Campagne de conservation des forêts publiques – automne 2011

Cet automne, le gouvernement provincial va décider s’il va poursuivre les plans d’utilisation et de conservation des terres publiques de l’ancien gouvernement. Le plan prévu réduisait la superficie de forêt gérée spécifiquement pour conserver les aires d’hivernage des chevreuils, les vieux peuplements et les zones tampons le long des cours d’eau.

Si l’on se fonde sur ce que nous avons appris du MRN, cela signifierait des réductions atteignant autant jusqu’à 25 % (un quart) de certains de ces habitats. Et en même temps, la superficie des plantations sur les terres publiques serait presque triplée, à 28 %.

Le nouveau ministre des Richesses naturelles a annoncé qu’il examinerait à nouveau l’ancien plan cet automne, et qu’il annoncerait un nouveau plan forestier après décembre.

Les Néobrunswickois ont déjà rejeté ce plan

Dès 2004, la majorité de la population a exprimé au comité spécial sur l’approvisionnement en bois qu’elle ne voulait pas que les habitats des poissons et de la faune soient sacrifiés pour accroitre l’approvisionnement en bois. Le comité spécial avait rejeté les demandes des entreprises et placé un plafond aux zones de conservation, et il avait recommandé plutôt que la superficie des coupes à blanc soit réduite.

En 2007, une enquête auprès de la population du Nouveau-Brunswick a démontré qu’une majorité écrasante des résidents accordait la priorité la plus élevée à la protection par les forêts des eaux potables, de l’atmosphère et des habitats de la faune (Opinions du public sur la gestion des forêts au Nouveau-Brunswick : rapport d’une enquête provinciale).

À la fois les audiences du comité spécial et l’enquête auprès des Néobrunswickois ont démontré que les citoyens et les citoyennes s’attendent que leur gouvernement se tienne debout pour ce que la population désire et qu’il travaille avec la forêt naturelle que nous avons.

La population a aussi exprimé qu’elle voudrait avoir plus de pouvoir sur la façon de gérer ses forêts. Le gouvernement n’a toujours pas mis en place une réelle stratégie de consultation de la population qui impliquerait le public dans la gestion des forêts publiques.

Est-ce que cette fois le gouvernement nous écoutera? Nous pensons que oui.

Nous croyons qu’il existe une véritable ouverture qui permettrait encore une fois aux Néobrunswickois de parler au nom des forêts. Nous avons un nouveau gouvernement et le ministre a dit qu’il souhaitait entendre encore les environnementalistes et les Premières nations.

Veuillez donc écrire une lettre pour dire au gouvernement ce qui vous importe dans nos forêts et ce que vous voulez que le gouvernement fasse.

Faites parvenir votre lettre à Bruce Northrup, ministre des Ressources naturelles, C. P. 6000, Fredericton, NB E3B 5H1, et faites en une copie pour votre député. Nous pouvons vous fournir une liste des députés si vous n’êtes pas certain de son adresse.

Préparez une courte version de votre lettre et faites-la parvenir au rédacteur de votre journal local, ou à celui d’un autre quotidien.

Si vous faites partie d’un groupe communautaire ou d’une ONG qui souhaiterait que quelqu’un d’entre nous parle à votre groupe concernant les forêts publiques ou réponde à vos questions (informez-nous des questions en nous fournissant les détails), veuillez nous contacter par les moyens décrits ci-dessous.

Pour plus de renseignements, veuillez contacter forest@ccnbaction.ca D’autres informations détaillées peuvent être trouvées aux sites Web suivants : www.acadianforest.ca; www.cpawsnb.org.

Préparé par le comité directeur du Réseau des terres de la Couronne composé de représentants des organisations suivantes (CCNB Action, Société pour la nature et les parcs du Canada – section NB, Meduxnekeag River Society, Nature NB, Citoyens pour la protection des forêts du NB).

Public Forest Conservation Campaign – Fall 2011

The provincial government will be deciding this fall whether to go ahead with the previous government’s plan for public forest use and conservation. The plan that was on the table would decrease the amount of forest that is managed specifically to conserve deer wintering habitat, old forests and stream bank buffer zones.

Based upon what we have learned from the Department of Natural Resources, this could mean a reduction of as much as 25% (one quarter) of some of these habitats. At the same time, the amount of plantations on public land would be increased to 28% of Crown forest.

The new Minister of Natural Resources has announced he will re-examine the previous plan this fall, and will announce a new forest plan after December.

New Brunswickers have rejected this before

The majority of the public told the Select Committee on Wood Supply in 2004 that they do not want fish and wildlife habitat to be sacrificed to increase wood supply. The Select Committee rejected industry’s request to put a cap on conservation zones, and instead recommended that the amount of clear-cutting be reduced.

A 2007 survey of the New Brunswick public showed that the overwhelming majority of people surveyed place highest priority on the forest’s protection of fresh water, air and wildlife habitat (Public views on forest management in New Brunswick: Report from a provincial survey).

Both the Select Committee hearings and the survey of New Brunswickers showed that our citizens expect government to stand up for what the people want, and to work with the natural forest we have.

The public also expressed they want more say in how forests are managed. Government has still not implemented any real public consultation strategy to involve the public in the public’s forest.

Will the government listen this time? We think yes.

We believe there is a real opening for New Brunswickers to speak up on behalf of our forests once again. This is a new government, and the Minister said he wants to hear more from conservationists and First Nations.

Please write a letter that tells government what is important to you about our forest, and what you expect government to do.

Send your letter to: Bruce Northrup, Minister of Natural Resources, P.O. Box 6000, Fredericton, NB E3B 5H1, and a copy to your MLA. We can provide a list of MLAs if you are not sure.

