SUMMARY OF THE
SOCIO-ECONOMIC WORKSHOP

(Held in Riverview, May 31, 2003)

Submitted to:
Department of Supply and Services
Fredericton, New Brunswick

Submitted by:
AMEC Earth & Environmental Limited
Fredericton, New Brunswick

July 15, 2003

DSS File: YB299A PRC EIA
AMEC File: TE23580.1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.1  BACKGROUND

1.2   WORKSHOP PURPOSE

1.3   OVERVIEW OF THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC WORKSHOP

1.4   SOCIO-ECONOMIC COMPONENT STUDIES STATUS

2.1   LAND USE AND VALUE

2.2   LABOUR AND ECONOMY

2.3   MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE

2.4   TRANSPORTATION NETWORK

2.5   VESSEL TRAFFIC AND NAVIGATION

2.6   TOURISM AND RECREATION

2.7   ARCHAEOLOGY AND HERITAGE RESOURCES

2.8   PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

1.0   INTRODUCTION

1.1   Background

This document presents a summary of the issues raised and the discussion that took place during the Socio-economic Component Study Workshop held in Riverview on May 31st, 2003.

1.2   Workshop Purpose

The purpose of the Socio-economic Workshop was to discuss and validate the proposed work plans provided in the Draft Terms of Reference of each of the Socio-economic Component Studies, as well as to receive comments and suggestions related to data sources.

The Preliminary Draft Terms of Reference for the Socio-Economic Component Studies for the Petitcodiac River Causeway Environmental Impact Assessment, May 13, 2003, were prepared for discussion purposes at the Workshop.

In addition, for information purposes, a presentation was made to explain Full Cost Accounting (FCA) by Dr. Ron Colman, of GPI Atlantic. FCA is a tool that will be used in subsequent stages of the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement; it is not a socio-economic component. Questions and comments raised at the Workshop regarding FCA are provided in the Appendix to this document.

1.3   Overview of the Socio-Economic Workshop

The Socio-economic Workshop began with a morning plenary session, during which the Study (All references in this document to “the Study”, unless otherwise stated, are to “the EIA Study”). Facilitator presented the Workshop Agenda and an overview and update of the overall Study progress to date.

i. Land Use and Economy Break-out Session:

• Land Use and Value
• Labour and Economy
• Public Health and Safety

ii. Infrastructure and Transportation Break-out Session:

• Municipal Services and Infrastructure
• Transportation Network
• Vessel Traffic and Navigation
• Public Health and Safety

iii. Socio-Cultural Break-out Session:

• Archaeology and Heritage Resources
• Tourism
• Recreation
• Public Health and Safety

The participants raised their concerns and discussed issues regarding the Socio-economic component studies and the respective Draft Terms of Reference.

After lunch, participants returned to a plenary session, which began with a presentation of FCA, and continued with summary presentations of the Break-out Sessions. The day ended with an open discussion and question and answer period. Comments and points of discussion from the Plenary Sessions have been incorporated into the summaries of the socio-economic components reported in Chapter 2.0.

1.4   Socio-Economic Component Studies Status

Most of the Phase 1 Scoping work regarding the Socio-economic component studies has been completed. This has involved the initial contact with resource persons, and the acquisition and review of available data. Preliminary draft Terms of Reference were submitted to the Technical Review Committee for review, and to the stakeholders for comment, at the Socio-economic Workshop.

The comments and issues raised by stakeholders at the Socio-economic Workshop will be incorporated into a revised Socio-economic Component Studies Terms of Reference as they pertain to work needed to fill data gaps or other analyses that support the Study. The public and stakeholders will have another opportunity to review and comment on the revised draft Terms of Reference prior to finalization of the document.

Following completion of the Phase 1 Scoping, the next steps will be to conduct the Socio-economic Component Studies and report the results.

2.0   SOCIO-ECONOMIC SUB-COMPONENTS - ISSUES AND DISCUSSIONS

Most of the discussions at the Workshop centred on concerns raised by the participants regarding the issues they felt should be included in the Socio-economic component studies and/or the EIA Study, as applicable. In fact, a majority of the discussion pertained more to issues that should be addressed in the EIA Study rather than specific requirements for the Socio-economic Component studies. The participants also indicated resource contacts and sources of information to the Socio-economic Study Team.

As noted previously there were few comments directed towards revisions to the draft Terms of Reference of the Socio-economic Component Studies. However, specific comments were as follows:

• The wording of the Terms of Reference must be revised to eliminate any perceived biases.
• The definition of municipal services and infrastructure should be more generic, so that all public and private infrastructure are included. Replace the term “municipal services” with the term “underground services”.
• The Terms of Reference is too vague. The finalized Terms of Reference should be more specific in order to follow what is actually being done in this EIA.
• Have designated individuals review information to identify data gaps.

