|
November
23, 2009 To: Environmental
Assessment Branch From: David G. Patriquin Professor of Biology (retired) Dalhousie University 902-4235716 Comments on the Focus
Report submitted
to Nova Scotia Dept. of Environment on Oct 16, 2009 by CHC Inc., Fundy Gypsum CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2. The Special Significance of The Avon Peninsula Watershed Commons
For Biodiversity 3. Terms of Reference and
Comments on The ProponentsÕ Response 3.1 From
the Terms Of Reference 3.2 The logic and claims and of the proponents case 3.2.1. Comments on claim that the Conservation Area will be undisturbed by the
proposed Project 3.2.2. Comments
on the claims that if there are effects of the mine on environmental conditions
in the Conservation Area, they can be mitigated 3.2.3. Comments on seed
collection and transplanting as a strategy to salvage plants in the mine
footprint area 3.2.4. Comments on progressive
reclamation as a strategy to conserve biodiversity 3.3 Loss in
natural habitat area 4. Conclusion 5. Notes 1. Introduction I am writing to comment on the
conclusions reached by CGC Fundy Gypsum in their Focus Report of October 16,
2009. I retired from Dalhousie
University, where I was Professor of Biology, in 2008. Currently I am President of the Halifax Field
Naturalists, Co-chair of the
Woodens River Watershed Environmental Organization and serve on the board of
the Nova Scotia Wild Flora Society.
I am familiar with the Avon Peninsula from visits over the years to
friends in the area, to farms in the area in connection with my research in
organic agriculture, and to forested areas in connection with natural history
interests. I wrote a
letter to The Honourable Mark Parent on March 14, 2007 to express concerns
about the impacts that the apparently
impending mine (it was not yet registered) would have on the sustainable livelihoods
in the area, the already severe stress it was causing to residents, and the
poor record of Fundy Gypsum in protecting the environment. During the summer of
2007 when some of the residents were beginning to gain some optimism that Fundy
Gypsum might not be proceeding with its proposal. I was invited to accompany
several residents on a hike into the forested watershed commons and to discuss
sustainable alternatives for the area; a short report, with photographs, is
posted at http://versicolor.ca/misc/project. In response to the registration document of February 2008, I submitted a lengthy letter to the
Environmental Assessment Branch on March 6, 2008 outlining some fundamental
oversights and deficiencies in the proponentsÕ analyses biodiversity and proposals for protecting it. Given the
large number of submissions including many from professionals in the areas of
biodiversity and water management (including Department of Environment staff), the
horrendous impact that the mine would clearly have on the water resources and
biota of the area, and the all-party support of the Environmental Goals and
Sustainable Prosperity Act, I was very surprised that the mine was not
immediately rejected. Rather, the
Minister of Environment and Labour requested responses to a number of specific
questions. The proponents, after being given an extension beyond the one year
normally required for a response, submitted their Focus Report on October 16,
2009. Superficially, it has the appearance of a polished document, with many
maps, models, and lengthy literature reviews, all leading to assurances that
the biodiversity and water resources of the area will be protected However, it
is very doubtful that the scientific evidence and arguments supporting the
proponents assurances could pass the scrutiny of a PhD thesis or of reviewers
for a high level scientific journal. In these
comments, I outline some the major issues
in regard to biodiversity
conservation. 2. The Special Significance
of The Avon Peninsula Watershed
Commons For Biodiversity The Focus Report responds to
specific requests for more information by the previous Minister of Nova Scotia
Environment and Labour in regard to CGC Fundy GypsumÕs proposal in February,
2008, to establish an extension of the existing MillerÕs
Creek site. This ÒextensionÓ would be an entirely new
mine located in the centre of a mostly forested, upland "watershed
commons" on gypsum-karst landscape which, to date, has protected the water
supply for rich farmland, residents and small industries on the Avon Peninsula.
It also supports an unusually diverse flora with a high concentration of
threatened species, small wetlands with rich amphibian and reptile populations
and at least one bat hibernaculum. As acknowledged and further documented in
the Focus Report, the flora includes a number of species-at-risk including ram's
head lady's-slipper (red listed and legally protected under the
N.S. Endangered Species Act); round-lobed hepatica and eastern leatherwood (red-listed under DNRÕs
General Status of Species); black ash, yellow lady's-slipper, thimbleweed and Canada buffalo-berry (yellow-listed ); and at
least three rare lichens (Solorina
saccata, Collema cristatum var. cristatum
and Leptogium lichenoides). That is a very uncommon
assemblage of species and the area has long been recognized by naturalists as a
hotspot of plant biodiversity in
Nova Scotia as well as being especially valued by local residents for the large
populations of yellow ladyÕs slipper orchids. Earlier this year, several botanists and naturalist
organizations endorsed the initiative of residents of the Avon Peninsula to
recognize the area as the ÒThe Lady Slipper Capital of the MaritimesÓ. Major factors contributing to
the peculiar biodiversity of the area include: 1.
