Chapter 9, Chapter 13, Appendix 9-1 |
The EIS (chapter 9, Appendix 9-1) includes a description of total habitat disturbance within the Atikaki-Berens Boreal Woodland Caribou Management Unit relative to the sustainable threshold of 65% undisturbed (35% disturbed) habitat identified by Environment Canada (2012). In cases presented from 1960 to 2025, disturbance ranged from 48.1% (due to fire disturbance) to 33.4%. The EIS states that "Decommissioning of the winter road is expected to provide an additional 31 ha of mixed habitat types in the Local Assessment Area and an additional 112 ha of mixed habitat types in the Regional Assessment Area" (p. 9-78) and therefore that the total percentage of cumulative habitat disturbance for the Atikaki-Berens Boreal Woodland Caribou Management Unit will realize a positive habitat gain for caribou by the year 2020 (Table 13.4). |
|
CEAA-15 / ECCC-CWS-02 |
5 - caribou 5(1)(c)(iii) – current use, caribou |
Chapter 9, 9.2.5.2 Boreal Woodland Caribou |
Analysis of historic and current collaring data collected from 2011 to 2015 indicates that the all-season road (total length 94.53 km) will intersect 26.3 km of caribou summer core use, and 25.2 km of boreal woodland caribou winter core use (Table 9.24; Joro Consultants 2015a). More details regarding the movement patterns and habitat use of the caribou is required to evaluate proposed mitigation measures and potential residual effects. Residual effects from Project related mortality are assumed to be negligible given the absence of reported caribou collisions during 4 years of construction for Project 1 (p.9-81). However an evaluation of Project related mortality has not been completed considering the increased traffic volumes anticipated during operation of the Project. Indigenous groups have also identified that traffic volumes are underestimated. An updated analysis of Project related mortality is required for the increased traffic volumes. No residual effects are identified for predation related mortality to caribou. The proponent assumes there will be no change to wolf predation risk to caribou in the RAA and LAA as a result of the Project due to decommissioning of the temporary access routes and winter road. However, even with the future natural reclamation and revegetation of the winter road the Project will create a new linear disturbance enabling predator travel within caribou habitat resulting in a residual effect. Disturbance and displacement of animals as a result of quarry blasting and other construction activities is described; however, mitigation measures are not clearly detailed. Caribou interactions with project-created hazards such as retention ponds or quarries are not evaluated. The EIS (p.9-71), states that there is limited hunting use of boreal woodland caribou: "Boreal woodland caribou were traditionally hunted by some communities on the east side, but use of this species as a food source has declined or ceased as the communities have become aware of its status. Licenced hunting of boreal woodland caribou is not permitted in Manitoba (MCWS 2015c)." However, Poplar River First Nation has indicated that two families within Poplar River's traditional territory continue to harvest woodland caribou annually and there may be others who hunt caribou when there is an opportunity to do so. |
|
|
Atmospheric Effects |
|||||
ECCC-AQ-IR-03 / CEAA-16 |
5(1)(b) – change to the environment on federal lands, other province, outside of Canada |
EIS Guidelines, Part 2, Section 6.2 Predicted Changes to the Physical Environment and 6.3.5 Trans-boundary Environment |
Chapter 13, Cumulative Environmental Effects, Appendix 13-5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment, Section 4, Tables 4.3-4.8. |
The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment estimates have several inconsistencies and irregularities. |
|
ECCC-AQ-IR-06 |
EIS Guidelines, Part 2, 6.2 and 6.3.5 |
Appendix 13.5: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment |
The GHG assessment is lacking in detail and has inconsistencies to properly confirm the assessment of GHG emission impacts. |
|
|
ECCC-AQ-IR-04 |
5(1)(b) – change to the environment on federal lands, other province, outside of Canada |
EIS Guidelines, Part 2, 6.2 and 6.3.5 |
Chapter 13 (Cumulative Environmental Effects), Appendix 13-5 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment) |
In EIS Appendix 13-5, pg. 22, the proponent recommends "that the wetland areas within the ROW remain as wetlands in order to maintain their carbon sequestration potential. Provisions for the management of flows (e.g. equalization culverts) should be considered to protect and preserve the wetlands systems through appropriate design measures". |
|
Indigenous Peoples |
|||||
CEAA-17 |
5(1)(c) – an effect occurring in Canada of any change that may be caused to the environment on i) Health and socioeconomic conditions ii) Physical and cultural heritage iii) The current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes, or iv) Any structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural significance |
Potentially affected Indigenous groups, including Manitoba Metis Federation, have expressed concerns that traditional knowledge collected in the project area has not been considered; therefore, potential environmental effects have not been adequately characterized in the EIS. Manitoba Metis Federation Traditional Knowledge and Land Use Study (TKLUS) for the study area identified by ESRA to include P4, P7 and P7a was submitted to ESRA on May 31, 2016 after the submission of the EIS and contains information relevant to the Project 4 regional and local study areas. |
