II. Overarching Comments 

1.0 Role of Sustainable Development 
1.1 The Contribution to Sustainability Test
1.2 Application of the Precautionary Principle
1.3 Attention to Enhancement and Mitigation
1.4 Attention to Bridging Effects

2.0 Approach to the Environmental Assessment 

3.0 Role of an Interim Report 

III.  Comments on the Format of the Guidelines

IV. Topical Review and Comment  ^[1]

PART I INTRODUCTION

2.0 The EIS as a Basis for Public Review

3.0 Consideration of Traditional Knowledge

4.0 Preparation and Presentation of the EIS
4.1 Public Involvement
4.2 Study Strategy and Methodology

PART II CONTENT OF THE EIS

5.0 Introduction to the Context of the EIS
5.3 The Proponent
5.4 The Planning Context

6.0 Boundaries of the Environmental Assessment
6.1 Spatial Boundaries and Scale
6.2 Temporal Boundaries

7.0 Project Description
7.1 Regulatory Environment
7.2 Project Justification

7.2.1 Purpose and Need for the Project
7.2.2 Alternatives to the Project

7.3 Detailed Project Description
7.3.2 Site Preparation and Construction, Components,and Activities
7.3.3 Operation and Maintenance
7.3.5 Decommissioning and Reclamation

7.4 Environmental Protection Plan

8.0 Existing Environment

8.1 Biophysical Environment
8.1.1 Geology
8.1.2 Surface Water
8.1.3 Groundwater
8.1.4 Wetlands
8.1.6 Terrestrial Species and Habitat
8.1.7 Aquatic Species and Habitat
8.1.10 Noise Levels

8.2 Socio-Economic Conditions
8.2.1 Economy
8.2.2 Land Use and Value
8.2.6 Recreation and Tourism
8.2.7 Human Health

9.0 Effects Prediction, Mitigation Measures and Significance of Residual Effects

9.1 Biophysical Environment
9.1.1 Geology
9.1.7 Aquatic Species and Habitat
9.1.8 Species at Risk

9.2 Socio-Economic Conditions
9.2.1 Economy
9.2.2 Land Use and Value
9.2.3 Commercial and Recreational Fisheries
9.2.4 Land Based Transportation
9.2.5 Marine Transportation
9.2.6 Recreation and Tourism
9.2.7 Human Health

9.6 Sustainable Use of Renewable Resources Effects

10.0 Monitoring and Follow-up Program

10.1 Monitoring

V. Concluding Remarks

Appendix A
Short Biographies of Contributors

Appendix B
Excerpts from the Voisey's Bay Mine and Mill 
Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines

Appendix C
Summary of Recommendations

• Dr. Ron Colman, Executive Director, GPI Atlantic 
• Prof. Meinhard Doelle, Professor of Environmental Law, Dalhousie University
• Dr. Robert Gibson, Environmental Scientist, University of Waterloo
• Ms. Belinda Manning, Citizen
• Ms. Lisa Mitchell, Environmental Lawyer, LJM Environmental Consulting
• Mr. Andy Sharpe, Environmental Scientist, Consultant
• Dr. David Scarratt, Fisheries Scientist, Department of Fisheries and Oceans (retired)

• the extent to which the Undertaking may make a positive overall contribution towards the attainment of ecological and community sustainability, both at the local and regional levels; 
• how the planning and design of the Undertaking have addressed the three objectives of sustainable development stated above; 
• how monitoring, management and reporting systems will attempt to ensure continuous progress towards sustainability; and,
• appropriate indicators to determine whether this progress is being maintained. 
  

The first of these criteria is the most significant. Combined with the associated requirement to consider the full life and decommissioning of the Project, this consideration essentially required the Proponent to show how the proposed undertaking would leave the local and regional ecology and communities in better shape (from a sustainability perspective) than it found them at the outset.

Whether the resulting Voisey's Bay EIS and Project are models for meeting this higher test is open to debate. However, the approach taken contributed to the undertaking being approved through joint agreement among parties who came together on this despite a long and bitter history of conflict. That alone might be sufficient justification for favouring a sustainability-driven test.

The draft White's Point EIS Guidelines are silent on the matter of what test is to be applied. This would seem to be inconsistent both with the standard set in the Voisey's Bay case and with the relevant federal and provincial legislation. There is no obvious reason why a higher standard should apply to the north Labrador coast than to the White's Point area. Moreover, the legal foundation, and arguably the legal obligation, for the sustainability test is stronger in the White's Point case than it was in the Voisey's Bay case, since explicit commitments to contribute to sustainable development appear in both the federal CEA Act (section 2) and Nova Scotia Environment Act (s.2 (b)).

Significantly, the provincial law specifies application of the sustainable development principle in ways that parallel the clarifications provided in the Voisey's Bay EIS Guidelines, including reference to "maintenance and restoration of essential ecological processes"(s.2 (b)(i)), use of the precautionary principle (s.2 (b)(ii)), and cradle to grave stewardship (s.2 (b)(v)). Clearly, the basic requirements established in the provincial law apply to the White's Point case and should be incorporated in the review EIS Guidelines.

Recommendation 1: 

Language similar to that of the Voisey's Bay EIS Guidelines section 3.3 (see Appendix B) should be incorporated into the White's Point EIS Guidelines to clarify for the Proponent and other participants the basic test to be applied in the review.

1.2 Application of the Precautionary Principle

In addition to adoption and specification of the contribution to sustainability test, the Voisey's Bay EIS Guidelines included a subsection (s.3.4) explaining the Panel's expectations for application of the precautionary principle.

On this matter the draft White's Point EIS Guidelines are silent, even though the Nova Scotia Environment Act (s.2 (b)(ii)) provides a clear foundation, perhaps an obligation, to require application of the precautionary principle in assessment reviews.

Recommendation 2: 

Language similar to that of the Voisey's Bay EIS Guidelines section 3.4 (see Appendix B) should be incorporated into the White's Point EIS Guidelines. The purpose is to express explicitly a requirement to apply the precautionary principle in review decision making, including in the evaluation and selection among alternatives, alternative means and particular design options.

1.3   Attention to Enhancement as well as Mitigation Opportunities

One of the most fundamental requirements of environmental assessment in the service of sustainability is ensuring that the proposed undertaking promises net gains. For this to be evaluated, the assessment must examine positive as well as negative effects and consider enhancement of the positives as well as mitigation of the negatives. 

The draft White's Point EIS Guidelines do require attention to both positive and negative environmental effects (s.2 (h)). They also require comparison of the Project and alternatives in light of their relative costs and benefits (s.7.2.2). But there is no consideration or encouragement of means to enhance the potential positive effects of the alternatives prior to selection of the preferred alternative and no requirement to identify and evaluate means to enhance the potential positive effects of the Project at the detailed design stage.

Enhancement measures are now quite commonly included in environmental assessment reviews, at least under the CEA Act. As an example, see the Draft Agreement to Establish a Joint Panel for the Horizon Oil Sands Project, subsection 3 (d)). There does not appear to be any justification for omitting enhancement measures from the White's Point EIS Guidelines.

Recommendation 3: 

The White's Point EIS Guidelines should include requirements to consider enhancement of positive effects as well as mitigation of adverse effects, in part as a contribution to the larger objective of ensuring that any approved undertaking makes the maximum positive contribution to sustainability.

1.4   Attention to Bridging Effects

The Project under review centers on limited duration and non-renewable resource extraction. Such undertakings are not potentially sustainable in themselves. Past experience with roughly comparable mining Projects clearly demonstrates that their economic character can be essentially boom and bust, and that the end effects can include social as well as ecological devastation. At least conceptually, however, it is possible for non-renewable extraction Projects to contribute to sustainability. To do this they must serve as bridges to a more viable (sustainable) future for the communities involved.

Such bridging is not a new concept. It has been used for decades in energy policy discussions, for example. There, the concern has focused on justifiable use of non- renewable hydrocarbons, and the argument from what is now called a sustainability perspective is that non-renewable energy resources ought to be used chiefly for bridging purposes, facilitating their own replacement by technologies and resources that are more benign and renewable.

For the White's Point Project, bridging to a more viable, durable and equitable regional future entails:

•  maintenance of ecological integrity and preservation of valued ecosystem components;
•  strengthening of other regional economic options; and 
•  enhancement of other aspects of the economic, cultural, social, educational and health base for long term community well-being. 

More or less specific reference to some of these elements is already included in the draft EIS Guidelines. But the draft EIS Guidelines do not include a requirement for integrated consideration and analysis leading to an explicit and well-supported conclusion on the question of net contribution to regional sustainability.

The draft White's Point EIS Guidelines have set the stage for attention to bridging by requiring attention to the full Project life cycle from pre-construction to decommissioning, reclamation and abandonment (s.6.2, s.7). But the EIS Guidelines should also include an explicit obligation for the Proponent to show how they may be expected to leave the host communities in a more viable, durable and equitable condition than what prevailed at the commencement of the Project.

Recommendation 4: 

The EIS Guidelines should include a requirement for integrated consideration and analysis of how the Project through its implementation and including its decommissioning will maintain and strengthen local and regional resources, capacities and opportunities so as to act as a bridge to a more sustainable future there.

2.0   Approach to the Environmental Assessment

In the EIS Guidelines for Review of the Proposed Red Hill Creek Expressway North-South Section Project, the Panel included a section entitled “Focus of the Review.”^[4] In this section the Panel stated that, “…a holistic approach to the review must be taken and not one that looks at issues in isolation.” The Panel went on to specifically identify several elements of the holistic approach that they considered critical to the review. 