The calcareous
nature of the soils. 2.
The karst
topography which creates peculiar regimes of moisture stress and disturbance that prevent complete
closure of the forest and reduce competition by plants otherwise not adapted to
such regimes. 3.
It is a relatively large gypsum-karst
area that has not been clearcut, or cleared and cultivated or mined, except on
a small scale. The last mentioned factor is very
important because size can buffer, to a certain extent, the increased potential
for extirpation (local extinction)
of native species that results from habitat fragmentation associated with human
settlement, forestry and farming: larger residual areas support more species over the long term
than smaller ones or, stated otherwise, smaller, residual, suitable habitats
lose species more quickly than larger ones. Thus, while there are other patches of similar karst habitat
in Nova Scotia, most are more restricted in area or have been subject to significant
disturbances in the recent past and support fewer, if any, of the species cited
above. None, to my knowledge, support an equivalent assemblage to that found in
the mine footprint + conservation area. In addition to the botanical diversity, conservation is required to protect á
wetlands
supporting large populations of amphibians and reptiles including small wetlands/vernal ponds that abound in
the area and are known elsewhere to support particular species and communities1 á
at least one bat
hibernaculum2 á
upwards of 70
species of birds breeding in the area3 á
likely, as yet undocumented rare beetles and
other invertebrates associated with the karst4 Even within the larger
maritime area, habitats of this sort are now extremely few as noted by Dr.
Andrew MacDougall and others in 20085 and karst habitats are high
priorities for protection globally
because of concerns about both water resources and biodiversity –
the two key concerns raised about the proposed mine. These concerns are well
recognized in professional journals of earth scientists6 and at
least to some gypsum enterprises in N.S., headwaters are considered out-of
bounds.7 Habitats and species assemblages
found in the Avon Peninsula watershed commons are currently hardly represented
at all in the provinceÕs Wilderness Protected Areas, Nature Reserves or in
conservations easements and the like; certainly there are none equivalent to the
area that would be destroyed by the mine. As I will elaborate in my comments,
the proponentsÕ Conservation Area simply cannot provide adequate conservation
of the species-at-risk in the larger area. Their proposals for progressive reclamation, while they would
likely be successful in establishing vegetative cover on the mine spoils, are
highly dubious in regard to their potential for conserving
species-at-risk. In the context of
Nova ScotiaÕs commitment to conservation of species and watersheds, the entire
Òwatershed commonsÓ should in fact
be given the highest level protection possible, e.g. equivalent to that
of a protected Wilderness Areas or Nature Reserve, certainly not largely
obliterated by a strip mine. 3. Terms of Reference and
Comments on The ProponentsÕ Response 3.1 From the Terms Of
Reference Following are extracts from
the Terms of Reference for The Focus Report that are particularly pertinent to
biodiversity conservation and the comments herein. A
conservation area is proposed by the Proponent that includes setting aside approximately
40 ha of mineable land which is host to an important assemblage of provincially
and locally important plant species. No evidence is provided, however, to show
how the ecological integrity of the conservation area will be maintainedÉ In
addition, species-at-risk would be lost with the current layout of extraction
areas. A plan that illustrates a clear mechanism for protection must be provided. Provide
the results of additional study to determine the required extent of the conservation
area in order to protect species-at-risk and their habitat. The size of the
conservation area shall be formally agreed upon with NSE and DNR, Wildlife Division. In
addition, investigate the potential for private land conservation by consulting
with local landowners to determine if the conservation area can be expanded to
include neighboring properties. Reclamation planning must address knowledge
deficiencies and uncertainties surrounding proposed practices to buffer impacts
on species-at-risk and their habitats. Specifically, address appropriate distance/widths
(amount of undisturbed habitat) and necessary reparation(s) to maintain
effective, functional habitat and the time phase in the
projectÕs operational development. Reclamation planning should provide details
and an experimental framework to evaluate effectiveness of reclamation
practices to repatriate native vegetation. Given
the proximity of more than 40 endangered RamÕs-Head Lady Slipper plants to
wetland #12, and the high potential for adverse effects resulting from changes
to topography, vegetation and hydrology, DNR recommends that wetland #12 be
fully captured within the conservation area and additional modeling using
on-site data be undertaken to assess mitigation options to ensure plant
survival. 3.2 The
logic and claims and of the proponents case Overall, the
response to these requests in The Focus Report has involved a slight
readjustment of boundaries to include, as requested, wetland #12. While the proponents document significant populations of species-at-risk (i.e., legally
endangered, red or yellow listed species) in the mine footprint area, they argue
that these species can be adequately conserved within the Conservation Area +
the reclamation area. This assertion rests on 4 major explicit or implicit claims
or strategies: 1.
