Back to the Future Part 1: A Tale of Two Rivers

Back to the Future Part 1: A Tale of Two Rivers

This document was created by: FAR-Fish of the Avon River Society

Does anyone remember the unfulfilled promises about twinning Highway 101?

Did you know that, in 2001, the Ron Russell government promised to twin all the way to Yarmouth by 2011? Then he changed his tune in 2003, bypassing Windsor and Falmouth to create a dangerous “bottleneck”. Here we are 17 years later, still asking “how soon is this going to be fixed?” 

                                            Evidently, they’re not keeping their promise.

A 51-foot banner of protest, the “River in Distress” campaign, bringing attention to the plight of The Avon River – a political hot potato. (Photo by Nadine Armstrong, Hants Journal, Sept 27 2007)

We are the FAR group, and our Mission has always been to restore proper fish passage at the Avon River Causeway. This plight has forced us to stand up to government for many years, and they have fought back. In a 2003 article on these causeway concerns, NDP Candidate Sean Bennett called it like it is:

 “…the fact Mr. Russell used environmental activists is an excuse to do nothing about the twinning across the Avon was “heavy handed” politics and unfair to the residents and their legitimate concerns.” (Lawrence, 2003)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In this series of blogs we will be exposing the story of the Avon River Causeway, near Windsor, Nova Scotia. The government’s preliminary plan to widen the causeway is now available; however, many details regarding the most controversial aspects of this project are still being withheld (Stantec, 2017). Through this series of articles we intend to raise public and political responsibility towards the ecological disaster underlying this infrastructure development. Our intention is to peel back the layers of deception and misconception, and shed a little ray of light into the causeway’s gloomy past and even grimmer promise for the future. Within these pages you will also find scarce information which is currently unavailable on any government website.

The 1146-foot causeway is a massive rock and earth filled structure spanning the Avon River estuary between Windsor and Falmouth, Nova Scotia. The causeway was completed in 1970 and is owned by the NS Department of Agriculture. Unfortunately, it was built without provision for fish-passage. Also, the 100-Series Highway 101 and a section of railway line use the causeway to cross the river. The causeway functionally behaves like any other dam, and overnight it converted the upstream side of the Avon River Watershed [ARW] from a saltwater system to the current freshwater one. (Isaacman, 2005).

Directly below the causeway local residents soon complained that mud was accumulating as never before; a few decades later this has grown to a massive complex stretching many kilometres down the estuary (Yeo and Risk, 1981). The primary reasons for wanting to build the causeway were flood-protection for farmland (dykeland) and a solution to the aging highway and railway bridges. Other reasons included relief from the need to maintain the dyke system, and the confessed desire of some of the local residents to have a freshwater lake next to their town.

The water levels of the lake are controlled by a large scale aboiteau with a drop-down gate system that can be raised or lowered so excess runoff can be released. The ‘lake’, which is more correctly referred to as a ‘headpond’, is currently called Lake Pesaquid, and since the river no longer flushes itself with the tides, the headpond continues to accumulate contaminants and silt. After the causeway, the physical degradation and loss of the dykes continued for some time uncorrected.

In 1968, The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans [MoF] gave his approval for the causeway to be built (Lucas, 1968). Is impossible to say with any certainty why the usual requirements for adequate fish-passage were excused, but this was a world before environmental impact assessments (Isaacman, 2005). Numerous reports of declining fish stocks and other unconfirmed phenomena soon followed, including local climate change and lowered water tables; many attribute these changes to the causeway. If it were proposed today, such a structure would never be allowed to exist. To date there has been no show of political will to correct the flaws in the original design.

In this series, a number of common themes will rise to the surface. Before laying out some of this evidence, we apologize if we’re about to rock your boat. If you already know something about the causeway, this is probably a very different perspective from what you believe. Themes include the human flaws, like authoritarianism, ignorance, stubbornness, fear, reticence, acceptance, and subterfuge. Less unpredictable themes include migratory fishes, human-induced habitat change, and governments. There are too many topics to bother summarizing, but two that matter more than anything else are 1) fish-passage; and 2) Fisheries and Oceans Canada [DFO].

