Project FINAL Report 1

Proposed Tidal Barrage

Development in Scots Bay,

King’s County, Nova Scotia Final Report

Lee Paige

Keegan Balcom

Melissa Lesko

Logan Loik

Erik Paige

Amber Stoffer

Proposed Tidal Development in Scots Bay, Nova Scotia

2

Acknowledgements

The authors of this report would like to express their gratitude towards Dr. Peter

Tyedmers, Dr. Michelle Adams, and Dr. Peter Duinker for sharing their guidance and

expertise over the past few months. In addition, the authors wish to recognize and thank

Dr. Karen Beazley for sharing her expertise and time in completing our Ethics Review.

Furthermore, a special thanks to the interviewed participants of this study, as the

perspectives received helped to develop a more comprehensive understanding. Last but

not least, the authors of this report would like to extend their appreciation to their peers

for the continual support, feedback, and insightful questions asked throughout the past

semester.


3

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ 2

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 5

Introduction .................................................................................................................... 7

History of Renewable Energy in Nova Scotia .................................................................. 9

Halcyon Tidal Barrage Proposal .................................................................................... 11

Location ........................................................................................................................ 11

Structure ........................................................................................................................ 12

Configuration ................................................................................................................ 13

Water Cycle .................................................................................................................. 15

Turbines ........................................................................................................................ 16

Methodology ................................................................................................................ 16

Socio-Political Perspectives .......................................................................................... 18

Lisa Isaacman – Academic Perspective ......................................................................... 18

Minas Energy – Industry Perspective ............................................................................. 19

David Mangle – Municipal Perspective ......................................................................... 20

Darren Porter – Fisherman Perspective .......................................................................... 21

Ecology Action Center – ENGO Perspective ................................................................. 23

Aboriginal Perspective .................................................................................................. 24

Consultation and Media Influence ................................................................................. 27

Environmental Impacts and Risks ................................................................................. 28

Physical Effects ............................................................................................................. 29

Water Quality .................................................................................................... 30

Sedimentation .................................................................................................... 30

Biological Effects .......................................................................................................... 31

Effects on the Benthic Community ...................................................................... 31

Effects on Fish ................................................................................................... 32

Effects on Marine Mammals & Seabirds ............................................................ 34

Drilling/ Noise ................................................................................................... 34

Collision ............................................................................................................ 36

Cables and Electromagnetism ............................................................................ 37

Lighting ............................................................................................................. 37

Marine Protected Areas ..................................................................................... 37

Environmental Benefits ................................................................................................. 38

Carbon Payback and Reduction Potential .......................................................... 38


4

Law and Policy .............................................................................................................. 40

The Constitutional Context ........................................................................................... 40

Federal .............................................................................................................. 41

Provincial .......................................................................................................... 41

Laws that Govern Electricity ......................................................................................... 42

Federal .......................................................................................................................... 42

National Energy Board Act ................................................................................ 42

Provincial ...................................................................................................................... 42

Electricity Act .................................................................................................... 43

Energy Resources Conservation Act................................................................... 43

Public Utilities Act ............................................................................................. 43

Renewable Electricity Regulations ..................................................................... 44

Other Federal & Provincial Legislation and Regulatory Systems ................................... 44

Environmental Assessment ................................................................................. 45

Current License, Permit, & Approval Process ............................................................... 46

Future License, Permit, & Approval Process Considerations ........................................ 48

Halcyon Tidal Power’s Current Status ........................................................................... 49

Marine Renewable Energy Legislation .......................................................................... 49

The Future for Halcyon Tidal Power ............................................................................. 50

Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 51

Biophysical Dimension ................................................................................................. 51

Law and Policy Dimension ............................................................................................ 52

Socio-Political Dimension ............................................................................................. 52

Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 53

Appendix I..................................................................................................................... 60

Appendix II.................................................................................................................... 62


5

Executive Summary

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the current state and prospective

future of the Halcyon Tidal Power barrage proposal in Scots Bay, Nova Scotia.

Dimensions discussed in this report include the socio-political perspectives, biophysical

impacts, and cross-jurisdictional implications with regards to law, policy, and permitting

at both provincial and federal levels.

The socio-political dimensions are drawn from a public meeting hosted by the

proponent and a series of interviews that were held with stakeholders affected by this

project, in order to discuss the perspectives and roles of all stakeholders. It is

recommended that Halcyon Tidal Power engage directly with the public to include

concerns in the project’s progression.

The biophysical dimensions combine information of similar projects, literature,

and local knowledge to describe potential physical and biological impacts of the barrage.

The project is in its early stages and, as such, this section is limited to identification of

potential areas of concern and recommendations for study. Recommendations made for

Halcyon Tidal Power, based on areas of concern, include: completing baseline flow

regime studies in Scots Bay; testing turbines with regards to the impacts on fish

populations and marine habitat; investigating the baseline sedimentation in and out the

basin as well as throughout the lifetime of the barrage; and calculating the carbon

payback period for this project.

The regulatory path for this project is unclear, as such, the collection of acts

which may contribute to the regulation of this project are discussed. It is recommended

Halcyon Tidal Power clarify project details regarding the customer for the electricity,


6

transmission lines, and construction processes and that Nova Scotia determine and

communicate the approval process for tidal barrage proposals.

This report identifies three mains areas of concern with the project at this point:

the lack of an identified customer for the electricity; strong opposition from community

members; and Nova Scotia’s focus on in-stream tidal development. The report reaches

the conclusion that, as the available information stands, this project is unlikely to

proceed.


7

Introduction

Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSPI) uses a number of conventional, non-conventional

and renewable energy sources to produce electricity within the province of Nova Scotia.

These conventional and non-conventional energy sources are primarily comprised of

fossil based fuels such as coal, oil, pet coke and natural gas, whereas the renewable

resources consist of biomass, wind, tidal, solar and hydroelectric (NSDOE, 2010a). Due

to greenhouse gas (GHG) caps set forth by the province, the Nova Scotia Department of

Energy developed a renewable electricity plan that mandated the generation of 25% of

the province’s electricity from renewable resources in 2015 and 40% by 2020 (NSDOE,

2010a). Although the objectives for 2015 will largely be met with the continued

commissioning of wind-electricity projects throughout the province, the ambitious goal

of 40% renewable electricity by 2020 has posed limitations based on grid capacity as well

as the continuance of diversifying the provinces renewable energy mix.

Globally, the marine renewable energy sector is progressing; new opportunities

from wave, offshore wind, and tidal energy sources are being sought after to replace our

dependence on fossil fuels (NSDOE, 2012). Wave energy, noted as a lower priority for

Nova Scotia, is “extracted from the surface motion of the water as wind passes over or by

pressure fluctuations below the surface” (NSDOE, 2012, p.9). This energy is still

expensive compared to onshore wind energy, but as technology advances wave energy

could provide renewable energy around the world (NSDOE, 2012). Offshore wind

energy, built upon existing onshore wind technology, also comes at a higher cost due to

construction and maintenance costs associated with this type of project (NSDOE, 2012).


8

Tidal energy, being most prominent in marine renewable energy in Nova Scotia,

harnesses energy from both the rise and fall of the water (barrages, lagoons, tidal

reefs/wings), or from the speed of the tidal current (in-stream tidal) (NSDOE, 2012).

Barrages, like the project proposed by Halcyon Tidal Power (Halcyon) for Scots Bay,

confine the entire marine enclosure, forcing the water to flow through generators to

produce electricity during the ebb and flow of tides (NSDOE, 2012). In 1984, a 20 MW

barrage called the Annapolis Royal Tidal Power Plant was commissioned in Nova Scotia

(NSPI, 2014a). In-stream tidal projects have also been deployed and recently funded by

the Fundy Ocean Research Center for Energy (FORCE) in Nova Scotia (Vaughn, 2014).

Overall, costs for power will decrease from all tidal energy methods, as technological

advances improve efficiencies (NS DOE, 2012).

This final report aims to outline and discuss: the history of tidal energy and

renewable energy in Nova Scotia; the project proposed by Halcyon Tidal Power; the

methodology of the study; the socio-political dimensions of the project that need to be

considered; the potential biophysical implications of the tidal barrage; the law, policy,

and legislative climate of the project with regards to jurisdiction and permitting; the

future of marine renewable energy in Nova Scotia; and finally, a discussion of various

formulated recommendations that Halcyon Tidal Power should consider during the

planning and development of this project. Limitations of the research included in this

report are acknowledged. Some of the limitations include: information regarding the

project is incomplete as it is still in its infancy stage; a first-hand aboriginal interview was

not performed in this study due to ethics approval time constraints; and the delayed


9

marine renewable energy legislation for Nova Scotia does not provide a clear legislative

pathway forward.

History of Renewable Energy in Nova Scotia

The Bay of Fundy has been targeted for the development of tidal energy since

1919 due to its vast tidal resource (Greenberg & Amos, 1983). The volume of water (160

billion tonnes) that flows in and out of the bay on a daily basis is more than enough to

attract international attention for tidal development. The US-based electric power

institute labeled it the most potent site for tidal power generation in North America. Nova

Scotia began harvesting this energy in 1607 when the first of a series of small mills,

partially powered by tidal flows, was built (Howell & Drake, 2012). Each of these mills

harvested the equivalent of 25 to 75 kW of energy. The first tidal barrage, the Annapolis

Tidal Power Station, was built in 1985 and has a capacity of 20 MW. It generates 80-

200MWh each day depending on the tides (Howell & Drake, 2012).