Relevant examples from that approach include:

•  An ecosystem based approach that ensures the review addresses both the direct impacts that the Project will have on the various ecosystem components, as well as the interactions that will occur between the ecosystem components as a result of the Project being carried out.
•  Socio-economic issues, including a recognition that the community constitutes part of the environment to be assessed by the Panel. 
•  An understanding of the past and future environmental, economic and social trends in the area and how the Project will influence these trends.

Many of the items described in this section of the Red Hill Creek EIS Guidelines are elaborated on in other areas of those Guidelines. However, the statements provided by the Panel at the front end of the EIS Guidelines serve as a valuable introduction to the Panel’s approach. We recognize that the White’s Point Panel will have its own perspective on and approach to the Environmental Assessment. We ask only that you consider a section similar to “Focus of the Review” section in the Red Hill Guidelines to help communicate that perspective and approach to the Proponent and the public.

Recommendation 5:

The EIS Guidelines should include a section entitled “Focus of the Review” which provides insight into the Panels’ overall approach to the environmental assessment.

3.0    The Role of an Interim Report on Study Strategy and Methodology

The quarry and marine terminal Project proposed for White’s Point is large and complex. Interest in and concern over the Project extends across the province, far beyond the immediately impacted communities. The Society strongly believes that a 60-90 day review and comment period on the final EIS will be far from adequate. To that end, the Society suggests that the EIS Guidelines require the Proponent to produce an interim report, prior to completion of the EIS, that addresses study strategy and methodology for the EIS. This may be the only way to ensure that members of the public have a reasonable opportunity to prepare for the review of the EIS. 

The Society has been actively coordinating with many local, national and international experts. The interest and support of these individuals has been phenomenal, in fact most have agreed to review documents and provide advice without compensation. As we are sure you understand, they are also very busy people. It will be difficult, if not impossible, for the Society to ensure that these resources can be adequately tapped in a 60-90 period following the release of the EIS. Several experts have suggested to us that if the Proponent provides information on their study strategy and methodology as an interim step, prior to completion of the EIS, they will be in a much better position to review the EIS when it is ultimately released. Such an interim report will also assist the Society greatly in determining the need for research independent of that undertaken by the Proponent.

Further comment on the recommendation for an interim report can be found in section 4.2.

Recommendation 6:

The EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent to provide an Interim EIS Report to the Panel. This report would describe the study strategy and methodology that the Proponent intends to use to complete sections 8.0 and 9.0 of the EIS.

III.   Comment on the Format of the EIS Guidelines

There are a number of terms used throughout the draft EIS Guidelines that would benefit from a definition. For example, the terms “Project study area” and “in the area of” are referred to throughout the draft EIS Guidelines and yet they are not defined. In some instances there appears to be inconsistent use of these terms. The lack of definition and the lack of consistency make it difficult to determine what is being required of the Proponent.

The EIS Guidelines for the Review of the Proposed Red Hill Creek Expressway North-South Section Project, include an Annex that defines several terms used throughout the EIS Guidelines. 

Recommendation 7:

The EIS Guidelines should include a section that provides a list of relevant terms and their definitions.^[5]

IV. Topical Review and Comment


This portion of the report addresses individual sections of the draft EIS Guidelines. The section numbers presented here correspond with the section numbers contained within the draft EIS Guidelines.


PART I  - INTRODUCTION

2.0   The EIS as a Basis for Public Review

Section 2.0 entitled, The EIS as a Basis for Public Review is confusing. The Proponent is directed in this section to provide information on a list of items (a-p). However, there is no direct link between the list of items in section 2.0 and the Valued Environmental Components (VECs) described in sections 6.0 to 10.0 (although there is overlap). Presumably, the Proponent is required to provide information on all of the items described in sections 6.0 to 10.0. This would make the list in section 2.0 redundant and unnecessary.

We support the requirement for an executive summary described in section 2.0.

3.0   Consideration of Traditional Knowledge

The existing wording of this section does not identify the role of long time residents, including fishers, in being a source of Traditional Knowledge. The text further does not recognize community knowledge, which has been identified in previous panel reviews. The traditional knowledge and experience of local inhabitants and people who have used the area and the adjacent waters should be explicitly identified in this section. It is equally deserving of consideration. This is not clear from the present wording of this section, although it is alluded to in section 8.1.7 of the draft EIS Guidelines.

Recommendation 8: 

The definition of Traditional Knowledge in the EIS Guidelines should be explicitly expanded to encompass the collective experience of residents of the area and community knowledge.

4.0   Preparation and Presentation of the EIS

4.1   Public Involvement

The section on public involvement provides very little direction to the Proponent on anything other than the provision of information. Direction to the Proponent on public involvement should also address the need to listen to the public and to be accountable to the public. There is currently no requirement for the Proponent to provide information to the public on how they have or intend to address public concerns. Furthermore, the Proponent is not required to provide the public with an explanation or rationale where concerns have not or will not be addressed. 

Where the Proponent has provided opportunities for public input, all of the information from these sessions should be available to any member of the public. It should also be made clear to the Proponent that public sessions (such as community liaison committee meetings) held prior to the start of the joint environmental assessment are not directly relevant to the environmental assessment.

Recommendation 9:

The EIS Guidelines should provide a more comprehensive public participation program. The following principles of public participation should be included in the EIS Guidelines:

 

1. The goals of the Proponent’s public participation program must be very clearly stated.

2. Stakeholders should be consulted on how to design the public participation process.

3. Various mechanisms of public participation must be used, e.g. open houses, community meetings, consultation with experts, round table discussions, site visits, etc.

4. The public participation program must be initiated very early in the process.

5. Public participation techniques must be designed to suit a variety of participants and situations – e.g. style of consultation with aboriginal communities may differ from consultation with non-government organizations or local communities.

6. Any person who could be directly or indirectly affected by the Project should be invited to participate.

7. The public participation program should be constantly re-evaluated by the Proponent and the public and it should be flexible to change.

8. Opportunities for public participation should not occur only at the site, there should be sessions held in other areas of the province as well.

4.2   Study Strategy and Methodology

This section of the EIS Guidelines requires the Proponent to explain and justify methods to predict potential adverse environmental effects of the Project on each valued environmental component (VECs) which includes biophysical and socio-economic components within the environment. Further, paragraph 2 provides that the Proponent explain how it used scientific, engineering, traditional and other knowledge to reach its conclusions. All data models and studies must be documented so that the analysis is transparent and reproducible. All data collection methods must be specified. 

We agree that the requirement to identify, explain and justify the study strategy and methodology is very important. However, as described in Part II of this submission, we strongly believe that this information should be provided to the Panel and the public before the EIS is completed. Providing the study strategy and methodology in the months prior to the submission of the EIS enables the Panel and the public to be in a position to review and understand the Proponent’s approach. It will also assist the public in determining any gaps in the Proponent’s proposed study where original research initiated by the public may be required. We believe that this is fundamental to a fair and effective EIA. In fact, it may be the only way, given the time constraints, for members of the public to be adequately prepared to review and comment on the EIS. 

In all areas of professional practice, study strategies and methodologies are peer-reviewed prior to the investment in research. The seminal Beanlands and Duinker text on Environmental Impact Assessment includes a requirement that study strategies for EIS documents be provided for peer-review prior to the completion of the EIS.

A great deal of support was given at the workshops for a programme of technical review in environmental assessment that is active both near the beginning and near the end of the process. This would entail a formal review of the detailed study and assessment plans of the practitioners (i.e. Proponents and consultants) before major field operations are undertaken. Technical review would resume when the main assessment report is complete, to examine the interpretation and presentation of results. This new emphasis on ‘front-end’ peer review, at the inception and design stages, would help to ensure appropriate levels of scientific integrity in the ecological investigations.^[6]

See Recommendation 6.

Statistical power is a frequently omitted, but very important aspect in determining the validity of numerical predictions. We would like to ensure that the Proponent is required to provide the statistical power of estimates and predictions.

Recommendation 10:

The following text should be added to Section 4.2 of the EIS Guidelines:

Proposed wording:

Numerical estimates and predictions made by the Proponent should be accompanied by the associated confidence interval and statistical power.

PART II  - CONTENT OF THE EIS

5.0 Introduction to the Context of the EIS

5.3 The Proponent

Over the life of the Project to date, there has been considerable confusion and public concern over the identity of the Proponent. This has been further complicated by the unclear relationship between the Proponent and companies in the United States. 

Recommendation 11

The EIS Guidelines should require the following information to be provided on the Proponent, its parent companies (or other companies holding a controlling interest) and any subsidiary companies:

corporate structure and directors 
location of registered offices and work sites 
current scope of activities 


Recommendation 12 

The EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent to provide information on other quarries that they have or are operating, including information on labour practices, health issues, and environmental performance. This should include information on fines, charges, investigations or citations for failing to comply with regulatory requirements.

5.4 The Planning Context

During the scoping sessions a number of plans and proposed plans by federal, provincial and regional governments and organizations were identified.^[7] Many of these pertained to the coastal environment and the need to protect the area for social and environmental reasons. Several of these plans may not be completed or may have been proposed but not officially accepted. The planning context for the area should be considered with a broad scope and should not be limited to ‘official’ policies, plans and regulations.

