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.

Based on a report out of Hampton, seimic 'thumper' trucks were spotted on Highway #1 past marker 143 earlier this afternoon. They were last seen traveling in an eastwardly direction. Local residents and leaders from the region met later to discuss the presence of the vehicles. They ask friends and other citizens to be aware of the current situation on the highway outside of town and to begin building support against the intrusion of the shale and natural gas industries into their community and throughout our province.

On Tuesday October 11 at 3:30 pm there will be a peaceful demonstration at the Hampton sign "It's Our Nature" one km before the Hampton exit on the Saint John side.  No cars will be blocked and all actions will keep within the law.  Everyone who can make it is invited to join us in solidarity.  PLEASE let any media connections know.

Hi everyone,
As you know, I'm very involved in raising awareness of shale gas exploration/drilling and the consequences to health, the environment and our rural way of life. (I know that I don't want to live in or near an industrial pit that pours chemicals into the ground and air).
My own awareness has been raised by meeting the people of Penobsquis and hearing their stories first hand. They live in Gasland and will give tours so people can see what they will soon be facing. They do not want other communities to suffer what they have. I am circulating this email in hopes to raise awareness for Penobsquis. They are and have been fracking wells in Penobsquis, so when the government says it is proceeding slowly and cautiously what about Penobsquis (and Elgin).

If you haven't yet read "The Story of Water and Penobsquis," please do so at your earliest opportunity. It is a cautionary tale for all citizens of N.B. illustrating clearly where we will be if industry damages our private property. The government will side with industry as it has done with Potash Corporation. The Story of water is up here http://www.wepac.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/The-penobsquis-story.pdf

The shale gas industry has been granted leases over vast sections of our province. Its record in the U.S. and parts of Canada shows that air, water and quality of life all suffer.

In 2004 in Penobaquis, Potash Corporation conducted seismic testing which included the detonation of dynamite charges. At this time there were reports of homes shaking and muddy water from taps. Then the mines flooded and people lost wells and springs. The connection was made between these events by the residents as well as officials in the Dept. of Environment and local government. The onus was on the residents to prove it which is what they are still trying to do 7 years later. They have been blocked time and time again from gaining access to information they need to prove their case. They were finally given the information they had been requesting for MANY years this July, 2011. Public pressure may have been a factor. It is the classic David vs Goliath senario only Goliath is now a thousand times larger and the government has taken away David's slingshot and won't let him use any rocks.

Penobsquis is us and the outcome at the hearing is our outcome. If the affected people of Penobsquis are not fairly compensated for the damages to their property (which have rendered their homes unsaleable) then look into your own future should industry negatively impact your property.

The one thing that most of us here in NB have and hope to someday leave to our children is our home. Right now, this has been denied to the people of Penobsquis who are living in an unhealthy industralized area on land that has been rendered worthless by industry.


You can support Penobsquis in the following ways:

- if you can, attend the hearings with the Mining Commissioner. They resume Oct, 12, 13 and 14 October 2011 at the All Seasons Inn in Sussex, NB. It shows the mining commissioner, the government and the press that people are paying close attention to what is happening in this hearing. If you can't attend, please talk about the hearings and let others know what is going on.

- contribute to the Support Penobsquis fund. Donations can be made through the following site: http://www.canaryinstitute.ca/donate.html with charitable tax receipts issued. (Clarify that your donation is for Penobsquis)

- write to Premier Alward letting him know that you are concerned about the way the people of Penobsquis are being treated, that you will be watching closely the outcome of the Mining Commission Hearing

- write a letter to the editor expressing your concern about Penobsquis and how it has been treated by industry and government

-share this email with your friends via email, facebook, twitter


If you made it this far, thanks for reading.

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.

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.
 © 2018 NBEN / RENB