Development of tidal energy in the Bay of Fundy continued in 2006 when the

Offshore Energy Environmental Research Association (OEER) and the Offshore Energy

Technical Research Association (OETR) were founded. Between 2007 and 2008, OEER

completed a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the Bay of Fundy which

focused on tidal energy development commissioned by the NS Department of Energy. In

2009, FORCE was established and development of in-stream tidal capabilities started to

progress. The Renewable Energy Plan for Nova Scotia was released in 2010, which

committed the province to ambitious renewable energy targets. No additional research


10

into tidal barrage implementation in Nova Scotia has been completed following the

Annapolis Tidal Power Station (Howell & Drake, 2012).

Nova Scotia’s energy demand is currently satisfied primarily by burning oil and

coal. Approximately 80% of electricity generated in Nova Scotia results from coal

combustion. Historically, this energy demand was satisfied with local coal; however, with

closures of coal mines in Cape Breton, Nova Scotians are increasingly relying on

imported coal for electricity generation (NSE, 2001). In addition, NSPI continues to

increase power rates. In 2012, the Utility and Review Board (UARB) approved a plan to

raise the average power rate by 6% over two years. NSPI explains that a rate increase was

necessary for two reasons: the first was due to an increase in the cost of fuels required to

produce electricity; the second was a result of the upfront capital cost of the construction

of new infrastructure required for renewable energy (NSPI, 2014a).

The expansion into renewable energy sources, though costly in the short-term, has

several benefits. By diversifying energy sources, it reduces the provinces vulnerability to

extreme price fluctuations for coal (NSPI, 2014a). It moves the province towards energy

security, which would allow it to have a regular supply of energy at an affordable price

(Hughes, 2007). Furthermore, coal-burning is associated with long-term environmental

implications with regards to carbon dioxide emissions (Hughes, 2007). These reasons,

coupled with an increasing demand for electricity, have pushed the province of Nova

Scotia to work towards making 40% of their electricity come from renewable sources by

2020 (NSPI, 2014a).


11

Halcyon Tidal Barrage Proposal

Location

Halcyon has proposed to locate this

barrage across the mouth of Scots Bay in the Bay

of Fundy. The estimated location is indicated in

Error! Reference source not found. as the Scots

Bay Project. This location is only an

approximation and is likely to change as

investigations of the area are conducted. The

capacity of the barrage would be 1100 MW

(Halcyon Tidal Power, 2013). The location is also

dependent on consultation with local community

members (Atiya, public meeting, February 4, 2014).

Halcyon has presented a preliminary rendering, shown in Error! Reference

source not found., that demonstrates the view of the barrage from Scots Bay, at a

distance of approximately six km. The structure would sit five meters on average above

the waterline (Halcyon Tidal Power, 2013)

Figure 1: Map of Scots Bay with proposed barrage

location (Halcyon Tidal Power, 2013).


12

Figure 2: Preliminary rendering of view of barrage from Scots Bay (Halcyon Tidal Power, 2013).

Structure

Halcyon plans to use a modular pile supported construction design for this

project. The structure will be supported with large diameter piles that have primarily been

used in offshore oil and gas platforms (Halcyon Tidal Power, 2013). The primary

building material utilized will be concrete. Methods and materials for the concrete

construction will be based on previous projects that have withstood arctic conditions

(Atiya, public meeting, February 4, 2014). In particular, Halcyon references the Kislaya

Guba Tidal Power Plant in Murmansk which has successfully undergone over 12,000

cycles of freeze thaw (Halcyon Tidal Power, 2013). Figure 3 shows this type of

construction, which has been rendered for another of Halcyon’s proposed projects

(Halcyon Tidal Power, 2013). This structure can be built and decommissioned by using

offsite and water-based transportation to limit disruption to the area (Atiya, public

meeting, February 4, 2014).


13

Figure 3: Modular Pile Supported Construction (Halcyon Tidal Power, 2013)

Configuration

Halcyon Tidal Power plans to support the barrage with large diameters piled

drilled into the seabed. This removes the necessity for large anchoring embankments,

which are characteristic of classic barrage designs (Halcyon Tidal Power, 2013).

Considering the small width of the barrage, which is approximately three to four meters,

the footprint on the seabed is small when compared to other methods (Halcyon Tidal

Power, 2013). This allows for a lighter and smaller powerhouse, whereby both the

footprint and construction impact, are greatly reduced. This serves to reduce the overall

environmental effects (Halcyon Tidal Power, 2013).

The configurations of the Halcyon Tidal

Power plants are either designed as barrages or shore

connected lagoons. The Free Flow Cycle can be

implemented for almost any type of lagoon or

barrage (Halcyon Tidal Power, 2013). The lagoon

type configuration, seen in Figure 4, can be Figure 4: Lagoon Configuration (Halcyon Tidal

Power, 2013)


14

constructed in many different sizes along any

coastline with a tidal range greater than five meters

(Halcyon Tidal Power, 2013). This allows the lagoon

configuration a greater potential to be employed

around the world, and therefore contribute

significantly to GHG reduction. Lagoons have the

flexibility of being “sited away from sensitive

estuaries and spawning rivers, furthering reducing”

and avoiding environmental impacts (Halcyon Tidal Power, 2013).

On the other hand, barrage configurations are described as a “secondary

application” of the Halcyon Solution (Halcyon Tidal Power, 2013). This is because the

“Free Flow Operating Cycle is not universally applicable to large barrage basins”

(Halcyon Tidal Power, 2013). Halcyon states that employing barrages means extra care

must be taken to prevent environmental impacts because they typically span the seaward

mouths of rivers (Halcyon Tidal Power, 2013). There are no large estuaries on the basin-

side of the proposed barrage for Scots Bay, as can be seen on maps of the area provided

by Halcyon (Halcyon Tidal Power, 2013). This makes it more of a favourable

environment for this type of tidal design and technology. However, this fact is not

outwardly stated as a reason for choosing a barrage design over a lagoon design from

Halcyon’s point of view. The images in Figures 4 & 5 show basic differences between

lagoon and barrage configurations. The Halcyon project for Scots Bay is a barrage

configuration, as seen in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Barrage Configuration (Halcyon Tidal

Power, 2013)


15

Water Cycle

Halcyon’s proposed design would not alter the volume of water flowing in or out

of the basin from its natural state; this is in contrast to the existing norm for tidal dam

constructions. Pumping is employed during slack tides to ensure the volume of flow does

not shift from its natural pattern. This is intended to maintain the natural ecosystem in the

intertidal zone and prevent sedimentation. The cycle of flow and water levels, labeled as

“free flow power”, is illustrated in Figure 6 (Halcyon Tidal Power, 2013). The natural

and modeled new cycle of the water level in the bay is shown graphically in Figure 7.

The water level is mimicked closely with a delay of approximately one hour (Atiya,

public meeting, February 4, 2014). Smaller turbines than industry standard will be placed

strategically to mimic the actual flow paths of water within the basin once more in-depth

investigations of the site have been completed (Atiya, public meeting, February 4, 2014).

Figure 6: The Free Flow Power Cycle (Halcyon Tidal Power, 2013)


16

Figure 7: The Free Flow Operation Cycle (Halcyon Tidal Power, 2013)

Turbines

Horizontal bulb turbines, which generate power for both directions of flow, are to

be employed in this design. Specific design elements have been included to reduce

impacts subjected to marine organisms. Approximately 300 turbines will be embedded in

the barrage (Atiya, public meeting, February 4, 2014).

Methodology

Halcyon Tidal Power is proposing an immense project that has the potential to

affect many different groups of people who should be considered in the design and

development of the barrage. Stakeholders can be categorized into four broad categories:

statutory, strategic, community and symbiotic. Statutory stakeholders are involved due to

legislation and may include authorities or other bodies. Strategic stakeholders hold key

information or opinions that can significantly affect the progress of the project.

Community stakeholders include anyone whose life would be affected by the


17

development. Symbiotic stakeholders have potential to benefit from the development

(Howell & Drake, 2012). This project involves stakeholders from each category and all

need to be considered in the progression of the project.

Our study methodology included personal interviews to gain information from

different stakeholder perspectives. Many of the people contacted for interviews were

observed at the public meeting on February 4th, organized by Halcyon Tidal Power, as

highly vocal and participatory members of the community or various organizations.

An ethics review was conducted and overseen by professors Dr. Peter Duinker

and Dr. Karen Beazley. The ethics review included a list of questions (Appendix I), as

well as a list of people that would be interviewed. The different perspectives gained

through interviews included: an academic, Lisa Isaacman; a fisherman, Darren Porter; an

environmental non-governmental organization (ENGO), Ecology Action Centre; the

Deputy Mayor of Wolfville, David Mangle; and Minas Energy, represented by John

Woods and Kris MacLellan. It is important to point out that although it would have been

preferable to gain an aboriginal perspective by interview, this fell outside the timeline for

the ethics review process and would have been conducted if more time were allotted.

However, it is recognized that the Mi’kmaq of Nova Scotia are an important perspective.

Therefore literature was referred to in order to gain insight into the Aboriginal viewpoint

regarding the Halcyon project. In addition, it must be recognized that each stakeholder

carries a bias, and this was taken into consideration when gathering information for this

report.

