|
Comments on the draft EIS guidelines submitted to the Panel Review Return to the Submission List | HOME PAGE Written Submission on DRAFT GUIDELINES FOR EIS of Whites Point Quarry and Marine Terminal Project from Don Mullin, M.A., M.I.R., C.H.R.P.,CD Freeport, NS General: Land-Ownership There is a dispute as to land ownership within the boundaries of the proposed project. This has been recognized in correspondence contained in the Public Registry. An inter-departmental email from Charlet Myra of DFO to Derek McDonald of CEAA, dated April 1, 2003 refers to this land ownership issue and concludes only that federal property is not involved. However, “NWP (Navigable Waters Protection {Branch}) is concerned because we don’t want to approve a structure in front of land that is not owned by the person doing the work (or leased in this case). If the fishermen’s privilege is still valid….then we can address it but we need to know what we are dealing with first.” There is no evidence in the Public Registry to indicate that this issue was ever resolved. Two issues are of importance – a privately held small parcel of land contained within the boundaries of the project site (a clear title is held by the owners and the legal contest has recently been through a Discovery procedure in another step to resolution) and Fishermen’s Privilege (noted in a 1933 deed of the land to His Majesty and at least one subsequent deed as “in perpetuity”). While land issues are a provincial matter, it would appear premature to investigate the environmental impacts of a project that may require significant alterations due to land ownership. The Proponent must be able to prove ownership or lease agreement for all properties within the boundaries of the proposed project or make adjustments to address encompassed properties before this project can proceed. General: Precautionary Principle Although the most recent version of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the Nova Scotia Environment Act articulates the Precautionary Principle, this is not reflected in the draft EIS Guidelines, nor do the terms of reference for the Review Panel specify the requirement to apply this principle. Either the terms of reference for the Panel or the EIS Guidelines need to explicate this principle. (It appears logical to place a statement of this requirement in Section 4.2 Study Strategy and Methodology). Reference: CEAA website description of the principles of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Point #2 states “In administering the Act, federal authorities are obligated to exercise their powers in a manner that protects the environment and human health, and applies the precautionary principle”. General: Safety Considerations Although the draft Guidelines refer to the health and safety of on-site personnel and members of the local community, no mention is made of the safety of the dozens of fishermen or others who use the area for recreational purposes within a kilometre or less of the shore at this site. Thus, in addition to examining safety issues related to lobster fishermen, groundfish longliners and handliners, periwinkle and mussel harvesters and others who use the area as a worksite, the safety of recreational boaters, kayakers, seabird and whalewatchers, and divers (both urchin divers and recreational divers) must also be considered. There are at least two threats – sound/vibration and flyrock. Two recent events in Nova Scotia demonstrate that accidental release of flyrock is not uncommon during blasting. The potential risk of flyrock is too obvious to discuss. These accidents almost certainly will occur during the anticipated 50 year lifespan of the project. The immediate effect of loud noise/vibration would be to disrupt communication and thereby increase the risk of personal danger or damage to vessel. Longer-term effects would be the reduction in auditory acuity of fishermen and others who use the area on a regular basis. General: Panel’s Decision Making Strategy At least two strategies have been used by previous Review Panels in making their final decision. The first is the basic legal CEAA test – will the project cause significant adverse environmental effects? The second strategy is a broader sustainability test – will the project make a positive contribution to sustainability. The latter strategy was used by at least two Panels – the ones for the Red Hill Creek Expressway and Voisey’s Bay projects. The United Nations Education, Science and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), selected Digby Neck and Islands as a paradigm of a North Atlantic community that is developing community-driven solutions to the impacts of global change. Further, UNESCO has designated an entire region of Southwest Nova Scotia as a World Biosphere Reserve. Given the demonstrated commitment of Digby Neck to sustainable development , it is obvious that the second decision-making strategy (will the project make a positive contribution to sustainability?) is the appropriate one to be taken by the Panel. General: Requirement for Information by the Public The period of time that will be permitted for public review of the Environmental Impact Statement will be inadequate to fully examine every aspect of the report and undertake any primary data collection to validate findings contained in the EIS. A number of options are available to alleviate this problem. Ideally, as the Proponent completes the work necessary to address a requirement of the EIS Guidelines in a specific area/section (e.g., Aboriginal Land and Resource Use, Aquatic Species and Habitat, etc.), this section of the EIS would be released for public review. Less helpful, but acceptable, would be an interim report of findings in selected areas. At a minimum would be the release to the public of information regarding the methodologies and analytic tools to be used by the Proponent in carrying out studies required by the EIS Guidelines. Section 3 Consideration of Traditional Knowledge The draft Guidelines state that the Proponent should consider local traditional knowledge and expertise in preparing the EIS. Given that this site was used in the 19th century (and probably much earlier) as a summer location for aboriginal people’s fishing and sealing activities, it is requested that the terminology be changed to…the Proponent must consider traditional knowledge and expertise…. Additionally, non-Aboriginal people have used this location for more than 200 years