Steve Chapman, Panel Manager

Whites Point Quarry and Marine Terminal Project – Joint Review Panel

P.O. Box 486 C.R.O.

Halifax, N. S.  B3J 2R7

Comments@WPQ-JointReview.ca

 

Written Comments on

DRAFT GUIDELINES FOR EIS of

Whites Point Quarry and Marine Terminal Project

 

Submitted by:  Marilyn Stanton

Sandy Cove, Nova Scotia, B0V 1E0 

 

My methodology in making my comments was to  use ‘bold’ for the excerpts from the draft guidelines and yellow-line my inserted comments.  I hope this provides an easy method to identify my suggestions.

 

---

 

2.0 THE EIS AS A BASIS FOR PUBLIC REVIEW

To adequately describe the potential adverse environmental effects of the Project, the EIS must provide the following information:

a. purpose of the Project;

From a personal perspective, the purpose of the Project appears to be quite clear:  to quarry basalt for export to another Country, whose environmental laws are much more developed than is found in Canada and/or Nova Scotia.

b. need for the Project;

Also from a personal perspective, need for the Project falls under two categories:

 

I)        The need for a large US Company to find cheap sources of basalt to meet an inexhaustible demand for basalt, world-wide, in order to increase the company profits, and;

2)  The need for Provincial Government Departments to generate activity in specific fields, such as geology, mining, etc.

 

Having never been involved with any environmental issue before this one, I was shocked and shaken to learn that the Nova Scotia Government, through the Department of Natural Resources, was inviting the world to “come and grab” our mineral resources.   Their website in 2002 talked about ‘taking advantage’ of these resources and  ‘one window applications’, through which they would provide assistance to anyone wishing to be granted a permit to establish a mine or a quarry, etc..  Since the guidelines had been changed 10 or so years previously, a mining project that did not exceed 3.9 hectares did not require an environmental assessment.

 

I had always naively thought that the Department of Natural Resources protected our land, our resources and the animals that inhabited them.  This naïve and erroneous perception appears to be still very prevalent around Nova Scotia! 

 

In my current cynicism, I have come to believe that the real job creation of these projects that generate such a strong public reaction, is in the ‘empire building’ and job security of bureaucratic provincial departments .  Their activities do not seem to reflect much of a ‘stewardship role’ with regard to our Natural Resources.

 

 

e. the location of the proposed undertaking and the nature and sensitivity of the surrounding area;

 

As was pointed out by several presenters during the public hearings, this surrounding area is Western Nova Scotia on a land basis and the entire Gulf of Maine Watershed, as St. Mary’s Bay and the Bay of Fundy are all part of the same waters that ebb and flow throughout the entire region.  Therefore, any accidents such as an oil spill or marine bio-invaders, would be likely to cause detrimental effects to the entire Watershed.

 

Based on the fact that sometimes things sound quite different in this area, I also believe that part of the sensitivity of the surrounding area comes from the fact that this is a narrow strip of land, between two bodies of water.  On a quiet summer’s evening, when one stands on the top of Sandy Cove Hill, one can sometimes hear people talking at the wharf, because noise travels over the water.  It feels like one is in a giant amphitheatre.   Also, during foggy days, one can often hear the foghorn from the Island, ten or fifteen miles away.   I feel there should be an inclusion of a special study on the noise patterns very specific to this area, rather than relying on data where the parameters are quite different, because elsewhere, there is probably sufficient landmass to absorb the sound.

 

 

3.0 CONSIDERATION OF TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE

Traditional knowledge, which is rooted in the traditional life of Aboriginal people, has an important contribution to make to an environmental assessment. This knowledge is based on personal observation, collective experience and oral transmission over generations. The Proponent should consider local traditional knowledge and expertise in preparing the EIS.

 

Comment: I would like the last sentence to read: The Proponent MUST consider local traditional knowledge and expertise, which is rooted in the traditional life of the fishers and their working lifestyle, to the extent it is dictated by the Land and the Sea, in preparing the EIS.

However, please note that this comment is empty rhetoric unless it is specifically identified whenever and wherever it has been considered and addressed and how it affected the conclusions reached.:  E.G.  A nor’wester, blowing 90 km. prevents any use of Fundy’s waters by fishermen – sometimes for several days .......... how will proponent deal with this? ...when ship is arriving/docking.......when ship is departing?....when ship is loading?

 

 

 

4.0 PREPARATION AND PRESENTATION OF THE EIS

This section sets out how the EIS is to address public participation as well as the study strategy, methodology and presentation. Through its EIS, the Proponent must demonstrate that it has addressed the considerations listed in Section 2.0.

 

COMMENT: This sentence should also include the 3.0:  i.e.  Through its EIS, the Proponent must demonstrate that it has addressed the considerations listed in Section 2.0 & 3.0.

