PETITCODIAC RIVER CAUSEWAY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

  Roughly 30 people attended the two hour discussion held at the Monument Lefebvre Theatre on Thursday January 30, 2003. The meeting began at 7:05 p.m. and served as the last in a series of four public sessions held across the Petitcodiac River Watershed in late January.

  Comments, concerns and questions were raised by individual participants on behalf of the following organizations: Memramcook, club des naturalistes de la vallée and Pré d’en Haut Fishermen. Individual citizens have also approached the microphone to make comments, voice their concerns and ask questions.

  Several of the participants registered concern about the EIA concentrating too much on possible modifications to the existing causeway. Newspaper reports in which the Petitcodiac was identified as the ‘second most endangered river system in Canada’ were cited as evidence that the river’s problems are far too serious to be solved by efforts such as re-designing the fish way structure on the causeway. It was stated, for example, that the Memramcook River has also been subject to significant siltation problems over the decades...directly attributable to a local causeway which, like the structure between Moncton and Riverview, should be ‘replaced with a bridge.’

  Other speakers spoke more generally about the impact of various land uses and changes in the estuary’s tidal flow over the years on coastal marshes, wildlife, smaller rivers and streams throughout the watershed. Suggestions were made that this EIA should broaden its focus to take on the much larger task of recommending how to restore the ecological health of the Petitcodiac system as a whole. Residents of the Memramcook area also requested that the Study Team return to the area in the near future, together with French-speaking technical specialists, who could engage local stakeholders in a more informal comprehensive discussion of the various issues involved.

Sediment Transport

  Many of the participants who spoke during the discussion identified major negative impacts associated with sediment build up in the waters and shoreline areas of the Petitcodiac, since the causeway was constructed in 1968. From marsh areas impacted by municipal land use, to traditionally important commercial fishing areas, or the inner reaches of the Memramcook River system, there was strong support for the view that aggressive action is needed to save the Petitcodiac, before it’s too late. One speaker stated that the sediment problem was responsible for both covering the food which local fish had traditionally depended on and/or blocking their access to areas where that food is available.

  The Study Team emphasized that the EIA process would address such issues comprehensively, looking at cumulative effects within the estuary, in addition to specific impacts on more narrowly defined components of the ecosystem.

Scope of the EIA

  A recurring theme raised by participants during the evening centred on whether this EIA would be able to address issues beyond the future of the Petitcodiac River Causeway. Several speakers raised concerns about other contributing factors, which had impacted the health of the river and its estuary system over the decades.

  Such issues ranged from the impact of various types of urban development, solid waste dumping and wastewater discharge in the Moncton area to the continuing practice of dumping plowed snow from municipal streets onto shoreline areas, where the residue ultimately impacts the river during the Spring melt period.

  Past construction of other barriers to tidal flow such as the Memramcook River causeway was also identified as a serious problem, as was the rise of a new ‘island’ of sediment in waterways around Dorchester, evidence of the widespread siltation in so many local areas since the late 1960's. One participant asked whether it would be possible to include both rivers in the Memramcook Valley within the scope of the present EIA Study

  Another noted the ecological vulnerability of Hall’s Marsh to increased sedimentation over the past four decades, and urged the Study Team to focus efforts in this area as well. Others raised questions about the new bridge presently being constructed between Moncton and Riverview. The concern in this instance centred on whether the project was subject to a proper environmental assessment, before the decision to proceed was made by Government. One speaker asked whether this new bridge structure had been designed with an understanding that it might have to function in very different river environment, after the existing causeway upstream had been removed, or altered in significant ways.

  Taking a different approach to the question of EIA ‘scope’, one participant asked for clarification on whether maintaining the ‘status quo’ for the existing Petitcodiac River Causeway could be a possible outcome of this EIA process. Another speaker asked why the option of a ‘complete bridge’, rather than a ‘partial bridge’ was not among the modification options identified in the EIA study documentation.

  With regard to the socio-economic aspects of the EIA study, some participants sought assurances that the focus of such examinations would not be narrowly directed toward a limited number of areas. They stated that the study of socio-economic impacts must be widely addressed throughout the watershed, in order to touch on all the communities concerned. The economic value of future tourism along the shores of the Petitcodiac was a cited example, in which the restoration of the river’s health would have major positive effects.

  Responding to the wide range of questions raised about the scope of the EIA, the Study Team emphasized that public, stakeholder and aboriginal community input, at the earliest stages of the process, is most valuable in helping to focus attention on the key issues of concern….in various areas of the watershed.

  It was clearly acknowledged that the Study Guidelines issued on behalf of the Provincial and Federal Governments for this EIA provide for a specific focus on potential modifications to the Petitcodiac River Causeway.

  It was noted that, if stakeholders wish to suggest other options at this stage in the process, beyond those identified in the EIA Guidelines, such information will be actively considered by the Study Team. The overall goal of the Assessment, however, would still have to be centred on fish passage and other ecological issues related to the existing Petitcodiac River Causeway. It was also pointed out that maintaining the ‘status quo,’ as far as the existing causeway is concerned, would not meet the fish passage requirements which have been identified by both Governments as key objectives for the overall process.