|
||
CEAA-18 |
5(1)(c) – an effect occurring in Canada of any change that may be caused to the environment on i) Health and socioeconomic conditions ii) Physical and cultural heritage iii) The current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes, or iv) Any structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural significance |
EIS Guidelines, Part 2, 5.1, 6.1.8; and 6.3.4 |
Chapter 10 |
The EIS (Chapter 10 pg. 10-3, Figure 10-2) defines the Socio-Economic Regional Assessment Area as the area beyond the Local Assessment Area within which most indirect and cumulative effects would be expected to occur and areas in which the Project may have effects on the regional environment and those who use this area. The RAA as defined by the proponent and presented in Figures in the EIS does not include Manitoba Metis locals or Hollow Water First Nation. Baseline information described in Chapter 10 (section 10.1.3) on land and resources use for Indigenous peoples in the RAA, including Manitoba Metis Federation, Bloodvein First Nation, Hollow Water First Nation, Little Grand Rapids First Nation, and Pauingassi First Nation, is insufficient to assess residual effects to Aboriginal peoples' health and socioeconomic conditions, physical and cultural heritage, current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes, or heritage structures, sites, or things. Additional information sources that are to be considered by the proponent are the Manitoba Métis Land Use and Occupancy Study for the East Side Road Authority Project (Shared Values Solutions, 2016) and Manitoba Metis Federation Traditional Knowledge and Land Use Study (TKLUS) for the study area identified by ESRA to include P4, P7 and P7a which were submitted to the proponent and the Agency in May 2016 following the proponent's submission of the EIS. |
|
HC-IR-01/02/05 /ECCC-AQ-IR-05 |
5(1)c(i) – health and socio-economic conditions (Air Quality) |
EIS Guidelines, Part 2, 6.1.1 Atmospheric Environment |
Chapter 7 Physical Environment Section 7.2.4.2.1 Construction Effects and Mitigation |
Section 7.2.4.2.1 of the EIS states that no exceedances of air quality guidelines are anticipated within the local assessment area from construction activities. However, no baseline air quality data or predicted contaminant concentrations were presented in the EIS. The proponent's assessment of air quality included only particulates and VOCs. Health Canada's Human Health Risk Assessment for Diesel Exhaust (http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/publications/healthy-living-vie-saine/exhaust-dieselgaz-echappement/index-eng.php) identifies a short-term (2-hour) exposure guidance value of 10 mg/m³ and a chronic exposure guidance value of 5 mg/m³ for diesel exhaust. Without appropriate mitigation measures, concrete batch plants can be a source of inhalable particulate matter. Locations of batch plants and mitigation measures to address the potential effects to air quality related to batch plants for the generation of concrete and asphalt are not discussed in the EIS. |
|
HC-IR-03/04 |
5(1)c(i) – health and socio-economic conditions (Air Quality) (Noise) |
EIS Guidelines, Part 2, Section 6.1.1 Atmospheric Environment |
Chapter 6, section 6.2.1, Figure 6-1; Chapter 7, section7.2; Chapter 10, section 10.1.6.2 |
It is important to clearly describe the location and distance from the project site(s) of all potential human receptors (permanent, seasonal or temporary) — taking into consideration the different types of land uses (e.g. residential, recreational, industrial, etc.) and identifying all sensitive receptor locations (e.g. schools, hospitals, retirement complexes or assisted care homes). In the EIS, the local assessment area (LAA) is described and shown as generally extending 5 km from the centreline of the proposed all-season road. Figure 6-1 shows the local assessment area boundary ends at the reserves for both Poplar River First Nation and Berens River First Nation. The terminus at each end of the road right-of-way is 1.4 km from the nearest building on the Berens River First Nation reserve and 530 m to the nearest building on Poplar River First Nation reserve but it is unclear how these receptors were considered in the assessment of potential Project effects to human health through air quality and noise effects. In Chapter 10, the EIS states there are 10 registered traplines within the LAA. Additionally, it states that hunting and gathering activities occur within the LAA but these receptors (e.g. campsites, traplines) were not identified. |
|
CEAA-19/ HC-IR-06 |
5(1)c(i) – health and socio-economic conditions (Noise) |
EIS Guidelines, Part 2, Section 6.1.1 Atmospheric Environment |
Chapter 7 |
In Chapter 7 (page 7-34), the EIS concludes that there are few human receptors to noise and vibration, with the majority located within the communities of Berens River First Nation/NAC and Poplar River First Nation. However, specific blasting locations, timing and duration are not yet defined. The noise assessment should consider effects to community receptors and traditional use areas (e.g. traplines, campsite locations), effects on current use and potential impact on groups, mitigation/accommodation measures, and views of Indigenous groups on those measures. |
|
HC-IR-07 |
5(1)c(i) – health and socio-economic conditions (Noise) |
EIS Guidelines, Part 2, Section 6.1.1 Atmospheric Environment |