The claim that Òthe Conservation
Area will be undisturbed by the proposed ProjectÓ. 2.
The claim that if there are effects of the mine on environmental
conditions in the Conservation Area, they can be mitigated. 3.
The strategy to
move (transplant) individual plants and whole populations from the mine
footprint area into the Conservation Area 4.
The claim/strategy
that progressive reclamation will allow progressive recolonization of mine spill
areas as these go out of service. Each of these claims/strategies is
seriously flawed. 3.2.1. Comments on claim that the Conservation Area will be undisturbed
by the proposed Project Claim No. 1 relies heavily on predictions
from the consultantsÕ surface water and groundwater models. The proponents
repeatedly highlight their claim that there will be no significant effects of
the mine on the habitat in Conservation Area. An example: 3.4 Conclusion The CGC Conservation Area is a large,
continuous expanse of calcareous habitat, which supports considerable
populations of vascular plant and cyanolichen species of concern. None of the
environmental conditions discussed in the previous subsections will be
negatively affected by the development of a gypsum mine to the north of the
proposed Conservation Area o Landscape position will not be
affected; o Proximity to forest edges/exposure
will not be affected; o Local climate will not be affected; o Soil moisture levels will not be
affected; o Humidity regime will not be affected; o Ground and surface water quality will
not be affected; o Acid rain and air quality will not be
affected; o Temperatures will not be affected; o Soils and substrates physical
characteristics will not be affected; o Soil and substrate pH values will not
be affected; o Natural patterns in forest succession
will not be affected; o Air quality will not be affected; and o Species interactions will not be
affected. The Conservation Area will be
undisturbed by the proposed Project, and will be protected by CGC to ensure it remains
undisturbed. It will never be logged, nor will further anthropogenic disturbances
be permitted, unless required to protect species at risk. At the same time there are significant
hedges or direct contradictions to these claims within the documents, e.g., under
4.1.7, they say that Éthere are no predicted impacts to the ecology of the Conservation
Area due to the lowering of the groundwater level during the extraction period
of the mine lifeÉ [but] The model
predicts a rise in the groundwater level from the current (pre-mining) level
after the reclamation phase of pit backfilling is complete, which may have
implications on the Conservation Area. A full assessment of this has not
been completed at this stage, as the predictions would have a high level of
uncertainty. The assessment of potential impacts to the Conservation Area after
pit backfilling should be completed using the first 20 years of mine operation
data and the surface water model and groundwater model. [bolding inserted] How does the acknowledged uncertainty about changes during
backfilling support the overall contention that Òthe Conservation
Area will be undisturbed by the proposed ProjectÓ? The proponents apparently accept without question the results of
the modeling where they appear favourable to their case, thus they offer no
qualifications to the predictions of no impacts associated with the initial
extraction period. However, the hydrology of karst systems is the most complex
amongst surface landforms in the world and this degree of confidence in the
modeling is not justified. Leading authorities on hydrology of karst systems emphasize
that modeling of karst systems is hypothesis-generating rather than predictive: At
the outset, it is crucial to define the objectives of a groundwater assessment
monitoring program before committing to the construction of a digital model. Two
paramount questions emerge in karst aquifer problems: ( 1) What ere the rates
and directions of contaminant transport through the aquifer? (2) What are the
hydraulic response characteristics of the aquifer (Dreiss. 1989a,b)? Both
demand predictions of system
responses cast in terms of fluid travel times and directions. Is a digital model
capable of yielding the desired results? Is the typical input data set adequate
to construct the model, particularly if transmissitivities were developed using point sampling techniques? The
answers to both are no, even as a first-order qualitative approximation. 'The
data requirements to adequately model a karst aquifer, particularly unconfined
systems. are so demanding that the questions posed necessarily will be answered
by an adequate field data collection program before the model can be built. There
are two reasons for this startling conclusion. First, to correctly model the
aquifer; the transmissivity structure of the aquifer must be viewed
holistically as a system which will require unusual care in delineating
boundary conditions in the field. Second. The hierarchy, organization and hydraulic responses
of the all important dissolved permeability pathways will have to be deduced.