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We just got this message from a friend in Moncton. This not only a vote of support for the FAR Society, but a glimpse at what it looks like on the other side of the fence. The NS government is not offering to consider a similar fix for the Avon River, and they haven’t justified the decision to ignore it. This kind of outcome is not impossible to imagine, it’s obvious we’re getting ripped-off.

“…As far as our river here in Moncton it has never been in better hands since that destructive year of 1968 when that damn causeway was built ! The Greater Moncton Sewage Treatment Plant is getting a 95 million dollar upgrade as we speak! After that is done it will release water that is 98.5 % pure compared to 75% that we have now and it will be among one of the worlds most advanced waste water treatment plants in about 2 years !The bridge being built at the causeway is moving ahead really well with the support structures being built as we speak ! The whole project at a cost of 65 million dollars! The Petitcodiac River is well on its way towards full recovery! From the most endangered river in North America according to Earth Wild in 2003 to the most cared for! So many bald eagles so much fish and the salmon shall return! They actually are returning in small numbers but when that causeway is removed it will make a huge difference! I’ll find pictures for u (…)! PS - Don’t give up the fight whatever u does! Happy New Year.”

A Tale of Two Rivers

There are only two major inner Bay of Fundy (iBoF) rivers where causeways were built, both of similar dimensions; both created formidable barriers to tidal rivers. The Petitcodiac River Causeway in New Brunswick was constructed in 1968, followed by the Avon River Causeway of Nova Scotia in 1970. The two watersheds and causeways share many characteristics, both hydrologically and ecologically comparable, and are part of the larger Bay of Fundy (BoF) aquatic ecosystem. Both are historic iBoF salmon-producing rivers, and each produces very similar diadromous fish populations. The Petitcodiac barrier was originally equipped with a fishway, but the Fisheries Minister at the time gave permission to build the Avon River Causeway without one (Lucas, 1968; Isaacman, 2005); fish passage is a specific provision of the Fisheries Act. Isaacman (2005) reveals some of this unclear decision-making:

“…DFO biologists recommended that serious consideration be given to the installation of a fish-way to maintain the remaining runs of anadromous species (Smith, 1965).”

“Initially, a flap-gate fish-way structure was considered (Ruggles, 1969). However, it was rejected because it would have permitted some saltwater intrusion above the causeway and the Town of Windsor desired a freshwater reservoir. Alternative options for fish passage facilities were estimated to cost $100,000 (1968 dollars) (DFO, 1968; Lucas, 1968; Ruggles, 1969).”

As we move into the twenty-first century, both causeways require modifications to their original design. The Petitcodiac River Causeway improvements are all about preserving an ecosystem near Moncton. The Highway 101 over the Avon River Causeway urgently needs to be twinned in order to solve the “bottleneck”. The Petitcodiac modifications happily began nearly a decade ago. Now, their plan is to widen the remaining causeway in New Brunswick; restoring the full tidal bore. The Avon River Causeway designers are still working through its planning stages (more on this shortly).

To explain why fish populations play such a powerful role, requiring large-scale changes to infrastructures, Isaacman (2005) tells us this about the Avon River:

“…many diadromous fishes are keystone food sources for other fish, mammals and birds in freshwater systems (Mills et al., 1992; Willson and Halupka, 1995). Moreover, some diadromous fishes are key predators that control and maintain the abundance of prey species such as other fish and benthic invertebrates (Mills et al., 1992, Persson, 2002). Therefore, the decline or loss of a particular fish population can have drastic consequences for the productivity of natal watersheds and the conservation of biodiversity, including other diadromous fish (Gibson and Myers, 2003). Although the effects may be most pronounced in watershed ecosystems, changes in discreet populations may also have consequences for the structure and stability of marine biodiversity, especially when considering the cumulative contribution of many river populations (Wells, 1999).”

Furthermore, each river is important for the well-being of the Bay of Fundy as a whole:

“…the maintenance of individual river populations is important for the stability of the entire species by contributing to total abundance and genetic and behavioural diversity (Willson and Halupka, 1995; Douglas et al., 2003). Therefore, population extirpation's can affect a species’ ability to adapt to environmental and/or human-induced changes, thus rendering it more vulnerable to extinction.”

