ARB Decision
The Aquaculture Review Board (ARB) approved TPCI’s lease applications in a decision issued Friday January 5, 2024. Its ruling can be found at https://arb.novascotia.ca/decisions
FOAH is disappointed in the ARB’s decision. We believe it endangers the eco system of Antigonish Harbour, especially the fish, fish habitat and eelgrass in lease areas of the outer harbour, equal to approximately 230 hockey rinks. The decision ignores testimony confirming that one lease is within 108 meters of active piping plover nesting grounds on Dunn’s Beach despite demands by the Canada Wildlife Services of a 300-meter buffer zone to protect the plovers.
Likewise, the ARB expresses little concern for the safety of commercial fishermen who have been fishing out of Antigonish Harbour for generations. Billy Brophy, speaking on behalf of all five commercial fisherman based in the harbour, described how equipment in TPCI lease 1444 would be a hazard when forced to navigate in the dark, in high winds, fog, and ice.
In its decision document the ARB dismisses or ignores evidence and testimony submitted by virtually every witness testifying in opposition to the application. Consistent with this approach the ARB conveniently is silent about the many glaring errors, omissions, misleading statements in the TPCI application and/or revealed in cross examination of TPCI and NSDFA witnesses.
In spite of the facts and examples listed below, the ARB accepted, without question or comment, flawed and incomplete evidence from all of TPCI’s expert witnesses while labeling a report by FOAH’s expert witness “the very antithesis of a scientific endeavour.” In short, at least in this case, it appears the ARB requires no standard of accuracy, verification, or even the most basic scientific protocol (e.g. recording dates, times, tides, locations, etc.) of aquaculture applicants or regulators before granting 10 year exclusive leases of public waters at no or minimal cost. However, an expert presenting information opposing an application must meet the highest standards required of peer reviewed scientific journals …. at their own expense.
Following are just a few examples that we believe ought to have raised doubts in the minds of impartial board members:
Quality Control / Diligence
NSDFA acknowledged that it never verified key facts in TPCI’s application prior to conducting its review or forwarding to other federal and provincial departments for their reviews. Many facts were revealed to be wrong.
TPCI’s expert witness Dr. Garbary acknowledged that he did not record the date, time, location or depth of sediment samples he took when claiming a complete absence of eelgrass in lease 1443. Garbary also acknowledged being aware of a report written by a DFO scientist confirming eelgrass in this lease area when he made public statements saying there was not.
Mr. Porter, under cross examination, also revealed he failed to record the time, tide or location of current readings in the lease areas he says he took using a float and a stopwatch.
Location specific knowledge and information
TPCI’s expert witness Dr. Grant acknowledged that he never visited Antigonish Harbour, never took samples or readings of any kind and simply used modeling techniques with data from other locations.
NSDFA acknowledged that the only current meters it placed in the harbour were in the center of the main channel (with much greater depths and higher current speeds). These meters were far from the shallow lease areas.
FOAH’s expert witness, recently retired DFO scientist Dr. Cranford, made three, multi-day visits to Antigonish Harbour over the course of two years, placing a sophisticated electronic current meter in the center of each lease area. The meter took thousands of readings over the course of the 24 hours it was in each lease area. Dr. Cranford conducted the only sulfide testing of sediment beneath the lease areas.
The ARB received a report from Dr. Jeffrey Barrell of the DFO who flew a drone over the lease areas and produced maps showing pervasive presence of eelgrass in lease 1443. Dr. Barrell also explicitly denied ever saying the lease areas would be suitable for aquaculture as claimed repeatedly in TPCI’s application.
Mr. Chris Kennedy, a consultant for Dillon Consulting retained by TPCI acknowledged using an inferior data base indicating that there had been no plover sightings on Dunn’s beach for over a decade. In fact, a Birds Canada data base available via Canada Wildlife Services identified plover sightings on Dunn’s Beach on multiple occasions during this period, including 2023. Kennedy also acknowledged material errors in measurements he presented of the distance between lease sites and plover nesting grounds. Mr. Kennedy also acknowledged that shellfish leases near other protected plover sites in NS and PEI were “bottom culture” meaning that there was very infrequent activity on these sites vs the planned daily barge activity in all of the TPCI leases.
Despite the history and importance of salmon to Antigonish’s rivers, the ARB concludes that since there was no evidence submitted, it assumed there would be no harm to wild salmon. Again, leaving it up to citizen groups to fund research to prove a problem vs requiring the applicant or the NSDFA to prove there would be no harm to wild salmon.
The FOAH Steering Committee wishes to thank the hundreds of concerned citizens who followed this issue, tried to get the facts, tried to protect the harbour, wrote letters, and aided this effort in countless ways. Lots of new friendships were made or strengthened and we all learned about how aquaculture is or is not managed and regulated in Nova Scotia.
Protecting the environment and improving governance are long term projects. We encourage you to share your opinions on this process and outcome with your elected representatives.