Concerned and hopeful

I have mixed feeling about these natural gas plants. I would prefer no fossil fuels but when it's a huge difference compared to coal and the timeline involved, it's hard to argue. However, there are significant concerns that I don't feel have been properly addressed/researched yet to make an informed decision if you're the government that is, anytime soon. I know we're under the gun for 2030 but we have to get this right if it's going to be done here and or in Salt Springs. I will copy and paste a document that I wrote-up and had touched-up a bit by AI for reading clarity:

Marshdale Natural Gas Plant – Community and Environmental Concerns

In regard to water:

Summer 2025 produced a significant drought in our area. The East River flowing through Stellarton was so low that rocks were visible above the water — something I cannot recall seeing in my 39 years living here. We experienced several consecutive weeks without rain.

Drilling is taking place at depths of approximately 500 metres. Based on publicly available information, it is unclear where groundwater at this depth ultimately discharges. Water must flow somewhere. Even in the absence of a known surface stream or conduit leading from the proposed site to the East River, subsurface connections cannot be ruled out.
Has any groundwater tracing or monitoring (for example, tracer studies) been considered to determine where this water ultimately ends up?

The water used at the site is converted to steam. Can this steam be captured, condensed, and reused — for example, to support or restore nearby marshes?

Even if groundwater is accessed at depth, removing this volume of water daily over decades raises concerns about long-term impacts that may not be immediately apparent. I hope contingency plans exist to address unforeseen consequences. The surrounding natural environment and nearby communities depend on careful, precautionary planning.

Is it confirmed that this groundwater source can reliably sustain the required flow rate 24 hours a day, year-round, for the next 30 years? If this water supply becomes constrained in the future, does this pose a risk of creating a stranded asset?

Regarding the controlled release of treated water:
Could this water be used to create or enhance marshes within the immediate area or elsewhere in Pictou County? Restoring wetlands outside the county to meet regulatory requirements does not feel equitable. If wetlands are impacted locally, restoration should occur locally whenever feasible, particularly since migratory birds return to specific areas for ecological reasons.

Will a detailed environmental assessment be conducted specifically on the release of treated water into the surrounding environment?

If monitoring later shows that nearby wetlands are being dried or altered as a result of groundwater withdrawal, what mitigation measures would be implemented?

In regard to birds:

The Environmental Assessment appears to focus primarily on the project footprint. It does not adequately assess adjacent properties, nearby roadways, or the broader surrounding area.

American Bittern are known to nest in the large wetland along the train tracks near Lorne Station Road, which falls within the emissions modelling area. Migratory birds reaching this marsh must fly through the affected airspace and will be exposed to both emissions and noise.

I propose that night-time operations be restricted during peak migration periods when birds are known to be actively migrating.

Birds in this area are widespread — not limited to one marsh. Along Culloden Road and Stellarton Trafalgar Road, for example, birds line thickets, trees, and adjacent farm fields. Many have migrated from Central America, South America, and the southern United States. These species rely on acoustic cues and clean air to locate breeding and staging habitat. Many can hear high- and low-frequency sounds beyond human perception, yet the noise model appears to be based on human thresholds.

I am concerned about construction and operational noise interfering with birds’ and mammals’ ability to communicate for breeding and rearing young.

Why were passive monitoring tools such as Audiomoths or radar not used to monitor birds continuously, day and night? Bird activity varies by species and time of day. For example, American Bittern typically vocalize shortly after dawn. Limited site visits cannot capture this complexity or adequately assess areas beyond the project boundary.

Why was the Nova Scotia Bird Society not contacted to help connect with local birders who know the area well? I, and others, would have volunteered to assist with counts.

Additional questions:

• Will emissions be released at a height designed to minimize disruption to typical bird migration altitudes?

• Will stacks be shut down at night during peak spring and fall migration periods?

• Why does the EA reference “migrating geese” when Canada Geese are present year-round in Pictou County?

• Will tailing ponds be covered to prevent bird access?

• Will sound cannons be avoided entirely?

I do not see my eBird records — or those of other local observers — being used, despite documented sightings of Common Nighthawks, Black-billed Cuckoos, warblers, and many other species within the emissions zone. No surveys appear to have been conducted on neighbouring properties, and ground vibration effects on nearby wetlands were not addressed.

In regard to amphibians:

Will amphibians be collected and relocated to nearby suitable habitat, or is there a risk they will be displaced or destroyed during site preparation?

In regard to electricity:

Will new and existing transmission lines be fitted with bird-safe reflectors or line-marking devices to reduce collision and electrocution risk?

In regard to fuel:

Diesel is identified as a secondary fuel, with consumption listed at up to 75,000 litres per hour. Given that a standard tanker truck carries approximately 40,000 litres, this volume raises questions about logistics, emissions, and alignment with environmental goals.

• Does diesel exhaust exit through the same stacks as natural gas combustion?