At the Petitcodiac causeway, there were issues with fish passage through the fishway from the outset. The Niles (2001) report, along with several other actions and reports, led to the conclusion an EIA was needed to evaluate project options to correct the fish-passage issues:

 “The continual efforts to address fish passage issues have largely failed and thus the facility has not met the intent of the original requirements of Section 20 of the Fisheries Act.” (Amec, 2005, p.i)

In the case of the Avon River Causeway, there is no fishway, so fish passage issues are even worse. Isaacman (2005) concludes:

“Since few studies had been conducted on fish in the system prior to or after its construction, the extent of the tidal barrier’s contributions to fish population declines is unknown. Nevertheless, the causeway, especially its restriction to fish migration, has likely been a major cause of diadromous fish declines in the last 35 years.”

The Fisheries Act Regulations meant they couldn’t continue using the Petitcodiac fishway as before (Status Quo); that solutions would have to be found. The Objective of the EIA was to find options that would “provide unimpeded and safe movement of fish upstream or downstream, between aquatic habitats required to complete their life cycle.”(Amec, 2005, p.iv). This EIA uncovered the fact there was no fishway design, or enhancement, they could use to pass fish in these circumstances (Amec, 2005). Because fish migrate at different times of the year, coinciding with a river system that undergoes highly variable and often low freshwater flows, extremely muddy water, and massive tides, no existing technologies could be found to work there.

“Under the status Quo, the channel downstream of the causeway would continue to progressively infill. The tidal volume would continue to decrease. Equilibrium would not be anticipated for another 70 years. (…) Flooding risk under open water conditions would increase under the Status Quo due to infilling both upstream and downstream of the causeway.” (Amec, 2005)

The two rivers share the same set of ecologic problems, perhaps more complicated at the more heavily impacted Avon River Causeway.

“The causeway has arguably been the most prominent and controversial source of impacts on the ARW. The construction of this barrier has resulted in significant changes to the ARW and estuary ecosystems. Among others, it has: 1) impeded fish passage to and from the ARW; 2) prevented saltwater from entering the ARW, thereby converting the watershed into an entirely freshwater system; 3) resulted in the formation of a reservoir (Pesaquid Lake); 4) altered the hydrological regime; and 5) caused the downstream accumulation of sediment, which has resulted in the formation of a mud-flat/salt marsh complex in the estuary extending (to date) as far as nine kilometres away (Daborn, 1997; Wells, 1999).” (Isaacman, 2005)

We are at the brink of decision-making for the Avon River. The Province’s current proposal to twin the highway has been in the planning stages for long enough and we are coming into the crunch; they're going to choose the final option for fish passage and quickly build it. If it doesn’t really work, as it is supposed to, they will have to fix it. Ultimately, the promise that some new technology could now solve it may be a lie. Truth is, free tides always pass fish and you don’t have to keep fixing them. Alarmingly, we are approaching the decision brink on these options and government still refuses to look into this. Correspondingly, there have been no information releases on the side-effects this project is going to bring. We are going to try to explain this in the following section by filling in some of the deliberate blanks. We will now compare the environmental impacts ensuing from the two projects, with some necessary leaps of logic.

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

While the Petitcodiac study rejected their Status Quo option outright, the Nova Scotia government is illogically looking to perpetuate a known mistake; still trying to invent a new fishway and hold back the tides, contrary to Isaacman (2005):

“…However, similar to what was determined for the Petitcodiac River (NBDSS, 2004), it is unlikely that a fish-way facility (option 1) of any design will be able to effectively accommodate the up and downstream migration needs of all species in the tidal and sediment conditions in the Avon River.”

