PETITCODIAC RIVER CAUSEWAY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

  Roughly 75 people attended the three hour and fifteen minute discussion held at the Moncton Lions Senior Centre on Wednesday January 29, 2003. The meeting began at 7:05 p.m. and was the third 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: Petitcodiac Riverkeeper, Premier’s Council on the Environment and the Economy, Association des pêcheurs du Belliveau Village, Lake Petitcodiac Monitoring Group and l’Université de Moncton. Individual citizens have also approached the microphone to make comments, voice their concerns and ask questions.

  Of the four public meetings held on successive evenings during the last week of January, the Moncton session attracted the largest number of participants. It also featured the widest range of views on the future of the Petitcodiac River Causeway….. ....from those who voiced concern about any substantive change to its present status ... to those who support its total removal.

  Several participants focused their attention on the scope of the EIA Study and expressed concern about issues such as: whether the ‘status quo’ option would be considered as a possible outcome of the process; why the Study Team was apparently interested in developing a definition of ‘fish passage,’ separate from that proscribed by applicable regulations, and how the ‘pre-1967' conditions of the river system could be incorporated ‘post-facto’ into the modelling component of the EIA.

  Other speakers expressed concern about the impact of contamination from the former Moncton dump on water quality in Petitcodiac River, particularly if the causeway gates were opened or the structure removed. Major increases in siltation of the river downstream of the causeway, since its construction in 1968, were highlighted from various perspectives. The impact of changes in tidal flow on fish passage, sewage treatment plant discharges and mosquito breeding potential were among many other issues raised in the course of the discussion.

  Scepticism about the inherent value of this EIA effort was voiced as well, as speakers noted that no action to address such problems has resulted from the many previous studies conducted on this complex subject.

  Some participants noted the divisions in the community at large…..which have developed over the years in relation to the Petitcodiac River Causeway; the artificial lake created by it, and the river system as a whole. One speaker voiced a hope that participants on each side of the debate would try to understand the perspective of those on the other side.

  The possibility of providing financial compensation for whose property values would be affected by a major change to the causeway was raised in this context, as an approach that might prove helpful during the search for a viable solution.

  Another speaker encouraged interested members of the community to learn more about each other’s input to the study, and urged the Study Team to expand its use of the Internet, in order to assist this process.

Scope of the Study

  The meeting opened with a series of questions aimed at clarifying how the Study Team would approach specific topic areas within the context of the EIA. As the evening progressed, other questions on the scope of the study also arose.

  One participant noted that a member of the Study Team had earlier introduced the concept of establishing an understanding on what constitutes ‘fish passage‘ for the purposes of the EIA...... and asked how this question could be pursued, given the existing legal definition of the term, which appears in relevant federal regulations.

  The speaker also asked how the Study Team could justify agreeing to examine an issue raised previously …...(by a participant at the Monday session in Salisbury, who had focused on potential use of ‘Lake Petitcodiac’ as a public water supply)……when the likelihood of this ever being given serious consideration is essentially nil.

  Specific concern was expressed in this context.... as to whether the members of the Study Team themselves had sufficient familiarity with the Petitcodiac River region..... to be capable of conducting the kind of comprehensive process required for this particular EIA. As an example, it was stated that.........although the majority of the participants who had spoken at the Monday evening meeting in Salisbury had been supporters of the ’status quo’ regarding the Petitcodiac River Causeway.…… people who are truly familiar with that section of the watershed would have been well aware that the vast majority of the local population actually supports ‘restoration’ of the river.

  Concern was also expressed about the presence of ‘illegal’ fish like small mouth bass in the existing head pond, and questions were asked regarding the Study Team’s schedule for opening the causeway gates as part of its EIA investigations.

  Other participants asked how the existing state of the Petitcodiac River, which they saw as seriously compromised, could be used as a basis for comparing the positive or negative effects of a particular option..........and whether the ‘pre-1967' state of the Petitcodiac River system could be employed as a measure against which to make such comparisons.