The remainder of this section presents summaries of the issues raised and the discussions regarding each Socio-economic sub-component during the Break-out and Plenary Sessions. Numerous contact names were provided by participants at the sessions, but due to personal confidentiality have been excluded from this document.

It should be noted that the issues and points of discussion presented in this summary document reflect the views of the participants expressed at the Socio-Economic Workshop. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the AMEC EIA Study Team, or the Project Proponent, the New Brunswick Department of Supply and Services (DSS).

2.1   Land Use and Value

The Workshop participants indicated the following items that should be considered during the execution of the Land Use and Value Socio-economic sub-component study, and/or the overall EIA:

• If the Petitcodiac River watershed is to be compared to another watershed, a similar watershed such as the Shubenacadie should be used.
• The current value of agricultural land lost, not solely the reconstruction of dykes, should be evaluated. Some of the land protected may no longer be used as farmland.
• The intangible aspects of land valuation, such as bad publicity, needs to be included in the land valuation
• The Moncton landfill site should be part of the Study because the leachate will contaminate the water and affect land value and use. The other dumps along the River (such as the dump near the Université de Moncton) will also have an environmental effect.
• With respect to aesthetic issues and their environmental effect on land values, the pre-Causeway state of the River should be used as the baseline.
• Risks of landfill site in 50 to 100 years and how will this be dealt with.

The Workshop participants identified the following potential contacts, and sources of data and information:

Statistics Canada

Canada Lands

NB Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Aquaculture.

2.2   Labour and Economy

The Workshop participants indicated the following items that should be considered during the execution of the Labour and Economy Socio-economic sub-component study, and/or the overall EIA:

• The assessment must include all positive and negative economic environmental effects associated with all socio-economic components, including tourism and recreation activities, commercial and recreational fisheries, agriculture, the operational costs associated with the implementation of each Project Option, and all potential developments.
• All jobs, before and after, need to be assessed.
• All stakeholders must be included in the Study (The Niles Report was cited as a source of stakeholders to contact for valuable information).

2.3  Municipal Services and Infrastructure

The Workshop participants indicated the following items that should be considered during the execution of the Municipal Services and Infrastructure Socio-economic sub-component study, and/or the overall EIA:

• Many of the dykes and aboiteaux along the River are in poor condition and have not been maintained. The current state of the dykes and aboiteaux, and the land adjacent to the River on both sides of the Causeway must be identified and used as the status quo.
• The authorities responsible to pay for the dykelands protection, restoration and maintenance must be determined before choosing a Project Option.
• Sedimentation and erosion must be addressed both upstream and downstream along the River.
• If the selected Project Option results in flow augmentation, flooding can be expected.
• Potential loss of farmland must be addressed.
• Ownership of land created along the riverbed will have to be established.
• Fresh water supply: Future requirements may consider Lake Petitcodiac
• Turtle Creek reservoir height increase, increase spillway waterfall and headpond height increase
• City of Dieppe and Town of Riverview want to develop their own water supply.

2.4   Transportation Network

The Workshop participants indicated the following items that should be considered during the execution of the Transportation Network Socio-economic sub-component study, and/or the overall EIA:

• Emergency services access during the construction phase, as well as during service interruptions for maintenance and refurbishment.
• Traffic congestion created during closure of the Causeway.
• The new Petitcodiac River Bridge and approach ramps will have to be constructed before the recommended Project Option of the Study is implemented.
• Measures suggested to alleviate traffic congestion during the construction phase of the Project Options that will disrupt traffic operations included:
  • Construct new crossing approaches at the new Bridge.
  • Construct a temporary diversion structure at the Causeway.
  • Provide special River crossing bus services.
  • Implement staggered work schedule.
  • Encourage bicycling and walking.
  • Provide a turn around point in the center of Causeway during construction.
  • Compare “apples to apples” when comparing effects of the other Project Options to the partial bridge Project Option.
  • Upgrade the Causeway to four full lanes to improve its operation, if it is maintained in place (as per three of the four Project Options).
  • The Emergency Measures Organization (EMO) was identified as a source for safety and emergency services information.