This raises a few serious doubts about the decision being made here. Each project concludes different options are appropriate, even though they both need the same fix. Another tidbit you should know: a seldom mentioned component of these projects is compensation for affected facilities or operations (e.g. Sea Cadet, a marina, a public dock)…

A look at the existing seaward entrance to the Avon River Aboiteau. (Photo from The Hants Journal)

Petitcodiac vs. Avon: Examining the Impacts

Back in 2005, in the case of the Petitcodiac River, their focus was narrowed down to an analysis of four (4) options, which are summarized here:

Criteria	Petitcodiac OPTIONS
I) reverse current infilling trend	1) replace fishway (=Status Quo of Avon)
II) protection of SARA-regulated species	2) gates open during peak migrations
III) free passage of ice	3) gates permanently open (= 68m. wide)
IV) protect a wetland area and former landfill site from eroding	4) replace gates with a partial bridge. 4a) 170m. bridge on downstream side = 72m. opening thru gates 4b) 280m. bridge on downstream side = openings 72m. to 225m. 4c) 315m. bridge in middle of causeway = river channel width 225m.
V) 100 yr. design life, accounting for predicted sea-level rise of 88 cm

The opening of the Petitcodiac has gained national attention, and residents are feeling the excitement. Although there was significant dissent at first, the restoration of the river has won wide acceptance.(picture from tripsister.com)

[Step one]: The following table is essentially a rendition of the data given in the Amec (2005) EIA for the Petitcodiac, which systematically categorizes the resultant impacts for all options, and then evaluates each for their significance / insignificance (if detrimental), or positive (beneficial) effects. Before tackling the Avon River situation, the first step will be to inspect the Petitcodiac Summary (Amec, 2005, table 1). (reproduced below)

Modified after Petitcodiac EIA Amec, 2005         Red – Positively Impacted

Table 1                                                                                        * – Negatively Impacted

Valued Component	Sub-Component	Status Quo	All Project Options
Atmospheric Environment	Climate Air Quality Odour Sound Quality	ns ns ns ns	ns ns ns ns
Fish and Fish Habitat	Sediment Quality Water Quality Fish/Aquatic Species Fish Species at-Risk Invasive Fish Species Fish Habitat	ns S S S S S	ns P ns-P P P ns-P
Terrestrial and Wetland Environment	Wetlands Wildlife and Vegetation Migratory Birds * Mudflat Productivity Managed Areas *	S ns P ns P	P ns ns P ns
Municipal Services and Infrastructure	Water Distribution Services Sanitary Sewer Systems Storm Sewer Systems Dykes and Aboiteau Other Infrastructure	ns S S ns ns	ns ns-P ns-P ns ns
Road Transportation Network		S	ns-P
Vessel Traffic and Navigation		S	ns-P
Land Use and Value		S	ns-P
Use of Land and Resources for Traditional Purposes by Aboriginal Persons		S	P
Tourism		S	P
Recreation		S	P
Labor and Economy		S	ns-P
Heritage and Archaeological Resources		ns	ns
Public Health	Vehicular Accidents Non-vehicular Accidents and Unplanned Events Groundwater Quality / Quantity Contaminated Effluents and Redistribution of Contaminants Human Disease Vectors Flooding	ns ns ns S ns S	ns ns ns ns-P P P

[Step two]: Next we’ll consider the Avon River Causeway EA (Stantec, 2017), and what it says about the various impacts. Below is a version of their summary table (Stantec, 2017, table 4.1.2) with some modifications. The blue entries denote topics which didn’t need their own separate line, as they are actually sub-topics of another line. So we see the Avon River EA, once reworded, is very similar to the Petitcodiac assessment, but less comprehensive. Our primary concern about the Avon River information in this area is that it doesn’t go far enough to qualify the impacts; it simply ‘identifies’ some areas of concern. Incredibly, while neglecting to be specific about project impacts, the study prematurely includes an extensive list of potential mitigative commitments (Stantec, 2017, table 8.2.1).

Modified after the Avon River EA (Stantec, 2017)Table 4.1.2 - Environmental Concerns (ordered in ‘the Petitcodiac sequence’)

Valued Environmental Component	Factors to be Considered	Notes
Atmospheric Environment	Air Quality Sound Quality (noise and vibration) Climate Global Climate Change (GHG emissions)	(Climate)
Groundwater	Bedrock, Surface Geology and Soils Groundwater Quality / Quantity Water Supply Source	(Groundwater Quantity…) (Groundwater Quantity…)
Aquatic Environment	Fish and Fish Habitat Aquatic Species of Special Conservation Concern
Vegetation	Terrestrial Vascular Plants Dominant Plant Communities Terrestrial Plant Species of Special Conservation Concern	(same as above) (same as above)
Wetlands	Wetlands Function and Area Use of Wetlands by Wildlife	(Wetlands ‘Function’…)
Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat	Wildlife (including migratory birds) presence/absence Wildlife Habitat Wildlife Species of Special Conservation Concern	(just ‘Wildlife’) (just ‘Wildlife’)
Land Use	Agriculture (including dyke system), Recreational, Residential, Industrial, or Commercial use of land (existing and anticipated land use) Identified current use of lands and resources for Traditional Purposes by Aboriginal Persons	(just Land Use and Value)
Archaeological and Heritage Resources	Structures, Sites, or things of Historical, Paleontological, Archaeological, or Architectural significance

