Final EA for phase II highway 5

This is my take with the spring in mind. A few things worry me:


1) It is some consultant's opinion that there is no hydraulic link between the Wakefield spring and Carmen/Brown's lake watershed - and that it does not reach the 105. (I have trouble believing this, especially since there is no reference to how this was determined). The EA report goes on to say that the aquifer supply is located on a slope located a bit more that 100 m north of Brown's Lake road (this is vague to say the least!). Then further on in the EA, there is a stmt that says "according to NRCan experts, that the upper watershed area (Brown's lake?) moves through the gravel pit (I assume they mean the one that is being filled in at the end of Rockhurst?). Again, I think it is likely that much, if not all, the spring water supply, moves through the valley behind Giant Tiger and it would be responsible to limit development that is currently filling in this valley (especially from the newly built house at the end of Rockhurst) with dirty fill. We should be on top of this as it's in our neighborhood!

2) LaPeche has launched research to determine the cause for the increase in total coliforms over the past 3 years. I find it strange that Council provided me with only 6 mths of water quality studies (there seems to be a problem giving us older data?). Also not clear how Health Canada is involved here, as there is no study referenced, their explanation is bizarre: "many users are filling large containers with a hose to their car trunk" (not a bad idea actually since all that lifting, especially in winter is difficult and unsafe for some people). I've never seen this practice and have doubts that this hose could contaminate the spring valve (unless they were using this same hose to pump septic waste?). Something sounds smelly to me here.

3) The section on monitoring is not just to verify if mitigation measures have been implemented, - but to ensure they address concerns noted. The report says that the env. follow-up will be coordinated by MTQ to verify the accuracy of the EA and effectiveness of mitigation measures (sounds like the same activity?). They say that the spring will be monitored for 2 yrs - even if it falls in the "no problems anticipated" category (MTQ - 2010) - what is the methodology for this I wonder?

The report goes on to say that if the water quality/quantity falls below "accepted levels" - and deterioration is deemed project related (by who and how?), environmental follow-up will continue for at least one year (this does not reassure me!).

If this is the case with the spring, will the MTQ be able to supply potable water to people who currently use the spring? (I sincerely doubt it!).

4) Section on adaptive mgt leaves the door open for further studies and actions if required? The assumed caveat here is presumably related to residual impacts. IF results reveal a need, actions will be taken to correct the situation and ensure a supply of potable water to residents (therefore, the residual impact is not fully addressed right?). Reality is, once our spring is contaminated, it will probably be too late to correct the problem!

Happy holidays!