Speak Out in Solidarity Partnership for the Sustainable Development of Digby Neck and Islands Society Exerpt from: Environmental Planning and Assessment Caucus, CEN Issue 9, Fall/Winter 2004 CROSS-COUNTRY HOTSPOTS Environmental Assessments are happening across the country at all times and in all shapes and sizes. This section explores just some of the major EA issues facing different provinces and regions within the country through the eyes of active participants in those areas. North Mountain at Risk Don Mullin Partnership for Sustainable Development of Digby Neck and Islands Society There are genuine fears in southwestern Nova Scotia that the entire North Mountain, stretching from Cape Split, near Wolfville, to Brier Island, at the end of the Digby Neck peninsula (a distance of approximately 200 kilometres) might be at risk from American developers. The entire mountain range is comprised of basalt, a rock highly desired for roadbed, breakwater and foundation construction. Efforts to develop a large quarry on Digby Neck were thwarted a decade ago, but developers are back with a vengeance. In April, 2002, a New Jersey company, Clayton Concrete, fronted by a Canadian company, applied for a permit to operate a 3.9 hectare quarry near Little River on Digby Neck. The reason for the 3.9-hectare quarry size was that Nova Scotia legislation does not require an environmental assessment for a quarry of 4 hectares or less. Although it was known by all parties at the time that the developer intended to quarry a much larger area, NS government officials stated they could only deal with applications made, not those expected in the future. However, from the beginning, the government gave permission to have the Community Liaison Committee discuss matters related to the larger (155 hectare) quarry. Village of Sandy Cove, approximately 5 km from Little River. Photo: James Morehouse. In December 2002, the developer (proponent) submitted an application, under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, for a marine terminal to be constructed at the 3.9-hectare quarry site. The proposed terminal is to extend approximately 200 metres into the Bay of Fundy and would be used to load crushed basalt on post-Panamax-sized containers for shipment to the United States. At the same time, the proponent revealed plans to quarry 2 million tonnes of basalt a year for 50 years, with each blast using the equivalent of 25,000 kg of explosives. The site is only a few hundred metres from the shoreline of the Bay of Fundy, one of the ecological wonders of the world, summer home of the Right Whale and a major ecotourist destination for birdwatchers and whale watchers, not to mention the most lucrative lobster fishery in Nova Scotia. The marine terminal would extend 200 metres into the Bay, create navigation problems for small craft and displace as many as 10 lobster boats that use the area. As the terminal would affect marine habitat, federal government departments were implicated (particularly the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO)) and, due to the size of the vessels to be used, a Comprehensive Study was automatically triggered. Thus, a joint federal-provincial environmental assessment was required (the quarry being a provincial jurisdiction, and the marine terminal a federal jurisdiction) and efforts commenced to develop a Memorandum of Understanding for the joint assessment. Aerial shot taken of the actual site of the 3.9-hectare quarry (with sedimentation pond showing) and the surrounding area, much of which would be excavated to harvest the basalt. Photo: John Scott. However, in June 2003, then Minister of DFO, Mr. Robert Thibault, requested then Minister of the Environment, Mr. David Anderson, to elevate the environmental assessment to a Panel Review. In his letter to Mr. Anderson, Mr. Thibault wrote, in part, that “(t)he proposed project is located on Digby Neck, a narrow peninsula, situated on the outer Bay of Fundy. This area is a rich, diverse marine ecosystem with important fisheries resources and several endangered species including the North American Right Whale and Bay of Fundy stock of Atlantic salmon. Tourism and fishing are among the most important economic activities in the area.” He went on to say that “ various components of the proposed project will likely require authorizations….to harmfully alter, disrupt or destroy fish habitat (and that) our analysis has also determined that the marine terminal portion of the project will interfere substantially with navigation.” He concluded by writing that the projects (quarry and marine terminal) are likely to cause environmental effects over a large area of both the marine and terrestrial environments and that in the interest of harmonizing the federal-provincial environmental assessment processes, he was of the opinion that “an assessment by a Panel Review is the most appropriate level of assessment.” This request was subsequently approved by Mr. Anderson. It has been more than a year since the approval of a Panel Review. Finally, on Nov 4, 2004, a federal-provincial Agreement was released, Panel members were identified and, days later, a press release was issued on participant funding. The draft Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines were released on Nov.12 (the website of the draft EIS Guidelines is listed at the end of this article). A couple of points regarding EA issues related to this project: First, this Panel Review will implement full cost recovery from the proponent for federal government costs associated with the activities of the Panel Review. It is unclear whether the province will seek cost-recovery of its portion of the costs. In our view, the project is ill conceived (due to a totally inappropriate location), therefore, we are recommending that the province also recover Panel Review costs from the proponent. We regard cost-recovery as a positive step in EA practice in curtailing projects that are prima facie environmentally and/or socio-economically unsound. It also sharpens developers’ thinking to minimize stalling and/or shoddy work that will increase the level of effort required of Panel Reviews. Second, NS legislation explicitly recognizes socio-economic impacts of projects undergoing assessment (and not only effects directly attributable to physical aspects of the development). Given the pristine environment, delicate ecosystem, and efforts to become a world-class ecotourism destination, we hope that the Panel will require full evaluation of direct and indirect adverse socio-economic effects. Lessons we have learned to date: 1) expect SLAPP suits, particularly where US companies are involved – in our view, it is, apparently, part of their modus operandi (we have had one and the threat of another); 2) the process is costly and fund raising will become a major activity that can detract from other efforts; and, 3) the EA process may not be good, but it is slow – patience is a necessity. Information on the draft EIS Guidelines can be obtained at: http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/
© Partnership for the Sustainable Development of Digby Neck and Islands Society		Top of page            Return to Background Page