(( NOTE: AUGUST, 2003 - Received from Marilyn Stanton to be posted
on this site. ))
EXCERPT FROM:
PUBLIC NOTICE: re:
WHITES POINT (DIGBY NECK) QUARRY AND MARINE TERMINAL PROPOSAL:
COMMENTS WELCOMED ON DRAFT AGREEMENT
'A COPY OF THE DRAFT AGREEMENT CAN BE FOUND
ON THE WEB SITE OF THE
CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT AGENCY AT
www:ceaa_acee.gc.ca
Comments must be received by the following, no
later than September 18, 2003:
Steve Chapman
Environmental Assessment Administrator
Canadian Environmental
Nova Scotia Environment and Labour.
Assessment Agency
5151 Terminal Road, 5th Floor
200 Sacre-Coeur Boulevard, 13th floor
P.O. Box 697, Halifax, N.S. B3J 2T8
Gatineau QC K1A 0H3
Tel: (902) 424 - 2574
Tel: (819) 997 - 2937
Fax: (902) 424 - 0503
Fax: (819 )997 - 4931
E.mail: ea@gov.ns.ca
E.mail: steve.chapman@ceaa.acee.gc.ca
**************************
To register as an Interested party and to be
kept informed of the panel's activities, please provide a
full mailing address, an email address and/or a
fax number, as applicable to one of the contacts listed above.
NAME: _________________________________________________
ADDRESS _________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
**************************************************
FOWARDED to this site from " Don Mullin" :
Members of the Partnership for Sustainable Development of Digby Neck and Islands Society (Stop the Quarry Group) have held a number of meetings during the past two weeks with an environmental lawyer, an environmental specialist, and a representative of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. The result of these meetings has been an increased understanding of the process that the Panel Review of White’s Point Quarry will take and the Draft Agreement that will guide its progress. While I have participated in these meetings, the following comments are mine and not to be interpreted as those of the “Society”.
There is evidence to suggest that the province is interested in expediting the environmental assessment process and, to achieve this, negotiations with the federal government have resulted in certain compromises that will speed up the process BUT AT THE EXPENSE OF INDEPENDENCE OF THE PANEL, THOROUGNESS OF THE REVIEW AND OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC REVIEW AND INPUT.
The public has been invited to submit comments on the Draft Agreement.The end date for doing this is Sept. 18th. (..PLEASE NOTE: An extension date is to be announced later due to misprint of address... our apology for this...)
As a result of work we have done, we strongly encourage members of this site (and anyone else) to send letters IMMEDIATELY expressing one or more concerns from those identified below.
While the Society can “officially” only address certain issues in our formal submission, as interested individuals, the sky is the limit. The points discussed below are among those we will formally raise but you can help us considerably by your letters reinforcing our views and by putting your own “flavour” to your letter. (Your identity will be protected in any correspondence that is filed but your comments will become part of the public record. That is a good thing as the Review Panel will have access to your concerns.)
I suggest that the letter be addressed to Chris Daly (see complete addresses at bottom) with a copy to Steve Chapman. It would also be helpful if you would send a copy to as many politicians as you can find addresses for, particularly provincial politicians, including members of the Liberal and NDP parties.
In the letter, you might express distrust in the province’s motives, disgust at their mishandling of this project to date, concern regarding perceived bias toward the proponent, or any similar sentiments. You might even want to mention your concern that the proposed quarry is only the beginning of the rape of the whole of North Mountain or your belief that the proponent is planning to expand the quarry and/or use the proposed marine terminal for other purposes (some members of the Society are questioning the intentions behind recent land acquisition in Gulliver’s Cove where well drilling for “industrial” flow rates is occurring, or the acquisition of land adjacent to White’s Point by Bilcon of Delaware). I would suggest you then choose one or two of the points (bolded and italicized above) and use your own words to encourage/request/insist/demand the specific changes you want to see to the Draft Agreement. A rationale is provided for each of the points to help you get the flavour of the point and choose your own words to make the point.
Point 1:
We should encourage/request/insist/demand (choose whichever term you want) that the Draft Agreement be revised to use definitions from whichever jurisdiction (provincial or federal) that provides the broadest scope to the Panel Review as this is most consistent with the spirit of a joint Panel Review. Specifically, we might (encourage .. demand) that provincial definitions of environmental effect and mitigation be used or that provincial and federal definitions be combined.
Rationale: The province appears content, with minor exceptions, to allow the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act definitions to be used, rather than the Nova Scotia Environment Act. This has negative implications in some cases. For example, the definition of “mitigation” in NS legislation covers both significant environmental effects and adverse effects, whereas federal legislation refers only to adverse environmental effects. As the NSEA definition is broader in scope, it would be desirable to have it used rather then the CEAA definition. Likewise, the CEAA definition of environmental effect is more restrictive than the NSEA definition which includes the project impact on socio-economic, environmental health, cultural and other important elements; however, the Draft Agreement uses the CEAA definition. This means, for example, that environmental health may only be examined as it is affected by a change in the biophysical environment (i.e., not as an indirect effect).