It should be noted that efforts were made to interview Jeff Cantwell (Mayor of

Wolfville), Scott Quinn (Director of Public Works, Kings County), Tom MaCewan


18

(Chief Administration Officer, Kings County) and Ted Verrill (President and CEO,

Halcyon), but various constraints, such as scheduling conflicts and project deadlines,

prevented these interviews from taking place. Without these interviews, there is a

potential gap in the stakeholder perspectives collected for this report.

Lastly, a comprehensive analysis of peer-reviewed and grey literature was

performed to study the potential biophysical impacts of this project and arrive at a list of

recommendations for Halcyon Tidal Power’s future study plan. In addition, provincial

and federal statutes and regulations, as well as provincial plans and discussion papers

were consulted when discussing the law and policy aspect of this study.

Socio-Political Perspectives

Lisa Isaacman – Academic Perspective

Lisa Isaacman, the coordinator of the Fundy Energy Research Network (FERN),

was interviewed in order to gain insight on the academic perspective of the Halcyon

project regarding tidal energy. FERN is a non-profit organization of academic and

government researchers (FERN, 2010). However, Lisa Isaacman would like to emphasize

that the opinions expressed during the interview are strictly her own, and should in no

way reflect that of the FERN organization (Isaacman, personal communication, March 6,

2014).

Lisa Isaacman highlighted benefits and concerns she believed could be accrued

from this project. Of the concerns, Lisa Isaacman feels that this project will have both

environmental and social implications. Some of the largest environmental issues that

could arise from this project include an increase in sedimentation in Scots Bay, as well as


19

the effect of the barrage on fish populations. The information provided by Halcyon at the

public meeting was premature, and though Ted Verrill made comparisons to the

Pennamaquan, Maine project, that project differs greatly in size, technology, and location

(Isaacman, personal communication, March 6, 2014).

Lisa Isaacman has spent many years educating the public on in-stream tidal

projects. She believes that this barrage may discredit the reputation of in-stream tidal, and

set the progress of these projects back. Lisa Isaacman addressed the problem Halcyon

will face when attempting to find a market for their energy. She feels that with the

recently constructed Muskrat Falls, there will be no need for the additional energy in

Nova Scotia. Though Lisa Isaacman mentioned that Nova Scotians are unlikely to see

any real economic benefits from this project, she highlighted that the scale of this project

would make for an interesting experiment, both socio-politically and biophysically. In

closing remarks, Lisa Isaacman noted that it is unlikely that this project will proceed, as

there is no place in Nova Scotia’s energy future for a project of this size (Isaacman,

personal communication, March 6, 2014).

Minas Energy – Industry Perspective

An interview was conducted with John Woods and Kris MacLellan of Minas

Energy. Minas Energy is involved in a variety of renewable energy projects in Nova

Scotia. In particular, the company has a contract to manage development of in-stream

tidal in the Bay of Fundy (Minas Energy, 2013); John Woods is the Vice President of

Energy Development and Kris MacLellan is the Energy Project Coordinator. These

interviews were included to gain an understanding of the perspective of competing


20

industries. Kris MacLellan pointed out how drastically this construction would change

peoples’ perception of the value of the surrounding area, and stated the importance of a

social license for this kind of project. He also expressed his opinion that a case can be

made for any project if all concerns are properly accounted for. John Woods affirmed a

lack of support for barrages under any condition due to the associated environmental

impacts and does not think this project will be approved (Woods & MacLellan, personal

communication, March 4, 2014).

Both employees of Minas Energy addressed potential risks and benefits associated

with the project. John Woods is particularly worried that sedimentation could build up

behind the barrage and significantly harm or destroy the bay as a result. Both individuals

are concerned that this project will negatively impact Nova Scotians’ view of tidal energy

and detract from the social license to develop in-stream tidal devices. John Woods

confirmed that this project would attract tourists similarly to other types of large

renewable energy projects and Kris MacLellan stated that this project would inevitably

provide monetary benefits for the area. However, both employees of Minas Energy

would rather see tidal energy development focused on in-stream tidal devices as it is

viewed as more aligned with the desires of Nova Scotians (Woods & MacLellan,

personal communication, March 4, 2014).

David Mangle – Municipal Perspective

In order to gain insight into the perspective of a municipal official, an interview

was conducted with the Deputy Mayor of Wolfville, David Mangle. A trained mediator

and facilitator, David Mangle is a long-time resident of the Annapolis Valley and a


21

frequent visitor of the Scots Bay area, which he values deeply as a source of recreation.

Although he does not have a direct relationship with Halcyon, and therefore no internal

knowledge on the project’s development, David Mangle provided valuable insight into

the local and political stakeholder perspective. He was also very helpful in establishing

the best way forward for Halcyon in terms of public consultation (Mangle, personal

communication, March 6, 2014).

David Mangle expressed interest in renewable energy, but remained skeptical of

large-scale renewable energy projects, like the Scots Bay tidal barrage. He stated that the

impacts of such a project on marine species and the environment of Scots Bay were of

concern. Large-scale renewable energy has outward general appeal, but David Mangle

believes small-scale renewable energy remains underutilized. To support his idea, David

Mangle referenced the public meeting, where stakeholders expressed dismay at the

prospect of a large concrete structure being constructed in Scots Bay, along with many

other concerns for the project. According to David Mangle, small-scale renewable energy

is a more appealing solution to Nova Scotia’s energy future. However, had Halcyon

realized that the project was so contentious; he suspects that more could have been done

to prepare for a successful public meeting. Overall, he felt that the project is not

contextually appropriate and the confrontational approach by Halcyon has ruined public

buy-in (Mangle, personal communication, March 6, 2014).

Darren Porter – Fisherman Perspective

Darren Porter, a commercial fisherman from Windsor, was a prominent voice at

Halcyon’s public meeting. His vast knowledge on the biodiversity of the Minas Passage


22

has made him a primary reference for researchers at Acadia and Dalhousie Universities,

and FORCE. As such, an interview was conducted with Darren Porter to gain insight on

the perspectives of other industries, and additionally, to obtain an inventory of marine

species that are present in the vicinity of Scots Bay.

Darren Porter’s primary concern for the project revolved around impacts to

biodiversity, particularly fish and larger species like Harbour porpoise. He expressed his

apprehensions over the stated mortality rates for the turbines, noting that Halcyon has

understated their potential impacts as a closed system. Darren has estimated that two

metre animals entering and exiting the barrage through the turbines would have a

mortality rate over 100%, which gave rise to his expression of “300 meat grinders”.

Witnessing the biological impacts of the Annapolis Royale tidal range has made him

wary that a project like this will be approved despite proven, negative environmental

impacts (Porter, personal communication, March 6, 2014).

Similarly, Darren Porter highlighted that the locations chosen for tidal energy

development are one-sided, with proponents seeking a larger payout without considering

increased environmental susceptibility. Darren Porter explained that the Minas Passage

contains the highest tides of the Bay of Fundy, and with that, a higher proportion of

biodiversity. He expressed that he would be more supportive of tidal energy development

in areas of smaller tidal ranges (i.e. Digby) as they would impact a smaller number of

species. Lastly, Darren Porter communicated that Nova Scotia would not gain any

benefits from the project, as the green energy produced would most likely be sold to the

United States (Porter, personal communication, March 6, 2014).


23

Ecology Action Center – ENGO Perspective

The Ecology Action Center (EAC), a local ENGO, was also contacted for

questioning with regards to the Halcyon Tidal Power project. The three staff of the EAC

who consented to being interviewed included: Catherine Abreu, Energy Coordinator; Jen

Graham, Coastal Coordinator; as well as Wayne Groszko, Renewable Energy

Coordinator. The EAC attended Halcyon’s community meeting and has engaged in inter-

organizational discussions regarding the topic. The EAC has yet to make a public

statement about the proposed project because the proponent has yet to outline a market

for the energy produced, and there is currently no provincial or federal government

involvement (Abreu, Graham, & Groszko, personal communication, March 5, 2014).

In addition, the coordinators explained some of the environmental concerns and

reservations they had with the tidal barrage project. Generally, the major concern was

attributed to the potential impacts of the barrage on the marine habitat, biodiversity, and

sedimentation. Other biophysical impacts that arose in conversation included the

barrage’s effects on tidal range changes, the anchoring of the barrage to either side of the

bay, and the access of traditional fish in and out of the enclosed basin. Although many of

the concerns were regarding the biotic and abiotic components of the environment,

Wayne Groszko had other concerns regarding the amount of electricity being produced,

where the energy would fit into the market, and the overall lack of government

integration (Abreu, Graham, & Groszko, personal communication, March 5, 2014).

Overall, the coordinators personal stances were not in favour of the Halcyon Tidal

Project. The coordinators thought that megaprojects “do not fit in the picture” of Nova

Scotia’s future renewable energy mix (Abreu, Graham, & Groszko, personal


24

communication, March 5, 2014). Catherine Abreu stated that Nova Scotia should move

away from coal and fossil fuel energy sources due to the environmental and human health

impacts from the emission of GHGs. However, she continued to say, “what Nova Scotia

needs is a system of diverse forms of renewable energy to increase resiliency and control

GHG emissions. The Halcyon barrage megaproject is too big, and does not make the

system more dynamic, diverse, or resilient” (Abreu, personal communication, March 5,

2014). The coordinators feel that an integrated, small-scale, diverse renewable energy

mix will help the province become more resilient, while still lowering GHGs. In addition,

smaller-scale projects would foster a more participatory, democratic approach to energy

in Nova Scotia (Abreu, Graham, & Groszko, personal communication, March 5, 2014).