Recommendation 13 

The EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent to gather information on federal, provincial and regional and local plans and policies that are currently in place and those that are under consideration. The Proponent should further be required to assess the impact of the Project, to the extent possible, on these plans and policies.

Concern was also raised during the scoping session regarding the lack of an official coastal zone management plan or policy for Nova Scotia. It was mentioned that many of the other jurisdictions in the Gulf of Maine have coastal zone strategies in place. Clearly, the government of Nova Scotia and a number of organizations in the province have undertaken research and have developed prototype coastal zone management plans for Nova Scotia. The Proponent should not be allowed to ignore the importance of coastal zone management and the potential impacts of the Project sustainable management of the coastal zone simply because an official provincial plan or policy does not exist. 

Recommendation 14

The EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent to consider the Project in the context of a coastal zone management plan for Nova Scotia. Although, Nova Scotia does not have an official plan, Coastal 2000 provides a basis for such a policy or a comparison with other coastal zone plans in the Gulf of Maine.

6.0   Boundaries of the Environmental Assessment

6.1   Spatial Boundaries and Scale

Recommendation 15:

Section 6.1.a of the EIS Guidelines should also include an explicit requirement to cover the shipping route(s) between the quarry site at White’s Point and the destination for the aggregate.

Section 6.1.c of the EIS Guidelines should not be restricted to noise, light and atmospheric emissions, as we cannot be certain, at this time, that these will be the only off-site impacts from the operation of the quarry and marine terminal.

Proposed wording:

“c. the extent of potential effects arising from noise, light, atmospheric emissions and any other impacts associated with the Project activities that may have an impact beyond the site.”

Section 6.1.d of the EIS Guidelines should also include land use for ‘agricultural purposes.’

Section 6.0 of the EIS Guidelines should include a statement, following the list of criteria that accounts for the possibility that all of the potential impacts may not have been captured in items a – e.

Proposed wording:

The EIS Guidelines are not intended to restrict the spatial dimensions or to narrow the focus in such a way as to prevent analysis of actual impacts of the Project beyond the local area. Spatial boundaries should be determined based on the potential biophysical, economic and social impacts to the local area, the region and the province. 

The statement ‘physical extent of the Project’ found in 6.1.d should be defined in the EIS Guidelines.

Proposed wording: 

The ‘physical extent of the Project’ includes the area that encompasses the Project infrastructure and activities and the area surrounding the Project activities that may be affected by those activities.

We support the requirement in the draft EIS Guidelines to have the EIS contain a justification and rational for all boundaries and scales chosen. This information should be provided in the interim report described above. 

6.2   Temporal Boundaries 

The temporal boundaries described in section 6.2 do not appear to extend to the potential impacts on future generations living near the site of the Project. Research referred to during the scoping sessions indicated that many of the people born on Digby Neck remain in the area. Furthermore, the research suggested that, for the most part, Digby Neck has maintained a sustainable economy.^[8] 

It is important that the temporal boundaries for the Project include residual impacts that extend beyond the decommissioning phase of the Project. For example, how will the abandonment of the quarry impact individuals and communities that have become dependent on the quarry either directly or indirectly?

Recommendation 16:

The temporal boundaries in the EIS Guidelines should extend to future generations and residual impacts that extend beyond the decommissioning of the Project.

7.0   Project Description

Recommendation 17: 

The list at section 7.0, of the EIS Guidelines should include the following: 

(c) to include alternate locations for the Project, both inside and outside the province.

(d) to include all laws and regulations which were used in assessing the feasibility of possible alternatives.

(h) to include any land claims or land disputes in or around the Project footprint.

The following point should also be added to the list at section 7.0:

A demonstration of how the Proponent has applied the precautionary principle in its Undertaking design and management.

7.1   Regulatory Environment

For each of the regulatory approvals required by the Project, its recommended that the Proponent be required to indicate whether the Project, as described, would fulfill the requirements for that regulatory approval.

Recommendation 18: 
The list at section 7.1, Regulatory Environment, should have the following added:

(e) identification of whether the Project, as described in the EIS, would satisfy the requirements of the permit or regulatory approval.

7.2   Project Justification

7.2.1   Purpose and Need for the Project

The CEA Agency has produced an Operational Policy Statement that states the “‘need for” the Project is defined as the problem or opportunity the Project is intending to solve or satisfy.” The Policy Statement also states that ‘need for’ and ‘purpose of’ the Project should be established from the perspective of the Project Proponent and provide consideration of alternatives. There does not appear to be a requirement for the Proponent to identify the ‘need for’ the Project in Canada, the province or the affected communities.

Although the Operational Policy exists, it is not law and is principally intended to provide guidance to government departments as Responsible Authorities. As such, the Panel has the authority to narrow or broaden the definition of ‘need for’. Therefore, the ‘need’ could include the Proponent’s ‘need’ to make a profit, the ‘need’ for jobs in Nova Scotia, the ‘need’ for the US to obtain more basalt, etc. 

The existing definition in the draft EIS Guidelines of ‘need for’ the Project is vague, and fails to reflect the complexity of this issue. The ‘need for’ the Project should be considered from a number of geographical scales. The EIS Guidelines should address the need for the Project from the perspective of both the Proponent and the effected communities. 

Beyond the ambiguities concerning ‘need for’, the draft EIS Guidelines also fail to describe how the Panel would use the information provided in this section in reaching a decision concerning the Project. If, for example, the Project satisfied the need of the Proponent as a supply of basalt aggregate, but satisfied very few local needs, would the Panel use a different threshold in assessing environmental and socio-economic impact? 

Recommendation 19: 

The EIS Guidelines should define the ‘need for’ the Project to include consideration at a number of geographic scales (local, provincial, national, North American) and to include consideration of the ‘need for’ the Project from the perspectives of the Proponent, and the local communities directly effected by the Project. 

Recommendation 20: 

The EIS Guidelines should provide clarification, either in section 7.2.1, or in an earlier section, on how the Panel will make use of the information on ‘need for’ Project when making its recommendations to the federal and provincial governments.

7.2.2   Alternatives to the Project

The ‘Alternatives to’ the Project encompasses functionally different ways to meet the Project need. The EIS Guidelines should be expanded to instruct the Proponent to provide information on alternative means of satisfying market demand, including alternative sites for the provision of aggregate. 

Recommendation 21: 

The EIS Guidelines should be expanded to instruct the Proponent to provide information on alternative means of satisfying market demand, including alternative sites for the provision of aggregate. The Proponent should be required to provide information on all other areas from which basalt could be provided based on the distance of the White’s Point basalt from the ultimate site of use. The Proponent should be required to provide a rationale for why those alternative sites have not been selected. The EIS Guidelines should also consider alternate location for the Project in that the market is not for the local area, or indeed for this Country. As the market is for USA, an alternate location within the boundaries of the USA should be also considered.

7.3   Detailed Project Description

7.3.2   Site Preparation and Construction, Components and Activities

Recommendation 22: 

The final sentence of the first paragraph of section 7.3.2, should read ‘The Proponent must address, but not be limited to, the following:’

The use of two lists in this section is confusing, since each uses the a, b, c… lettering system.

Recommendation 23: 

Section 7.3.2 should be re-written to improve clarity and avoid using two lists with the same lettering system. 

The second list in section 7.3.2 provides a list of construction components for the marine terminal. Item (c) of this second list is incomplete, as it makes no mention of the use of rock fill, armour, stone etc that might be used to protect dolphins, or any causeway that might be constructed out toward the dolphins and loading berths.

Recommendation 24: 

Item (c) in the second list of section 7.3.2 should include the use of rock fill, armour, stone and the construction of any causeway to dolphins and loading berths. 

7.3.3   Operation and Maintenance

Recommendation 25: 

The following points should be added to the list in section 7.3.3: 

Cargo loading & unloading practices & precautions, with particular attention to toxic or dangerous goods 
Effluent emissions from shipping operations, including management of ballast water 

7.3.5  Decommissioning and Reclamation

Recommendation 26: 

The EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent to provide information on the annual and total cost of site reclamation for the life span of the Project. The EIS Guidelines should further require information on the funding arrangements for the reclamation, in particular, how competition of the reclamation works will be guaranteed should the Proponent face insolvency. 

7.4   Environmental Protection Plan

Recommendation 27: 

The list, describing the contents of the Environmental Protection Plan, in the EIS Guidelines should be amended as follows:

 Item (a) delete ‘excess’. Suspended solids must be controlled, not simply excess suspended solids

 Add the following: ‘A plan to minimize or mitigate all adverse effects, seen or foreseen as a result of illumination of this Project, including all aspects of marine, land life, not excluding migratory routes.’

8.0   Existing Environment

Paragraph 4 at page 14 of the draft EIS Guidelines states “The Proponent must identify and justify the indicators and measures of ecosystem health, social health and integrity it uses.” These indicators and measures should be included in the interim report.

8.1   Biophysical Environment

We support the inclusion of each VEC listed for biophysical environment and would not wish to see any of these removed. Specific comments below.

8.1.1   Geology

Research has indicated that the outer Bay of Fundy is classified as a tectonic estuary as it is situated in a half-graben that is still active today. The west margin of the Bay is bordered by an active slip fault resulting in earthquakes that may reach a reading of 7 on the Richter scale. 

Recommendation 28:

The EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent to prepare detailed geological mapping of the Bay of Fundy with relation to any adverse weather conditions which could occur, impacting the fault line. 

