Feedback received on:Deforestation and forest degradation – stepping up EU action


Tidal Power Deal Jan 13, 2019
Woods and Waters Nova Scotia
17 hrs ·
“Claim that Annapolis tidal turbine violates Fisheries Act puts science under review.

This article by reporter Aaron Beswick appeared in the January 11, 2019 Chronicle Herald. Unfortunately the majority of people are not subscribers and therefore cannot access it. I meant to copy my print version and post to W&WNS but inadvertently used that section of the paper to start the woodstove. At least it’s good for something. If anyone has the means to produce a workable link, that would be muchly appreciated. Update: Scroll down to Stacey Rudderham’s comment. Entire text there. Much thanks.
(Pictured is Darren Porter, well known Nova Scotian fisherman and environmentalist.)
Image may contain: 1 person, sky, beard and outdoor
6 Comments1 Share

David Graham Patriquin
Most Relevant
David Graham Patriquin

Write a comment…

David Graham Patriquin
David Graham Patriquin Comments on a post about the article: DGP to NH (who posted the article): Hmph. As you know, I was concerned about the Tidal Power Project at the the time (late 1970w) https://dalspace.library.dal.ca/handle/10222/71442 One farmer was concerned enough about erosion that he left his combine on the top of a bank by the river. I never heard what happened to it– was it removed or is it still there underwater?

NH: I’m afraid many people are old and weary of fighting and are now used to the ecologically out of balance state of the new regime that has increased average water level but decreased amplitude.

DGP: also the loss of fish, and farmland, it’s always that way but at some point we can learn from the past and forge a new way forward as the indigenous peoples are showing us… (and I still wonder about the combine). Actually only one person was seriously fighting it at the time which was Rob Warren (Senior) because his mole drained land would be directly affected; it would have little effect on the traditional hay/pasture lands and don’t forget, the people of Annapolis benefited from the tidal power and the free plant. In the review of the consultants report at Acadia.. which Rob and I attended un-announced and were not known by most ( I had driven up there with Oceanographers from B.I.O. who I knew well). I went to the washroom and several consultants or gov people (one of the consultants was a gov person) were trashing Rob who they had never met and who is a very big but very gentle man… as they came out, I said “Gentleman, I want you to meet Rob Warren”. Then I stood up in the meeting and challenged their contention that “there will be no adverse effects on the dykelands”. There was little mention of fish, shellfish etc, those effects were realized sometime after the project was in place. Years later, one of the Gov people defending the project told me he knew Rob and I were correct in what we were saying, but they were not allowed to say anything as the $50 m grant from Ottawa was dependent on there being no adverse effects. Some years earlier Rob’s farm was inadvertently sprayed with Agent Orange (2,4-D + 2,4,5-T from the air (the toxicity was not known at the time); the spray was to control vegetation by the river. Robs cattle got sick, The Gov blamed it on bad hay (i.e. blamed it on the farmer). A few years after the tidal power project arose, one of his sons died from lymphatic cancer. There was some settlement from the herbicide manufacturer, I think related to the cattle.. The Gov did eventually give some compensation to Rob as he had to stop growing corn and fababeans and grains and the like; I believe that land is now some or most of the land of the Bellisle Marsh https://www.trails.com/ca/ns/granville-ferry/belleisle-marsh
Like · Reply · 9m · Edited
Cliff Seruntine
Cliff Seruntine I hate when people confuse science and technology. They are not the same. Real science is a process of learning, getting to the heart of truth by a roundabout route of disproving that which is false. Technology is learning applied to do things. Science explores why, but technology simply pursues how.

That said, it means that goal-driven science, i.e., a corporation hiring scientists to study a matter they want to engage in, is invalid from the beginning as it is biased. It is like a court where the judge is also one of the lawyers trying the case. This is why real science needs to be divorced utterly from industry, and given the incestuous marriage between industry and government these days, science needs to be divorced from government, too.
Like · Reply · 16h
David Graham Patriquin
David Graham Patriquin You couldn’t be more right. Likewise The PTA process is a technical process, not a science process, and much of the in-house, not peer reviewed DNR science on which it is based has been officially debunked by the Lahey Report (the rabble rousers had been saying that for a long time going back to Bancroft and Crossland and beyond).
Like · Reply · 2m
David Graham Patriquin

Write a reply…

Khandha Mara
Khandha Mara https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/…/claim-that…/

Claim that Annapolis tidal…
Like · Reply · 17h
View 1 more reply
Woods and Waters Nova Scotia
Woods and Waters Nova Scotia Oops. Didn’t see Stacey’s post below. Problem solved. Thanks.
Like · Reply · 16h
Stacey Rudderham
Stacey Rudderham “Is the Annapolis Tidal Generating Station killing a lot of fish?
The protesters waving placards on the causeway crossing the Annapolis River on Wednesday and Thursday claim that it does.
Scientists and stakeholders meeting over the same period at the Bedford Institute of Oceanography were attempting to answer the same question.