• Will exhaust be treated with scrubbers?

• Was air quality modelling conducted assuming diesel combustion, or only natural gas?

In regard to noise:

Noise modelling appears to be based on human tolerance levels. However, many species — including red fox, black bear, raccoon, deer, amphibians, birds, skunks, and porcupines — have more sensitive hearing across broader frequency ranges.

Black bears were reportedly detected via trail cameras, but for how long were cameras deployed, how many were used, and were neighbouring properties included? Wildlife does not adhere to property boundaries.

Will physical noise and vibration barriers (both above and below ground) be constructed to limit sound propagation through air and soil? In a quiet rural environment like Marshdale, low-frequency hums can travel long distances at night.

Was sound monitoring conducted at a comparable fast-acting natural gas facility in a similarly rural setting? Urban facilities such as Dartmouth are not representative. A comparable rural reference site would provide a more accurate model.

In regard to construction, post-construction, and design:

• Who will monitor workers for environmental compliance, and how frequently?

• Lighting should be shielded and directed downward during and after construction.

• Lighting can attract owls hunting rodents; poison use should be prohibited.

• Roof design should prevent Killdeer nesting and uncontrolled snow shedding.

• If green roofing is used, regular ecological monitoring will be required.

• Temporary and permanent wildlife fencing should be installed.

• Baseline and ongoing samples (water, soil, air) should be collected, documented, and retained.

• Bird-safe glass or commercial deterrents (e.g., Feather Friendly) should be installed and maintained.

In regard to jobs:

Will Nova Scotia Power employees affected by coal plant closures be offered retraining or transition opportunities? Will former Northern Pulp workers have access to training or priority hiring if qualified?

What are the long-term health outcomes for workers exposed to emissions over many years? Have comparable facilities been consulted regarding worker health impacts?

In regard to trees:

Will trees removed during construction be replaced locally, watered, mulched, and maintained during early growth stages?

Will additional tree planting occur beyond one-for-one replacement to help offset emissions?
Can treated water be used to support these plantings?

In regard to consultants:

Hatch:
Why were they selected, and do they have experience conducting sound analysis for fast-acting gas plants in rural environments?

Strum:
Why did their assessment not extend beyond the project boundary, given that water, air, sound, and wildlife impacts extend well beyond property lines? If scope limitations were imposed, that raises concern about the adequacy of the assessment.

In regard to ethics:

IESO is publicly funded. How can the public be assured that environmental protection and community well-being are weighted alongside cost efficiency? Rural residents did not ask for industrial facilities near their homes, and long-term impacts to landscape character and peace deserve meaningful consideration.

In regard to property values:

For landowners who chose Marshdale for its quiet, views, and rural character — including those planning retirement homes or land sales — the presence of industrial stacks, emissions, and long-term truck traffic may negatively affect property values. Greater effort should be made to explore alternatives that minimize community disruption.

In regard to the Community Liaison Committee:

I joined the CLC out of concern that environmental considerations were being underrepresented. Given the number of unresolved issues, this concern remains valid.

Will CLC members be permitted to visit the site throughout construction and operation to verify compliance?
I will propose that qualified local naturalists and birders be granted monitored access to assist with independent observation.

In regard to ongoing monitoring:

I propose continuous, long-term monitoring using:

• Acoustic bird recorders

• Wildlife cameras

• Air and water quality sensors

• Ground vibration monitoring

• Low- and high-frequency sound analysis

Monitoring should occur both on-site and in surrounding areas for the full life of the project.

In regard to wildlife deterrence:

Natural scent-based deterrents could be used to discourage wildlife from approaching fencing, ponds, and other hazards.

In regard to squirrels and birds:

Tree removal will inevitably displace squirrels and birds. Installing nesting boxes away from high-noise zones would help mitigate habitat loss.

In regard to emergencies:

With New Glasgow being the nearest paid fire department, do local and volunteer departments have the staffing, equipment, and training to respond to a major fire, explosion, or large-scale fuel spill? What contingency plans exist if volunteer capacity declines over time?

In regard to road traffic:

Heavy truck traffic will increase noise, safety risks, and road degradation. Will road maintenance be prioritized for the life of the project?

Additional measures could include:

• Increased RCMP enforcement during construction

• Penalties for repeat speeding violations by project vehicles

• Rotating electronic speed display signs to improve compliance

Conclusion:

Both the Marshdale and Salt Springs projects raise serious concerns for me. While Marshdale appears more suitable than Salt Springs due to proximity to homes, natural gas — though cleaner than coal — still carries local environmental and community costs.

Perfect locations do not exist. However, projects of this scale must be assessed and monitored rigorously, transparently, and beyond property boundaries. Passive bird monitoring, expanded environmental assessments, and long-term oversight are essential if these projects are to proceed responsibly.

Respectfully,

Danny Cameron

Community Liaison Committee Member & Proud Nature Lover