8.1.2   Surface Water

The section refers to but does not define the term ‘watercourse.’

Recommendation 29:

The EIS Guidelines should include a definition of ‘watercourse’ in the proposed definition section. The definition found in the Nova Scotia Environment Act should be applied:

3(be) "watercourse" means

(i) the bed and shore of every river, stream, lake, creek, pond, spring, lagoon or other natural body of water, and the water therein, within the jurisdiction of the Province, whether it contains water or not, and

(ii) all ground water;

8.1.3   Groundwater

Recommendation 30:

The EIS Guidelines should require that the cumulative impact of any existing, proposed or reasonably foreseeable Projects on the quality and quantity of groundwater supplies should be considered in the context of the full life of the proposed quarry. 

8.1.4   Wetlands

This section requires the Proponent to evaluate the wildlife habitat potential of wetlands, including rare and endangered species. 

Recommendation 31:

The EIS Guidelines should require that the evaluation of wildlife habitat potential of wetlands explicitly include species that are listed as endangered, threatened, vulnerable or of special concern by the provincial or federal government and include species that, although not officially listed, have been recommended for listing by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC). The Wetland Evaluation Guide written by North American Wetland Conservation Council of Canada should be utilized to assess and evaluate all potential wetlands. The “no loss wetland” policies of the Federal Government should also be recognized in relationship to any part of the project adversely affecting wetlands.

8.1.6   Terrestrial Species and Habitat

The Society supports that requirement for the Proponent to conduct surveys for rare flora and fauna species, both on the project site and in adjacent areas that may be impacted by the development. The requirement for these surveys to be conducted during appropriate seasons and by qualified individuals is further supported. Interpretation of this section would be improved if the term ‘habitat’ was defined. 

Recommendation 32:

The EIS Guidelines should include a definition of ‘habitat’ in the proposed definition section. The definition provided in the federal Species at Risk Act should be applied.

2(1) "habitat" means

(a) in respect of aquatic species, spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply, migration and any other areas on which aquatic species depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes, or areas where aquatic species formerly occurred and have the potential to be reintroduced; and

(b) in respect of other wildlife species, the area or type of site where an individual or wildlife species naturally occurs or depends on directly or indirectly in order to carry out its life processes or formerly occurred and has the potential to be reintroduced.

Section 2 of paragraph 1 reads “Qualified professional (biologists, botanists, etc.) must be consulted by the Proponent…” This is the only section in the draft EIS Guidelines that refers to the term “qualified professional.” One would presume that qualified professionals would be consulted for all research and advice required under the EIS Guidelines.

Recommendation 33:
The need for the Proponent to consult suitably qualified professionals for all aspects of the EIS should be noted early in the EIS Guidelines, such as section 4.2., Study Strategy and Methodology. To ensure accountability, the names of all contributors to the EIS should be identified. 

8.1.7   Aquatic Species and Habitat

Please see recommendation in section 8.1.6 regarding the definition of habitat.

The section does not make it clear that the research to be undertaken by the Proponent is not limited to sensitive or critical habitat. 

Recommendation 34:

The following wording is proposed to ensure that the EIS Guidelines require research beyond sensitive or critical habitat.

Proposed wording:

The description of these species and habitat must include, but is not limited to, any species at risk and ecologically sensitive and/or critical habitat and migratory routes of fish and marine mammals.

Paragraph 3 in section 8.1.7 recognizes the value of consulting with local fishermen and fishermen’s associations, however, it does not make such consultation mandatory. We believe that a thorough description of aquatic species and habitats cannot be made without such consultation.

Recommendation 35:

The EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent to consult with fishermen and fishermen’s associations and to document these consultations and the knowledge derived from these consultations.

8.1.10   Noise Levels

It is not clear why the 200-metre mark was selected as the spatial boundary for noise. Would it not be more appropriate for the Proponent to undertake a noise study to determine the range that noise associated with the Project activity may have an impact? 

Recommendation 36:

The EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent to undertake a noise evaluation study to determine the area around the Project that will be impacted by noise associated with all Project activities, including loading and traffic. Once this area is identified a baseline noise study should be completed.

8.2   Socio-Economic Conditions

We understand that there are two key approaches to socio-economic research: (1) technical approach, and a (2) participatory social impact assessment approach. We further understand that both approaches are equally important, however, it is the participatory social impact assessment that will require the Proponent to consult with the public, particularly people living near the Project. It is our opinion that if the Proponent takes only a technical approach to the socio-economic conditions, the EIS will not provide a comprehensive assessment of those conditions.

Recommendation 37:

The EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent to undertake both a technical approach and a participatory social impact assessment approach to the socio-economic research.

Section 8.2 on Socio-economic conditions does not appear to address social conditions that relate to quality and enjoyment of life. Given the magnitude of the impact that the Project would have on the local communities it would seem appropriate for the Proponent to provide information to the Panel on perceptions and attitudes of the local people toward their quality and enjoyment of life.

Recommendation 38:

The EIS Guidelines should include a new subsection under section 8.2. Section 8.2.10 would be entitled ‘social conditions.’ Under this section the Proponent would be required to provide information on the quality of life in the area surrounding the Project. Community health, out-migration, sustainability of the community and enjoyment of life are amoung the indicators that would need to be assessed under this heading. The Proponent would be required to document consultations with full time and part time residents of the communities surrounding the Project. In undertaking this research the Proponent should demonstrate how it accounted for the attitudes and perceptions of the local residents.

8.2.1    Economy

It is unclear to us why the description of population and community distribution is limited to 2 kilometres. In a rural environment such as Digby Neck, economic impacts are spread along a much wider radius than 2 kilometres. 

Recommendation 39:

The detailed assessment of residences and businesses required by section 8.2.1 of the EIS Guidelines should be extended to a radius of at least 10 kilometres from the Project. The Proponent should also be required to cover all homes and communities that will potentially be within range of noise and dust.

The EIS Guidelines should also require the Proponent to provide a detailed assessment of areas outside the 10-kilometre radius that may be economically impacted by the Project. Examples include fishing communities, tourism areas and other aggregate companies. 

8.2.2   Land Use and Value

Recommendation 40:

The EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent to provide information on property values in the communities surrounding the Project.

8.2.5   Marine Transportation

The following two items appear to be missing from the requirements in this section.

Recommendation 41:

The EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent to provide statistical information on pre-project (current) vessel traffic along the proposed transport route and within the Bay of Fundy. 

The EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent to provide statistical information on the harm and death to marine mammals caused by current vessel traffic along the proposed transportation route and within the Bay of Fundy.

8.2.6   Recreation and Tourism

Tourism operators within a 50-kilometre radius may be impacted by the Project. Many tourism operators from Annapolis Royal and west advertise the Digby Neck area as a day-trip destination. These operators may have whale watching or sea kayaking packages available as part of their promotional materials. 

Recommendation 42:

The EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent to gather data on the number of tourism operators within a 50-kilometre radius that may be impacted by the Project.

8.2.7   Human Health

The ‘local’ hospital for residents of Digby Neck is the Digby General Hospital, approximately 50 kilometres east of the Project site. This hospital serves a broad and diverse population and has, on several occasions, had to close its emergency room owing to a lack of physicians. The Project will increase the population of the area served by this hospital and the local health care providers. This increase may be significant during the construction phase of the Project. 

Recommendation 43:

The EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent to provide current information on the health care system that services the local area and its ability to maintain that service.

9.0 Effects Prediction, Mitigation Measures and Significance of Residual Effects

Recommendation 44: 

The EIS Guidelines should include the following text in section 9.0, Mitigation: ‘The Proponent shall also document mitigation measures employed at similar mining Projects where this will provide useful information on effectiveness and reliability.’ This section should also identify the need to ‘re-predict’ impacts once mitigation is in place.

In section 9.0, page 22, a clarification should be made concerning the particular objectives and standards that will be used to assess significance. For example, air quality objectives include “maximum desirable concentrations,” maximum acceptable concentrations,” and “maximum tolerable concentrations” (MTC) of emissions. The latter would be an inadequate objective, because health and environmental effects are experienced at concentrations less than the MTC. The general term “objectives” is not sufficient and it would be preferable if the EIS specified the particular objectives and standards that the Proponent is to use in assessing significance. 

Recommendation 45: 

The second paragraph of p.22, section 9.0 (Standards) of the EIS Guidelines should clarify the particular standards and objectives that the Proponent is to use in assessing significance.

At page 22, the draft EIS Guidelines state that the EIS must contain a detailed analysis of the significance of the potential residual (post-mitigation) adverse environmental effects it predicts. 

The draft EIS Guidelines reference the Reference Guide: Determining Whether a Project is Likely to Cause Significant Adverse Environmental Effects. This Guidance document provides some direction, however, for a number of reasons that direction is not clear and should be supplemented by clear guidance and direction from the Panel. Some of the difficulties with the Guidance document include: 

(a) It is intended for use by Responsible Authorities and Ministers, not private sector Proponents.

(b) Most of the information is directed at comprehensive studies, not panel reviews.

(c) The document indicates that the approach for a panel review may be different but does not provide any direction.

(d) The document does not address the joint panel reviews and how the role of provincial legislation may impact the assessment of significance.