Aboriginal Perspective

Although no Mi’kmaq First Nations were interviewed, the perspective is an

important contribution to the possible implementation of the project. As part of the

process for obtaining a Letter of Authority for a marine license from the Government of

Nova Scotia, tidal developers have a duty to engage with the First Nations of Nova

Scotia. To initiate the engagement process, the proponent should contact the Chiefs and

Council of the surrounding First Nations communities (NSOAA, 2009). With regards to

the Halcyon barrage, the Mi’kmaq communities nearest the proposed project include the

Glooscap and Annapolis Valley First Nations.


25

In 2009, the Province, in

partnership with Offshore Energy

Environmental Research Association

and the developers at FORCE,

commissioned a Mi’kmaq Ecological

Knowledge Study (MEKS) in the

Minas Channel and Minas Basin

(MGC, 2009). The MEKS provides

ecological data that is significant to

Mi’kmaq society while adding to the ecological understandings of this area as it relates to

future tidal energy projects.

Phase 1 of the MEKS consisted of two major components:

1) Mi’kmaq Traditional Land and Resource Use Activities, both past and present,

and;

2) Mi’kmaq Significance Species Analysis, considering the resources that are

important to Mi’kmaq use (MGC, 2009).

This study reported that two significant archeological sites were identified along

the shores of Scots Bay. In addition, traditional use activities, including harvesting of fish

species, plants and animals, continue to occur in the area (MCG, 2009).

With regards to food resources, traditional hunting species and dulse gathering

areas were identified as present along the shores of Scots Bay. However, Lobster,

Flounder, and Mackerel were identified as the resources most prevalent for use, with

Figure 8: Study Area of MEKS (red line represents location of

proposed tidal barrage) Source: http://fundyforce.ca/wp-

content/uploads/2012/05/K-Phase-I-MEKS-EAA.pdf


26

commercial and sustenance fishing activities occurring in and around Scots Bay. Loss of

any species or destruction of habitat occurring during the construction, operation, and

decommissioning of the project could have a significant impact on Mi’kmaq use. The

MEKS recommended “that the proponent meet with the Assembly of Nova Scotia

Mi’kmaq Chiefs to determine possible future steps to be taken in regards to Mi’kmaq use

of the area” (MCG, 2009, p.55).

First Nations communities would benefit from becoming more familiar with

training and employment opportunities in the renewable energy field (Campbell, 2011).

A survey completed by Campbell (2011) reported that the majority of band employees in

Nova Scotia Mi’kmaq communities are not familiar with renewable energy development,

education, training or development potential. Aboriginal workers in Canada are among

the fastest growing labour pool (Robinson, 2007). The higher than average growth rates

and much younger median age present a potential renewable energy workforce

(Campbell, 2011). There is a prevailing necessity for Mi’kmaq communities to become

more familiar with the business and technical aspects of renewable energy.

This specific case presents challenges, but also significant opportunities for

collaboration between the proponent and surrounding Mi’kmaq communities. Any loss

occurred to current Mi’kmaq fishing activities imposed by the project could severely

impact its realization. However, with the high unemployment rates that First Nations

face, it would seem that this is the “perfect opportunity to be engaging with this industry

to find a way to work together to meet each other’s needs, especially as wind or marine

renewable energy opportunities are expected to be significant over the next few decades”

(Campbell, 2011, p.83). The employment of a negotiated agreement in this particular case


27

could serve as means to create a comprehensive and meaningful relationship between the

proponent and the Mi’kmaq communities.

The inclusion of multiple stakeholders in a project of this scale can be

overwhelming yet beneficial. It is important that Halcyon take into account the many

voices of those that will be affected by this project and consult and collaborate when

possible. From this, Halcyon may gain local support and knowledge, as well as Mi’kmaq

partnerships that may ease the implementation of the project.

Consultation and Media Influence

The Halcyon tidal project proposed for Scots Bay has proven to be a contentious

topic amongst many stakeholders. Exacerbating this contention is predisposed media

coverage and poor public consultation performed by the proponent. Poor public

consultation may lead to a proponent becoming ostracized by a community (Lynch,

2014). Conversely, the media has the ability to affect perceptions of the dominant opinion

within communities, which can in turn direct policy change and decisions (Mutz & Soss,

1997). Both of these factors have the potential to alter opinion and affect the progress of

development projects (Mutz & Soss, 1997; Lynch, 2014).

Halcyon Tidal Power held a public meeting in Wolfville on February 4, 2014.

This was announced in an article published by the Chronicle Herald titled “U.S. tidal

project goes to public” (Bundale, 2014), which immediately highlighted the proponent as

being non-local. The public meeting itself was constructed in such a way that one half

was a formal presentation while the other half was a ‘Q&A’ session. There was no


28

facilitator present during the meeting; instead, Halcyon CEO Ted Verrill and lead

engineer Dr. Ramez Atiya conducted the meeting.

Tensions arose early on, as there was not enough seating or space to

accommodate the large number of people wishing to attend the meeting. The presentation

was interrupted frequently by people who seemed anxious about many of the

environmental implications of Halcyon’s proposed project. In the end, the format of the

meeting fell into disarray, as people were eager to make their opinions clear rather than

ask questions.

It was apparent that this public engagement method was not executed effectively

, leaving people confused and frustrated. This was confirmed by a number of

newspaper articles published shortly after the public meeting, such as the Chronicle

Herald’s “Tidal power proposal for Scots Bay meets with skepticism” (Delaney, 2014)

and Kings County News’ “Lots of questions for tidal power proponents at Halcyon

meeting” (Elliot, 2014). During future events, Halcyon should assure that public

consultation is performed in a manner that both informs the public and invites a civil

relationship between community and proponent.

Environmental Impacts and Risks

There are a number of potential biophysical impacts embedded in the construction

and operation of Halcyon’s proposed tidal barrage in Scots Bay. Since the project is still

in its infancy, baseline studies have not yet been conducted in the area. However,

information collected from the public meeting, interviews, previous studies (e.g. Bay of

Fundy SEA), and various other sources of literature allowed identification of biophysical


29

impacts and risks that could arise from the implementation of a tidal barrage in Scots

Bay. The following section presents the potential physical and biological effects of the

project on the environment in Scots Bay and the associated impacts to marine species.

The section concludes with a discussion on the possible benefits that a large marine

renewable energy project could have on the environment.

Physical Effects

The physical impacts and water quality implications associated with the

implementation of a barrage in Scots Bay will inevitably have dramatic, lasting

environmental effects in the area. The design of the barrage is meant to mimic the natural

tides and volume of water flooding in and out of the basin; it is imperative that these

design elements are not compromised. If these characteristics are not maintained, other,

detrimental impacts could result.

Sedimentation and the effects of the implementation of the barrage on other

natural processes are of major concern to many stakeholders. The design of the barrage

must account for the sediment transport in this particular bay (Kadiri, Ahmadian,

Bockelmann-Evans, Rauen, & Falconer, 2012). An inventory of streams and rivers on the

basin side of the barrage should be completed in order to better understand sediment

transport within the basin. Halcyon CTO, Dr. Atiya, stated in the public meeting that, “as

far as sedimentation, the barrage will move the entire volume of water, entering and

exiting the basin, and therefore there will not be an effect on sedimentation as the

residency time remains unchanged,” (Atiya, public meeting, February 4, 2014). He also

stated that comparisons from computer modeling would be completed in order to account


30

for this important variable. Halcyon needs to investigate baseline sedimentation rates

within the basin, as well as flow patterns, and how those will change prior to construction

in order to anticipate future build-ups and evolving adverse impacts.

Water Quality

The alteration of the flow of water in and out of the basin could significantly

impact the nature and use of Scots Bay. As shown in Figure 7, the design is intended to

mimic the tides very closely with only a single hour delay from the natural flow. An

important component of this design is the maintenance of the natural volume of flow in

and out of the bay. If this were not maintained, as with existing tidal barrage

constructions, various other characteristics of the bay could be altered. This may include

salinity, dissolved oxygen, metal concentrations, nutrient concentrations, and pathogens

(Kadiri et al, 2012). . Therefore, the flow of water through the barrage is a crucial

characteristic in determining numerous impacts of the barrage.

Sedimentation

The effect of the barrage on sediment transport in Scots Bay and potential for

sediment build up is of concern. If the design of the barrage does not sufficiently account

for the sediment transport in this particular bay, a build up could occur in the intertidal

range behind the barrage (Greenberg & Amos, 1983; Kadiri et al., 2012). A source of

sediment and a reduced flow of water entering and exiting the bay are key elements of

this sediment build up (Kadiri et al., 2012). Therefore, the nature of the issue for Scots

Bay would depend on the volume of streams depositing into the bay and whether the


31

design maintained the natural flow. Flow patterns within the bay would also affect where

and how sedimentation buildup occurs (Kadiri et al., 2012).

Biological Effects

Effects on the Benthic Community

Halcyon Tidal Power (2013) aims to reduce the environmental impact of its

barrage through its modular design and pile supported construction. The modular

components would be constructed in the marine environment and then floated to the site.

However, alteration of the benthic environment will inevitably occur during the in situ

pile supported construction of the barrage (Halcyon Tidal Power, 2013).