  Some speakers asked for clarification on whether the ‘status quo’ situation, in which no change would be made to existing causeway, would be considered as an acceptable outcome in 2005…..given the objectives of this EIA.

  Serious concern was expressed about the many studies conducted over the years on the Petitcodiac River….none of which were followed by action to rectify the problems identified. One participant asked whether it was possible that this EIA process might conclude on a similar note..... with the two levels of government essentially deadlocked....and no action forthcoming.....because they had reached different decisions on its results.

  Another speaker stated that the present EIA study should keep in mind the right of local citizens to be proud of their communities, and the environment in which they live........their right to a river system which is biologically sound... sustainable, and capable of supporting local tourism ......and the right of future generations to enjoy the benefits of a healthy and productive environment.

  One participant asked if any system was in place to ensure that the Study Team would be able to meet any future legal requirements for proving ‘due diligence’ regarding its conduct .... while other speakers wanted assurances that the impacts of global warming on the Petitcodiac River watershed as a whole…..and land use practices affecting freshwater flow rates in the region…..would be addressed during the study program.

  Members of the Study Team responded generally to these wide-ranging questions by stressing the vital importance of feedback from residents within the watershed on their individual concerns and suggestions.....both at this early stage, and ongoing throughout the EIA process.

  It was explained that the focus on discussing what constitutes ‘fish passage’ is related, in part, to the task of identifying potential new “Fish Way” designs for the existing causeway structure.........which are ultimately required to address one of the four ‘project options’ formally stated in the Government’s EIA Guidelines.

  Developing such an understanding now….. between the Study Team and key stakeholders, including the public…. will help establish criteria for determining whether a particular ‘project option’ is ultimately judged to have successfully met the objectives of the EIA, at the end of the exercise. Ensuring the study builds a comprehensive understanding of the various fish species present in the overall system is also a key goal.

  With respect to the Study Team’s familiarity with the Peticodiac River region, the members present reviewed their previous individual experience in working on environmental issues within the watershed; referred to the extensive local backgrounds of many other Study Team members, and again stressed the importance of listening ‘objectively’ to all stakeholders…..as they identify issues and ask that a particular concern be looked at.

  As the initial phase of the EIA process goes forward, the Study Team will continue to encourage and welcome all input received. Further ‘scoping’ activity, including individual meetings with stakeholders groups, if requested....and a series of multi-disciplinary stakeholder workshops.... will be aimed at ensuring that all relevant information about a particular issue is taken into account, as decisions are considered on the detailed investigations to come.

  The Study Team acknowledged the challenges involved in utilizing ‘pre-1967 conditions’ in the Petitcodiac River system for comparative purposes during the EIA, but indicated that the specialists involved in designing the modelling components of the study are fully aware of this issue. Team members also noted, at this very early stage in the process, that information is not yet available on any planned opening of the causeway gates, in the context of future assessment activity.

  It was noted in addition that the so-called ‘ status quo’ situation will be used during the Study in developing some baseline comparisons. However, it is not identified in the EIA guidelines as a formal ‘project option’ ……subject to environmental impact assessment……because maintaining the ‘status quo’ would not meet the EIA Guideline requirements regarding fish passage.

  Regarding the concern expressed that the federal-provincial nature of the EIA process might produce a stalemate on its conclusion……the Study Team responded that the final EIA report will deliver exactly the same information to the decision-makers of both jurisdictions. It was also noted that several members of the Team have worked on a variety of ‘harmonized’ federal-provincial studies of this kind in the past….and such a ‘deadlock’ situation has never arisen.

  With respect to the Study Team’s ability to meet any legal requirement for ‘due diligence‘ during its conduct of the study, it was explained that, in addition to established internal quality assurance procedures……..and application of the best possible scientific protocols….....a senior Peer Review group has also been established for this specific purpose by the EIA Study Consortium.