Blue – this category is really a sub-category of something else; redundant 

Aerial photographs reveal how fast the Avon River mudflats have grown. (researchgate.com)

[Step Three]: Below again is the Petitcodiac table of impacts: this time with black entries to show where both studies found common ground; red to show which Petitcodiac topics were left out of the Avon River EA. Numbered notes are also given to help identify some Avon River categories where outcomes may significantly differ from those of the Petitcodiac.

Table A: The Different Assessment Styles - Translated and Compared
(signif.) – significant negative impact
NS – impact is not significant
(improves) – beneficially impacted

Black – elements shared by both projects

Red – elements not covered in the Avon River EA

		Anticipated Impact Free Tide Options Petitcodiac	Impact Status Quo Petitcodiac
Atmospheric Environment	Climate Air Quality Odour Sound Quality	NS NS NS NS	NS NS NS NS
Fish and Fish Habitat	Sediment Quality Water Quality Fish/Aquatic Species Fish Species at-Risk (of special conservational concern) Invasive Fish Species (but they were listed in detail) Fish Habitat	NS (improves) (NS / improves) (improves) (improves) (NS / improves)	NS (signif.) (signif.) (signif.) (signif.) (signif.)
Terrestrial and Wetland Environment	Wetlands Wildlife and Vegetation Migratory Birds Mudflat Productivity Managed Areas	(improves) NS NS (improves) NS	(signif.) NS (improves) NS (improves)
Municipal Services and Infrastructure	Water Distribution Services Sanitary Sewer Systems (all are Storm Sewer Systems discussed Dykes and Aboiteau in Other Infrastructure ‘Land Use’)	NS (NS / improves) (NS / improves) NS NS	NS (signif.) (signif.) NS NS
Road Transportation Network	(discussed as ‘Land Use’)	(improves)	(signif.)
Vessel Traffic and Navigation		(improves)	(signif.)
Land Use and Value		(improves)	(signif.
Current use of Land and Resources for Traditional Purposes byAboriginal Persons		(improves)	(signif.)
Tourism	(discussed as ‘Land Use’)	(improves)	(signif.)
Recreation	(discussed as ‘Land Use’)	(improves)	(signif.)
Labor and Economy	(discussed as ‘Land Use’)	(NS / improves)	(signif.)
Heritage and Archaeological Resources		NS	NS
Public Health	Vehicular Accidents Non-vehicular Accidents and Unplanned Events Groundwater Quality / Quantity Contaminated Effluents and Redistribution of Contaminants Human Disease Vectors Flooding	NS NS NS (improves) (improves) (improves)2	NS NS NS (signif.) NS (signif.)

1. There are only two categories where the status quo actually benefits the socio-economic situation. Aside from these two categories, all other Petitcodiac options either improve the status of their socio-economic categories, or do not change them significantly.

2. Although the Petitcodiac EIA indicates these socio-economic categories are predicted to improve by opening tidal restrictions, circumstances in the Avon River project may differ. More information needs to be gathered and presented before the open-tidal impacts/benefits can be accurately modeled.
   