Make a short version of your letter and send it as a letter to the editor to your local newspaper, or one of the daily newspapers.

If you are part of a community group or NGO that would like to invite one of us to speak to your group on this topic (to answer questions, provide more detail), please contact us, as below.

For more information, please contact forest@ccnbaction.ca. More detailed information can be found on the following web sites: www.acadianforest.ca; www.cpawsnb.org.

Prepared by Crown Lands Network steering committee (CCNB Action, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society-NB Chapter, Meduxnekeag River Society, Nature NB, Public for the Protection of the Forests of NB), a caucus of the NB Environmental Network.

The proposed Sisson Tungsten/Molybdenum/Copper mine near Stanley, New Brunswick, has the potential to create significant negative impact on and catastrophic risk for:

•    Atlantic salmon habitat vulnerable to changes in the hydrologic regime and heavy metal deposition.
•    The Nashwaak Watershed, a valuable economic and ecological resource, currently one of the post pristine watersheds in New Brunswick.
•    Wetland habitats.
•    Extensive areas of economically valuable hardwood and mixedwood Acadian Forest, a forest type under stress.
•    Human health and safety in the Nashwaak Watershed, and in the open-pit itself, due to an unacceptable level of risk of failure of the extensive and high tailing dams.
•    Human and ecological health due to air emissions of dust with elevated levels of arsenic and lead in an extensive area of the projected dust plume of this mine.

Take Action!

Action 1:

---

Join CCNB, Mining Watch Canada and the Sierra Club of Canada - Atlantic Chapter in requesting a review panel for the Sisson Tungsten/Molybdenum/Copper Open-Pit Mine. A petition asking for a review panel has also been drafted in case you want to circulate to your contacts.

You can send a letter requesting a review panel -- the highest level of Environmental Assessment -- to:

Hon. Peter Kent
Minister of Environment
kent.p@parl.gc.ca

Tara Oak, Project Manager, Sisson Project
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Sisson@ceaa-acee.gc.ca

Hon. Margaret-Ann Blaney
NB Minister of Environment
margaret-ann.blaney@gnb.ca

Hon. Keith Ashfield
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
keith.ashfield@parl.gc.ca

cc - Mike Allen
MP for Tobique-Mactaquac
mike.allen@parl.gc.ca

* If you would like to have your comments posted on this page, please cc your letters to us at forest@ccnbaction.ca You can find submissions in the bottom section of this page.

Action 2:

---

Concerns with the Draft Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Sisson Project Environmental Impact Statement are being accepted until October 3, 2011.

Please find 16 points of concern with the Draft Terms of Reference below. For those interested in finding out more about each concern and commenting, each concern is discussed in further detail here.

Comments can be sent to:

Hon. Peter Kent
Minister of Environment
kent.p@parl.gc.ca

Cc: Hon. Margaret-Ann Blaney
NB Minister of Environment
margaret-ann.blaney@gnb.ca

Hon. Keith Ashfield
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
keith.ashfield@parl.gc.ca

Tara Oak, Project Manager, Sisson Project
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Sisson@ceaa-acee.gc.ca

16 points of concern:

1.       Totally unacceptable level of project definition and scope at this stage of the EA/EIA, leaving the public and government at a severe disadvantage in commenting on the TOR.

2.       Inaccurate and incomplete articulation of proponent responsibilities with regard to cost/benefit analysis of all VECs.

3.       Unconstitutional articulation of proponent responsibilities to First Nations as defined in existing Treaties and the U.N. Declaration of Indigenous Rights.

4.       Inadequate acceptance of proponent responsibility to address the issues related to water quality under the Province of New Brunswick’s Water Classification Regulations.

5.       Inadequate requirements for proponent bonding to mitigate impacts of unexpected catastrophic events for which known risk factors are calculable based on historical performance of similar projects.

6.       Unacceptable requirements for proponent engagement and scrutiny in public consultation

7.       Inadequate acceptance of proponent responsibility to consider alternative ways of completing the project.

8.       Inadequate acceptance of proponent responsibility to consider the “do nothing” alternative to the project.

9.       Inadequate guidance on determining the project footprint at the Local Assessment Area (LAA) level.

10.   Inadequate guidance for a proper and effective HHERA(Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment).

11.   Inadequate requirement for peer review of scientific aspects of the TOR.

12.   Inadequate guidance on considering the historical record of mining in Canada, including its record of social irresponsibility, and its impacts on the integrity of rural communities.

13.   Unacceptable level of guidance on considering impacts of the environment on the project.

14.   Unacceptable level of guidance on considering reasonably predictable future combined impacts, either those of the current proponent or in combination with other projects.

15.  Unacceptable specification of the possible tailing facility.

16.   Unacceptable assumptions at this point in the process.

The proposed Sisson Tungsten/Molybdenum/Copper mine near Stanley, New Brunswick, has the potential to create significant negative impact on, and catastrophic risk for:

• Atlantic salmon habitat vulnerable to changes in the hydrologic regime and heavy metal deposition.

• The Nashwaak Watershed, a valuable economic and ecological resource, currently one of the post pristine watersheds in New Brunswick.

• Wetland habitats.

• Extensive areas of economically valuable hardwood and mixedwood Acadian Forest, a forest type under stress.

• Human health and safety in the Nashwaak Watershed, and in the open-pit itself, due to an unacceptable level of risk of failure of the extensive and high tailing dams.

• Human and ecological health due to air emissions of dust with elevated levels of arsenic and lead in an extensive area of the projected dust plume of this mine.

Take action and intervene on the Environmental  Assessment process and demand the greatest assessment and protection here.

Please feel free to copy/adapt the materials in your letters to government.

Deadline for this action alert: October 3, 2011.