for fishing-activities and, consequently, possess considerable expertise on the local ecosystem and the physical oceanography of the surrounding area. It is argued that community and fishermen’s knowledge and expertise must also be used in preparing the EIS. Finally, the Acadian people’s roots in this area extend back hundreds of years. They, likewise, must be acknowledged as having traditional knowledge, particularly as it relates to the St. Mary’s Bay area, part of the Bay of Fundy, Gulf of Maine watershed. It is recommended that the Panel use the definition of traditional knowledge (TK) articulated by the Biodiversity Convention Office (BCO ) in revising the draft EIS Guidelines. The BCO describes traditional knowledge (TK) as: "Traditional knowledge refers to the knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities around the world. Developed from experience gained over the centuries and adapted to the local culture and environment, traditional knowledge is transmitted orally from generation to generation." And goes on to state that: "Traditional knowledge is mainly of a practical nature, particularly in such fields as agriculture, fisheries, health, horticulture, and forestry." "Biological resources and traditional knowledge are defined by indigenous peoples as a common good." "Over time, the dynamic knowledge, skills, and practices held by Indigenous Peoples and local communities have proven to be valuable and effective in the management of their territories, production of foods and medicines, and the continuance and enrichment of their cultures" "Of paramount importance is Article 8 (j) of the CBD, which states that each CBD Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate: "Subject to its national legislation, respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and promote their wider application with the approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge, innovations and practices and encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge, innovations and practices". " Relevant to the above definitions and discussion of TK, people have been fishing in this area for hundreds of years and the knowledge has been passed on orally from generation to generation by teaching. Additionally, the area being used for public access (the fishermen’s privilege, haul up and slip areas) falls under the definition of common good Reference: http://www.cbin.ec.gc.ca/primers/traditional.cfm Sub-section 4.2 In discussing Valued Environmental Components (VEC) the draft EIS Guidelines state that..”The culture and way of life of the people using the area affected by the Project may themselves be considered VECs.” I request this be rephrased to read ..The culture and way of life.must themselves be considered VECs”. As stated above, the Precautionary Principle should be articulated in this section dealing with data uncertainty, reliability, etc.. Sub-section 4.5 EIS Summary It is requested that not only the Summary be made available in electronic format but that the entire EIS be available in electronic format. Additionally, the terminology requires change (for both documents) from should to must (or shall) be made available in electronic format as well as in a hard-copy version. Sub-section 5.3 The draft EIS Guidelines appear to encourage (use of should, again) the Proponent to provide information on the management structure and organizational accountability for matters related only to this specific project. Given the magnitude of this proposed project and the potential environmental effects, it is requested that the Proponent be required to (i.e., must) provide full disclosure of any evidence pertaining to financial accountability and environmental performance on previous projects undertaken by Clayton Concrete/Clayton Block (the owners of Bilcon of Nova Scotia) and associated companies, as well as shipping companies to be used. As a new company, Bilcon of Nova Scotia has no history of accountability or environmental stewardship. The same cannot be said of the owners or shippers to be used in transporting aggregate. Sub-section 6.1 Spatial Boundaries and Scale (b) and (c) should state the requirement to include interactive effects – i.e., interactive effects of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and interactive effects of noise, light and atmospheric emissions. (For example, the effects on the night sky are magnified by light reflecting off particulate matter and the range of sound is affected by atmospheric conditions.) Sub-section 6.2 Temporal Boundaries In connection with considering the effects of the Project in combination with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects, the Proponent should be required to disclose any knowledge they have of other sites that have been acquired with the intention of quarrying on the Bay of Fundy shore of the North Mountain, from Brier Island up to an including the Cape Split area, as well as the Eastern portion of St. Mary’s Bay. (Explanation: Considerable interest has been shown in acquiring large local tracts of waterfront land in the past year or so and rights to adjacent property was recently acquired by a presumably associated company, Bilcon of Delaware. Full disclosure may permit legal action to be taken if fraud is subsequently revealed.) Section 8.0/9.0 Existing Environment As stated above, community and fishermen’s knowledge and expertise as well as that of Acadian people must be given equal consideration to Aboriginal knowledge and expertise in evaluating the environmental effects of this Project. Thus, the first sentence of paragraph 4 of this section, should read: “In describing the physical and biological environment, the Proponent must take an ecosystem approach that takes into account scientific, traditional, community and fishermen’s knowledge and perspectives as well as those of the Acadian people regarding ecosystem health and integrity.” Sub-sub-section 8.1.6/9.1.6 Terrestrial Species and Habitat Bird surveys, including migratory birds, as well as floral surveys must be carried out using agreed upon protocols and methodology. Guidance should be provided to the proponent as to the protocols and methodologies to be employed. Environment Canada has previously provided DFO with guidelines for conducting migratory bird surveys that were required for other Environmental Assessments. Government departments should be consulted to obtain assistance in developing guidelines for the proponent