By the time data documenting these system attributes are collected in the
field, system response already will be thoroughly documented and mudding will
prove to be a redundant exercise. These
conclusions were reached by Palmer (1992) and Teutsch and Sauter (1992).8 While modeling has improved since 1995 when
that statement was made, the same limitations still apply, thus A.N. Palmer
(one of the authorities cited above) in a 2006 paper on ÒDigital modeling in karst aquifers – successes ,
failures and promisesÓ comments: Any groundwater system can
be modeled accurately if there is sufficient available field information. In
practice however, the model must be generalized by replacing the innumerable
small scale complexities with large blocks that behave as hydraulic
equivalents. Otherwise the details become overwhelming and render the model
unworkable. But karst heterogeneity cannot be readily generalized, because even
small karst features can have a hydraulic effect disproportionate to their sizeÉ
The promise of karst modeling is not in their prediction, but in encouraging
modelers to expand their understanding of karst aquifer behavior. NOTES So even
where the proponentsÕ models predict no or only weak effects, these predictions
are, at best. hypotheses. ItÕs not hard to understand why that is so. One has only
to walk through the karst area and observe the vegetation and soils and pattern
of mud deposits, gullies, sinkholes (some with water
some without), variously sized and configurations of caves/holes to appreciate
the complexity of the system, and the peculiar conditions in which the species
at risk survive and in some cases, thrive. 3.2.2. Comments on the claims that if there are effects of
the mine on environmental conditions in the Conservation Area, they can be
mitigated. Three
questions need to be answered to justify the mitigation argument in regard to
species at risk: - What variables will be monitored to
determine if environmental conditions are changing? - What are
the thresholds for triggering a mitigation response? - What is
the response? The approach
taken is basically an agronomic one that has been applied successfully to domesticated species. However, these
are (a) wild species and (b) rare wild species, whose continued existence is
dependent on a complex set of variables that affect the species directly (e.g.,
such as moisture falling below the permanent wilding point for the species +
associated symbionts) and indirectly (particularly though effects on other
species/competition, herbivores, pollinators, seed distributors etc.) Were the
approach that the proponents plan to take successful for such species at large there
could be far less emphasis on the need to protect original habitats for
conservation of biodiversity, and more emphasis by conservationists on mitigation/reclamation
activities. It is important to
make the distinction between mitigation/ reclamation in order to establish or
maintain a functioning ecosystem of some sort that will provide cover, minimize
erosion, provide some habitat for birds etc. and mitigation/ reclamation to
conserve particular rare species. The former is not an issue. Indeed the reclamation activities
they propose will help to accelerate vegetation of the mine spoils. However
mitigation/reclamation to conserve native biodiversity (at genetic, population,
community and ecosystem levels) and especially to conserve rare species as
self-sustaining populations is a much larger challenge, rarely achieved
anywhere. The
proponents say that they will monitor soil moisture and possibly humidity to
protect certain species-at-risk or certain subpopulations of those species: Mitigative measures to ensure the ramÕs-head ladyÕs-slipper
population associated with Wetland 12 will be implemented, including
silt fencing and soil moisture meters. Monitoring of the ramÕs-head ladyÕs-slipper
population will be conducted as part of the wetlands monitoring program and the conservation
area monitoring. Mitigation measures to maintain hydrological inputs to
wetlands will be implemented. The outline of a monitoring plan has been developed to
assess the adequacy of mitigative options. The monitoring plan will be long-term, adaptable
and statistically rigorous, and will be based on a measure of ecological integrity
and wetland condition. As discussed in the Ecological Integrity
section of this document, the proposed Project is predicted to have very little, if any,
impact on species and habitats within the CGC Conservation Area. The one parameter which
might potentially be affected is soil moisture levels in the northern portion of
the CGC Conservation Area, as the slope providing runoff to Wetland 12 is mined away.
As ramÕs-head ladyÕs-slipper occur near the base of this slope, soil moisture
levels in this area should be monitored to determine if there is a significant effect.