A local study of the Scots Bay area performed by Wildish et al. (1986) found the

Bay to be highly productive with regards to suspension-feeders, and less productive with

regards to deposit-feeders. Deposit feeders that are present in the bay are able to

withstand high tidal energy by either burrowing deep into the benthos or having a body

structure that can withstand the high tidal velocity (Wildish & Kristmanson, 2005).

Wildish et al. (1986) predicted that a barrage placed in Cobequid Bay would result in

Scots Bay becoming a net sedimentation area. This, in turn, would result in an increase in

the number of deposit-feeders, and a decrease in the number of suspension-feeders

(Wildish et al., 1986).

The proposed Severn tidal project, located in the United Kingdom, has been

described as having similar project characteristics to that of the proposed Scots Bay

project (Dadswell & Rulifson, 1994). The sea bed in the Severn estuary has mostly been

scoured to bedrock with boulders and large stones, due to the high mobilization of


32

sediment resulting from the powerful tides (Mettam et al., 1994). After the imposition of

a barrage, it is predicted that the benthic communities would be redistributed, with

species that are less tolerant of high bed-stress migrating to the area (Mettam et al.,

1994). In addition, species that have a higher tolerance of suspended sediments may

migrate to the area (Mettam et al., 1994). The addition of the barrage may create a more

diverse and productive benthos once constructed (Mettam et al., 1994). It should be noted

that the Severn estuary experiences a mixing of salt and fresh water, while Scots Bay is

primarily salt water (Mettam et al., 1994; Wildish et al., 1986). Therefore, though the

areas have been labeled as similar, there would be slight differences in the benthos with

the imposition of a barrage as a result of the differences in the two ecosystems.

Halcyon explains that the barrage would result in zero sedimentation (Halcyon

Tidal Power, 2013). However, even small changes to the sedimentation load may result in

suspension-feeders being replaced by deposit feeders (Wildish et al., 1986). Based on the

literature, if a closed tidal barrage were constructed in Scots Bay, there would likely be a

change in the species composition of the benthic environment due to factors such as

changes in sedimentation and tidal velocity (Mettam et al., 1994; Wildish et al., 1986).

Effects on Fish

Many species of fish, both migratory and non-migratory, exist in Scots Bay

(Dadswell & Rulifson, 1994). These include Atlantic herring, American shad, cod,

striped bass, and alewife (Dadswell & Rulifson, 1994). Constraining access to spawning

grounds through the implementation of a barrage has the potential to impact population

levels of certain species (Frid et al., 2012). In addition, tides and currents are important


33

for distributing larvae and young (Dadswell & Rulifson, 1994). A barrage may impact

these distributions, and may negatively affect those species that rely on larvae and young

as their primary food source (Dadswell & Rulifson, 1994).

According to Dadswell & Rulifson (1994), tidal power is expected to have the

greatest impact on pelagic species that are required to pass through the barrage, and

therefore turbines, a number of times. The authors explain that fish may be injured or

killed from turbines as a result of four main instances: mechanical strike, shear, pressure

flux, and cavitation. Mechanical strike occurs when a fish comes in contact with a solid

object, usually the blade of the turbine and can result in lacerations and abrasions. Shear

occurs when a fish is caught between two water streams that are traveling at different

velocities. Some affects from shear include decapitation and torn opercula. A pressure

flux is the result of pressure changes in the turbine draft tube. These changes are often

rapid, resulting in burst swim bladders and popped eyes. Lastly, cavitation occurs when

there is a change in pressure and bubbles are formed. A shock wave is created once the

bubbles implode, which can fragment metal particles from the turbines. Cavitation may

subject fish to internal hemorrhages (Dadswell & Rulifson, 1994).

Halcyon Tidal Power (2013) addresses two of the four mortality and injury agents

with regards to their turbine design. Halcyon has reduced the number of impeller blades

from an industry standard of four to three, and has reduced the speed of the blades to 92

rpm. Halcyon argues that these changes will reduce the risk of mechanical strikes

experienced by the marine life in the bay. The lower speed of the blades would also

reduce the water pressure gradient, which would in turn reduce damage to fish bladders.

In addition, the edges of the blades have been thickened, again reducing the risk of


34

mechanical strike, and allowing the fish to slide off the blades (Halcyon Tidal Power,

2013).

Dr. Ramez Atiya estimates that a fish one metre in length has an approximate

70% chance of survival while passing through the blades. Dr. Atiya estimates that with

the thickened blades, fish that are 30 to 40 cm in length will experience zero mortality

(Halcyon Tidal Power, 2013).

Effects on Marine Mammals & Seabirds

A wide range of marine mammals are found in the outer Bay of Fundy area, but

there is little data on the temporal presence and activity of marine mammals in the upper

Bay of Fundy (OEER, 2008). Harbour porpoise are listed by COSEWIC as a species of

special concern and represent the most commonly occurring species of cetacean in Minas

Passage/Basin (Wood et al., 2013). In addition, Minas Basin and Cobequid Bay are

regularly visited by harbour seals and longfin pilot whales. Grey seals, humpback and

minke whales, and white-sided dolphins are also seen in Minas Basin (OEER, 2008).

Background studies have compiled a list of five mammals, eight birds and nine

fish that occur in the Bay of Fundy, and have been designated as species at risk (OEER,

2008). Principal species at risk in the Minas Basin area are the Atlantic Salmon and the

Porbeagle Shark, listed as Endangered by COSEWIC, and the striped bass, listed as

Threatened. Species that have been assessed but are not legally listed include the Harbour

porpoise and the Atlantic Sturgeon (Threatened) (DFO, 2014).

Drilling/ Noise


35

The process of drilling numerous piles into the seabed to support the structure will

cause vibrations. The underwater noise may have effects on marine mammals depending

on the intensity of the noise and distance between the animal and the source (Bailey et

al., 2010). Auditory injury and behaviour modifications of marine mammal populations

in the area could result from these activities (Bailey et al., 2010). Since the construction

is so large and the drilling of piles would occur numerous times over the span of the 10

km dam, the potential for impacts should be carefully evaluated.

The scope of the impact depends on the many site-specific variables (Folegot,

2012). It also depends on the specific species being impacted, as the hearing in marine

mammals, birds and fish vary greatly. Acoustic impacts can be divided into the following

broad categories: masking, behaviour disturbance, hearing loss (temporary or permanent)

and injury (up to a lethal level) (MERiFIC, 2012). Acoustically sensitive species like

marine mammals (Nowacek et al., 2007) could suffer hearing problems such as changes

in their hearing thresholds (Madsen et al., 2006). Behavioral responses are varied,

ranging from jumpstarts and change of direction to deeper disturbances that could impact

key factors of survival (temporary or permanent abandonment of an area, eating disorders,

reproductive disorders etc.) (Thomsen et al., 2006). The most intense noise will most

likely be generated from the driving of piles during construction. Noise during the

operational phase is likely to be less intrusive (Inger et al., 2009), but could affect species

that use sonar to pursue prey or affect communication between animals, or have indirect

effects on the distribution and abundance of prey species (OEER, 2008). Significantly

more research is needed to determine the potential for chronic, long-term effects (Inger et

al., 2009). Studies are needed to determine the effects of chronic and long-term risks,


36

which depend on the frequency of the noise, the energy emitted and the hearing range of

the species (Slabbekoorn et al., 2010).

Collision

The proposed barrage would incorporate 304 rotating turbines (Halcyon Tidal

Power, 2013), which have the potential to seriously injure or kill organisms (Inger et al.,

2009). The presence of rotors is an obstacle to free movement of mobile species. Halcyon

indicated that the turbines are inherently low-kill, having a 30% kill rate for one pass of a

1-metre animal (Halcyon Tidal Power, 2013). One of the greatest concerns is the

possibility of impacts with rotor blades from large (2-metre) animals like Harbour

porpoises. The placement of the barrage requires that animals that enter will have to exit

through the turbine, doubling the chances of collision. Fraenkel (2006) stated that tidal

energy converter turbines that have low rotational speeds (c. 15 rpm) are unlikely to

cause injury during a collision event. However, Halcyon’s turbine speed was stated to be

limited to 92 rpm, so the likelihood to cause injury is undetermined. Little is known about

the potential for collision between submarine animals and turbines. Sound emitted by the

blade rotation could cause a flight reaction and may reduce (or possibly eliminate) the

risk of collision (Linley et al., 2009).

To date, no work has quantified the potential collision risks to marine birds

associated with marine renewable energy technologies. Risk will be highest when marine

birds are diving for prey. It is important therefore to understand the distribution and

behaviour of prey species in response to these devices, to allow a better understanding of

the potential conflicts between marine birds and turbines (Grecian et al., 2010).


37

Cables and Electromagnetism

Cables used to transmit energy to the onshore transmission network will produce

electromagnetic fields, which may have the potential to affect magneto-sensitive species

such as bony fish, elasmobranchs, sea turtles, and marine mammals (Witt et al., 2012).

However, evidence for actual effects of electromagnetism remains poor, and future

research is needed.

Lighting

Like any structures at sea, marine renewable energy devices should be identifiable

in order to ensure their visibility to maritime vessels. A variety of marine organisms are

attracted to marine light sources (Marchesan et al., 2005, Harewood & Horrocks, 2008),

which could cause an increase in collision risks (Inger et al. 2009). Additionally,

migration of birds may be disrupted by exposure to light at night (MERiFIC, 2012).