2.5   Vessel Traffic and Navigation

The Workshop participants indicated the following items that should be considered during the execution of the Vessel Traffic and Navigation Socio-economic sub-component study, and/or the overall EIA:

• Pre-Causeway vessel traffic should be taken as the status quo for the assessment.
• Sedimentation may have been an issue, even if the Causeway had not been constructed.
• Boating activities may create erosion.
• Current and future trends in boating and River recreation activities should be examined.
• Recreational and commercial uses of the River before and after the construction of the Causeway.
• Vessel navigation prior to Causeway.
• Major events on the River (for example, boating events and the hydroplane regatta) have been on hold until completion of the EIA Study.

The following potential sources of data and information were identified:

• Marine Groupe Marina
• Sea Cadets
• Town of Riverview Fire Department
• Abandoned Railroad Bridge (snowmobile/ATV trail system)
• Department of Tourism
• First Nations.

2.6   Tourism and Recreation

The Workshop participants indicated the following items that should be considered during the execution of the Tourism and Socio-economic sub-component study, and/or the overall EIA Recreation (note that although Tourism and Recreation are separate sub-components of the Socio-economic environment, they were discussed together at the Workshop):

• Pre-Causeway status and value of tourism.
• Balance between development and habitat conservation.
• There has not been recreational boating on the River for many years, if ever.
• Outhouse Point has had more effect on the Tidal Bore than the Causeway.
• Tourism that existed prior to completion of the Causeway included:
  • The Tidal Bore.
  • The salmon fishery.
• There are a number of potential tourism and recreation developments forwarded that might be exploited, which include:
  • Float planes.
  • Commercial tourism development along the Lake (e.g., hotel, restaurant).
  • Relocate tourist observation spots to view the tidal bore at its maximum bore point on the Petitcodiac River.
• Walking trails around the Ducks Unlimited area of the Lake.
• Potential to increase the use of existing Lake facilities and current activities.
• Construct a Tourist Information Centre near the Causeway with provision for fishway interpretation.
• Shepody Bay Lobster Boat tours, and possibly shark fishing.
• Alma Region kayaking and canoeing.
• Bird watching potential could be exploited at Mary’s Point and Johnson Mills.
• Headpond bird watching tourism could be enhanced to feature osprey, eagles, and loons.
• Tourism ventures that have developed since construction of the Causeway include:
  • Smallmouth Bass and Chain Pickerel fisheries.
  • Annual Smallmouth Bass Fishing Tournament.
  • Recreational boating and a marina located on the Riverview side of the Lake.
  • Hydroplane racing.
  • Tour boats.
  • Harbour porpoise/seals viewing.
  • Swimming, although water quality is a concern in the headpond.
  • Dragon-boat regatta.
  • Winter activities developed since construction of the Causeway include:
    • Cross-country skiing.
    • Snowmobiling.
    • Skating.
    • Dog-sledding.
  • Various supportive infrastructure must be set in place for the Lake tourism ventures to succeed. Support infrastructure and services could include:
    • Public transit from the Lake to the City centre.
    • Consistent water levels in the Lake.
    • Tourism/interpretive centre at the Lake.
    • An access point on the north side of the Lake.
  • Several other tourism and recreation issues were raised. They include:
    • The effect of Outhouse Point on the Tidal Bore.
    • The future of whether the Lake will eventually fill in, if the Causeway is kept.
    • The effect of sediment transport on the Dorchester Sandpiper Festival with each Project Option.
    • The effects of each of the Project Options on bird habitat and species shift.
    • The type and cost of supporting infrastructure and potential revenues.
    • The water quality in the Petitcodiac Lake area.
    • By-laws that could affect or restrict tourism development in the Lake or River.
  • A number of possible information sources were identified. They include:
    • Ontario and the web site www.copanational.org as a source of float plane data.
    • Lutes Mountain Meeting House for historical data and information.
    • Cape Jourimain Nature Center regarding interpretative facilities and bird watching.
    • Ducks Unlimited on how to promote ecotourism.
    • Fundy Bay Tours for boat tours information.
    • There is plenty of anecdotal information on fish. There is a report on the fisheries from the 1700s, for comparative data.
    • Hopewell Rocks studies.