These moisture levels would then be compared with measurements obtained from
another ramÕs-head ladyÕs-slipper patch within a drainage basin within the
Conservation Area which has not been affected. Thus, for ramÕs-head ladyÕs-slipper, soil
moisture levels may be monitored in the long term using permanently installed
soil moisture meters. CGC proposes to install piezometers and water level loggers near the
ramÕs-head ladyÕs-slippers in the Conservation Area to collect data on water
table levels near this species before and after initiation of the Project. Potential changes in humidity levels
near species of concern in the proposed Conservation Area could be monitored by
installing humidity loggers near these specimens to obtain longterm humidity
data both before and after initiation of Project activities. The proponents focus on two variables
that are easily measured (soil moisture, humidity.) At what point in change of
those variables do they begin to take mitigative measures? On what basis? What is the reference? They say that
they will monitor soil moisture at another, non-disturbed area. One? So will
they maintain moisture levels equivalent to those at the one control site? There is not a simple unimodal
relationship between soil moisture and survival of a species in the wild;
complex patterns of changing soil moisture affect competitors, grazersÉ and
these patterns differ at different sites. ThatÕs just the way it is (and why
ecologists have been leaders in elucidating the dynamics of complex systems). How would they maintain the moisture at
equivalent levels? With handheld watering cans, adjusted daily, weekly,
monthly? The proponents mention
silt-fencing, I have seen the site to which they refer. There is a layer of
silt which can be traced back to a hole near the base of a long karst outcrop, and was
likely deposited during emergence of silt laden subterranean water during a
storm event or during spring melt, perhaps repeatedly each year or repeatedly over
shorter intervals. Whatever the exact process, it is evident that the local
conditions (including the pattern of siltation spatially and temporally) favor
the ramÕs head over their competitors. The water evidently emanates from
wetlands &/or underground sources within the mine footprint area while part or all of the outcrop is
within the mine footprint. There can be no doubt that the site-specific
conditions that allow ramÕs head to prosper there will be altered by the mine;
we can only have considerable doubt about the prospects of mitigating those
effects, and that is only one population of one species at one site. The
proponents are proposing to monitor only a very limited set of sites –
clearly because it is unrealistic (costly) to attempt much more, and even if
they were to do so, the same questions arise. Similarly, what are the
implications of rising water table for protecting species-at-risk within the
conservation area? The proponents
acknowledge this is likely to occur (although they fail to qualify their claims
of no impacts in the highlighted summaries accordingly). The species at risk are not horticultural plants that can
be uprooted, transplanted, held in pots and replanted at will, rather their
maintenance is dependent on ecological integrity over time and space. How will the effects of the rising water
table be mitigated for the species-at-risk? With extensive drainage
installations? The proponents have not adequately addressed the issue of
mitigation to protect species at risk in the Conservation Area because they
cannot do so. In fact that it is
doubtful that a team of experts could adequately address the issue; they would
almost certainly conclude that maintaining and protecting the entire watershed
commons is the only option for conserving the species-at-risk. 3.2.3. Comments on seed
collection and transplanting as a strategy to salvage plants in the mine
footprint area. Transplanting is discussed
specifically for black ash and yellow ladyÕs slipper; otherwise there is
reference to transplantation of species at risk or just ÒvegetationÓ. Seed
collection is mentioned as a possibility for Black Ash; possibilities for other
species are not discussed. The proponents acknowledge at points limitations to
transplanting for orchids, but then at others cite transplantation of yellow
ladyÕs slipper as an important part of their strategy (e.g., in Table 5 of
Appendix E). For species of concern located in the
vicinity of approaching mining activity, known specimens will be protected by a
buffer zone of undisturbed habitat until they must be removedÉ. Delaying the removal of these specimens
until absolutely necessary will maximize their lifespan and reproductive
potential. For species such as black ash, for which transplantation may be
possible, this may result in production of additional seedlings which may then
be transplanted to suitable habitat in the Conservation Area. Minimizing
disturbance of specimens of species-at-risk to be removed until absolutely
necessary increase the opportunities for these species to recruit naturally to
areas outside of the planned extraction footprint. Transplantation is generally not planned for
most species, particularly the lady's slippers, because they are known to have
poor long-term survival rates post-transplantation. NSDNR generally does not
recommend this option as mitigation for the loss of flora species of concern.