  Members of the Study Team stated that assessing ‘cumulative’ or ‘overlapping’ environmental effects in the Petitcodiac River system would be a key component of the EIA as well. In order to identify such cumulative effects, scientific and technical specialists will have to deal with the system as a whole in many instances. This, in turn, should afford them the opportunity to ‘cast a wide net’ when looking at the river and its surrounding environment.

  Impacts on fishing grounds in Shepody Bay, for example, will be a prime subject for assessment and, while doing so, the significance of other influences, beyond those directly related to the Petitcodiac River Causeway, will need to be understood and taken into account.

  The Guideline requirement to address ‘cumulative effects’ means that the studies carried out as part of the overall EIA will be more wide-ranging, in terms of local environments and local impacts, than some might expect. The concerns raised about the causeway in Memramcook would be addressed, for example, although not in as exhaustive a manner as would be the case for the Petitcodiac River Causeway.

  The Study Team also assured the participants that its socio-economic investigations will cover the entire watershed, not just the larger municipalities, and examine issues such as tourism and the Fundy Trail System.

Fish Way Options

  Several participants from the Memramcook area voiced opposition to what they see as too much emphasis in this EIA study on construction of a new Fish Way for the Petitcodiac Causeway, as a solution to the River’s problems. They maintained that such action would do nothing to solve the many problems created in their section of the river by the Causeway’s construction in 1968.

  Further concerns were expressed regarding any approach which would make restoration of ‘fish passage’ the only major objective of the EIA Study. This concept, they argued, might lead to a situation where the ‘passage’ of a few fish past the Petitcodiac River Causeway would be accepted as evidence that the health of the system as a whole had been properly restored.

  In responding to these concerns, members of the Study Team emphasized that developing a common understanding of what is considered important by the public, stakeholder groups and the aboriginal community in terms of ‘fish passage,’….. as well as many other issues related to the EIA……is a vital first step in the process.

  This approach is aimed at ensuring that ......two years from now, at the end of the study.... the various criteria applied to determine whether a particular option would successfully meet the goals of the EIA.......are generally accepted and supported by public participants in the process, as well as the various government agencies involved.

  A member of the Study Team explained that, in the past, some definitions of upstream fish passage in a system such as the Petitcodiac would have looked only at species such as Atlantic Salmon, Brook Trout, Shad and Gaspereaux. It was pointed out, however, that other species such as Sturgeon, Tomcod, Striped Bass, etc. may also be seen as important in the context of this watershed......and, if so..... specific studies within the EIA as a whole will be required to address them.

  Developing a global understanding of the fish community throughout the Petitcodiac River system……including species which move between salt water and fresh water environments, as well as those which spend their lives in one or the other……provides most valuable information in the planning and completion of an EIA such as this. The Study Team stressed the key role which local fishers can play in providing such information to technical people involved in the assessment process through formal consultation meetings……as well as informal exchanges, such as those which had taken place earlier in the day during the ‘Open House’ segment of the session.

  It was also noted that a complex system like the Petitcodiac River and estuary is not static. It is constantly going through some form of change….and maintaining close contact between the scientists working on the project and local stakeholders, the public, as well as the aboriginal community......throughout the next two years as the EIA goes forward ..... will be a high priority for the Study Team.

Public and Stakeholder Involvement

  Several participants expressed a strong interest in staying actively involved in the EIA process, together with the hope that voices from Memramcook and other smaller communities throughout the watershed will be listened to....and their input fully considered. As the meeting progressed, an undertaking was made by the Study Team to return to the Memramcook area in the near future for more detailed discussions...... in French..... with the local Naturalists Club.... as well as a group of fishermen very familiar with the dynamics of the Petitcodiac River system in the surrounding area.

  One speaker observed that the major municipalities in the watershed have been the focus of much discussion and attention over the years in relation to the Petitcodiac River Causeway and the general health of the river.

  It was requested that this EIA would truly extend to the entire watershed….and every step possible would be taken to give downstream residents, who live in close proximity to the water’s edge, a meaningful chance to be heard.

  Other participants referred to the long list of previous studies which have been carried out with no concrete result....as well as the ‘trial gate opening’ in 1998, which appeared to be having a positive impact on fish resources in the nearby area, when it was suddenly cancelled.

  It was noted that the cumulative effect of all this among local residents has been to increase scepticism and frustration with present situation, where ‘the river is dying’ and so little has been done to ‘re-open it.’

  Members of the Study Team re-emphasized their active interest in engaging local residents in the EIA process…. at every stage of its operation over the next two years. It was stressed that an environmental impact assessment cannot truly succeed without the extensive participation of the surrounding community. The Study Team is determined to deliver an EIA Study in this regard, which is both comprehensive and easily accessible for the public throughout.