  These recognized ‘outside experts’ in the field will provide the Study Team with an additional level of scientific review, prior to submission of its final draft EIA report to the Technical Review Committee (TRC) in late 2004. It was further noted that the TRC itself comprises a wide range of federal and provincial technical specialists concerned with this specific subject matter.

  Members of the Study Team confirmed as well that the EIA study would include a significant focus on global warming in the context of the Petitcodiac River, as well as land use patterns in the surrounding watershed.

Socio-Economic Issues

  Some speakers drew attention to the value of ‘Lake Petitcodiac’ as a community resource for recreational activity such as boating, fishing and observing wildlife, attracted to the area since construction of the causeway. On the basis of personal observation while teaching sailing to young people on the lake over two decades, one participant reported that its water quality should not be viewed as a concern from the health point of view. Another participant stated that regular testing by health authorities over the years has confirmed its compliance with the applicable standards.

  It was stated that the positive potential for further developing ‘Lake Petitcodiac’ as a community asset could produce recreational benefits similar to the municipal lake system in Dartmouth, N.S. One speaker also proposed that areas of new land which have built up in the river bed below the causeway over the years could be put to good use as hay fields or sod farms which would, in turn, benefit the local economy.

  Another participant, who would prefer to see restoration of unimpeded tidal flow in the river as a primary goal of this exercise….emphasized that his perspective on the future of the causeway should not be equated with insensitivity to the socio-economic interests of those who have invested a great deal over the years in building residential properties overlooking ‘Lake Petitcodiac.’

  To properly address these concerns, it was recommended that the EIA process include some form of financial compensation........built into the system..... to benefit those who would otherwise suffer economically from the actions which are needed to successfully ‘restore’ the river.

  An agricultural producer from the region of the watershed above the existing causeway expressed concern about the financial impact on area farmers.…..should the old dyke systems protecting their land from erosion have to be re-built….after a ‘re-opening’ of the causeway and removal of the existing head pond.

  Members of the Study Team agreed that the socio-economic aspects of the EIA study are of major importance. Team specialists in this area will be looking carefully at all such issues and including a detailed focus on methods of compensation for residential property owners, as well as farmers, who would be affected by one or more of the options being considered.

  Diverse approaches to compensation would be addressed in this context, since it’s recognized that some benefits of property ownership can’t be calculated solely in dollars and cents. A Study Team member offered to attend, and help arrange, a specific meeting with the local farmers group to discuss the variety of issues involved.

Public and Stakeholder Involvement

  Some participants focused their comments on the need to ensure as many people as possible are able to participate in the EIA process, as it goes forward. One speaker stated that ‘getting a handle’ on pubic opinion in the whole area should be a priority.

  Although some residents may look at the issue from a more narrow perspective, it was stated that a general awareness has emerged in recent years which accepts that a ‘healthy Petitcodiac River system would be in everybody’s interest.’ But building such a consensus around future action on the issue will require all stakeholders to consciously look beyond their own immediate concerns.

  The speaker noted that his own recreational property on Shepody Bay could certainly be affected by increased sedimentation following a major opening of the causeway gates, or replacement of the structure with a partial bridge. On the other hand, it was predicted that doing nothing to address the present problems with the river would cause even greater deterioration of the area’s environment in the longer term.

  Another speaker identified several areas in the draft Terms of Reference document where the text is very difficult to understand for the average person. In one instance, where detailed information was provided about the boundaries identified for studying various environmental effects, it was noted that some important areas appear to have been overlooked.

  Another participant urged the Study Team to provide more support for those interested in learning about the diversity of views and suggestions being expressed across the region on issues identified during the EIA.

  It was pointed out the EIA web site at www.petitcodiac.com offers an excellent vehicle for documenting such issues in the public forum, as well as an opportunity to stimulate subsequent dialogue about them among various stakeholders.