Some experimental transplantation of species-at-risk specimens from areas to be
disturbed to protected areas may possibly be conducted early in the life of the
mine. Depending on the long-term success of these transplants (> three years
for yellow ladyÕs-slipper, two years for other species), additional
transplantation may be attempted. CGC will also investigate the feasibility of
transplanting patches of vegetation, via specially modified front-end loader,
which can remove a 3m x 3m section of topsoil and root mat for immediate
placement elsewhere, effectively transplanting itÉ Grafts would be planted at
the same depth as they were originally situated, and would be watered well upon
initial placement. Large patches of yellow ladyÕs slipper could be transplanted
in this way, with much less disturbance to plant roots than if they were
transplanted individually. This would also increase the chances of successfully
transplanting the root mycorrhizal fungi this species relies on, as a larger
volume of soil would be transplanted along with the plants. Placing a mosaic of
these grafts on an area to be revegetated would greatly increase the speed at which
local species would colonize these areas. While, in principle, transplanting patches of vegetation via
specially modified front-end loaders seems plausible and works for some species, it is far from a
proven technology for most rare species/species-at-risk. (The proponents do not
provide a literature review of the area.) Areas of The Harriet Irving Botanical gardens at Acadia were
constructed in this way, but they are hardly self-sustaining, many of the early
established native species dying off and intensive weeding being required to keep
invasives down. Dr. Dr. Andrew McDougall of the University
of Guelph has commented on prospects for transplantation as follows5 These
ground flora species are also notoriously difficult to transplant and to
propagate, for reasons that we do not fully understand. Common explanations
include the presence of deep rooting systems that are inevitably destroyed when
established plants are dug up. Propagation failure may derive from specialized
nutrient and moisture requirements during germination, and possibly mutualistic
associations with soil mycorrhizal fungi. Reclamation of these communities,
therefore, may not be possible again highlighting the importance of protecting
what is left. Another difficulty with this
approach – even if transplantation were initially successful for species
risk - is that it based on the assumption that the Conservation Area has a
higher carrying capacity for these species than is currently the case, i.e.
that their numbers are propagule-limited and that we can salvage individuals
from the mine footprint by transplanting them into the Conservation Area. Such increased
carrying capacity is unlikely, at least over the long term. Perhaps, with
special care, survival could be increased, however, that would make it
essentially a botanic garden which, while valuable for research and education,
is not equivalent to native, self-sustaining systems and would likely be
prohibitively expensive. 3.2.4. Progressive
reclamation as a strategy to conserve biodiversity The proponents present fairly
detailed plans for progressive reclamation of the areas directly impacted by
the mine. These efforts are focused on getting a vegetative cover established
by direct seeding, transplanting patches of vegetation before they are
otherwise destroyed, and allowing/facilitating natural revegetation. They cite
several examples where species-at-risk have colonized old mine spill areas. I agree that this is an
appropriate strategy for establishing vegetative cover as soon as possible,
however, as a strategy to conserve species at risk and habitat presently in the
mine footprint area, what could accomplished is very minimal. Here are some of
the issues: á
Agreed, some
species at risk have colonized some of the old mine spill areas, but most of
the examples are from older, much smaller mines, thus there were many more
propagule sources relative to the spoil areas. á
To extrapolate
from historical recolonizaton of mines to the proposed reclamation schedule,
quantitative aspects of the historical recolonization need to be considered: what
proportion spill areas has been recolonized, over what time-frames? The time
frame for reclamation of the Avon mine is much shorter than that which was
likely involved in colonization of old mine spills, in the meantime source
habitat is continually being destroyed. á
The proponents
intend to transplant large blocks of material with species at risk from the
mine footprint area before destroying those area. That might overcome spatial
and temporal limitations cited above, but as discussed earlier, this is far
from a proven technology for species-at-risk. á
The proponents
stress that the calcareous nature of the soils will not be lost in the
reclamation areas, however, they overlook the significance of the karst
features that will be lost or be a very long time (perhaps centuries to
millennia) in re-developing. The karst features and their effect on
microclimate and edaphic conditions are as important for many of these species
at risk as the calcareous nature of the soil, largely though their effects on
species competition. á
The proponents
will be introducing exotic agricultural species as well as fertilizer. Many of
these species, e.g., white clover, various grass species, are considered invasive outside their
use in agriculture. This will set up conditions NOT favourable to the
species-at-risk. Indeed, ecologically, practices designed to re-vegetate as
quickly as possible are basically incompatible with practices that might create environmental conditions similar
to undisturbed karst areas and that favour most species-at-risk. 3.3 Loss in natural habitat
area The proponents were asked to
ÒProvide the results of additional study to determine the required extent of
the conservation area in order to protect species-at-risk and their habitatÓ. In this regard, they have not
discussed the factors that are considered the most important reasons for loss
of biodiversity generally: loss and fragmentation of habitat area. I had expected that the proponents would
come forth with a substantive redesign of the original plan with a smaller mine