Chapter 7, sections 7.15, 7.22, 7.2.4.3.1, 7.3.3 |
There is no ambient noise data in the EIS and predicted noise levels are not compared against guideline values. |
|
HC-IR-08/09 |
5(1)c(i) – health and socio-economic conditions (Drinking Water Quality) |
EIS Guidelines, Part 2, Sections 6.1.8/6.3.4 Aboriginal Peoples |
Chapter 7, Table 7.8, sections 7.3.1, 7.2.4.1.1; Chapter 14, section 14.3 |
The significance evaluation for the effects on water quality from the Project construction is marked as Not applicable in Table 7.8. The EIS states that monitoring will be undertaken during construction activities and post-construction, however, no detailed information about the water quality monitoring plan is provided. |
|
CEAA-20 |
5(1)(c) – an effect occurring in Canada of any change that may be caused to the environment on i) Health and socioeconomic conditions ii) Physical and cultural heritage iii) The current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes, or iv) Any structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural significance |
Chapter 7, Chapter 8, Chapter 4, Chapter 10 |
The EIS (Chapters 4, 7 , 8, 10) identifies concerns raised by Indigenous groups on potential project effects to water quality and fish habitat quality in waterbodies within the Project Footprint or Local Assessment Area (e.g. Berens River, Leaf River, Etomami River, North Etomami River, Okeyakkoteinewin Creek, Kapawepakuk Creek, Pamatakakowin Lake, Bull Lake). Poplar River, for example, is noted by Poplar River First Nation as being of high value in the EIS, Chapter 8 (p.8-21): "it is where we get our life from; it is the source of our clean drinking water; it is the most important place on earth, it is our survival, our livelihood" (CIER and Poplar River First Nation 2015). |
|
|
CEAA-21 / HC-IR-10 |
5(1)c(i) – health and socio-economic conditions (Country Foods) |
EIS Guidelines, Part 2, Section 6.1.1 Atmospheric Environment, 6.3.4 Aboriginal Peoples |
7.2.4. 2, 10.1.6, 10.1.6.1, 10.1.6.2, 10.1.6.4 9.2. 4 Effects to Vegetation 10.2.4. 5 Human Health and Safety Appendix 10-3, Appendix 10-4, Appendix 10-5. |
Section 10.1.6 through 10.1.6.4 state that hunting, trapping, and gathering all occur within the LAA, however, the effect of the Project construction, operation and maintenance on country foods (foods trapped, fished, hunted, harvested or grown for subsistence or medicinal purposes, or obtained from recreational activities such as sport fishing and/or game hunting), particularly the effect of dust deposition from the construction and operation of an unpaved road is not assessed in the EIS. The effects assessment of the Project construction, operation and maintenance on vegetation (EIS, section 9.2.4) does not include an assessment of the potential changes to water quality and air quality that may affect vegetation. The effects assessment of the Project construction, operation and maintenance on human health (EIS, section 10.2.4.5) does not assess the potential effects of changes to air quality, water quality and noise levels on the quality and availability of country foods. |
|
CEAA-22 |
5(1)(c) – an effect occurring in Canada of any change that may be caused to the environment on i) Health and socioeconomic conditions ii) Physical and cultural heritage iii) The current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes, or iv) Any structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural significance |
EIS Guidelines, Part 2, Section 6.3.4 |
Chapter 10, Table 10.7 |
The EIS contains in Table 10.7 (Chapter 10, p.10-45) a summary of interactions between socio-economic and cultural environment VCs and Project activities during construction and operation phases. As noted in IR CEAA-05, the EIS also includes numerous references to the timing of construction activities or notification to communities regarding the timing of activities as planned mitigation measures that would negate residual environmental effects; however, the EIS does not adequately describe the timing of spatial and temporal overlaps anticipated between Project activities (construction and operation phases) and current uses of lands and resources for traditional purposes. This limits evaluation of the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures and means that residual effects described for Project effects to traditional use activities and health may be underestimated. |
|
CEAA-23 |
5(1)(c) – an effect occurring in Canada of any change that may be caused to the environment on i) Health and socioeconomic conditions ii) Physical and cultural heritage iii) The current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes, or iv) Any structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural significance |
EIS Guidelines Part 1, Section 3.3.2 Valued Components to be examined Part 2, Section 5. Aboriginal Engagement and Concerns |
6.4. 1 Selection of Valued Components Chapter 10 Socio-economic and Cultural Environment |
Concerns with regard to potential effects to traditional land use, traditional lands, and the traditional way of life as a consequence of increased access by visitors are expressed in several places in the EIS (and validated through consultation with Manitoba Metis Federation and Poplar River First Nation). No mitigation has been proposed to address these concerns regarding the effects of increased access on traditional land use. There is no analysis of the potential impacts to rights that may occur from these potential effects. |
|