in the conduct of these studies. Sub-sub-section 8.1.7/9.1.7 Aquatic Species and Habitat Para 1 of this section states that the section must also identify potential invasive species. It should include the additional requirement to also address the potential impact of invasive species in Section 9.1.7. The destruction of Cape Breton oyster beds by MSX, of P.E.I. mussel beds by tunicates, and the havoc wreaked by zebra mussels in the Great Lakes are three well documented environmental disasters experienced in the past decade or so in Canada that were caused by invasive species carried in ships’ ballast water. There is a potential fourth that could have a devastating impact on the lobster fishery in this area. Since 1998, diseased lobsters have been found off the New England coast. Known by various names such as “black spot” “ugly lobster disease”, and “shell burn”, it is a disease caused by chitinolytic bacteria that eats chitin, a cellulose-like substance in the shells. The disease was originally detected off Long Island Sound and has been found in more northerly waters of the United States to the Maine-New Hampshire border. While it doesn’t appear to affect the health of the lobster, it makes them undesirable to consumers. Ballast water taken from the Eastern seaboard involves a risk that we cannot afford to take, given the value of the lobster industry in this area and the dependency of this fishery for the economic survival of communities on Digby Neck and the Islands as well as those on the shores of St. Mary’s Bay. (For further information on this disease contact Mr. Rick Cawthorn, Director and Senior Scientist at the Atlantic Veterinary College Lobster Science Centre at the University of Prince Edward Island.) It is unquestionable that the shipping schedule will need to be compressed from the estimated weekly shipping if production figures are to be met. This is due to weather conditions at certain period of the year that will make docking and loading impossible -frequent storms with damaging surges are common from November through March. Compressed shipping schedules will result in higher concentrations of ballast water and potentially, therefore, invasive species than would otherwise occur. This needs to be addressed by the Proponent in examining potential impacts of invasive species. Sub-sub-section 8.1.9/9.1.9 Climatic Conditions (Including Air Quality) In addition to the factors listed that will have an effect on, or interfere with, the Project, the impact of climate change needs to be addressed. This is to include projected changes in sea level and precipitation and their impacts during the life of the project. Conditions (e.g., hurricanes, tides, storm surges) of a magnitude that can be expected to occur once per century should be used to examine effects on the project, including the marine terminal. Also, the proponent should be required to investigate and report on how the project will impact on climate change over the duration of the project. A baseline study of present ambient air quality in the immediate area of the proposed project and in nearby communities should be undertaken to determine the level of extant particulate matter. Sub-section 8.2/9.2 Socio-Economic Conditions Sub-subsection 8.2.5/9.2.5 Marine Transportation The final EIS Guidelines need to include the requirement for the Proponent to specify the planned shipping route for the incoming and outgoing vessels early in the Environmental Assessment process. It will be impossible for experts and members of the general public to evaluate potential impacts on marine mammals, fishing grounds, fishing gear, navigational issues or a whole host of factors without a clear description of the intended shipping routes. (This requirement exists for sub-sub-section 8.2.4: Land Based Transportation, and its omission appears to be an oversight in the draft Guidelines.) Sub-sub-section 8.2.7/9.2.7 Human Health The Proponent should be required to document the current levels of respiratory problems in surrounding communities to establish baseline data. An unknown number of people have moved to this area from heavily industrialized centres to seek relief from respiratory illnesses such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema. Increased airborne particulate matter is likely to exacerbate existing respiratory illnesses. The risk to small craft from collision with the marine terminal or ships must be addressed in the EIS. In poor weather conditions, small craft follow the shoreline for safety reasons. The existence of large ships and the marine terminal structure, as well as any eddys, whirlpools, or other changes in water flow that could pose a safety risk need to be examined. I have presented a detailed account of most of my remaining concerns regarding socio-economic effects in an oral presentation to the Review Panel. I will simply summarize the main points in this written submission. The areas identified in this section of the draft Guidelines are almost exclusively economic effects. Social effects are given short shrift; indeed, it appears that social effects may not be at all well understood in the context of Environmental Assessments. It is strongly recommended that the issue of social effects be researched in detail and appropriate requirements, based on this research, be inserted in the Guidelines. Provincial and federal consideration of socio-economic effects differ in definitions, interpretations and scope. No indication is provided in the draft Guidelines as to what definitions/interpretations/scope will be used in this Environmental Assessment. This is a critical weakness of these Guidelines that must be addressed to avoid different conclusions being reached by the two jurisdictions. To properly address provincial requirements regarding socio-economic effects, Nova Scotia’s legislation should be the standard used by the Proponent and Review Panel. Section 10.0 Monitoring and Follow-up Program Access to the proposed project area needs to be addressed in the EIS. Specific consideration needs to be given to access by regulatory agencies and the public to monitor compliance with regulatory requirements and sustainable development objectives throughout the projected life span of the proposed project. In view of increased concerns regarding national/homeland security, current and future possible access restrictions that might affect monitoring need to be addressed. Thank you for your time and consideration. |