January 19, 2005

Steven Chapman
Panel Manager
P.O. Box 486 C.R.O.
Halifax, NS
B3J 2R7

RE: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY FOR PROPOSED QUARRY AT WHITES COVE

Dear Sir:

The Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen’s Association has 238 members and we are all fulltime fishermen who represent 700 fishing licenses which are all used in the Bay of Fundy. We are the largest association of fishermen for the Bay of Fundy. We ask that each and every addition or alteration we make in this submission be considered as 238 individual submissions, all asking for these inclusions.

It is our expectation that the Guidelines for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) include as its temporal and spatial boundaries, the entire Bay of Fundy waters and also St. Mary’s Bay and the Annapolis Basin.

The ships which would pick up the basalt from the proposed quarry site would have to navigate through the Bay of Fundy waters where we are conducting our day to day business 365 days of the year.. Furthermore, the tides of these waters affect physically and biologically the Bay of Fundy, the Annapolis Basin and St. Mary’s Bay.

IT IS OUR EXPECTATION that the EIS include that the proponent be required to have a scientific Baseline Study of the Biomass of the Bay of Fundy and St. Mary’s Bay, conducted in the offshore area during mid December to the end of February, and in the inshore area from the first of May to the end of May. The fishermen are to be included as a major resource of scientific knowledge in such study. Included in such study ( but not limiting it to just this specific inclusion ); the biomass of all ground fish species in these bodies of water, the lobster and the listing of all of the species which are not considered to be in large enough numbers to be valid for commercial fisheries, are required. This allows for knowledge of possible impact on the entire biomass including the endangered species. Restoration projects are being worked on at this moment on such fish as the wild salmon, and although their numbers are low in the Bay at this time, that will not be the situation in the future, if they are not put at risk by this project..

WE EXPECT that the EIS require the Proponent to show how an ongoing monitoring body and monitoring system of the biomass of these bodies of waters, would be established and how it would work. Also, the Proponent is required to show how the fishermen of the area would be represented within this entire system as a major authority.

WE EXPECT that the EIS require of the Proponent to have a Navigatable Waters Study be conducted all the way from the terminal of departure in the USA to point of arrival.. Input into that study should include input from the fishermen conducting their business within those waters, and our Association , and expect such input to have the same validity and weight as the scientific research.

The fishermen of the Bay of Fundy already have huge problems with shipping in the waters where they conduct their business. Although the shipping lane for the ferry which comes from ST. John, New Brunswick to Digby, Nova Scotia is well established, a strong Northeast or Northwest wind can take the ferry off track by a mile or more. This occurs often. Our lobster lines are set along the outside of their track and when the ferry deviates from its course we can lose, and have lost , our traps and our catches. Also near collisions become another possibility. Included in this study should be the entire plan for how the Proponent will have his ships deal with unexpected situations of navigation, such as mooring alternatives, storms, mechanical breakdowns, etc., and the consequences such actions will have on the fishermen in the area.

WE EXPECT that the Panel include in the EIS guidelines an in depth report by the Proponent of the amount of insurance they will carry to cover all possible situations of liability, including therein , the packages they will payout to fishermen for loss of fishing gear, lobster gear and traps, lost day s of conducting their business due to lost gear, traps, boats and other obstacles, lost days because of an oil spill, or any other negative environmental impact caused by their operation of this business and compensation for the possible lost revenues that each of these situations causes. The Proponent must further show in this report his ability to pay each and every one of all of these types of claims. Also further required is that the Proponent show written proof that the company has liability insurance at all times to cover any liability against them. 

WE EXPECT that the Panel include in the EIS guidelines, that the Proponent be required to undertake a study of the Migratory Patterns of the larvae, fish, lobster, whales, porpoise, (all biomass) which happen in the Bay of Fundy and St. Mary’s Bay as well as the Annapolis Basin; as those patterns must be viewed as having a symbiotic relationship with each other, and any disruption of one will affect the entire balance and therefore affect the amount of fish and lobster we will harvest. Again, the fishermen must be included in this study as a valid expert in these matters.

WE EXPECT that the Panel will include into the EIS guidelines a directive to the Proponent to give a full disclosure of the ballast which the ships will have to take onboard at their point of departure. In that disclosure an explanation how the Proponent will guaranty that the waters taken onboard will not contain anything which will harm our ecosystems in a negative way. Their plans for the disposal of the ballast water and how monitoring of this system will be carried out each and every time. How will the Proponent avoid a New York Sound situation, where the fishermen lost 80% of their lobster stock because disposed ballast water from ships was taken on close enough to shore to include in the water, poison chemicals, sprayed on land to kill mosquitoes ( because of the West Nile threat) , and then these waters where released in their area? This is one possible threat of many.

WE EXPECT FURTHERMORE that the Panel include in the EIC that the Proponent have a study conducted on the environmental impact of bilge waters and ballast waters on our ecosystems. Please note that the bilge waters are a separate potential environmental threat and that they are not ballast water.

WE EXPECT that the Panel include in the EIC the Proponents plan to address the entire legal situation of Fishermen’s Privilege, which has afforded fishermen the legal right to actually take their boats ashore in Whites Cove and carry on their business relating to fishing. The Proponent must explain the plans in place to allow the fishermen this option to free and unencumbered access to the Whites Cove shoreline.

Sincerely,

Christopher Hudson
President
Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen’s Association