CEAA-24 |
5(1)(c) – an effect occurring in Canada of any change that may be caused to the environment on i) Health and socioeconomic conditions ii) Physical and cultural heritage iii) The current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes, or iv) Any structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural significance |
EIS Guidelines, Part 2, sections, 5.1, Aboriginal Groups to Engage and Engagement Activities, 6.1.8 Aboriginal Peoples, 6.3.4 Aboriginal Peoples, 6.4 Mitigation |
Chapter 10, section 10.1.6 Traditional Knowledge and Land Use |
Manitoba Metis Federation has asserted that there are potential effects of the Project on Métis land use in the LAA and RAA. The Manitoba Metis Land Use and Occupancy Study (MLUOS) for the East Side Road Authority Project (May 2016) was submitted to the proponent by Manitoba Metis Federation after the EIS was submitted to the Agency. |
|
CEAA-25 |
5(1)(c) – an effect occurring in Canada of any change that may be caused to the environment on iii) The current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes |
EIS Guidelines, Part 2, section 6. Effects Assessment, section 6.3.4 Aboriginal Peoples |
Chapter 10, section 10.2.4 Effects on the Socio-Economic and Cultural Environment |
Appendix 10-3 Summary of Potential Construction Effects on the Socio-Economic and Cultural Environment Valued Components Prior to Mitigation and Appendix 10-4 Summary of Potential Operations and Maintenance Effects on the Socio-Economic and Cultural Environment Valued Components Prior to Mitigation do not include a summary of effects on hunting, trapping, fishing and gathering or on commercial fishing and trapping. In order to assess effects to traditional land use, Chapter 10 should include a thorough assessment of the potential effects to the species/groups important to the current use of lands and resources by Aboriginal Peoples (Appendix 10-5). This assessment must include, among other things, an analysis of preferred harvesting areas for each species in relation to the relevant LAA and RAA, and for each Indigenous group within each LAA and RAA. |
|
CEAA-26 |
5(1)(c) – an effect occurring in Canada of any change that may be caused to the environment on i) Health and socioeconomic conditions ii) Physical and cultural heritage iii) The current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes, or iv) Any structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural significance |
Part 2,Section 5,Aboriginal engagement and Concerns |
Chapter 4, Table 4.7, p. 4-39 |
Table 4.7 does not make it clear how future engagement activities and notifications planned by the proponent will differ by group. |
|
CEAA-27 |
5(1)(c) – an effect occurring in Canada of any change that may be caused to the environment on i) Health and socioeconomic conditions ii) Physical and cultural heritage iii) The current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes, or iv) Any structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural significance |
Part 2, Section 6..8, Aboriginal Peoples, physical and cultural heritage |
10.1.5. 8 Cultural, Heritage and Archaeological Record, p. 31 |
With regard to Heritage Resource Impact Assessment work done in the Berens River Traditional territory, the EIS states that, "four traditional use sites were identified including two modern campsites and two trapping areas with equipment for trapping marten. It was determined that no further archaeological investigations were required with respect to this portion of the all-season road corridor. However, community engagement was recommended to determine the appropriate management of the potential effects to the traditional use sites." |
|
CEAA-28 |
5(1)(c) – an effect occurring in Canada of any change that may be caused to the environment on i) Health and socioeconomic conditions ii) Physical and cultural heritage iii) The current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes, or iv) Any structure, site or thing that is of historical, archaeological, paleontological or architectural significance |
EIS Guidelines, Part 2, 6.4, Mitigation |
Chapter 9, Section 9.2.3, Table 10.10, Table 10.14 |
Use of language such as "where feasible" or "to the extent possible" makes it difficult to determine if and when such mitigation measures will be applied and what will happen should the proposed mitigation measures not be feasible or possible. Examples include:
In terms of accidental finds, the EIS does not indicate what is required by Manitoba Heritage Resources Branch should previously unknown sites be discovered. |
|
CEAA-29 |
5(1)(c) – an effect occurring in Canada of any change that may be caused to the environment on i) Health and socioeconomic conditions ii) Physical and cultural heritage iii) The current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes, or |
Chapter 10, Table 10.16, p. |
Table (EIS, Table 10.16, p.10-79), suggested that the replacement of the winter road with an all-season gravel road will result in a reduced risk of accidents. The winter road operated for two months per year where the all-season road will be operational year long. The EIS states that "traffic volume on the proposed all-season road is expected to be less than 500 vehicles annually." Accurate estimates of vehicle travel are needed to assess potential increases in the risk of accidents and malfunctions, increases in wildlife mortality from vehicle collisions), changes in air quality (e.g. in proximity to community receptors near the road), Project greenhouse gas emissions, and potential Project effects on health and socio-economic conditions and current uses of lands and resource for traditional purposes. |