Marine Protected Areas

The possibility of fishing gear collision and entanglement with the installation

means that, even without regulation, it will not be possible to fish within the immediate

vicinity of the project. This large installation may be enclosed within enforced exclusion

zones for both safety and protection of the installations and may act as de facto marine-

protected areas to most fisheries (Inger et al., 2009). This could subsequently aid in the

conservation of species at risk through the protection of commercial prey species.


38

Environmental Benefits

Carbon Payback and Reduction Potential

As complex and challenging as the biological and physical ramifications of such

projects are, the type and scale of the Scots Bay tidal barrage imply environmental

benefits that should not be ignored. The renewable and low-carbon intensity benefits of

the proposed Scots Bay tidal barrage oppose the negative impacts of other non-renewable

energies on the environment, giving rise to potential tradeoffs between the environmental

harms and benefits of large marine renewable energy projects.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) posits that it is very

likely that over half of the global mean surface temperature increase since the mid-20th

century is due to the rise in anthropogenic GHG emissions (Bindoff et al., 2013).

Although Nova Scotia has been steadily decreasing its GHG emissions (i.e. mercury,

sulphur dioxide, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen oxide) since 2005, the province still emits

several million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) each year from its thermal

generation stations (i.e. 4 coal plants, 1 natural gas plant, and 3 oil combustion turbines)

(NSPI, 2014b). Quantifying CO2e emissions into potential impacts on climate change

does not fit the scope of this study; however, comparing the similar capacities and

relative emissions output of Nova Scotia’s coal generating stations and the proposed

Scots Bay tidal barrage highlights the obvious benefits of clean energy. For example, the

capacity of coal plants in Nova Scotia is 1252 MW, which is only 152 MW greater than

the 1100 MW capacity of the Scots Bay tidal barrage. In 2012, coal power generation

emitted 6,354,196 tonnes of CO2e, whereas the Scots Bay tidal barrage would have

emitted zero tonnes of CO2e (NSPI, 2014c). This does not suggest that marine renewable


39

energy development is entirely GHG free, only that the operation phase of tidal projects

are without emissions.

Since there are no direct GHG emissions from the generation of tidal energy, any

emissions must come as a result of indirect sources. Considering the lifecycle of barrages

it is clear that all of the associated GHG emissions of tidal power generation are

embedded in the construction and decommissioning of projects. Unfortunately, there is

no data available for the potential emissions related to the lifecycle of the Scots Bay tidal

barrage, so any inferences made on its GHG emissions must be made by comparison.

The Severn estuary in the UK has had several proposed tidal energy projects.

Looking at two similar projects to the Scots Bay tidal barrage gives insight into the

potential carbon payback period of Halcyon’s project. According to the Sustainable

Development Commission (2007), the Cardiff-Weston barrage and the Shoots barrage

proposals are projected to have a carbon payback of five to eight months. Carbon

payback can be thought of as the time it takes a renewable energy project to produce the

equivalent amount of carbon-producing energy it used during its construction. It can then

be inferred that the carbon payback period for the Scots Bay project would be similar to

the proposed Severn projects. This is due to the relative generation capacity of the Severn

proposals to the Scots Bay tidal barrage. The Cardiff-Weston barrage (8640 MW) is

much larger than the Shoots barrage (1050 MW), and, although the Scots Bay barrage

(1100 MW) does not have a much greater capacity than the Shoots proposal, it is

projected to be about 6 km longer. Halcyon’s project would use different construction

methodologies than these barrages, but its size and generation capacity fall in the middle


40

of the proposed Severn projects, suggesting a similar carbon payback period (Sustainable

Development Commission, 2007).

In the end, tidal energy projects, like the Scots Bay barrage, have significant

carbon reduction potential by either displacing the capacity at an existing carbon emitting

plant or displacing the need for a new plant to be created (Sustainable Development

Commission, 2007). However, these potential environmental benefits need to be taken

into consideration along with the physical and biological impacts a tidal barrage would

have on the environment. It is recommended that Halcyon explore the potential carbon

payback of the Scots Bay tidal barrage in order to fully understand the tradeoffs between

the barrage’s environmental benefits and impacts.

Law and Policy

In this section of the report, we provide an overview of the current and future law

and policy implications for the project. First, the roles of governing bodies are outlined in

the Constitutional Context, followed by a summary of the current laws that govern

electricity in Canada and the province of Nova Scotia. We then provide an overview of

other possible legislation and regulatory systems that could apply, focusing on the joint

environmental assessment process. Finally, we explore the current permitting processes

for tidal energy developments, the role of future marine renewable energy legislation in

Nova Scotia, and how these will influence the realization of Halcyon’s proposed

development.

The Constitutional Context


41

Federal

As stated under section 91 (10) of the Constitution Act (1867), federal jurisdiction

extends to all navigation and shipping. The planned construction of the project is to be

done at sea. The pieces would then be floated and towed via the marine environment to

Scots Bay, where it would be assembled. A similar process would occur after the 120-

year economic life, where the project would be disassembled and floated away (Halcyon

Tidal Power, 2013). Therefore, the beginning and end of the project’s life would fall

under federal legislative authority.

The tidal project would produce an average of 1100 MW of energy (Halcyon

Tidal Power, 2013). This is approximately half of Nova Scotia’s winter energy demand

of 2300 MW, which drops to approximately 850 MW in the summer (NSDOE, 2010a) .

This, in combination with the recently developed Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project,

which would produce an average 824 MW (Nalcor Energy, 2014), suggests that energy

produced at the barrage will be exported elsewhere. Once the electricity crosses the

provincial boundary, it then falls under federal jurisdiction (Constitution Act, 1867).

Provincial

The determination of which waters fall within a province is central to whether a

province has jurisdiction over them for the purpose of production of tidal power (Doelle

et al., 2006). The general rule is that "inland waters" such as harbours, bays, estuaries and

other waters lying "between the jaws of the land" are waters within the province

(Constitution Act, 1867). Scots Bay is therefore considered as provincial waters, and the


42

power to grant private rights (i.e. leasehold rights) belongs to the province of Nova

Scotia; nevertheless, grants of land by the Province are still subject to federal regulatory

control.

Additionally, section 92A(l)(c) of the Constitution Act (1867) provides the basis

for provincial jurisdiction over the production of tidal power within the province: In each

province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to... (c) development,

conservation and management of sites and facilities in the province for the generation and

production of electrical energy.

Laws that Govern Electricity

Federal

National Energy Board Act

The National Energy Board (NEB) governs with the authority of the National

Energy Board Act (1985). The NEB is usually responsible for overseeing projects that are

of an interprovincial or international nature (Doelle et al., 2006). The National Energy

Board Act (1985) would apply if the construction and decommissioning phase of the

project crossed provincial boundaries, or if interprovincial, or international transmission

lines were constructed. The project is likely to require export of the electricity to another

province or internationally, which would involve the NEB. As such, the project would

likely require permits from the NEB that can be subject to terms and conditions to respect

the regulations or protect the public interest (Doelle et al., 2006).

Provincial


43

Electricity Act

The Electricity Act (2004) plays a central role in the structure of the framework

around the generation of electricity from renewable sources. Firstly, it gives authority for

the creation of the Renewable Electricity Regulations. Secondly, the Act requires NSPI to

file an Open Access Transmission Tariff. This serves to open the electricity market for

more import and export opportunities with other provinces and internationally. This

opens the door for Halcyon to sell electricity from the barrage to NSPI or any of the

municipal suppliers (Doelle et al., 2006).

Energy Resources Conservation Act

The Energy Resources Conservation Act (1989) aims to encourage and regulate

the implementation of efficient practices in the exploration for and development,

production, transmission, and transportation of energy resources. It also serves to

appraise resources and associated markets as well as provide for the economic

development in the public interest of energy resources. As such, this Act could clearly

pertain to the proposed development of the tidal resource in Scots Bay. However, this Act

has largely been applied to regulate the oil and gas sector, and as such may or may not be

invoked for this renewable energy project (Doelle et al., 2006).

Public Utilities Act

The UARB in Nova Scotia serves to enforce regulation based on the Public

Utilities Act (1989). These powers do not appear to extend to the market involving

private producers of tidal electricity at the moment. This could affect who is able to


44

determine what price would be paid for the electricity if this project proceeded. The Act

may apply in various ways to this project depending on the parties involved and the

construction process (Doelle et al., 2006).

Renewable Electricity Regulations

Nova Scotia introduced the Renewable Electricity Regulations in 2004 under the

authority of the Electricity Act (2004). These Regulations include the renewable

electricity standards, the feed-in-tariff program, and procurement of renewable low-

impact electricity as well as records, audits, recording, enforcement and appeals. This is a

significant document that may apply to this particular project in numerous ways

depending on how Halcyon decides to proceed.

A feed-in-tariff is not likely to be applicable for this project since it has such a

large generating capacity. The Renewable Energy Standard Regulations, a component of

the Renewable Electricity Regulations, set required contributions of renewable energies

that each load-serving entity must supply for the years 2011-2020. If the Province’s

suppliers were struggling to meet this requirement, it could produce a market for

Halcyon’s power.