(e) The document very clearly directs the reader to assess significance of environmental effects only as they are defined in the CEAA. This means that the significance of socio-economic effects that are not caused by a change in the environment will not be considered. This would appear to be inconsistent with the definition of socio-economic impacts in the Nova Scotia Environmental Assessment Regulations.

Based on these points, the above Reference Guide should only be looked upon to provide partial guidance to the Proponent, at best. The Panel, therefore, needs to clarify exactly how it expects the Proponent to define and assess the significance of residual adverse effects.

Recommendation 46: 

The third paragraph of p. 22, section 9.0, (Significance) of the EIS Guidelines should clarify how the Panel expects the Proponent to interpret and assess the significance of residual adverse environmental effects. It should be clarified that the list of categories given in the draft Guidelines for considering significance should not be seen as an exclusive list of criteria.

9.1   Biophysical Environment

Recommendation 47: 

The following should be added to preface section 9.0: 

 ‘With respect to the biological environment, while consideration of species-specific impacts is essential, due consideration shall also be given to impacts on biological processes and ecosystem health and integrity’. 

9.1.1   Geology

Recommendation 48: 

The following point should be added to the consideration of geological impacts:

effect on soil stability, transport of suspended solids and erosion. 

9.1.7   Aquatic Species and Habitat

Recommendation 49: 

The following should be added to point (f):

including the effects on marine mammals, unless these are all covered in section 9.1.8, Species at Risk 

9.1.8   Species at Risk

The Northern Right Whale represents a priority species for consideration by the environmental assessment. This is in part due to its high public profile, its threatened status, and vulnerability to fatal ship strikes. For these reasons, it is requested that a number of additional questions concerning the Northern Right Whale be incorporated into the EIS Guidelines. These may be placed within section 9.1.8 (Species at Risk) or in a separate, dedicated, section.

Recommendation 50: 

The following points should be added to the EIS Guidelines to investigate the potential adverse environmental effects on the Northern Right Whale:

•  Describe in detail the type of ships to be used for transportation of aggregate – including speed and size – both by comparison with what currently exists in the Bay of Fundy and by comparison with the types of shipping most often implicated in right whale collisions.
•  Assess how much Project-related shipping will increase current shipping traffic in the Bay of Fundy, both absolutely and in percentage terms, particularly in relation to the size and type of ships intended for us at Whites Point. 
•  Describe provisions for avoiding right whale collisions, and the capacity of the ships to sight, avoid, and turn away from such collisions. 
•  Provide an estimate of the cost to society for each whale fatality. 
•  Provide an estimate of the number of Northern Right Whale fatalities per year due to Project-related shipping, including confidence intervals. 

9.2   Socio-Economic Conditions

9.2.1   Economy

The potential impacts of the Project on the local economy represent an important aspect of this Environmental Assessment. This was particularly evident in the presentations at the Scoping Sessions. It is suggested that the EIS Guidelines go beyond the existing consideration of quantity of employment impacts, to consider as well the quality of impacts. 

Recommendation 51: 

Section 9.2.1, Economy, of the EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent to provide information on the quality and type of jobs provided by the Project, including pay levels, provision of benefits, job security, duration, and whether or not the jobs are unionized or covered by collective agreements. The Proponent should also be required to report on the qualifications required for the different jobs it will provide and to assess whether those qualifications match local skills. The Proponent should comment on the proportion of positions expected to be filled through local hiring. 

Recommendation 52: 

Section 9.2.1, Economy, of the EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent to provide information on the total anticipated tax benefits to Nova Scotia averaged over the 40-50 year lifespan of the Project (not only property taxes), and on anticipated profits. The Proponent should also provide information on the repatriation of profits to shareholders in the United States. In assessing the economic impacts of the Project, the Proponent should consider the costs incurred by all levels of government in providing compliance monitoring for environmental, health and safety and other regulatory requirements, over the life of the Project.

9.2.2   Land Use and Value

There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that property values on the Digby Neck have been adversely affected by the potential of a quarry development. The possible impacts on property values should be explicitly referenced in the EIS Guidelines.

Recommendation 53: 

Section 9.2.2, Land Use and Value, of the EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent to consider the impact of the quarry on local and regional property values.

9.2.3   Commercial and Recreational Fisheries

Recommendation 54: 

The EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent to consider the effects on the local and regional economy due to Project-related impacts on commercial and recreational fisheries.

9.2.4   Land Based Transportation

he Project description indicates that no explosives will be stored at the Project site. This would imply that explosives would be transported to the site every two weeks for blasting. In the consideration of the Land Based Transportation, it is suggested that the implications of the regular transportation of hazardous materials (including explosives) be considered.

Recommendation 55: 

The EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent to examine the implications of the regular transport by road of hazardous materials (including explosives) to the Project site, including the predicted frequency and severity of accidents.

9.2.5   Marine Transportation

The text in section 9.2.5 implies that only the impacts of shipping accidents on marine traffic needs to be considered. While this may have been the intention of the draft EIS Guidelines, it is important that this issue be clarified. Individuals with extensive experience in the waters adjacent to the Project site have indicated the very real possibility of a shipping accident, with the Project as currently proposed. The text in this section should provide for a broader examination of marine accidents, including their expected frequency, severity, and impacts on all VECs.

Recommendation 56: 

Section 9.2.5, Marine Transportation, of the EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent to provide a broader examination of marine accidents, including their expected frequency, severity, and impacts on all VECs.

9.2.6  Recreation and Tourism

A number of presentations at the Scoping Sessions cited the importance of the eco-tourism industry to the region, and Digby Neck in particular. The EIS Guidelines should highlight the important role of eco-tourism to the local economy. It is suggested that section 9.2.6 needs to be expanded considerably to ensure that the potential impacts on this sector are fully considered.

Recommendation 57: 

Section 9.2.6, Recreation and Tourism, of the EIS Guidelines should be expanded to ensure a thorough examination of the impacts of the Project on local and regional eco-tourism industry. This should include an examination of how the Project may impact the perceptions of individuals (provincial, national and international) of Digby Neck as an eco-tourism destination.

Aesthetic quality is most certainly a VEC (page 5). It is also a resource from the point of view of the tourism industry. It therefore belongs both in the environmental section and in the socio-economic section. People will pay more for aesthetic quality, so it does have an economic value (e.g. someone will pay more to rent an apartment overlooking a park than one overlooking a polluted factory or busy highway.) What is the opportunity cost of a degradation of aesthetic quality?

Recommendation 58: 

The EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent to consider the visual impacts of the Project, over its entire lifespan. This should include artists’ renditions of the visual, aesthetic dimensions of the Project and place – now; 10 years from now; 20 years from now; and 50 years from now, from appropriate water and land based viewplanes.

9.2.7   Human Health

Recommendation 59: 

Section 9.2.7, Human Health, of the EIS Guidelines should include explicit reference to the potential human health impacts of basalt dust on quarry workers and neighboring residences. The Proponent should be required to provide epidemiological/comparative research on the health of quarry workers. The Proponent should further be required to consider the impacts of any increased incidence of illness on the local health care infrastructure. This should include the ability of the local health care infrastructure to deal with increased patient numbers, as well as the presentation of unique medical complaints associated with quarries.

9.6   Sustainable use of Renewable Resources Effects

This section requires the Proponent to consider the potential adverse environmental effects on the capacity of renewable resources that are likely to be significantly affected by the Project to meet the needs of the present and those of the future. 

The Proponent should also be required to consider the adverse environmental effects on non-renewable resources. For example, the value of basalt in the ground for future opportunities should be considered. As well, the lost opportunity to the province of Nova Scotia if there is no value-added to the basalt before it leaves the province. It is suggested that basalt be considered a VEC.

Recommendation 60: 

Section 9.6, Sustainable Use of Renewable Resources Effects, of the EIS Guidelines should include consideration of non-renewable resources, including basalt. 

10.0   Monitoring and Follow-up Program

10.1   Monitoring

Recommendation 61:

The EIS Guidelines should require that the monitoring program identify the trigger points at which an adverse environmental affect uncovered and identified by the monitoring program will result in remedial action, up to and including cessation of operations. 

V. - Concluding Comments

This report has sought to provide the Review Panel with suggestions of how the draft EIS Guidelines for the White’s Point Quarry and Marine Terminal may be improved. Through its 61 recommendations, the Society has attempted to convey to the Panel local context, concerns, and issues associated with the project. Although extensive, this report does not address all issues identified in the draft EIS Guidelines. Where an issue in the draft Guidelines has not been commented upon, it can be assumed that there is general support for this issue.

The Society’s recommendations have addressed issues of process, as well as specific comments on the draft EIS Guidelines. In suggesting amendments to the environmental assessment process, the Society is seeking to improve the overall effectiveness of the review, which includes public faith in the process. In making specific recommendations for changes in the draft Guidelines, the Society is attempting to convey to the Panel local priorities and concerns.

The Society would like to thank the Review Panel for providing members of the public with an opportunity to comment on the draft EIS Guidelines, both through the Scoping Sessions and written comments. Your willingness to listen to the views of those who may be affected by this project is very important. 

Appendix A

Short Biographies of the Contributors 

Dr. Ron Colman, Ph.D.
Executive Director, GPI Atlantic 

Dr. Ronald Colman is founder and Executive Director of GPI Atlantic, a non-profit research group that is constructing an index of wellbeing and sustainable development for Nova Scotia as a pilot project for Canada. For more information on the GPI (Genuine Progress Index), please visit the web site at www.gpiatlantic.org.