|
|
Accidents and Malfunctions |
|||||
CEAA-30/ ECCC-EE-IR-07 |
1 9(1)(a) - accidents and malfunctions 1 9(1)(b) – significance of effects 5(1)(a)(i),(ii), and (iii) 5(1)(b) 5(1)(c) |
EIS Guidelines, Part 2, 6.6.1 |
Chapter 5.0 - Environmental Protection and Sustainable Development (page 5-12), Chapter 12 - Accidents and Malfunctions (page 12-6, 12-7) |
The EIS does not present sufficient detail on worst case scenarios evaluated for the accidents and malfunction events described (Chapter 12, and Table 12.1), including how events and responses made differ between construction and operation phases. Chapter 12 also describes four classes of accidents and malfunctions but Table 12.1 omits one of these, accidental encroachments, from further analysis of potential environmental effects. The EIS does not present sufficient detail on environmental site sensitivities that are to be considered in environmental response plans (Chapter 5), or on how specific environmental site sensitivities associated with the Project's landscape will modify environmental response plans (e.g. timing, notification to regulators, reporting requirements). |
|
ECCC-EE-IR-08 |
1 9(1)(a) - accidents and malfunctions 1 9(1)(b) – significance of effects 5(1)(a)(i),(ii), and (iii) 5(1)(b) 5(1)(c) |
EIS Guidelines, Part 2, 6.6.1 |
Chapter 12 - Accidents and Malfunctions |
Adequate mitigation measures will lessen the frequency and magnitude of accidents and malfunctions. Contingency and response plans need to be in place to ensure preparedness and effective response in the case of accidents and malfunctions. The EIS does not sufficiently describe the emergency response plans that will be implemented for all phases of the Project. |
|
Effects of the Environment on the Project |
|||||
CEAA-31 |
1 9(1)(h) – change to the project caused by the environment |
EIS Guidelines, Part 2, 6.6.1 |
Chapter 11 |
The EIS does not describe how the environmental conditions will impact the specific Project components such as camps or quarries. The discussion on flooding only focusses on the proposed mitigation of designing culverts to address a 1:100 year flood. The discussion of climate change does not describe how weather patterns may change and in turn affect the environmental conditions considered in the EIS. There is no discussion of how the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures under climate change scenarios. For example, the EIS states that Project components have been designed to accommodate a 1:100 year flood. The EIS does not describe how climate change may affect the frequency of this size of flood event and whether the mitigation measures proposed would continue to be adequate. |
|
Cumulative Effects |
|||||
CEAA-32/ INAC-01/02 |
5 – caribou, moose, GHGs 1 9(a) – cumulative effects 1 9(b) – significance of effects |
EIS Guidelines, Part 2, 6.6.3 (e) |
Chapter 13, Appendices 13-1, 13-2, 13-4, |
The EIS includes a table in Appendix 13-1 "Scoping of VCs Predicted to Experience Residual Environmental Effects of the Project." The table only rates two criteria: Spatial Extent of the Residual Effect, and Temporal Extent (Duration) of Residual Effect. This provides only a partial characterization of residual effects by presenting only two criteria. All potential residual effects must be described to determine whether a cumulative effects assessment is required. Where a VC is a species-at-risk, the cumulative effects assessment should be conducted on any adverse residual effects of the Project in combination with any threats to the species-at-risk, as identified in its recovery or action plan. For caribou the cumulative effects assessment only considers changes to habitat. Other potential effects must be included. The EIS describes future physical activities that are certain and reasonably foreseeable in Table13.1 (p.13-8) and describes several Infrastructure developments. Additional proposed physical activities have been identified by Indigenous and Northern Affairs including:
|
|
Follow-up and Monitoring Programs |
|||||
CEAA-33 |
5(1)(a), (b), (c) 5(2) – effects also taken into account as a result of a federal authority's exercise of a power or performance of a duty or function 1 9(1)(a) – cumulative effects 1 9(1)(a) – accidents and malfunctions 1 9(1)(b) – significance of effects 1 9(1)(g) – alternative means and environmental effects of alternative means 1 9(1)(h) – any change to the project caused by the environment |
EIS Guidelines, Part 2, 8.1 and 8.2 |
Chapter 14 Chapter 5 Appendix 5-2 GR130.15.8. |
Chapter 14 and the EIS summary identifies general monitoring and follow-up programs or studies that would be implemented for Caribou, Moose and Furbearers, Fish Habitat, Mapleleaf Mussel, Tourism and Hunting, Trapping, Fishing, and Gathering VCs. These descriptions are very generic. There is no discussion of monitoring or follow-up for migratory birds and avian species of cultural importance. The EIS Chapter 5, Appendix 5-2 is the proponent's All-Season Road Project Environmental Management Plan Framework (October 2015) which includes a reference to Monitoring and Follow-up Plans to be included in ESRA contracts through General Requirements and the Environmental Protection Procedures:
Outlines of these plans are not included in the EIS. |
|
Reference Number (e.g. HC--01) |
Reference to EIS |
Context and Rationale |
Advice to the Proponent |