Other Federal & Provincial Legislation and Regulatory Systems

The Fisheries Act (1985) will be triggered if the project results in serious harm to

fish that are a part of a commercial, recreational, or Aboriginal fishery, or fish that

support one of these fisheries, as stated in s. 35 (1). However, the Minster may authorize

the proponent to do so, as stated in s. 35 (2) (b) of the Act (1985). Furthermore, s. 36 (3)


45

of the Act (1985) would apply if deleterious substances were deposited in the water

during the barrage’s construction, operation, or decommissioning, unless Halcyon was

authorized to do so, as stated in s. 36 (5). The Species at Risk Act (2002) may be triggered

if a listed endangered or threatened species is potentially impacted by the project. The

Navigable Waters Protection Act (1985) would apply to this project, as the Bay of Fundy

is included in the definition of navigable waters, as stated in s. 2 of the Act. Lastly, the

Scots Bay tidal project is expected to require a federal EIA, as the project is likely to have

environmental effects, as outlined in s. 5 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

(2012).

The Province’s Endangered Species Act (1998) may be triggered if any listed

species were to be impacted by the project. Sections 13 and 14 of the Act include the key

provisions on prohibitions and permits with respect to listed species. The environmental

assessment (EA) process pursuant to Part IV of the Nova Scotia Environment Act (NSEA,

1994-95), could apply to tidal energy projects in the Bay of Fundy pursuant to section 31,

as such projects generally fall within the definition of "undertaking" according to section

3(az) of the Act. Provisions for EA are found in the Environmental Assessment

Regulations made under section 49 of the Environment Act (1994-95).

Environmental Assessment

Tidal projects with a production rating of at least two MW are currently listed

under Class I of undertakings in Schedule A of the Environmental Assessment

Regulations. However, the Minister may determine that this project falls under a Class II

undertaking due to its uniquely large size and power generation potential. In either case, a


46

registration document must be submitted to the environmental assessment branch, which

involves the consideration of both environmental and socio-economic effects of the

project. A recommendation is provided to the Minister of Environment in a report

summarizing the issues and comments (including those from the public) for the

Minister’s consideration. The Minister may then approve or reject the project, or request

additional information (NSE, 2013).

A likely scenario for this project is a joint assessment between provincial and

federal regulators, pursuant to section 47 of the NSEA. The legislative process for a

harmonized environmental assessment can vary from provincial and federal guidelines to

ensure that all requirements for each party are fulfilled (NSE, 2013). Consideration of

how to design a consistent and effective environmental review process that encompasses

both provincial and federal environmental regulatory requirements is currently being

considered for marine renewable energy legislation for Nova Scotia (NSDOE, 2010b).

Current License, Permit, & Approval Process

Developers of marine renewable energy do not yet have a clear regulatory path set

forth for the licensing, permitting, and approvals of tidal energy projects in Nova Scotia

or Canada. Marine renewable energy projects can potentially trigger at least twelve

provincial legislative acts and ten federal legislative acts, which are mandated by a

variety of departments and agencies (NSDOE, 2010a) (see Appendix II for a list of

legislation, or Legislation and Regulatory Systems for a brief overview). The cross-

jurisdictional nature of marine renewable energy creates an overlap of federal and


47

provincial interests that make the permitting and approval process for such projects

convoluted and potentially inefficient.

As it stands, developers must acquire the appropriate statutory permits and

approvals from municipal, provincial, and federal authorities prior to construction and

operation of a tidal energy project. For example, developers may need to apply for

permits in order to conduct environmental assessments at the federal and provincial levels

(NSDOE, 2010a). Applications may also be required to departments, like the Nova Scotia

Department of Energy, for electricity standard approval (Renewable Electricity

Regulations) or to boards, like the Nova Scotia UARB, for approval of schedule of rates

and charges of utility (Public Utilities Act, 1989). The multiple permits and approvals

that may be required to develop a project varies depending on the type and scale of the

project, and to what level of government is involved. However, this process cannot be

initiated until the developer is in possession of a site license or lease.

To use submerged Crown land in Nova Scotia, developers require authorization

from the Department of Natural Resources, in the form of a Letter of Authority (NSDOE,

2012). Obtaining a Letter of Authority, which is the acting measure in place of a proper

licensing system, requires developers to engage in the appropriate amount of consultation

with the public and First Nations (Mi’kmaq) of Nova Scotia. After which the developer

must submit a thorough project plan to the Nova Scotia Departments of Natural

Resources and Energy (NSDOE, 2012; NSDOE, 2010a). If awarded a Letter of

Authority, developers can begin the application process for the permits and approvals

mentioned above, which is coordinated by an informal One Window Standing Committee

made of the applicable federal and provincial departments (NSDOE, 2012; NSDOE,


48

2010a). Barring any adverse environmental, social, or economic effects, a tidal energy

project could then be approved for construction.

Future License, Permit, & Approval Process Considerations

Marine renewable energy legislation is currently being developed in Nova Scotia,

which will help integrate and strategically organize the licensing, permitting, and

approval process for tidal energy projects. Although it is not yet enacted, marine

renewable energy legislation will potentially include two licensing systems. A

Technology Development License and a Power Development License will be the

essential tools for defining project specific obligations, the latter of which applies to

larger energy projects, like tidal barrages (NSDOE, 2012). The Power Development

License will require a developer to commit to numerical and physical modeling, as well

as independent environmental panel review. If awarded the Power Development License,

the developer will be permitted to begin the process of acquiring an option to lease or

Letter of Authority from the Province, by building a case and filing a project description

for an environmental assessment process (NSDOE, 2012).

The proposed licensing system is similar to two-step tenure processes already

implemented in the UK, Ireland, and the US (NSDOE, 2010a). The Power Development

License acts as a conditional lease, whereby the developer can implement the appropriate

studies for project planning and apply for permits and approvals. Upon acceptance of the

project description and appropriate statutory permits, the developer may be awarded a

commercial lease to begin construction (NSDOE, 2010a).


49

Halcyon Tidal Power’s Current Status

It is not entirely clear at which point in the license, permit, and approval process

Halcyon Tidal Power is currently. In a letter, dated January 7, 2013, to Halcyon’s CEO

Ted Verrill and Chairman, Dr. Ramez Atiya, from the Department of Energy, it is

understood that Halcyon has requested to begin the process for acquiring a Letter of

Authority. Halcyon Tidal Power has begun consultation with local residents and the

Mi’kmaq communities; however, Department of Energy Minister, Andrew Younger, has

made it clear that there has been no formal proposal to any provincial department

regarding the Scots Bay tidal barrage. As such, it is safe to speculate that Halcyon Tidal

Power is currently in the planning and project design phase, which suggests that this

project is in the very early stages of development.

The implementation of marine renewable energy legislation will help streamline

and integrate facets of the license, permit, and approval process for future tidal energy

developers in Nova Scotia. Developing a two-step tenure process, as implemented

elsewhere, will clearly establish the regulatory steps forward for companies like Halcyon

Tidal Power.

Marine Renewable Energy Legislation

Marine renewable resources have the potential to provide an inexhaustible supply

of green energy. Although the marine renewable industry has many positives, it also

poses many challenges, such as: multi-jurisdictional complexities; a complex regulatory

environment; development in a unique marine environment; as well as the implications


50

for Aboriginal, commercial and recreational users of the marine ecosystem (NSDOE,

2010b).

The framework for development of Nova Scotia’s marine renewable energy

industry outlines an adaptive approach to developing the industry (NSDOE, 2010b). The

first stage includes a strategic environmental assessment (SEA) to assess environmental

and social impacts of marine renewable energy projects (NSDOE, 2010b), which has

been previously completed for the Bay of Fundy. This stage is followed by a planning

phase, necessary to obtain specific regulatory approvals and permits prior to

development. Next, a research and development stage is meant to build on expertise in

the adaptation of technologies, and finally a commercial phase, meant for fully developed

projects, will have outlined a price and market for that electricity (NSDOE, 2010b).

The Future for Halcyon Tidal Power

Understanding the state of Nova Scotia’s marine renewable energy sector and the

goals and strategies outlined by the Province will help to determine whether the project

proposed from Halcyon Tidal Power fits within the Province’s future energy mix.

Halcyon must proceed by understanding the Province’s projected goals in order to fit into

the supplier development plan and isolate a market for the vast amount of energy

attempting to be introduced into the grid. Furthermore, the government must get

involved with the Halcyon project in order to properly traverse the complex future

legislative and regulatory environment, as well as help in completing an environmental

assessment and necessary consultation processes. The perspective of the Province, with

regards to how they see the future of renewable energy in Nova Scotia, is the most


51

important as it will ultimately determine whether this proposed project is accepted,

meeting all the requirements outlined within the renewable and marine renewable energy

plan and strategies. In-stream tidal is currently more favorable in Nova Scotia’s

perspective, as $4 million was given to support the Fundy Ocean Research Center for

Energy, which studies in-stream tidal energy (Vaughn, 2014).

Recommendations

Biophysical Dimension

As this site and project are unique, studies must be completed that are specific to

this proposed barrage to understand the potential impacts and risks associated with

construction and operation. Halcyon Tidal Power has indicated that the proposed study

plan for this project will be very similar to the “Proposed Study Plan” for the

Pennamaquan Tidal Power project (Pennamaquan Tidal Power, 2013). This plan is broad

and as such, if these studies are completed comprehensively for the Scots Bay project, the

physical and biological impacts of the construction could be understood in much greater

depth. Further studies may be important depending on the results of the initial

assessments if particular areas of concern are identified. Given the research discussed in

this report, some key areas of concern have been identified. A set of recommendations

has been summarized in Table 1. If the conditions of the site are thoroughly assessed, it

may be possible for Halcyon to reduce the negative externalities to the point at which the

benefits of the clean energy generated outweigh the costs.