area and a much larger conservation area or a network of individually small conservations
areas. In the Focus report there
is no such redesign or consideration of redesign options, but rather the proponents
offer a rationalization of the original plan with enhanced ÒprotectionÓ
(security) for the Conservation Area and (dubious) strategies for establishing
species-at-risk on reclaimed land. There is no indication in their literature reviews that the
proponents have looked seriously at the conservation literature dealing with
habitat fragmentation, its consequences and strategies for maximizing
conservation in fragmented landscapes. (Alternatively, this literature was
known to the consultants concerned but was deliberately omitted because it would
require a very different mine configuration to accommodate, or simply
strengthen the case for no mine at all.) How significant is the loss of
area factor? A well known rule of thumb in conservation biology predicts that a
tenfold reduction in habitat results in approximately 50% reduction in the
number of species an area can support. The number could be greater or smaller
in practice, but it gives an indication of the order of magnitude of losses
from loss in area. In the case of
the proposed mine, the area of natural habitat will be reduced from 393 ha to 46,
an 8.5-fold reduction. Regardless of the exact factor by which species carrying
capacity would be reduced, it is clear that the Conservation Area cannot
support species diversity equivalent to that supported by the larger area. The proponents apparent lack of
understanding of conservation
biology science is illustrated by the ludicrous statement that ÒThe
potential benefits to the Nova Scotia ramÕs head ladyÕs-slipper population due
to the proposed Project far outweigh the potential risksÓ. This is apparently based
on the premises that (a) all extant ramÕs head lie within the Conservation
Area, (b) currently unoccupied, otherwise suitable, habitat is irrelevant and
(c) the Conservation Area will be protected from clear-cutting, development
etc, and thus will be more insulated from human activity than currently. In
regard to (a) it is interesting that the proponents are aware of Ònon-seasonal
dormancyÓ in ramÕs head (they may mean that it doesnÕt flower in some years) and
cite that as a reason that they may not have been able to relocate a ramÕs head
population on the existing MillerÕs Creek site (which would bolster their
argument that the species will readily re-establish on old mine spoils), but
insist that their surveys have confirmed that there are no ramÕs head in the
mine footprint area. There could be more populations, but regardless of whether
there are or are not, the mine footprint area will certainly contain potential
habitat and over the long term, that is critical to the conservation of the
species in the Avon area because of the dynamics of metapopulations. A metapopulation consists of a network of
subpopulations. The subpopulations are not static, but dynamic and are
maintained by recurrent immigration and gene flow from other populations. Local populations go extinct in the
short term for a variety of reasons (e.g., a local catastrophic event such as
an intense fire) but over the longer term are maintained by recolonization from
other populations; likewise they are sources of immigrants for other unoccupied
but suitable habitat, which in turn acts as reservoirs for the local
populations. Thus, over the long
term unoccupied habitat are as important for maintenance of the species as the
occupied habitats. This is especially true during a period of climatic change,
when in the suitability of existing habitats may actually decline while other
suitable habitats may open up. By confining the suitable habitats for ramÕs
head to a single, small Conservation Area the risk of local extinction is greatly increased – hardly
reduced! The argument that the
Conservation Area will have greater security from human impacts is nebulous, as
equivalent protection (e.g. as a Nature Reserve) could and, in this case,
should be applied to the larger area. The species-area considerations must also
be applied to the reclamation arguments. Even if the reclamation efforts could
be as successful for species-at-risk as the proponents suggest (which for reasons
discussed above is highly unlikely), the mine extraction areas, amounting to
39% of the area, would become
lakes, not potential habitat for recolonization by species at risk. 5. Conclusion I have focused on major concerns related to the MinisterÕs
request to address outstanding questions related to species-at-risk. There are many other points of
detail and other major aspects of the Focus Report that deserve attention and I
expect will be commented on by others making submissions in response to the
Focus Report. It would, however, take a good deal longer than the time afforded
and a team of experts to thoroughly critique this document. Regardless, I think
such a detailed review is not required to reject the mine; major reasons that
this project is completely incompatible with species conservation and
sustainable livelihoods on the Peninsula are glaringly obvious from a
scientific perspective. As well as being a critical
issue for residents, farming and other sustainable enterprises on the Avon Peninsula,
the decision regarding the mine has very significant implications for
protection of biodiversity and headwaters over the province at large. If the case argued by the proponents
that (a) there will be no serious environmental consequences from a large open
pit mine in the centre of a watershed, (b) whatever issues arise can be
mitigated, and (c) we can maintain protection of species even with an 8-fold
reduction in habitat area, is
accepted, then few headwaters or centres of biodiversity will be safe in Nova
Scotia. I urge the Minister of
Environment and the Government to reject this project and put an end to the
consternation it is causing us now and the loss of a wonderful heritage it
would inflict on our descendents. Failing that, I urge that the proponentsÕ
evidence and arguments undergo a full, critical review by independent experts
and that a full community consultation take place, with other options for the
area on the table, before a final decision is made. Respectfully, David G. Patriquin 5. Notes 1.