---|---|---|---|
TC - 01 |
Section 9.2.3 Mitigation, Page 9-37 |
To provide clarification with respect to regulatory requirements under the Navigation Protection Act pertaining to proposed culvert crossings. |
It is TC's understanding that the Proponent intends to opt-in to the Navigation Protection Act (NPA) for the four river crossings. The proponent indicates that culvert crossings will be in accordance with Transport Canada regulations. It must be noted that unless the Proponent requests to opt-in to the NPA for the culvert crossings, there is no guarantee that those crossings will be "in accordance with Transport Canada regulations". |
HC-01 |
Sections 6.2.1, Figure 6-1, 7.2 |
Receptor locations |
It is important to clearly describe the location and distance from the project site(s) of all potential human receptors (permanent, seasonal or temporary) — taking into consideration the different types of land uses (e.g. residential, recreational, industrial, etc.); and identifying all sensitive receptor locations (e.g. schools, hospitals, retirement complexes or assisted care homes). |
HC-02 |
Sections 7.1.2, 7.3.2 |
Baseline data and air quality |
In order to evaluate potential changes in air quality, it is advisable to consider local, regional, and where appropriate long-range impacts on air quality during all phases of the project. It is advisable to also consider the following:
|
HC-03 |
Section 7.2.3 |
Mitigation Measures |
Attached in a separate document (Commonly Applied Construction Noise Mitigation Measures and Considerations for Noise Reduction) are examples of common and effective noise mitigation measures. |
HC-04 |
Section 7.2.4.3 |
Noise impacts |
In general, with respect to evaluating noise impacts, Health Canada advises that an assessment of noise exposure consider the following:
|
DFO-01 |
Section 5. Appendix 5-4 ESRA's Environmental Protection Specifications, GR130.15.9 Working Within or Near Water, Culvert Maintenance and Replacement Also in Section 3, page 3-12. |
The fish passage criteria listed in point 7 is no longer relevant. |
DFO has updated criteria for fish passage, as outlined in the draft Fish Swimming Performance User Guide (Gervais and Katopodis, May 2015). The EIS should be updated with the new fish passage criteria and all culverts designed for fish passage should be consistent with the information in this document. |
DFO-02 |
Section 5. Appendix 5-3 ESRA's Environmental Protection Procedures, Working Within or Near Fish Bearing Waters, point 22. |
DFO's Operational Statements are no longer applicable for use. |
References to Operational Statements should be removed from the EIS. All mitigations in the Operational Statements are included in the Measures to Avoid Causing Harm to Fish and Fish Habitat on DFO's website at http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pnw-ppe/measures-mesures/measures-mesures-eng.html |
ECCC-AQ-01 |
Chapter 7 (Physical Environment) Section 7.2.4.2.1 (Construction Effects and Mitigation) |
Burning vegetation can be a potential source of inhalable particulate matter. The proximity of burning activities to local residences is not discussed in the EIS. |
Burning of vegetation: The burning of woody debris should be conducted far enough from residences to reduce community members' exposure to smoke. |
ECCC-WQ-01 |
Section 6.1.4 (Groundwater and Surface Water) |
Chapter 8 (Aquatic Environment), Section 8.1 (Existing Conditions) and Appendix 8-1 (Aquatic Environment Report) |
Three years of data collection is recommended to characterize water and sediment quality. |
ECCC-WQ-02 |
Appendix 8-1 (Aquatic Environmental Report), Section 6.0 (Inspection and Monitoring) |
Inspection and monitoring programs are outlined (for pre-construction, construction and post-construction phases) related to the aquatic environment. |
This information should be incorporated into project-specific inspection and monitoring plans. |
ECCC-WQ-03 |
Appendix 5-3 (ESRA's Environmental Protection Procedures). |
Each of the ESRA Environmental Protection Procedures (EPP) provided in Appendix 5-3 includes a ‘Legislation and Supporting Documents' section. The Fisheries Act is not currently referenced in the EPPs. All relevant EPPs should reference the Fisheries Act, including but not limited to the following EPPs: ‘Working within or near fish bearing waters', ‘Stream Crossings', and ‘Erosion and Sediment Control'. |
Review all EPP documents, and update the legislation sections as required to ensure that the federal Fisheries Act is referenced in all applicable EPPs. |
ECCC-WQ-04 |
Chapter 1, Table 1.4.1.2 (Other Federal Regulatory Approvals and Legislation) |
Table 1.4.1.2, Other Federal Regulatory Approvals and Legislation, from Chapter 1 of the EIS should incorporate the following additional bullets:
|
|
INAC-01 |
Chapter 10, Section 10.1.3, pages 10-6 to 10-8. |
Within this section the population statistics for the First Nation communities are provided from 2011 (Statistics Canada) and 2014 (SERDC). INAC has 2016 population statistics available that would provide a more realistic portrayal of community populations and growth. |
ESRA can contact INAC to obtain information from the Indian Registry System. |
See enclosed document provided by Health Canada: Commonly Applied Construction Noise Mitigation Measures and Considerations for Noise Reduction, adapted from the New South Wales Construction Noise Guideline (August 2008 draft for consultation), Department of Environment and Climate Change, New South Wales, Australia.