But even as The Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat was performing its review of available data, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Nova Scotia Power may already know whether the turbine is in violation of the Fisheries Act.
According to correspondence obtained via a freedom of information request between high level staff at both the federal regulator and the turbine’s owner, both already know it kills fish.
“I can’t recall exactly how you were referencing it in your media lines but given the statement from the report below, this shouldn’t be considered as a regulatory tool which either permits or allows NSPI to kill less than five sturgeon per year,” reads an email sent by fisheries protection program manager Mark McLean to Nova Scotia Power’s director of environmental service Terry Toner.
“You could state that the report indicates that the mortality from the facility is low. However, only regulator tools such as Letters of Advice, Fisheries Act Authorizations or (Species at Risk Act) permits can provide proponents with DFO’s authority to undertake activities which result in the death of fish.”
The report referenced in the exchange isn’t included in full, but a portion of it pasted into the email body states that while there is sturgeon mortality — it is low.
In the email, McLean is advising Toner that a report noting mortality is low doesn’t count as permission from Fisheries and Oceans Canada for the turbine to kill sturgeon.
The timing of the exchange is also noteworthy — it occurred in November 2017, just days after The Chronicle Herald revealed that, despite previous public statements to the contrary, Nova Scotia Power had received and acknowledged reports of sturgeon chopped in half down river from its 20-megawatt tidal turbine.
Those reports had never been forwarded to Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
Meanwhile, Nova Scotia Power has never been granted a ministerial dispensation from Section 35 of the Fisheries Act, which prohibits “the carrying on of a work, undertaking or activity that results in serious harm to fish that are part of or support a commercial, recreational or Aboriginal fishery.”
Bay of Fundy sturgeon are listed as threatened by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.
But it’s not just sturgeon that the turbine has been shown to kill.
“There is an association between the decline in the Annapolis River Striped Bass population, the construction of the Annapolis Royal Causeway in 1960, and the subsequent construction of the Annapolis Tidal Station starting in 1980,” reads a 2014 Fisheries and Oceans report on the recovery potential of the Bay of Fundy striped bass population.
The request for the review filed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada with the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat notes that “the turbine is currently considered as a threat to the Annapolis population of striped bass.”
In 2012, the same body that listed sturgeon as threatened listed the Bay of Fundy striped bass population as endangered.
“What’s coming of it is that DFO is going to come to the realization that they can’t protect this (turbine) forever,” said Robert Wiebe, one of the protest’s organizers and owner of Annapolis Basin Charter Tours.
“They’ve been treating it like a golden calf and if they continue to do that, they will find themselves out on a limb.”
Nova Scotia Power’s turbine that creates electricity by allowing water to pass through a sluice gate as the tide rises outside a dam across the Annapolis river, then back through a turbine as the tide lowers, has never been granted an exemption under the Fisheries Act to kill fish.
According to the request to Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat for the current review, its findings will be used by Fisheries and Oceans Canada to help determine “which next steps can be taken in order for the proponent to continue to operate the facility in a way that is in compliance with the (Fisheries Act) and (Species At Risk Act).”
Darren Porter, who is taking part in the current review, doesn’t expect it to make any difference to the operation of the tidal turbine.
“They’re knowingly allowing it to run in violation of the Fisheries Act today and the same people who are in the same offices will make the same decisions tomorrow,” said Porter.
“All we’re doing with this review is providing those people our assessment of the science done to date.”
Porter said much of the discussion inside the meeting was about how large an effect the mortality had on the varied species.
A similar review of scientific data around fish mortality at the power plant was done by Fisheries and Oceans nearly three decades ago.
The minutes for the June 28, 1989, review state that the power plant had operated on an experimental basis since a 1984 environmental impact assessment produced by Martec Ltd. that “assumed a low mortality for fish passing through the turbine and the formal environmental review ended at this stage.”
The minutes then cite two subsequent studies that estimated it killed 12 to 20 per cent of shad that passed through the turbine as the tide lowered.
“… In summary, Nova Scotia Power Corporation has spent in excess of $650,000 in studies at Annapolis and it is felt that future funding should be spent in avoiding mortality rather than determining the exact numbers of fish killed at the plant,” say the minutes.”
Like · Reply · 17h
Woods and Waters Nova Scotia
Woods and Waters Nova Scotia Thanks🙂
Like · Reply · 16h
Khandha Mara
Khandha Mara of course it kills fish. what do you think all that foam stuff is, probalby emulsified fish.
Like · Reply · 17h
Alan Inkpen
Alan Inkpen Just look at all the fat seals dining on sliced and diced fish coming out of the turbine. Then there’s the erosion upstream that’s robbing fields from farmers.