The Nashwaak Watershed

Make a difference, get involved.

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Home
  • About Us
    • About the Nashwaak Watershed
    • Membership
    • Partners and Supporters
    • Staff and Board of Directors
      • Board Nominations
  • News
  • Projects
    • Aquatic Connectivity
    • Cyanobacteria
    • Economic and Resource Development
    • Education
    • The Nashwaak Greenway
    • Riverbank Stabilization
    • Salmon Protection and Monitoring
    • Water Classification
    • Watershed Monitoring
  • Resources
    • Action Plan
    • Explore the Nashwaak
    • Newsletter
    • Resources for Educators
    • Reports and Management Plans
    • State of the Nashwaak Watershed Report
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Monthly E-blast

NWAI presents to the Sisson Review Panel

July 17, 2015

IMAG2172As the president of the Nashwaak Watershed Association, and as such, a participant in several meetings and consultations with the Sisson project proponents, I respectfully submit the following comments on behalf of that organization.

I would like to suggest that, had anything resembling the standards employed in the other study areas of this EIA been applied to the public engagement component, we might be having a very different discussion about what concerns the public have developed regarding this project.

To begin with, the proponent had no method for establishing a baseline for the public’s understanding of the project and project processes. They were unaware of the functional literacy rate within that population (and then unbelieving when informed that it was slightly north of 60%). They had no means of measuring the efficacy of their communication, no feedback method.

They refused to speak in public forums in any of the communities within the watershed, and ignored invitations to attend the dinner and discussion sessions which we held as part of our public engagement in the EIA.

They claimed to have sent out 700 letters, to some people, somewhere, but never stated who they were, what criteria was used to determine who would get the letters and no reference to what the letters said. As an aside I might point out that the NWAI produces a newsletter and sends it to more than 7000 homes all within the watershed, and a copy of each one is available on our website.

I suspect, it is common practice in any branch of science (social or otherwise) to provide a rationale for the method chosen before undertaking any work. That work is of little purpose if it does not employ metrics which can support a conclusion, and doubly meaningless, in the absence of any conclusion.

It is hard to find a purpose for the insouciant efforts of Northcliff (the proponent of record at that time) in what they claim was public engagement.

It would seem impossible to claim public support for the project without having actually spoken to that public in public.

For that reason, we suggest that whether you decide to support the mine or not, you certainly have no basis for claiming that the public was “engaged”. .

As further evidence of the distance between what is generally understood as “public engagement” and what the proponent did, we might compare their “open houses and BBQ” system with the panel review meeting held recently in the town of Stanley. At that meeting, individuals and members of concerned organizations and businesses were allowed to speak at some length, and to ask and have answered, their questions.

Other participants were allowed to hear both the statements and the questions and answers offered.

All of those in attendance, benefitted from hearing these exchanges, and those exchanges then spawned other ideas and questions in an additive way, utilizing the communities’ collective experience and intelligence that only an open forum can give. It was both effective in spreading the information and fair in allowing everyone with the interest to be heard by their community.

If this was what our own government thought was the required means of engagement, then one must conclude that the Northcliff group did not meet that expectation, and therefore did not fulfill the requirement for public engagement.

Finally and as a side note, we note that a study undertaken by a private engineering firm, on behalf of the provincial government (see Sisson Mine review finds company underestimated costs by millions) into the post closure water treatment costs that raised serious concerns about both very low cost estimates and the methodology to be employed (specifically a floating baffle curtain wall) was never made available to the public.

Quite simply put, without a full disclosure of the best available information on this project and it’s social, fiscal and environmental impacts, it is impossible to make an informed decision. It is demonstrably the case that the public was not consulted, and it would appear, quite deliberately so.

Until this is done the project must not proceed.

P. McLaughlin, President,
Nashwaak Watershed Association Inc.

Filed Under: News & Events Tagged With: sison mine

Stay in-touch!

Donate Now

Recent News

NWAI 25th Anniversary and Annual General Meeting Videos

November 27, 2020

“A cheaper way to fight flooding”: Daily Gleaner, October 2, 2020

October 9, 2020

East Ryan Brook Fish Ladder Installation

September 15, 2020

Election 2020 – Commitments to Conservation

September 9, 2020

Upcoming Events

There are no upcoming events at this time.

Upcoming Events

There are no upcoming events at this time.

NWAI on Twitter

Register today for the Atlantic forum on February 2. #eaunbwater https://t.co/GQNWEznq2A

- 15 hours ago

@environmentca: How can we improve #freshwater management in 🇨🇦? Register today for the National Freshwater Policy Forum and learn how a new #CanadaWaterAgency can address freshwater issues https://t.co/zqnd4hSloP https://t.co/fVqQnpbBhs

- 15 hours ago

Great presentation by Laura at @atlwaternetwork! We’re so proud to be in NB where community based monitoring is such a strength #eaunbwater @G3E_EWAG @ACAPSaintJohn @WWFCanada @DataStreamH2O https://t.co/nFu772Lqho

- 16 hours ago

@atlwaternetwork: Atlantic Canada has a lot of water data. But @WWFCanada’s Watershed Reports show that some watersheds need more! AWN's Laura Chandler is diving into the data to show how communities can work together so that the health of every single watershed is understood. #WaterDataWednesday https://t.co/l3Zoiwj8gq

- 16 hours ago

@atlwaternetwork: To start off the day, representatives from NB, NL, NS, PEI, and QC share success stories of collaboration within each province. We're excited to hear what they say!

- 16 hours ago

Follow @NashwaakWater

NWAI on Facebook

Nashwaak Watershed Association Inc.

15 hours ago

Nashwaak Watershed Association Inc.
We're participating in a 2-day workshop organized by the Atlantic Water Network. As you can see from Laura Chandler's presentation, community based water quality monitoring (led by watershed groups like the NWAI) is something we are proud of!www.nashwaakwatershed.ca#eaunbwater #mynashwaak ... See MoreSee Less

Photo

View on Facebook
· Share

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linked In Share by Email

Contact Us

Mail:
Nashwaak Watershed Association Inc.
P.O. Box 314, Station “A”
Fredericton, NB
E3B 4Y2

Office:
181 Westmorland Street
Fredericton, NB
E3B 3L6
Google Map

Phone: 506 261-4664
Email

Copyright © 2021 Nashwaak Watershed Association

Site developed for the Genesis Framework and WordPress by Kent Fackenthall · Log in