The following is TREPA’s submission that has been sent to the Nova Scotia Department of the Environment related to their request for comments on the draft policy changes.
Date: August 29/11
TREPA’s comments on proposed changes are enclosed herewith, along with a few suggested changes, not mentioned in the notes.
In a nutshell, the changes proposed by the Department are positive steps. The workload of Inspectors should be lightened and their enforcement authority increased. The department was underfunded and understaffed before recent budget cuts, and we hope that cuts to the department can be reversed as soon as possible.
We agree with imposition of administrative penalties.
Our experience at this end of the province lead us to raise a couple of issues not covered in your proposed changes:
(1) Industrial level farming and aquaculture urgently need to be (a) defined and (b) classed as undertakings, subject to environmental assessments and the public consultation that that implies. We have proposed some concrete definitions in the attached document.
(2) Rural economic development in Nova Scotia needs to be managed on the basis of catchment area. This is a fundamental and wide-ranging issue, which requires attention by the entire government. Again, our proposed definitions are a concrete step in this direction.
We hope you find our comments useful.
Comments on NSE Environment Act Review
Most of the proposed changes make sense, and we will not comment on those with which we agree.
The emphasis on better enforcement is needed, as is workload reduction for overworked staff. More budget and more staff are needed for this badly under-resourced department.
Finally, we wish to point out the need to consider industrial farms and industrial aquaculture operations as undertakings automatically subject to environmental Assessments, and emphasize the need to manage rural economic development on the basis of catchment area.
Questions/ Concerns/ Comments.
1. Introduction: An “Advisory committee” will be consulted. In the absence of any reason to the contrary, the identity of the members of the Advisory committee should be public knowledge.
2. Goal 1: Match resources to level of risk to the environment and human health/
Standards or code of practice to replace approvals, at times, followed by audit, inspection, enforcement.
(a) This is fine, provided that reliance on standards does not lead to NSE taking action only after the damage is done.
(b) Are there other ways of freeing up NSE workers to enforce the Act?
3. Goal 2: Use resources more efficiently and effectively (too much paper, more emphasis on inspection and response to complaints)
(a) Proposal 2 (more flexibility to draw on expertise of independent experts and advisors; consolidate powers of Minister.) Should not give too much discretion to the Minister. The “requirement” to engage arm’s length input for certain cases should not be eliminated. The problem here could be that political pressure can override NSE workers’ advice.
(b) Proposal 4 (Eliminate timelines (with exceptions) and adopt service standard that provides … reliable expectation of processing time.) Could this mean that important, necessary or sensible timelines get ignored? Is there much of a difference between a timeline and a standard?
4. Goal 3: Strengthen protection for the Environment and Human Health. Clarify enforcement
powers.
Proposal 2: Create an offence for failing to comply with Protected Water Areas regulations
Needed badly. How does the Department currently deal with violations of Protected Water Areas Regulations?
5. Administrative Penalties.
Good. Examples of applications?
6. In general, steps taken to lessen the workload and increase the authority of NS Environment staff are badly needed, but this should not be used as an excuse to make further staff cutbacks. The Department is already badly underfunded and understaffed.
7. A concern with the Environmental Assessment Regulations:
Class I undertakings include (A) various industrial facilities, (B) various types of mining, (C) certain transportation projects, (D) certain energy projects, (E) various waste management projects, (F1) An undertaking that involves transferring water between drainage basins, if the drainage area containing the water to be diverted is larger than 1 km2, and (F2) An undertaking that disrupts a total of 2 ha or more of any wetland.
Our concern:
Industrial-level agriculture and aquaculture should be explicitly listed under (A), as an industrial facility subject to an assessment.
For the sake of argument, “Industrial agriculture” can be defined as animal rearing facilities whose rearing densities exceed those given in Table 5 of the N. S. Department of Agriculture Manure Management guidelines and if the farm and contiguous operations of a similarly intense nature exceed 2 ha. in area or if the farm and those of a similarly intense nature exceed 1% of the catchment area it/they occupies/occupy. “Similarly intense” means “exceeding the densities set forth in Table 5 of the Manure Management guidelines. Two farms would be judged “contiguous” if they are separated by less than 100 m.
“Industrial aquaculture” operations could be defined as those in which the farmed commodity is actively fed, and (a) if on land, the farm and contiguous operations of a similarly intense nature exceed 2 ha. in area or if the farm and those of a similarly intense nature exceed 1% of the catchment area it/they occupies/occupy, and (b) if on water, the operation and contiguous ones of a similarly intense nature exceed 2 ha. in area or the operation and those of a similarly intense nature exceed 1% of the area of the lake or embayment they occupy. “Similarly intense” means an aquaculture operation where the cultured commodity is actively fed. Two farms on land would be judged “contiguous” if they are separated by less than 100 m. Two farms in the water would be judged “contiguous” if they are separated by less than 500 m.
Our experiences in the Yarmouth area tell us that their EA regulations need tuning, with regard to intensive farming and aquaculture, and that is not included in the discussion paper.
8. The government must take greater account of the importance of managing by catchment area in its rural development plans. This is fundamental and cross-cutting, and probably cannot be addressed by the Act alone. We have tried to begin the process with the above regulatory suggestions.