Commonly Applied Construction Noise Mitigation Measures and Considerations for Noise Reduction
The measures below have been adapted from the New South Wales Construction Noise Guideline (August 2008 draft for consultation), Department of Environment and Climate Change, New South Wales, Australia.
General Mitigation Measures
- Include in tenders, employment contracts, subcontractor agreements and work method statements clauses that assure the minimization of noise and compliance with directions from management to minimize noise.
- Give preference to the use quieter technology or other mitigation measures rather than lengthening construction duration (i.e. it is not recommended to lower noise by having fewer pieces of equipment running at a time thereby leading to extended construction duration).
- Regularly train workers and contractors (such as at toolbox talks) to use equipment in ways that minimize noise.
- Ensure that site managers periodically check the site, nearby residences and other sensitive receptors for noise problems so that solutions can be quickly applied.
- Avoid the use of radios and stereos outdoors and the overuse of public address systems where neighbours can be affected.
- Avoid shouting, and minimize talking loudly and slamming vehicle doors.
- Keep truck drivers informed of designated vehicle routes, parking locations, acceptable delivery hours and other relevant practices (e.g. minimizing the use of engine brakes and periods of engine idling).
Night-time Mitigation Measures
- Avoid the use of equipment that generates impulsive noise.
- Minimize the need for reversing alarms.
- Avoid dropping materials from a height.
- Avoid metal-to-metal contact on equipment.
- If possible, schedule truck movements to avoid residential streets.
- Avoid mobile plant clustering near residences and other sensitive receptors.
- Ensure that periods of respite are provided in the case of unavoidable maximum noise level events.
Consultation and Notification
The community is more likely to be understanding and accepting of project noise if related information is provided and is frank, and does not attempt to understate the likely noise level, and if commitments are respected.
Notification Before and During Construction
Provide advance notification to people concerning construction duration, defining activities that are expected to be noisy and their expected duration, what noise mitigation measures are being applied, and when noise respite periods will occur.
For night-time work, receptors may be informed in two stages: two weeks prior to construction and then two days before commencement.
Provide information to neighbours before and during construction through media such as letterbox drops, meetings or individual consultation. In some areas, the need to provide notification in languages other than English may be considered. A Web site may also be established for the project.
Use a site information board at the front of the site with contact details, hours of operation and regular information updates.
Facilitate contact with people to ensure that everyone can see that the site manager understands potential issues, that a planned approach is in place, and that there is an ongoing commitment to minimize noise.
Plant and Equipment
In terms of both cost and results, controlling noise at the source is one of the most effective methods of minimizing the noise impacts from any construction activities.
Quieter Methods
Examine and implement, where feasible and reasonable, alternatives to rock-breaking work methods such as hydraulic splitters for rock and concrete, hydraulic jaw crushers, chemical rock and concrete splitting, and controlled blasting such as penetrating cone fracture.
Consider alternatives to diesel and gasoline engines and pneumatic units such as hydraulic or electric- controlled units where feasible and reasonable. When there is no electricity supply, consider using an electrical generator located away from residences.
Examine and implement, where feasible and reasonable, alternatives to transporting excavated material from underground tunnelling off-site at night-time. (i.e. stockpile material in an acoustically treated shed during the night and load out the following day).
Examine and implement, where feasible and reasonable, alternatives to pile driving using a diesel hammer, such as hydraulic hammer, hydraulic press-in, or vibratory pile driver.
To reduce the impact of backup alarms, examine and consider implementing, where feasible and reasonable, ambient sensitive backup alarms, signal workers, turning circles and side loading/unloading trucks.
Quieter Equipment
Examine different types of machines that perform the same function and compare the noise level data to select the least noisy machine (i.e. rubber-wheeled tractors can be less noisy than steel-tracked tractors).