Dr. Colman previously taught for 20 years at the university level and was a researcher and speech-writer at the United Nations. He has researched and written many reports on indicators of population health, community wellbeing, natural resource health, and environmental quality for the Genuine Progress Index, advises governments and communities on indicator work, and regularly speaks on the subject to government, university and community groups. Aside from his work in Canada, Dr. Colman recently advised the New Zealand government on development of quality of life indicators and has lectured on population health indicators in the USA. In cooperation with three Nova Scotia communities, Dr. Colman and GPI Atlantic are also developing measures of wellbeing and sustainable development at the community level. 

Dr. Colman sat on the sustainable development indicators steering committee of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy in Canada, and is editor of a national magazine Reality Check: The Canadian Review of Well-being.

Prof. Meinhard Doelle, B.Sc., LL.B, LL.M, JSD (expected 2004) 
Assistant Professor, Dalhousie Law School
Associate Director, Marine & Environmental Law Institute

Professor Doelle is a full time faculty member at Dalhousie Law School where he specializes in environmental law. He teaches Environmental Law I: Introduction to Environmental Law and Policy and Environmental Law II: Environmental Law as Regulatory, Political and Social Process. From 1996 to 2001, he served as the Executive Director of the Clean Nova Scotia, whose mandate is to pursue an environmentally healthy and sustainable society in Nova Scotia. He has been affiliated with the Atlantic Canada law firm of Stewart McKelvey Stirling Scales since 1989. As such, he has been involved in prosecutions, issues of common law liability, environmental assessments, environmental audits, site assessments, and other areas relating to environmental law. He was the principle legislative drafter of the draft Nova Scotia Environment Act (1995). 

Professor Doelle spent 18 months as a policy advisor with the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office (FEARO) during the development and passage of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and regulations. Since 2000, he has served as an environmental non-governmental representative on the Canadian Delegation for negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. As well, he has been a member of the Editorial Advisory Board for Canadian Environmental Regulation and Compliance News since 1997. Professor Doelle has written on a variety of environmental law topics, including climate change, invasive species, environmental assessments, and public participation in environmental decision making.

Dr. Robert Gibson, B.A., M.A. Ph.D.
Professor, University of Waterloo, Environment and Resource Studies

Bob has worked mostly on environmental policy issues. His research and writing have centred on decision-making successes and failures in environmental planning, assessment and regulation in various Canadian jurisdictions. But he also teaches courses on sustainability, the development of environmental thought and, occasionally, environmental journalism. Since 1984, he has been editor of the Canadian environmental journal, Alternatives. 

Before coming to Waterloo in the early 1980s, Bob worked for a variety of government agencies and native and environmental groups. Since then he has done studies for the Canadian Institute of Environmental Law and Policy on the application of Ontario environmental laws, helped the Government of the Yukon draft its Environment Act, served on the Ontario environment minister's Environmental Assessment Advisory Committee, worked with the environmental assessment caucus of the Canadian Environmental Network and advised the Canadian International Development Agency on how to transform environmental assessments to serve sustainability purposes. 

Recently he has been focusing on the integration of broad sustainability considerations in land use decision making in urban growth management, in corporate greening initiatives, and in environmental assessments at the project and strategic levels. He has edited a book on "voluntary" initiatives for corporate greening and is now writing a book on sustainability assessment. 

Ms. Belinda Manning, 
Citizen and Environmental Advocate

Belinda, a native of Nova Scotia, returned to Nova Scotia after living for ten years in Europe. As a community activist and advocate of sustainable development, she has and continues to assists numerous community groups and municipal units throughout the Province on matters of environmental protection, stewardship, conservation, sustainable development and legislative interpretation. Through her investigative research capabilities she has become an autodidact focusing in the interrelated fields of environmental legislation, regulations and best management practices for aggregate industries and wetland operations. She is on the board of The Environmentally Concerned Communities of Kings Association, Valley Watershed Stewardship, Clean Annapolis River Project, Coldbrook Community Association, and a member of Nova Scotia Public Lands Coalition, and Kings County Wildlife Association. In 2004, she sat on the Wellfield Planning and Advisory Committee for the Town of Kentville. In 2003, she was awarded the Canadian Environment Award (Canadian Geographic) for environmental learning. Belinda lives in the Annapolis Valley with her husband and teenage daughter

Ms. Lisa Mitchell, B.A., LL.B., M.E.S.
Environmental Lawyer, LJM Environmental Consulting

Lisa Mitchell, is a lawyer and principal of LJM Environmental Consulting. She has a Masters of Environmental Studies from the School for Resource and Environmental Studies (Dalhousie University), and over ten years of experience working in the areas of environmental law, policy and environmental management. Through her work, Ms. Mitchell has developed an in-depth knowledge of federal and provincial environmental statutes, across Canada. She has designed and developed a number of guidebooks covering environmental statutes, regulations, guidelines and standards for public and private sector clients. She has provided numerous presentations on the role of environmental management systems in reducing legal liability.

Ms. Mitchell has been involved in legislative drafting and reform, particularly in the regulation of pest control products and the evolution of farm practices protection (“right to farm”) legislation. In 1999 she served as a primary author of a Canadian Farm Business Management Council report that reviewed the tools available to manage environmental risks in the agricultural sector.

Training and the development of training materials, is a significant part of Ms. Mitchell’s work. She is currently the lead instructor for professional development courses on environmental law in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Lisa is an honorary research associate at the School for Resource and Environmental Studies and she completed a one-year term as assistant professor in the Environmental Sciences program at Acadia University.

Dr. David Scarratt, 
Fisheries Scientist, Department of Fisheries and Oceans (retired)

Biography not available at this time.

Mr. Andy Sharpe, B.Sc., M.E.Des.
Environmental Scientist, Consultant

Andy Sharpe is an environmental scientist and consultant. He has a Bachelor of Science degree (Chemistry) from the University of New Brunswick and a Masters of Environment Design (Environment Science) degree from the University of Calgary. 

Mr. Sharpe has worked for over ten years in the environmental field. His work has involved investigations of biophysical impacts to the environment, as well as policy and management frameworks to reduce these impacts. Throughout this period, Mr. Sharpe has sought to balance the sometimes competing interests of science and society’s interactions with the environment.

Over his work history, Mr. Sharpe has had the opportunity to participate in environmental assessments in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, the United Kingdom and Malawi. Through this work experience as a regulator, proponent and community group, Mr. Sharpe brings a broad perspective to environmental assessments.

Appendix B

Excerpts from the Voisey's Bay Mine and Mill Environmental Impact Statement Guidelines (20 June 1997) concerning the test of sustainability assurance and application of the precautionary principle

3.3 Sustainability Assurance

Promotion of sustainable development is a fundamental purpose of environmental impact assessment, and the MOU specifically requires the Panel to take into consideration three factors that are directly pertinent to the task of assuring sustainability (i.e. ensuring that the full costs of development are identified, mitigated, compensated or offset). These factors are:

• the extent to which biological diversity is affected by the Undertaking; 
• the capacity of renewable resources that are likely to be significantly affected by the Undertaking to meet the needs of present and future generations; and, 
• the extent of application of the precautionary principle to the Undertaking ((see section 3.4).

It is the Panel’s interpretation that progress towards sustainable development will require the following:

• the reservation of ecosystem integrity, including the capability of natural systems to maintain their structure and functions and to support biological diversity;
• respect for the right of future generations to the sustainable use of renewable resources; and, 
• the attainment of durable and equitable social and economic benefits.. 

Therefore, in reviewing the EIS and other submissions, the Panel will consider:

• the extent to which the Undertaking may make a positive overall contribution towards the attainment of ecological and community sustainability, both at the local and regional levels; 
• how the planning and design of the Undertaking have addressed the three objectives of sustainable development stated above; 
• how monitoring, management and reporting systems will attempt to ensure continuous progress towards sustainability; and, 
  appropriate indicators to determine whether this progress is being maintained.. 

3.4 Application of the Precautionary Principle

The MOU requires the Panel to consider the "extent of application of the precautionary principle to the Undertaking". The Rio Declaration of 1992,to which Canada is a signatory, states that the precautionary approach requires that: "Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation." 

The Panel interprets the precautionary principle as applying, in the particular context of this Undertaking, to the following activities:

• the release of toxic or deleterious substances into the environment; 
• water withdrawals and diversions; 
• the use of untested technology, or of existing technology in untested situations, where reliability is uncertain; and, 
• other actions likely to cause significant damage to the environment, and particularly to biological productivity and ecosystem health. 

Further, the Panel understands the application of the precautionary principle to require:

• that the onus of proof shall lie with the Proponent to show that a proposed action will not lead to serious or irreversible environmental damage, especially with respect to overall environmental function and integrity, considering system tolerance and resilience; 
• scientific research and high--quality information; and, 
• access to information, public participation, and open and transparent decision-making. 

The Proponent shall indicate how the Undertaking conforms to the precautionary principle in at least the following ways:

a) that in designing and operating the Undertaking priority has been given to strategies that avoid the creation of adverse impacts;

b) that control of deleterious outputs or other potentially damaging activity goes beyond current emission standards where warranted by the potential environmental effects;

c) that contingency plans address explicit worst-case scenarios and include risk assessments and evaluations of the degree of uncertainty;

d) that monitoring programs are designed to ensure rapid response and correction where adverse effects are detected; and,

e) that liability and insurance regimes are established that hold the Proponent and its contractors accountable for adverse effects and associated damages, and their limitation and control, throughout the life of the Undertaking, including its decommissioning and rehabilitation.