 

 

 

4.2 Study Strategy and Methodology

The Proponent is expected to observe the intent of the EIS Guidelines and to identify and describe any significant adverse environmental effects caused by the Project, including situations not explicitly identified in these EIS Guidelines. It is possible that these EIS Guidelines include matters that, in the judgement of the Proponent, are not relevant or significant to the Project. If such matters are omitted from the EIS, they must be clearly indicated so that the public and other interested parties have an opportunity to comment on this judgement. Where the Panel disagrees with the Proponent's decision, it may require the Proponent to provide additional information. The Proponent must explain and justify methods used to predict potential adverse environmental effects of the Project on each valued environmental component (VEC), which includes biophysical and socio-economic components, on the interactions among these components and on the relations of these components within the environment. The information presented must be substantiated. In particular, the Proponent must describe how VECs were identified and what methods were used to predict and assess the adverse environmental effects of the Project on these components. The value of a component not only relates to its role in the ecosystem, but also to the value placed on it by humans. The culture and way of life of the people using the area affected by the Project may themselves be considered VECs.

 

Comment:  The last sentence appears to make it judgmental and arbitrary whether or not this is actually a VEC.  This leads one to question a) whether the VECs will be identified and listed separately and b) who compiles the list – the proponent or the community?

At the Chair’s kind invitation during the public meeting in Sandy Cove, we will be submitting a separate list of VECs, compiled through input from multiple community members.

 

In describing methodology, the Proponent must explain how it used scientific, engineering, traditional and other knowledge to reach its conclusions. Any assumptions made must be clearly identified and justified. All data, models and studies must be documented so that the analysis is transparent and reproducible. All data collection  methods must be specified. The uncertainty, reliability and sensitivity of models used to reach conclusions must be indicated. The sections on the existing environment and on potential adverse environmental effects predictions and assessment must be prepared to the highest standards in the relevant subject area. All conclusions must be substantiated.  The EIS must identify all significant gaps of knowledge and understanding where they are relevant to key conclusions presented in the EIS. The steps to be taken by the Proponent to address these gaps must also be identified. Where the conclusions drawn from scientific and technical knowledge are inconsistent with the conclusions drawn from traditional knowledge, the EIS must contain a balanced presentation of the issues and a statement of the Proponent's conclusions.

 

Comment:  The traditional knowledge appears to be only Aboriginal, as traditional knowledge of fishers has not been identified or recognized.  Therefore, it should be identified that traditional knowledge is both Aboriginal and Local Fishers.

 

 

4.4 Presentation of the EIS

For clarity and ease of reference, it is suggested that the EIS be presented in the same order as the EIS Guidelines. However, in certain sections of the EIS, the Proponent may decide that the information is better presented following a different sequence. The EIS must include a guide that cross-references the EIS Guidelines with the EIS so that points raised in the EIS Guidelines are easily located in the EIS.   In the interest of brevity, the EIS should make reference to, rather than repeat, information that has already been presented in other sections of the document. A key subject index would also be useful and should reference locations in the text by volume, section and sub-section. As well, the names of the Proponent's key personnel and/or contractors and sub-contractors responsible for preparing the EIS shall be listed. Supporting documentation should be provided in separate volumes, and should be referenced by volume, section and page in the text of the main EIS. The Proponent should make the EIS text available in an electronic format to facilitate internet access.

 

Comment:  this appears to be arbitrary, as it says ‘should’, not “must”..

 

 

4.5 EIS Summary

It is essential to the public hearings stage of the joint review that residents of those communities likely to be affected by the Project have an adequate understanding of the proposed Project and its potential adverse environmental effects. The Proponent should therefore prepare a plain language summary of the EIS that will provide the reader with a concise but complete overview of the EIS, including all the information listed in Section 2.0. This summary should be made available in English and French. The Proponent should also make the EIS summary available in an electronic format.

 

Comment:  since it appears to offer a choice, the  verb “should” changed to “must”., when addressing the proponent’s actions, would clarify the situation.

 

6.1 Spatial Boundaries and Scale

In determining the spatial boundaries to be used in assessing the potential adverse and beneficial environmental effects, the Proponent will consider, but not be limited to, the following criteria:

a. the physical extent (terrestrial and marine) of the proposed Project, including any offsite facilities or activities;

b. the extent of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems potentially affected by the Project;

 

Comment:  as pointed out during the public hearings, this must include the Bay of Fundy/Gulf of Maine Watershed ecosystem, as well as the area of Western Nova Scotia.  This should include the ‘upper atmosphere’, where migratory birds, as well as local flocks, would be affected.

 

6.2 Temporal Boundaries

In characterizing the environmental effects of the Project, the Proponent shall consider the current baseline environment and environmental trends within the study area. The description of the existing baseline and the environmental trends shall include a consideration of past projects and activities carried out by the Proponent and/or others within the study area.

 

Comment: I feel that the word “shall” should be upgraded to “must” and the start of the project must be identified to capture the activities of the proponent’s  “past business associates, subsidiaries, etc.” who were involved in the preliminary quarry work, i.e. the siltation  ponds, deforestation , etc.  Too often to date, technicalities have prevented the community from effectively monitoring the existing site, which currently, through name-changing, business dealings, etc. appears to have become a type of “no-man’s land”.