Pneumatic equipment is traditionally a problem. Consider selecting super-silenced compressors, silenced jackhammers and damped bits where possible.
When renting (or purchasing) equipment, select quieter pieces of plant and construction equipment where feasible and reasonable. As well, select the most effective mufflers, enclosures and low-noise tool bits and blades. Always seek the manufacturer's advice before making modifications to any equipment to reduce noise.
Reduce throttle settings and turn off equipment when it is not being used.
Examine and consider implementing, where feasible and reasonable, the option of reducing noise from metal chutes and bins by placing damping material in the bin.
Equipment Maintenance
Regularly inspect and maintain equipment to ensure that it is in good working order, including the condition of mufflers.
For machines with enclosures, verify that doors and door seals are in good working order and that the doors close properly against the seals.
Return any leased equipment that is causing noise that is not typical for the equipment. The increased noise may indicate the need for repair.
Ensure that air lines on pneumatic equipment do not leak.
Site Mitigation Measures
Barriers and acoustic sheds are most suited to long-term fixed works as in these cases, the associated cost is typically outweighed by the overall time savings.
Plant Location
Place as much distance as possible between the plant or equipment and residences and other sensitive receptors.
Restrict areas in which mobile plants can operate so that they are away from residences and other sensitive receptors at particular times.
Locate site vehicle entrances away from residences and other sensitive receptors.
Carry out noisy fabrication work at another site (e.g. within enclosed factory premises) and then transport products to the project site.
Alternatives to Reversing Alarms
Avoid the use of reversing alarms by designing the site layout to avoid reversing, such as by including drive-through for parking and deliveries.
When applicable legislation permits, consider less annoying alternatives to the typical ‘beeper' alarms. Examples include smart alarms that are adjustable in volume depending on the ambient level of noise, and multi-frequency alarms that emit noise over a wide range of frequencies.
Maximize Shielding
Re-use existing structures rather than demolishing and reconstructing.
Use full enclosures, such as large sheds, with good seals fitted to doors to control noise from night-time work.
Use temporary site buildings and material stockpiles as noise barriers.
Schedule the construction of permanent walls so that they can be used as noise barriers as early as possible.
Use natural landform as a noise barrier. Place fixed equipment in cuttings or behind earth berms.
Take note of large reflecting surfaces on- and off-site that might increase noise levels, and avoid placing noise-producing equipment in locations where reflected noise will increase noise exposure or reduce the effectiveness of mitigation measures.
Work Scheduling
Schedule noisy work during periods when people are least affected.
Provide Respite Periods
Consult with schools to ensure that noise-generating construction works in the vicinity are not scheduled to occur during examination periods, unless other acceptable arrangements (such as relocation) can be made.
When night work near residences cannot be feasibly or reasonably avoided, restrict the number of nights per week and/or per calendar month that the work is undertaken.
Schedule Activities to Minimize Noise Impacts
Organize work to be undertaken during the recommended standard hours where possible.
If the construction site is in the vicinity of a sports venue, consider scheduling work to avoid times when there are special events.
When work outside the recommended standard hours is planned, avoid scheduling it on Sundays or public holidays.
Schedule work when neighbours are not present (e.g. commercial neighbours, college students and school students may not be present outside business hours or on weekends).
Schedule noisy activities around times of high background noise (i.e. when local road traffic or other local noise sources are active) where possible to provide masking or to reduce the amount that the construction noise intrudes above the background noise.
Deliveries and Access
Nominate an off-site truck parking area away from residences for trucks arriving prior to gates opening and schedule deliveries only during specified periods.
Optimize the number of vehicle trips to and from the site. Movements can be organized to amalgamate loads rather than using a number of vehicles with smaller loads.
Designate access routes to the site through consultation with potentially noise-affected residences and other sensitive receptors, and inform drivers of nominated vehicle routes.
Provide on-site parking for staff and on-site truck waiting areas away from residences and other sensitive receptors. Truck waiting areas may require walls or other barriers to minimize noise.
Noise Transmission Path
Physical methods to reduce the transmission of noise between construction locations and residences or other sensitive receptors are generally suited to construction projects in which there is long-term noise exposure.
Reduce the line-of-sight noise transmission to residences and other sensitive receptors using temporary noise barriers.
Temporary noise barriers can be constructed from boarding (plywood boards, panels of steel sheeting or compressed fibre cement board) with no gaps between the panels at the site boundary. Stockpiles and shipping containers can be effective noise barriers.
Erect temporary noise barriers before work commences to reduce noise from construction as soon as possible.
Where high-rise dwellings adjoin the construction site, the height of a barrier may not be sufficient to effectively shield the upper levels of the residential building from construction noise. Find out whether this is a consideration for the project and examine alternative mitigation measures where needed.