Appendix C

Summary of Recommendations

All recommendations made in the main body of the report are repeated here for easy of reference. 

Recommendation 1: 
Language similar to that of the Voisey's Bay EIS Guidelines section 3.3 (see Appendix B) should be incorporated into the White's Point EIS Guidelines to clarify for the Proponent and other participants the basic test to be applied in the review.

Recommendation 2: 
Language similar to that of the Voisey's Bay EIS Guidelines section 3.4 (see Appendix B) should be incorporated into the White's Point EIS Guidelines. The purpose is to express explicitly a requirement to apply the precautionary principle in review decision making, including in the evaluation and selection among alternatives, alternative means and particular design options.

Recommendation 3: 
The White's Point EIS Guidelines should include requirements to consider enhancement of positive effects as well as mitigation of adverse effects, in part as a contribution to the larger objective of ensuring that any approved undertaking makes the maximum positive contribution to sustainability.

Recommendation 4: 
The EIS Guidelines should include a requirement for integrated consideration and analysis of how the Project through its implementation and including its decommissioning will maintain and strengthen local and regional resources, capacities and opportunities so as to act as a bridge to a more sustainable future there.

Recommendation 5:
The EIS Guidelines should include a section entitled “Focus of the Review” which provides insight into the Panels’ overall approach to the environmental assessment.

Recommendation 6:
The EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent to provide an Interim EIS Report to the Panel. This report would describe the study strategy and methodology that the Proponent intends to use to complete sections 8.0 and 9.0 of the EIS. 

Recommendation 7:
The EIS Guidelines should include a section that provides a list of relevant terms and their definitions.^[9]

Recommendation 8: 
The definition of Traditional Knowledge (section 3.0) in the EIS Guidelines should be explicitly expanded to encompass the collective experience of residents of the area and community knowledge.

Recommendation 9:
The EIS Guidelines should provide a more comprehensive public participation program (section 4.1). The following principles of public participation should be included in the EIS Guidelines:

1. The goals of the Proponent’s public participation program must be very clearly stated.

2. Stakeholders should be consulted on how to design the public participation process.

3. Various mechanisms of public participation must be used, e.g. open houses, community meetings, consultation with experts, round table discussions, site visits, etc.

4. The public participation program must be initiated very early in the process.

5. Public participation techniques must be designed to suit a variety of participants and situations – e.g. style of consultation with aboriginal communities may differ from consultation with non-government organizations or local communities.

6. Any person who could be directly or indirectly affected by the Project should be invited to participate.

7. The public participation program should be constantly re-evaluated by the Proponent and the public and it should be flexible to change.

8. Opportunities for public participation should not occur only at the site, there should be sessions held in other areas of the province as well.

Recommendation 10:
The following text should be added to section 4.2 of the EIS Guidelines:

Proposed wording:
Numerical estimates and predictions made by the Proponent should be accompanied by the associated confidence interval and statistical power.

Recommendation 11
The EIS Guidelines should require the following information to be provided on the Proponent (section 5.3), its parent companies (or other companies holding a controlling interest) and any subsidiary companies:

• corporate structure and directors
• location of registered offices and work sites
• current scope of activities

Recommendation 12 
The EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent (section 5.3) to provide information on other quarries that they have or are operating, including information on labour practices, health issues, and environmental performance. This should include information on fines, charges, investigations or citations for failing to comply with regulatory requirements.

Recommendation 13 
The EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent to gather information on federal, provincial and regional and local plans and policies that are currently in place and those that are under consideration (section 5.4). The Proponent should further be required to assess the impact of the Project, to the extent possible, on these plans and policies. 

Recommendation 14
The EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent to consider the Project in the context of a coastal zone management plan for Nova Scotia (section 5.4). Although, Nova Scotia does not have an official plan, Coastal 2000 provides a basis for such a policy or a comparison with other coastal zone plans in the Gulf of Maine.

Recommendation 15:
Section 6.1.a of the EIS Guidelines should also include an explicit requirement to cover the shipping route(s) between the quarry site at White’s Point and the destination for the aggregate.

Section 6.1.c of the EIS Guidelines should not be restricted to noise, light and atmospheric emissions, as we cannot be certain, at this time, that these will be the only off-site impacts from the operation of the quarry and marine terminal.
Proposed wording:
“c. the extent of potential effects arising from noise, light, atmospheric emissions and any other impacts associated with the Project activities that may have an impact beyond the site.”

Section 6.1.d of the EIS Guidelines should also include land use for ‘agricultural purposes.’

Section 6.0 of the EIS Guidelines should include a statement, following the list of criteria that accounts for the possibility that all of the potential impacts may not have been captured in items a – e.
Proposed wording:
The EIS Guidelines are not intended to restrict the spatial dimensions or to narrow the focus in such a way as to prevent analysis of actual impacts of the Project beyond the local area. Spatial boundaries should be determined based on the potential biophysical, economic and social impacts to the local area, the region and the province. 

The statement ‘physical extent of the Project’ found in 6.1.d should be defined in the EIS Guidelines.
Proposed wording: 
The ‘physical extent of the Project’ includes the area that encompasses the Project infrastructure and activities and the area surrounding the Project activities that may be affected by those activities.

Recommendation 16:
The temporal boundaries in the EIS Guidelines should extend to future generations and residual impacts that extend beyond the decommissioning of the Project (section 6.2).

Recommendation 17: 
The list at section 7.0, of the EIS Guidelines should include the following: 

(c) to include alternate locations for the Project, both inside and outside the province.

(d) to include all laws and regulations which were used in assessing the feasibility of possible alternatives.

(h) to include any land claims or land disputes in or around the Project footprint.

The following point should also be added to the list at section 7.0:

A demonstration of how the Proponent has applied the precautionary principle in its Undertaking design and management.

Recommendation 18: 
The list at section 7.1, Regulatory Environment, should have the following added:

(e) identification of whether the Project, as described in the EIS, would satisfy the requirements of the permit or regulatory approval.

Recommendation 19: 
The EIS Guidelines should define the ‘need for’ the Project to include consideration at a number of geographic scales (local, provincial, national, North American) and to include consideration of the ‘need for’ the Project from the perspectives of the Proponent, and the local communities directly effected by the Project (section 7.2.1). 

Recommendation 20: 
The EIS Guidelines should provide clarification; either in section 7.2.1, or in an earlier section, on how the Panel will make use of the information on ‘need for’ Project when making its recommendations to the federal and provincial governments.

Recommendation 21: 
The EIS Guidelines should be expanded to instruct the Proponent to provide information on alternative means of satisfying market demand, including alternative sites for the provision of aggregate (section 7.2.2). The Proponent should be required to provide information on all other areas from which basalt could be provided based on the distance of the White’s Point basalt from the ultimate site of use. The Proponent should be required to provide a rationale for why those alternative sites have not been selected. The EIS Guidelines should also consider alternate location for the Project in that the market is not for the local area, or indeed for this Country. As the market is for USA, an alternate location within the boundaries of the USA should be also considered.

Recommendation 22: 
The final sentence of the first paragraph of section 7.3.2, should read ‘The Proponent must address, but not be limited to, the following:’

Recommendation 23: 
Section 7.3.2 should be re-written to improve clarity and avoid using two lists with the same lettering system. 

Recommendation 24: 
Item (c) in the second list of section 7.3.2 should include the use of rock fill, armour, stone and the construction of any causeway to dolphins and loading berths. 

Recommendation 25: 
The following points should be added to the list in section 7.3.3: 

•  Cargo loading & unloading practices & precautions, with particular attention to toxic or dangerous goods
•  Effluent emissions from shipping operations, including management of ballast water

Recommendation 26: 
The EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent to provide information on the annual and total cost of site reclamation for the life span of the Project (section 7.3.5). The EIS Guidelines should further require information on the funding arrangements for the reclamation, in particular, how competition of the reclamation works will be guaranteed should the Proponent face insolvency. 

Recommendation 27: 
The list, describing the contents of the Environmental Protection Plan (section 7.4), in the EIS Guidelines should be amended as follows:

•  Item (a) delete ‘excess’. Suspended solids must be controlled, not simply excess suspended solids
•  Add the following: ‘A plan to minimize or mitigate all adverse effects, seen or foreseen as a result of illumination of this Project, including all aspects of marine, land life, not excluding migratory routes.’

Recommendation 28:
The EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent to prepare detailed geological mapping of the Bay of Fundy with relation to any adverse weather conditions which could occur, impacting the fault line (section 8.1.1). 

Recommendation 29:
The EIS Guidelines should include a definition of ‘watercourse’ in the proposed definition section (section 8.1.2). The definition found in the Nova Scotia Environment Act should be applied:

3(be) "watercourse" means

(i) the bed and shore of every river, stream, lake, creek, pond, spring, lagoon or other natural body of water, and the water therein, within the jurisdiction of the Province, whether it contains water or not, and

(ii) all ground water;

Recommendation 30:
The EIS Guidelines should require that the cumulative impact of any existing, proposed or reasonably foreseeable Projects on the quality and quantity of groundwater supplies should be considered in the context of the full life of the proposed quarry (section 8.1.3). 