   
3. While the Petitcodiac EIA determined there was no significant change in some of the socio-economic categories, these same categories may experience significant improvements in an Avon River scenario.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Step four]: Finally, in order to present a look at the environmental impact predictions for the Avon River, we will superimpose the modified Avon River categories from the above table into the format of the Petitcodiac table. Assuming the two very similar rivers will have mostly similar impact trends, we now include the assessment data from the Petitcodiac study beside the Valued Environmental Components to show our projections for the Avon River scenarios. We use the Petitcodiac ‘Status Quo’ data to represent the project option of an aboiteau, as proposed by the NS government, as this is the closest match from the Petitcodiac analysis. The ‘Free Tide Options’ are certainly equivalent in both causeways. Although some differences exist in the case of the Windsor Causeway; and possible outcomes of the Nova Scotia project may not be the same as the Petitcodiac, a majority of these environmental components will react the same in terms of impacts. To stress the obvious advantages to ‘Free Tidal Flow’ we’ve added the colour [Green] (or go) (to highlight benefits); [Red] (or stop) signifies degradation, destruction, or loss over time. Below Table B we offer some additional notes and details regarding differences and special situations of the Avon River. Further studies will need to be done before these concerns are firmly understood.

Tidal bore tourism returns to the Petitcodiac. (photo from article.wn.com)

Table B: Predicting the Impacts: Back to the Future?

		Anticipated Impact Free Tide Options	Anticipated Impact Aboiteau Fishway Options
Atmospheric Environment	Climate Air Quality Odour Sound Quality	No significant impacts No significant impacts No significant impacts No significant impacts	No significant impacts No significant impacts No significant impacts No significant impacts
Fish and Fish Habitat	Sediment Quality Water Quality Fish/Aquatic Species Fish Species at-Risk Invasive Fish Species Fish Habitat	No significant impacts Improvement Improvement Improvement Improvement some Improvement	No significant impacts Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant
Terrestrial and Wetland Environment	Wetlands Wildlife and Vegetation Migratory Birds Mudflat Productivity Managed Areas	Improvement No significant impacts No significant impacts Improvement needs study	Significant No significant impacts Improvement No significant impacts No significant impacts
Municipal Services and Infrastructure	Water Distribution Services Sanitary Sewer Systems Storm Sewer Systems Dykes and Aboiteau Other Infrastructure	No significant impacts needs study needs study Improvement needs study	No significant impacts needs study needs study Improvement needs study
Road Transportation Network		Improvement	Improvement
Vessel Traffic and Navigation		Improvement	Significant
Land Use and Value			Significance undetermined
Current use of Land and Resources for Traditional Purposes by Aboriginal Persons		Improvement	Significance undetermined
Tourism		Improvement	Significant
Recreation		needs study	Significant
Labor and Economy		some Improvement	needs study
Heritage and Archaeological Resources		prob. Improvement	No significant impacts
Public Health	Vehicular Accidents Non-vehicular Accidents and Unplanned Events Groundwater Quality / Quantity Contaminated Effluents and Redistribution of Contaminants Human Disease Vectors Flooding8	Improvement No significant impacts No significant impacts Improvement Improvement needs study	Improvement No significant impacts No significant impacts Significant No significant impacts Significant