Point 2:
We need to encourage/request/insist/demand that the time periods specified for public review and input be extended to reflect the spirit of the Guideline on Procedures for an Assessment by a Review Panel. Specifically, we could (encourage …demand) that the draft Environmental Impact Statement guidelines be available for public review for at least 45 days and up to 90 days at the discretion of the Joint Review Panel, that the opportunity for public examination and comment on the Environmental Impact Statement be 90 and not 60 days, and that the minimum period of public notice for the start of hearings is amended to 45 days.
Rationale: The province appears to have negotiated the shortest allowable period of time for various activities. In particular, and of greatest concern to us is the time periods established for public review and input. For example, the timeframe specified in the Draft Agreement for public notice for the start of hearings is a minimum of 30 days whereas the “normal” timeframe in a “federal” Panel Review is a minimum of 45 days. Likewise, the Draft Agreement specifies that the public and stakeholders “shall be provided forty-five (45) days to review the draft guidelines and prepare comments” regarding the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The federal procedures state that this period should be a minimum of forty-five days and up to 90 days at the discretion of the Joint Review Panel.
It is interesting (but perhaps not productive) to speculate as to why the province appears to have negotiated the shortest timeframes for such public review and comment.
Point 3:
We need to insist that the Draft Agreement specify the requirement to hold public meetings during the preparation of draft Environmental Impact Statement guidelines and at other opportunities that will facilitate public participation and ensure fairness and transparency in the process.
Rationale: What is even more disturbing than reduced time periods, is that the Draft Agreement does not specify any requirement for public meetings. While the Review Panel has the discretion to impose some of these meetings, some of the opportunities for public meetings occur prior to the process being handed over to the Review Panel. In a “federal” Panel Review, the draft EIS guidelines are developed and given to the Review Panel that reviews them and consults the public (this consultation may include holding public meetings). This step is referred to as the “scoping” phase. In the current Draft Agreement, the parties (provincial and federal departments/agencies) develop the draft guidelines and solicits public input. It then finalizes the guidelines (presumably incorporating public input) and hands the guidelines to the Review Panel and others for “implementation”. The Draft Agreement is “silent” regarding holding public meetings during the preparation of draft EIS guidelines. It is reasonable to assume that no
public meetings are planned and that input to
the issues to be addressed in written submissions only.
Public meetings during the scoping process are of critical importance. Not all interested parties will avail themselves of the opportunity to compose letters or feel comfortable/competent to do so. Public hearings are informal and encourage public participation. Additionally, individuals attending public meetings may have additional thought “triggered” by the comments of others.
(I feel uncomfortable in leaving the decision whether to hold public meetings for other stages of the process up to the Review Panel but the Draft Agreement appears not to be the vehicle for telling the Review Panel how to do its job.)
Point 4:
We need to encourage/request/insist/demand that public hearings be scheduled at appropriate time periods, with due consideration to local industries (such as lobster season and tourism) and to the large number of seasonal residents in the local communities.
Rationale: This one is self evident. Lobster fishers cannot afford to take 2-3 days to attend public meetings during the height of lobster season. Seasonal residents cannot be expected to return to the area for such meetings, nor should tourism operators be ignored in scheduling public meetings.
Point 5:
We encourage/request/insist/demand (choose one) that the Draft Agreement specify a commitment for the parties to follow the Guideline on Procedures for an Assessment by a Review Panel throughout the process.
The federal Guideline on Procedures for an Assessment by a Review Panel (which were designed for “federal only” reviews - i.e., involving only federal government departments/agencies, not joint provincial-federal departments) have rarely, if ever, been followed.
Rationale: The lack of compliance with the “guideline” has implications for the Draft Agreement. Where the Draft Agreement is “silent” on certain matters (e.g., conduct of public hearings), we cannot assume that they will be held just because they are called for in the Guideline on Procedures…. Therefore, we need to encourage/request/insist/demand that the Draft Agreement be revised to make certain processes explicit such as those discussed above.
Please find time to get your letters sent in the next day or two (note that you can send your letters by email but, if you are like me, you may want to send a mailed copy as back-up). I realize the time period is very short but your participation may make a real difference. Please contact me or another member of the Society if you need assistance or further information. Thanks for your support.
Addresses:
Chris Daly
Nova Scotia Environment and Labour
5151 Terminal Road, 5th Floor
P.O. Box 697
Halifax NS B3J 2T8
Tel.: (902) 424-2574
Fax: (902) 424-0503
E-mail: ea@gov.ns.ca
Steve Chapman
Canadian Evironmental Assessment Agency
200 Sacré-Coeur Boulevard, 13th floor
Gatineau QC K1A 0H3
Tel.: (819) 997-2937
Fax: (819) 997-4931
E-mail: steve.chapman@ceaa-acee.gc.ca