Recommendation 31:
The EIS Guidelines should require that the evaluation of wildlife habitat potential of wetlands explicitly include species that are listed as endangered, threatened, vulnerable or of special concern by the provincial or federal government and include species that, although not officially listed, have been recommended for listing by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) (section 8.1.4). The Wetland Evaluation Guide written by North American Wetland Conservation Council of Canada should be utilized to assess and evaluate all potential wetlands. The “no loss wetland” policies of the Federal Government should also be recognized in relationship to any part of the project adversely affecting wetlands.

Recommendation 32:
The EIS Guidelines should include a definition of ‘habitat’ in the proposed definition section (section 8.1.6). The definition provided in the federal Species at Risk Act should be applied.

2(1) "habitat" means

(a) in respect of aquatic species, spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply, migration and any other areas on which aquatic species depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes, or areas where aquatic species formerly occurred and have the potential to be reintroduced; and

(b) in respect of other wildlife species, the area or type of site where an individual or wildlife species naturally occurs or depends on directly or indirectly in order to carry out its life processes or formerly occurred and has the potential to be reintroduced.

Recommendation 33:
The need for the Proponent to consult suitably qualified professionals for all aspects of the EIS should be noted early in the EIS Guidelines, such as section 4.2, Study Strategy and Methodology. To ensure accountability, the names of all contributors to the EIS should be identified. 

Recommendation 34:
The following wording is proposed to ensure that the EIS Guidelines require research beyond sensitive or critical habitat (section 8.1.7).
Proposed wording:
The description of these species and habitat must include, but is not limited to, any species at risk and ecologically sensitive and/or critical habitat and migratory routes of fish and marine mammals.

Recommendation 35:
The EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent to consult with fishermen and fishermen’s associations and to document these consultations and the knowledge derived from these consultations (section 8.1.7).

Recommendation 36:
The EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent to undertake a noise evaluation study to determine the area around the Project that will be impacted by noise associated with all Project activities, including loading and traffic. Once this area is identified a baseline noise study should be completed (section 8.1.10).

Recommendation 37:
The EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent to undertake both a technical approach and a participatory social impact assessment approach to the socio-economic research (section 8.2).

Recommendation 38:
The EIS Guidelines should include a new subsection under section 8.2. Section 8.2.10 would be entitled ‘social conditions.’ Under this section the Proponent would be required to provide information on the quality of life in the area surrounding the Project. Community health, out-migration, sustainability of the community and enjoyment of life are amoung the indicators that would need to be assessed under this heading. The Proponent would be required to document consultations with full time and part time residents of the communities surrounding the Project. In undertaking this research the Proponent should demonstrate how it accounted for the attitudes and perceptions of the local residents.

Recommendation 39:
The detailed assessment of residences and businesses required by section 8.2.1 of the EIS Guidelines should be extended to a radius of at least 10 kilometres from the Project. The Proponent should also be required to cover all homes and communities that will potentially be within range of noise and dust.

The EIS Guidelines should also require the Proponent to provide a detailed assessment of areas outside the 10-kilometre radius that may be economically impacted by the Project. Examples include fishing communities, tourism areas and other aggregate companies. 

Recommendation 40:
The EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent to provide information on property values in the communities surrounding the Project (section 8.2.2).

Recommendation 41:
The EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent to provide statistical information on pre-project (current) vessel traffic along the proposed transport route and within the Bay of Fundy (section 8.2.5). 

The EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent to provide statistical information on the harm and death to marine mammals caused by current vessel traffic along the proposed transportation route and within the Bay of Fundy.

Recommendation 42:
The EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent to gather data on the number of tourism operators within a 50-kilometre radius that may be impacted by the Project (section 8.2.6).

Recommendation 43:
The EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent to provide current information on the health care system that services the local area and its ability to maintain that service (section 8.2.7).

Recommendation 44: 
The EIS Guidelines should include the following text in section 9.0, Mitigation: ‘The Proponent shall also document mitigation measures employed at similar mining Projects where this will provide useful information on effectiveness and reliability.’ This section should also identify the need to ‘re-predict’ impacts once mitigation is in place.

Recommendation 45: 
The second paragraph of p.22, section 9.0 (Standards) of the EIS Guidelines should clarify the particular standards and objectives that the Proponent is to use in assessing significance.

Recommendation 46: 
The third paragraph of p. 22, section 9.0, (Significance) of the EIS Guidelines should clarify how the Panel expects the Proponent to interpret and assess the significance of residual adverse environmental effects. It should be clarified that the list of categories given in the draft Guidelines for considering significance should not be seen as an exclusive list of criteria.

Recommendation 47: 
The following should be added to preface section 9.0: 

•  ‘With respect to the biological environment, while consideration of species-specific impacts is essential, due consideration shall also be given to impacts on biological processes and ecosystem health and integrity’. 

Recommendation 48: 
The following point should be added to the consideration of geological impacts (section 9.1.1):

•  effect on soil stability, transport of suspended solids and erosion.

Recommendation 49: 
The following should be added to point (f) of section 9.1.7:

•  including the effects on marine mammals, unless these are all covered in section 9.1.8, Species at Risk

Recommendation 50: 
The following points should be added to the EIS Guidelines to investigate the potential adverse environmental effects on the Northern Right Whale (section 9.1.8):

•  Describe in detail the type of ships to be used for transportation of aggregate – including speed and size – both by comparison with what currently exists in the Bay of Fundy and by comparison with the types of shipping most often implicated in right whale collisions.
•  Assess how much Project-related shipping will increase current shipping traffic in the Bay of Fundy, both absolutely and in percentage terms, particularly in relation to the size and type of ships intended for us at Whites Point. 
•  Describe provisions for avoiding right whale collisions, and the capacity of the ships to sight, avoid, and turn away from such collisions. 
•  Provide an estimate of the cost to society for each whale fatality. 
•  Provide an estimate of the number of Northern Right Whale fatalities per year due to Project-related shipping, including confidence intervals. 

Recommendation 51: 
Section 9.2.1, Economy, of the EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent to provide information on the quality and type of jobs provided by the Project, including pay levels, provision of benefits, job security, duration, and whether or not the jobs are unionized or covered by collective agreements. The Proponent should also be required to report on the qualifications required for the different jobs it will provide and to assess whether those qualifications match local skills. The Proponent should comment on the proportion of positions expected to be filled through local hiring. 

Recommendation 52: 
Section 9.2.1, Economy, of the EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent to provide information on the total anticipated tax benefits to Nova Scotia averaged over the 40-50 year lifespan of the Project (not only property taxes), and on anticipated profits. The Proponent should also provide information on the repatriation of profits to shareholders in the United States. In assessing the economic impacts of the Project, the Proponent should consider the costs incurred by all levels of government in providing compliance monitoring for environmental, health and safety and other regulatory requirements, over the life of the Project.

Recommendation 53: 
Section 9.2.2, Land Use and Value, of the EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent to consider the impact of the quarry on local and regional property values.

Recommendation 54: 
The EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent to consider the effects on the local and regional economy due to Project-related impacts on commercial and recreational fisheries (section 9.2.3).

Recommendation 55: 
The EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent to examine the implications of the regular transport by road of hazardous materials (including explosives) to the Project site, including the predicted frequency and severity of accidents (section 9.2.4).

Recommendation 56: 
Section 9.2.5, Marine Transportation, of the EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent to provide a broader examination of marine accidents, including their expected frequency, severity, and impacts on all VECs.

Recommendation 57: 
Section 9.2.6, Recreation and Tourism, of the EIS Guidelines should be expanded to ensure a thorough examination of the impacts of the Project on local and regional eco-tourism industry. This should include an examination of how the Project may impact the perceptions of individuals (provincial, national and international) of Digby Neck as an eco-tourism destination.

Recommendation 58: 
The EIS Guidelines should require the Proponent to consider the visual impacts of the Project, over its entire lifespan (section 9.2.6). This should include artists’ renditions of the visual, aesthetic dimensions of the Project and place – now; 10 years from now; 20 years from now; and 50 years from now, from appropriate water and land based viewplanes.

Recommendation 59: 
Section 9.2.7, Human Health, of the EIS Guidelines should include explicit reference to the potential human health impacts of basalt dust on quarry workers and neighboring residences. The Proponent should be required to provide epidemiological/comparative research on the health of quarry workers. The Proponent should further be required to consider the impacts of any increased incidence of illness on the local health care infrastructure. This should include the ability of the local health care infrastructure to deal with increased patient numbers, as well as the presentation of unique medical complaints associated with quarries.

Recommendation 60: 
Section 9.6, Sustainable Use of Renewable Resources Effects, of the EIS Guidelines should include consideration of non-renewable resources, including basalt. 

Recommendation 61:
The EIS Guidelines should require that the monitoring program identify the trigger points at which an adverse environmental affect uncovered and identified by the monitoring program will result in remedial action, up to and including cessation of operations (section 10.0). 

[1] The Society has not commented on all sections of the draft. Only those sections that are commented upon are included in the Table of Contents.

[2] Dr. Peter Duinker of Dalhousie University also contributed comments to this report. However, he was out of the country at the time the final report was written so we were unable to have him review the report. Dr. Duinker hopes to provide a separate submission to the Panel.

[3] For a detailed examination of how the sustainability test can be applied in environmental assessments, especially in judgments about the "significance" of effects and options, see Specification of Sustainability-based Environmental Assessment Decision Criteria