1. Managed Areas: At the Petitcodiac, these concerns were mainly regarding a landfill site abutting the river on the downstream side of the causeway. The Avon River project includes a number of areas which may be included under this category (e.g. walking trails along Pesaquid Lake, parklands?).
2. Sanitary and Storm Sewer Systems / Other Infrastructure: Depending on their current designs, or other circumstances, some infrastructures associated with the Avon River project will likely require upgrades or modification to mitigate impacts. However, these kinds of infrastructure in the Petitcodiac model were significant impacts with the Status Quo option, while free-tidal options were all improvements.
3. Dykes and Aboiteau: The condition of the aging dykes has been a major concern since the 1960s, and their maintenance was discontinued once the causeway was completed. Mitigation is required if free-tidal options are employed (see ‘Flooding’ below).
4. Land Use and Value: Significant residential and other developments of low-lying areas below maximum high-stand (e.g. high tide, storm surge) have been the norm for many years in the ARW. Ongoing development (e.g. residential) continues to take place within the low-lying areas of the ARW. Without protective measures, all such low-lying areas in the ARW may be prone to flooding. Prior to the causeway, these areas depended on a system of dykes and aboiteaux for protection. When the causeway became a new dam across the river’s mouth, it rendered the old dykes unnecessary. The subsequent degeneration (and even removal of) portions of the dykes now has implications for the Project, as options involving free-tidal flow will require dyke systems fully upgraded to modern standards. The proposed new design height of the causeway, we have been informed, is not going to be a guarantee that flooding will not occur in extreme cases, although we know sea-level rise will be about 88 cm. over the next 100 years (Amec, 2005).
5. Aboriginal Land Use: The addition of the qualifying word “Identified” at the beginning of the this standardized phrase is unusual, and it effectively acts to disqualify any legitimacy where activities undertaken by aboriginals in the future could be excluded as not genuinely traditional. Since historical records fail to confirm traditional aboriginal land use having taken place prior to European colonization, confirmed aboriginals may one day need to show proof the historians don’t have in order to claim their rights to these resources! Although not confirmable, the presence of known aboriginal encampment sites suggests they were in fact using the watershed for these purposes (Isaacman, 2005).
6. Recreation: The Windsor Canoe club, which depends on Pesaquid Lake, is one of the main recreation activities which will be affected with the Avon River project. Other impacted recreational uses of the lake include, but are not limited to, ‘pumpkin races’ and other year-round events. Since these activities could not be held in the tidal Avon River, some may need to move to a new location (or be discontinued). On the upside, there are also many recreational opportunities, like tidal bore rafting, windsailing, and tour boat enterprises that may be well suited to these changes. Regardless, Pesaquid Lake is only with us for a little while longer; as progressive infilling overtakes the headpond, it will completely infill and wind-up in full marsh development. Mitigative measures like dredging is cost-prohibitive and would disturb the aquatic environment to an unacceptable degree. Additionally, understanding the aboiteau will need longer and more-timely openings to facilitate the movement of fish, and that increased opening will cause water levels to drop, the headpond “Lake Pesaquid” will be intermittently unusable for its former purposes.
7. Heritage and Archaeological Resources: Improvement to the exposure known as the classic ‘Windsor Limestone Type-Section’ can be expected after tidal influences restore the site to its pre-causeway conditions.
8. Flooding: To mitigate against the risk of flooding, the Province’s preferred option calls for such as sea-walls or levees in some places, as well as various upgrades to the dykes.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Government has not really informed us well about the changes they are going to incur on us. The above exercise was undertaken to help fill in the some of those blanks. The Petitcodiac initiative demonstrates that you can’t design a cutting-edge fishway to fix the river; that you have to remove your tidal-restriction and prepare for the outcomes.

Also, it seems the Nova Scotia government probably doesn’t want to tell us about causeway impacts, because it is very embarrassing; the harm we’ve allowed in the past 47 years; the significant harm they’re proposing if they can’t get their fishway and sediment budget right this time.

In sharp contrast, the Avon River Causeway EA strictly ignores Petitcodiac logic, instead promising to design a massive aboiteau; one capable of passing fish “…in full accordance with the Federal Fisheries Act”. Government gives us their reasoning for closing the door to any ‘Free Tidal Options’, like the Petitcodiac; its alleged ‘extravagant cost’ and supposedly ‘it’s not technically feasible’. No reasons are given for leaving out all the baseline information on current causeway impacts, or the actual condition of the environments they now propose altering. If we are to trust Free Tidal Flow isn’t worth the overall cost of the associated measures (early settlers managed to build the dykes, can’t we cope?), we have to see the data and decide for ourselves. As for an honest assessment of the Status Quo - we understand because it’s highly embarrassing. Nonetheless, it’s valuable environmental data. The options chosen for the two projects can also be represented like this:

	Petitcodiac	Avon River
Solve fish-passage with a new fishway ?	can’t	will try
Return to free tidal flow ?	YES	no

The Petitcodiac tried for many years to solve the fish-passage by adjusting their approaches. They learned better in the end. We need to ensure the Nova Scotia government doesn’t make a Petitcodiac-sized mistake here…try for years to tinker with the fish-passage, only to realize it never worked. Whatever happened to, ‘let’s get it right the first time'?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please Donate to Help Our Cause

Save the Avon River - GoFundMe Donation pg.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In Memory of Judy Eldridge, whose song was written for this day.

We wish Judy was here right now - her sad song about the Avon River Causeway should have been listened to, a long time ago...This goes out to Judy and, of course, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans - Dominic LeBlanc!

Thank you, Wizard, for your thoughtful production - nice to see people care for the future of the, Avon River!