  It was noted that no one individual could hope to attend every consultation event scheduled as part of the EIA process and, even if this was practical, some individuals are not comfortable asking questions or making suggestions on a microphone at a such an event. On the other hand, they might be fully prepared to follow the key issues on the Petitcodiac EIA web site, and provide their own comments and feedback ‘on line.’

  The Study Team responded to these concerns by stressing the major importance it attaches to encouraging active involvement of as many people as possible in the EIA process......across all regions of the watershed. It was noted that all input received from stakeholder groups and members of the public will be recorded in an 'issues tracking' file ...........and every effort will be made to provide access to summaries of such information on the Study web site.

  The overly complicated nature of the draft Terms of Reference text was acknowledged and revisions will be made in an attempt to more easily convey the essential information. A major effort will also be made to encourage community residents in all areas to make use of the various alternatives provided for registering their concerns or questions.....only one of which involving attendance at public events.

  As noted in earlier news releases and advertisements, these include providing feedback by phone, fax, e-mail, surface mail, etc. Team members also emphasized their readiness to arrange smaller, less formal, discussions with stakeholder groups who might be more comfortable in such a setting.

Water Quality

  Questions and comments from the participants on water quality issues in the Petitcodiac River system reflected a wide range of perspectives. Some participants expressed deep concern about the potential impact on different sections of the river from the old Moncton dump site, and the existing municipal sewage treatment system....should the ultimate result of the exercise prompt major changes at the existing causeway.

  It was noted by one participant that legal proceedings are already underway against the City of Moncton regarding pollution of the river from the old dump site....before any decision is made regarding the future of the causeway. Major concerns were also expressed about what is actually contained in the old dump site…..which operated during an era when scrutiny of materials disposed of in such locations was sorely lacking.

  One participant emphasized that cleaning up the old dump site should be seen by everyone as by far the most serious environmental challenge facing the Moncton area today. Despite the massive costs associated with such an effort, it was stated this priority should be addressed first, before any potential actions are considered about the future of the Petitcodiac River Causeway.

  Given the former dump’s location, it was predicted as well that the only way to protect the river from massive contamination.... should the causeway gates be opened........would be a massive encasement to prevent any possible erosion at the site from the resulting tidal flow.

  Other speakers expressed serious concern about discharges from the region’s municipal wastewater treatment plant into the river below the causeway, which would be carried long distances up and down river on the daily tidal flow, should the gates be opened or the structure replaced with a partial bridge.

  One participant emphasized that the environmental sampling and analysis planned for this EIA should go well beyond surficial examination and look for potentially harmful contamination from such sources which has been suspended in the silt over time.

  Another speaker noted that the flow of fresh water into the Petitcodiac River system from Turtle Creek was dramatically restricted when the dam creating the municipal region’s public water supply was constructed, and fish passage in that system essentially came to an end as a result.

  One speaker stressed that the Petitcodiac River above the causeway is not polluted today, while the downstream section below the causeway is affected by extensive pollution. It was strongly recommended that such downstream pollution problems be dealt with properly, before the future of the causeway is decided upon.

  Other speakers, representing an alternate perspective on the situation, urged the EIA Study team to focus on the wide range of positive impacts which would result from removing the present barrier to tidal flow represented by the causeway. It was stated by several participants that reversing the serious damage done by increased sedimentation in the river over the decades past, and restoring its ecological health throughout the entire system, must be the priority.

  One participant also emphasized that, as a result of the causeway, the marshland areas above the existing structure are being destroyed by erosion. It was stated that wind and wave action in the head pond is leading to the breakdown of the marsh banks and the resulting silt is sliding into the deeper portions of the water. Unless action is taken to re-establish tidal flow patterns, it was predicted that eventual result could be some sort of ‘shallow pool’ between the uplands above the causeway.

  Members of the Study Team assured the participants that the EIA process will address the wide range of issues identified during the meeting…..and many more…. during its detailed study program. It was also noted that specific workshops will be scheduled with all interested stakeholders to examine key issues in extensive detail, before determining how to proceed on various assessment activities.