 

7.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

 

The Proponent must provide a description of the Project that includes the following:

a.      An explanation of the purpose and need for the Project;

 

 Comment:   who’s need - the Proponent’s?  Other Country’s, in order to preserve their own environment?

 

h.     Major components of the Project and their location, including using maps indicating boundaries of the Project in relation to other rights of way (e.g. rail lines, gas pipelines, road interchanges, shipping lanes), existing infrastructure, land uses, waste disposal areas, temporary and permanent existing and proposed transportation systems and routes, important environmental features and local neighbourhoods;

                                   

i. design features of the Project including, but not limited to, safety features, efficiency, network aspects (provision of shipping continuity and links to existing marine infrastructure);

 

Comment:   this descriptor certainly opens the door to the realization that this project’s terminal could ultimately be considered a part of the ‘existing marine infrastructure’ of the future.  This section and also h) above, must outline the existing infrastructures and project how the establishment of this quarry would provide the opportunity of other Industrialized Projects to ship their product from the marine terminal, being causative for attracting more and greater industrialized use of the entire Southwestern Region.

 

 

l. a description of those aspects of the Project, including accidents and malfunctions, that could reasonably be expected to affect the environment;

 

Comment:  accidents and malfunctions should address the lack of available resources in this area.  A ship during a storm, on an unprotected coast  – where is the nearest assistance?  Oil spill program is currently non-existent.  Also, what kind of priority would they have during a storm, if another ship was in trouble, carrying more volatile cargo?

 

 

7.2 Project Justification

7.2.1 Purpose and Need for the Project

Identify the main function of the Project. Explain what is to be achieved by carrying out the undertaking, the opportunity the undertaking is intending to satisfy and who will benefit from the undertaking.

 

Comment:   Need?  Benefit?   This equation is incomplete – the other side of the coin should also be addressed here: who will ‘not need’ or be disadvantaged by the project.”

 

9.0 EFFECTS PREDICTION, MITIGATION MEASURES AND

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESIDUAL EFFECTS

 

Note:  The comments in this section are copied directly from another submission, because I so strongly agree with the logic expressed about the issue, and wish to resubmit this, for emphasis:

 

The issue of Security is completely absent from these Draft Guidelines.  Since 9/11, this issue has become a daily concern in the news.  Has the Federal Government developed a plan for security along the coasts of Nova Scotia and Atlantic Canada?  Is the Canadian Government working with other Government jurisdictions concerned about security in the Bay of Fundy/Gulf of Maine system and, indeed, in the North Atlantic?  Who will be in charge of security on these coasts?  And what security is in place along the coasts of the Eastern United States?  Over the 50-year period of the Project, what guarantees will be in place for the fishermen, coastal harvesters and tourism operators to continue their business activities?  This issue must address the points of access and freedom to conduct traditional business practices.  How will the issue of security impact on the freedoms of the community on Digby Neck, the North Mountain?

What sort of compensation will be in place should access and traditional freedoms be denied?  Therefore,

The EIS must provide a comprehensive plan, developed with all relevant Government agencies, which will address all points of security in the area of the Bay of Fundy/Gulf of Maine.  This will include anyone living or conducting business in the affected area; all operators in the fishery such as fishers, coastal harvesters, fishplant operators; tourism operators such as whale-watch and sea-cruise businesses. 

 

Note:  end of duplicate comments.

***********************************************************************************

 

The purpose of this section is to identify potential effects of the Project, including ways in which the environment may be changed, where and for how long as well as whether residents and the environment will be better or worse off because of the construction and operation of the Project. An analysis of the Project=s effects on the VECs must consider and demonstrate linkages between predicted physical and biological changes resulting from the Project. The Proponent must explain how VECs were chosen and provide the rationale for the determination of the significance of the effects on each VEC.

 

Comment:  As stated in 4.2, the VEC’s identified by community members will be forwarded under separate cover.  When they are incorporated into the Guidelines, this section should state that the Proponent needs to “identify” how a VEC was  chosen, as opposed to “explaining” how the Proponent chose the VEC.

 

10.0 MONITORING AND FOLLOW-UP PROGRAM

The EIS shall include a framework upon which compliance and effects monitoring will be based throughout the life of the Project, including eventual abandonment. This section of the EIS must provide information on all proposed monitoring programs and a framework for actions to be taken to respond to monitoring results, including plans for a

formal follow-up program pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to verify the accuracy of the environmental assessment and the effectiveness of the mitigation measures.

 

 

Comment:  The follow-up program and its objectives must define ‘how’ the monitoring will be done and ‘who’ actually performs the individual tasks and how the information is “validated”, if applicable.  For instance, the Proponent’s judgement might be vastly different than Community Members in determining the effectiveness of mitigation.  Provision should be made for community participation in the follow-up program plans.  Also, for independent (scientific, if applicable) arbitration if major, irreconcilable differences occur between the Proponent and the Community.