Song / Video Link:

The Avon River Song - (written by: Judy Eldridge / recorded by: Sonja Wood)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

REFERENCES:

Amec. 2005. YB299A: Environmental Impact Assessment Report for Modifications to the Petitcodiac River Causeway. New Brunswick Department of Supply and Services, Fredericton, NB; 440p. Online:AMEC - Petitcodiac River, EIA Study (2005)

Daborn, G.R. 1997. Chapter 1. Fundy Marine Ecosystem Science Project: science overview. In J.A. Percy, P.G. Wells, and A.J. Evans (eds.), Bay of Fundy Issues: A Scientific Overview. Workshop Proceedings, Wolfville, Nova Scotia. January 29 to February 1, 1996. Environment Canada-Atlantic Region Occasional Report No. 8. p. 1-8. Sackville, NB: Environment Canada.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans [DFO]. 1968. Fisheries river basin study: Avon River, Nova Scotia. Paper #22 Prepared for the Atlantic Provinces Water Resource Study. Unpublished Report. DFO, BIO, Dartmouth, NS, Causeway files.

Douglas, S.G., R.G. Bradford, and G. Chaput. 2003. Assessment of striped bass (Morone saxatilis) in the Maritime Provinces in the context of species at risk. DFO Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2003/008. 54p.

Gibson, A.J.F., and R.A. Myers. 2003. Biological reference points for anadromous alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) fisheries in the Maritime Provinces. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 2468: 50p.

Isaacman L.A. (2005) Historic examination of the changes in diadromous fish populations and potential anthropogenic stressors in the Avon River watershed, Nova Scotia. Masters Thesis, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, 125 pp.

Lawrence, F. 2003. Group wants to make Windsor Causeway issue a political hot potato. The Hants Journal, July 23, 2003; p.4.

Lucas, K.C. 1968. Memorandum to the Minister. “Re: Proposed Avon River Barrier”.Dated 2 April 1968. DFO, BIO, Dartmouth, NS, Causeway Files.

Mills, E.L., R. O’Gorman, J. DeGisi, R.F. Heberger, and R.A. House. 1992. Food of the alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) in Lake Ontario before and after the establishment of Bythotrephes cederstroemi. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 49(10): 2009-2019.

New Brunswick Department of Supply and Services [NBDSS]. 2004. Status and modelling workshop summary Moncton NB, November 6, 2004. Petitcodiac Environmental Impact Assessment. Accessed 28 February 2004.

Niles, E. 2001. Review of the Petitcodiac River Causeway and fish passage issues. Paper prepared for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Cap-Pelé, NB: DFO.

Persson, L. 2002. Chapter 15. Community ecology of freshwater fishes. In P.J.B. Hart, and J.D. Reynolds (eds.), Handbook of Fish Biology and Fisheries, Volume 2: Fisheries. p. 321-340. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Ruggles, C.P. 1969. Letter from C.P. Ruggles, Chief, to Mr. Merrill Prime, Director, Wildlife Conservation.  Dated 15 August 1969. DFO, BIO, Dartmouth, NS, Causeway Files.

Smith, K.E.H. 1965. Memorandum from K.E.H. Smith, Biologist, to C.P. Ruggles, Chief Biologist, “Re: Avon River Causeway-Crossing”. Dated 11 May 1965. DFO, BIO, Dartmouth, NS, Causeway Files.

Stantec. 2017. Highway 101 Twinning Three Mile Plains to Falmouth Environmental Assessment. Prepared for Nova Scotia Department of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal and Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture, Land Protection: Stantec Consulting Ltd., Dartmouth, NS, File 121414236, May 2017, 272p.

Wells, P.G. 1999. Environmental impact of barriers on rivers entering the Bay of Fundy: report of an ad hoc Environment Canada working group. Technical Report Series No. 334. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Wildlife Service. 43p.

Willson, M.F., and K.C. Halupka. 1995. Anadromous fish as keystone species in vertebrate communities. Conservation Biology, 9(3): 489-497.

Yeo, R.K., and M.J. Risk. 1981. The sedimentology, stratigraphy, and preservation of intertidal deposits in the Minas Basin system, Bay of Fundy. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 51(1), Mar. 1981: 245-260.