In addition to
the wetlands cited in the Focus Report and earlier Registration Document, the
area is pockmarked by smaller wetlands, some with permanent standing water,
some vernal in nature. These
support large populations of amphibians overall and vernal ponds are recognized
as important for conservation of a number of species specifically adapted to
those environments. See Colburn, E.A. 2004. Vernal
Pools. Saline, Michigan: McNaughton & Gunn 2.
A bat
hibernaculum was discovered in the mine footprint area during the last year
(Matthew Smith, personal communication). 3.
Bob McDonald,
personal communication. 4.
For example, Quedius
spelaeus spelaeus Horn has been found in a number of
porcupine dung caves in Nova Scotia (M. Mosely et al., in Zootaxa
1226: 61–68, 2006);
at least one such cave exists in the mine footprint area, but has not, to my
knowledge, been investigated. 5.
For example, Dr. Andrew
McDougall of the Department of
Integrative Biology
at the University of Guelph commented as follows in a submission commenting on the
registration document, March 5, 2008: The area in question has biological significance
locally, to Nova Scotia, and to eastern Canada as a whole. Plant communities on calcium-rich soils
are hotspots for floral diversity throughout eastern Canada, typically
containing many species that are rare or absent elsewhere. In the Maritimes,
these habitats are not widespread, with localized occurrences including parts
of Cape Breton and the northern mainland of Nova Scotia, and Carleton and Albert
Counties in New Brunswick. In all cases, these areas have been dramatically
affected by human land use, including the Avon Peninsula site. Large
percentages of forests associated with calcium-rich soils in the Maritimes have
been lost to agriculture or mining. Reforestation has occurred where these
activities have ceased, but the pre-disturbance floral community almost never
re-establishes. Those forest fragments that escape disturbance are highly
isolated, and have typically been repeatedly selective-logged for a century or
more. As is discussed in the consultantÕs report (e.g., p 124),
this level of cumulative habitat loss for calcium-soil plant communities has
already been significant on the Avon Peninsula. This is typical for regions
with this soil type, and argues in support of the unique status of remnant
sites such as this one. Often these stands continue to support rare ground
flora, although with small population sizes that may be especially vulnerable
to the disruption of microclimate and microhydrology. These ground flora
species are also notoriously difficult to transplant and to propagate, for
reasons that we do not fully understand. Common explanations include the
presence of deep rooting systems that are inevitably destroyed when established
plants are dug up. Propagation failure may derive from specialized nutrient and
moisture requirements during germination, and possibly mutualistic associations
with soil mycorrhizal fungi. Reclamation of these communities, therefore, may
not be possible again highlighting the importance of protecting what is left. 6.
See, for example The
Geological Society of America Special Paper 404: Perspectives on karst geomorphology. hydrology, and geochemistry.
Edited By R.S. Harmon & C.M. Wicks (2006) 7.
Excerpt from NS
Standing Committee on Economic Development, Sept 2000: Rep
from Georgia Pacific: Well, speaking for our company, I have done a lot of
exploration in Atlantic Canada. I have looked at probably most of the deposits
in Nova Scotia and some in New Brunswick and Newfoundland. I know our
competitors, National and USG have done the same thing. I would say they are
pretty well documented. MR.
EPSTEIN: Yes, so at this point you are not really expecting any more gypsum
mines to be proposed, is that right? Rep
from GP: I would be surprised if you would see any more gypsum quarries
developed in Nova Scotia forever. MR.
EPSTEIN: That is my understanding, too. 8. Huntoon,
P.W. 1995. Applying groundwater models to karstic aquifers. P 355 ff in Groundwater models for resources
analysis and management (Aly I. El-Kadi – Ed) CRC Press. 9. Palmer, A.N.
2006. Digital modeling of karst aquifers –successes, failures and
promises. Paper 20 In Perspectives on
Karst geomorphology, hydrology, and geochemistry, Edited
By R.S. Harmon & C.M. Wicks. Geological Society of America. |