2.7   Archaeology and Heritage Resources

The Workshop participants indicated the following items that should be considered during the execution of the Archaeology and Heritage Resources Socio-economic sub-component study, and/or the overall EIA:

• There are archaeological sites located along the Memramcook River, as well as on other tributaries of the Petitcodiac River.
• There are dykelands and aboiteaux of significant cultural and historic relevance in the Memramcook area.
• To determine the effects of sedimentation and deposition, all known and unknown archaeology of the area must be characterized.
• The presence of archaeological sites above the Causeway, and potential effects of the Project Options.
• There have not been any archeological surveys completed along the shoreline of the River, although the Fort Folly First Nation was involved in an archeological dig at a site alongside the Petitcodiac River.
• Everyone, including other countries, should have access to the Petitcodiac River Causeway EIA historical and archeological information.
• Archeological sites could be used to promote tourism.
• There are not many known archaeological sites in the Petitcodiac River system (mostly Acadian from the 18th and 19th century), and very few known Aboriginal sites.
• Any discovered artifacts become the property of the Province; however, long-term loans to First Nation communities that set up appropriate facilities are available.
• The role of the artistic community must be included in the assessment studies of the area’s past and future culture and heritage.
• In order to capture the heritage of the Petitcodiac River system, it will be necessary to tell the story of the River from pre-history to the Causeway. This would include Aboriginal history, Acadian settlement, and the region’s shipbuilding industry heritage.
• The Card Pazant, a building located in Dorchester, is a potential interpretative site for reconstructing a boat from the 18th century, and restoration of the area’s boat building heritage.

• There were several potential information sources identified, as follow:

  • The Lutes Mountain Heritage Centre.
  • Fort Folly First Nation’s collection of artifacts at Baud Hall.
  • The Museum of Civilization in Ottawa has numerous artifacts from the Memramcook area.
  • The NB Museum and DNRE personnel for paleontological resources.

2.8   Public Health and Safety

There were many public health and safety issues discussed in the three Break-out Sessions that participants felt should be considered during the execution of the Public Health and Safety Socio-economic sub-component study, and/or the overall EIA. They include the following:

• The quantity and quality of water both upstream and downstream.
• The environmental effects of leaching from the Moncton Landfill and other dumps within the watershed of the entire River.
• The environmental effects of fish eating from a contaminated River bottom.
• Implementation of immediate and future prevention measures before any Causeway modification.
• The microclimatic changes from the pre-Causeway conditions to the post-Causeway conditions, and the potential microclimatic changes that may occur with the Project Options.
• The potential for increased traffic accidents during the construction phase of the Project Options.
• Effluent discharged from Sewage Treatment Plant and other public and private outfalls upstream and downstream of the Causeway may differ between Project Options and during different times of the year.
• The effluent flows into the headpond could result in a rise in BOD and COD levels, as there may not be sufficient dilution. This could affect wildlife in the headpond.
• The combination of the Turtle Creek Dam and Lake Petitcodiac Level Control flowing full at the same time could result in an increase of flooding episodes for some Project Options. Retention Basins may be required to alleviate flooding.
• Disruptions of emergency services during the construction phase, as well as during service interruptions for maintenance and refurbishment.
• Tourism developments could potentially result in more vehicles and accidents.
• Tourism developments could lead to increased noise pollution from traffic, snowmobiles, seadoos, etc.
• There were a number of questions raised that include:
  • Potential refunds to non-profit organizations that spent money on previous studies of the Petitcodiac River, if their results are used in the EIA.
  • How water quality might affect tourism and recreation.
  • The existing water quality and characteristics.
  • Issues relating to the proposed new “Tower Dam” at Turtle Creek (also known as “Turtle Creek II”).
  • Incoming and outgoing ice and storm surges and flooding.
  • Provision of safe access to the Lake and River, particularly for emergency vehicles.
  • EMO plans to access the Lake and/or River.
  • The environmental effects of the water levels on mosquito and insect populations (West Nile Virus).
  • Moncton’s current mosquito control mechanisms.
  • For the Bridge option, the height of the bridge to allow recreational and commercial boating access, as per the Coast Guard Regulations under the Navigable Waters Protection Act.

APPENDIX

QUESTIONS RAISED REGARDING FULL COST ACCOUNTING

There were several questions asked at the plenary sessions regarding the application of Full Cost Accounting (FCA) to this EIA Study. They included:

• Will the FCA account for the contamination from the dump (Moncton Landfill Site)?
• Is the fact that the landfill (Moncton Landfill Site) is leaching into the River factored into the FCA?
• How comprehensive is the FCA component of the Study? And there sufficient funds in the budget to complete the FCA?
• What will not be included in the FCA?
• Will the new Gunningsville Bridge be affected by one or more of the Project options?
• Will FCA include noise and air pollution, and the quiet enjoyment of one’s property?
• Will future generations access to fishing be included in the FCA?
• Will the FCA account for the removal of the landfill (Moncton Landfill Site)?
• How are intangibles quantified when doing an FCA?
• The FCA will be based on the modelled changes to the River created by the Project Options. What if the modelling is wrong?
• What is the width of the Study Area?