Table 1: Biophysical recommendations for Halcyon.


52

Recommendation

1 Require analysis to be completed on the flow of water through an accurate

model of the design with resulting impacts on water quality parameters

2 Investigate baseline sedimentation within the bay, model flows of water,

anticipate future barrage impacts, and monitor

3 Test turbines for damage and mortality rates towards marine life

4 Species inventory studies, including temporal studies in and around Scots Bay

5 Establish an ongoing database of knowledge about local and migratory species

at risk, mitigative measures

6 Complete acoustic disruption studies, construction and long-term

7 Estimate the carbon payback period for the barrage

Law and Policy Dimension

As discussed, the legislative path forward for Halcyon to pursue this project is

unclear and unstructured. It is recommended that Halcyon construct a detailed plan for all

aspects of the project. This will begin the process of isolating which acts and governing

bodies will be involved. In particular, it is recommended that Halcyon clarify information

regarding the customer for the electricity, transmission lines, and construction processes.

Socio-Political Dimension

The challenges faced by Halcyon regarding the socio-political dimension of this

project are substantial. As discussed, the first public meeting was ineffectual (Lynch,

2014; Isaacman, personal communication, March 6, 2014; Mangle, personal

communication, March 6, 2014); it is thought that this may have increased opposition to

the project. Therefore, it is recommended that Halcyon engage with the public in a more

personal, in-depth manner. Halcyon might consider creating a Community Liaison


53

Committee (CLC) to establish a two-way dialogue between themselves and the public.

Using community members to help gain project buy-in can be an effective means of

public engagement, but a CLC alone does not constitute the entire public engagement

process. Halcyon must admit where they have faltered and continue to explore other

methods of public engagement if they wish to be successful in implementing their tidal

barrage. The consultation process should be easily visible to all stakeholders, allow

access to further knowledge on the project, and provide an avenue for the contribution of

comments or concerns.

Conclusion

As discussed, the project proposed by Halcyon Tidal Energy for Scots Bay is in

the early stages. As such, the information available regarding the potential impacts of this

project is limited and will develop if the project progresses. Additionally, limited

similarities to a small number of constructed projects around the world only allow for

identification of potential areas of concern; there is a limited ability to predict impacts

without comprehensive studies. The undeveloped legislative framework for tidal energy

development in Nova Scotia forces the process to be unclear.

Important aspects of the project have not been established in a manner that would

satisfy the requirements to obtain a Letter of Authority from the Province of Nova Scotia

to proceed to the environmental assessment phase. Of particular concern is the lack of

market identification, strong opposition from community members, and Nova Scotia’s

focus on in-stream tidal energy development. Due to these concerns, it is predicted that

this project will not proceed.


54

References

Bailey, H., Senior, B., Simmons, D., Rusin, J., Picken, G. & Thompson, P.M. (2010).

Assessing underwater noise levels during pile-driving at an offshore windfarm

and its potential effects on marine mammals. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60(6):

888-897.

Bindoff, N.L., P.A. Stott, K.M,. AchutaRao, M.R., Allen, N., Gillett, D., Gutzler, K.,

Hansingo, G., Hegerl, Y., Hu, S., Jain, I.I., Mokhov, J., Overland, J., Perlwitz, R.,

Sebbari & Zhang, X. (2013). Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from

Global to Regional. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K.

Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M.

Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and

New York, NY, USA.

Bundale, B. (2014). U.S. tidal project goes to public, The Chronicle Herald. Retrieved

from http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1179369-us-tidal-project-goes-to-

public

Campbell, D. (2011). More than wind: Evaluating renewable energy opportunities for

First Nations in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Developed for the Atlantic

Policy Congress of First Nations Chiefs Secretariat, under The Atlantic

Aboriginal Economic Development Integrated Research Program.

http://www.unsi.ns.ca/upload/file/more%20than%20wind%20-

%20evaluating%20renewable%20energy%20opportunities%20for%20first%20na

tions%20in%20nova%20scotia%20and%20new%20brunswick[1].pdf

Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3

Dadswell, M.J. & Rulifson, R.A. (1994). Macrotidal estuaries: A region of collision

between migratory marine animals and tidal power development. Biological

Journal of the Linnean Society, 51: 93–113.

Delaney, G. (2014). Tidal power proposeal for Scots Bay meets with skepticism.

Retrieved from http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1184437-tidal-power-

proposal-for-scots-bay-meets-with-skepticism


55

Doelle, M., Russell, D., Saunders, P., VanderZwaag, D. & Wright, D. (2006). The

regulation of tidal energy development off Nova Scotia: navigating foggy waters.

UNB Law Journal, 55: 27-70.

Electricity Act, SNS 2004, c. 25

Elliott, W. (2014). Lots of questions for tidal power proponents at Halcyon meeting,

Kings County News. Retrieved from

http://www.kingscountynews.ca/News/Local/2014-02-05/article-3604881/Lots-

of-questions-for-tidal-power-proponents-at-Halcyon-meeting/1

Endangered Species Act, SNS 1998, c. 11

Energy Resources Conservation Act, RSNS 1989, c. 147

Environment Act, S.N.S. 1994-95, c. 1

Fisheries Act, RSC 1985, c. F-14

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). (2014). Aquatic Species at Risk. Retrieved from

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/listing-eng.htm

Folegot, T. (2012). Ship traffic noise distribution in the Strait of Gibraltar: an exemplary

case for monitoring global ocean noise in real‐time – technology now available

for understanding the effects of noise on marine life. Advances in Experimental

Medicine and Biology Volume, 730: 601-604.

Fraenkel, P. (2006). Tidal current energy technologies. Ibis, 148: 145‐151.

Frid, C., Andonegi, E., Depestele, J., Judd, A., Rihan, D., Rogers, S.I., & Kenchington, E.

(2012). The environmental interactions of tidal and wave energy generation

devices. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 32: 133-139.

Fundy Energy Research Network (FERN). (2010). Mission. Retrieved from

http://fern.acadiau.ca/

Grecian, W.J., Inger, R., Attrill, M.J, Bearhop, S., Godley, B.J., Witt, M.J. & Votier, S.C.

(2010). Potential impacts of wave-powered marine renewable energy installations

on marine birds. Ibis, 152: 683–697.

Greenberg, D.A. & Amos, C.L. (1983). Suspended sediment transport and deposition

modeling in the Bay of Fundy, Nova Scotia-a region of potential tidal power

development. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 40(S1): s20-

s34.


56

Halcyon Tidal Power. (2013). Scotts Bay Project, Bay of Fundy, Nova Scotia. from

http://www.halcyontidalpower.com/projects/scots-bay-ns/

Halcyon Tidal Power, Scots Bay Tidal Power. (2014). Response to questions raised by

"Deny Halcyon".

Harewood, A. & Horrocks, J. (2008) Impacts of coastal development on hawksbill

hatching survival and swimming success during initial offshore migration.

Biological Conservation, 141: 394–401.

Howell, A. & Drake, C. (2012). Scoping Study on Socio-Economic Impacts of Tidal

Energy Development in Nova Scotia: A Research Synthesis & Priorities for

Future Action: FERN Technical Report #2012-01. Wolfville, NS, Fundy Energy

Research Network

Hughes, L. (2007). Energy security in Nova Scotia. Canadian Centre for Policy

Alternatives. Retrieved from

http://kerri.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/Nova_Sco

tia_Pubs/2007/ccpa_ns_energy_security.pdf

Inger, R., Attrill, M.J., Bearhop, S., Broderick, A.C., Grecian, W.J., Hodgson, D.J., Mills,

C., Sheehan, E., Votier, S.C., Witt, M.J. & Godley, B.J. (2009). Marine renewable

energy: potential benefits to biodiversity? An urgent call for research. Journal of

Applied Ecology, 46: 1145–1153.

Linley, A., Laffont, K., Wilson, B., Elliott, M., Perz‐Dominguez, R. & Burdon, D. (2009).

Offshore and Coastal Renewable Energy: Potential ecological benefits and

impacts of large‐scale offshore and coastal renewable energy projects. NERC

Marine Renewables Scoping Study, Final report.

Lynch, M.F. (2014, February). Engaging the Public in the Private Sector. Socio-political

Dimensions of Resource and Environment Management. Lecture conducted from

Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS.

Madsen, P.T., Wahlberg, M., Tougaard, J., Lucke, K. & Tyack, P. (2006). Wind turbine

underwater noise and marine mammals: Implications of current knowledge and

data needs. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 309: 279-295.

Marchesan, M., Spoto, M., Verginella, L. & Ferrero, E.A. (2006) Behavioural effects of

artifical light on fish species of commercial interest. Fisheries Research, 73: 171–

185.

Marine Energy in Far Peripheral and Island Communities (MERiFIC). (2012).

Documentary summary of the environmental impact of renewable marine energy.


57

http://fern.acadiau.ca/custom/fern/document_archive/repository/documents/214.p

df

Membertou Geomatics Consultants (MGC). 2009. Phase I – Bay of Fundy, Nova Scotia

including the Fundy Tidal Energy Demonstration Project Site – Mi’kmaq

ecological knowledge study final report. Retrieved from http://www.oera.ca/wp-

content/uploads/2013/04/MEKS-Phase-I-Final-Report.pdf

Mettam, C., Conneely, M. E. & White, S. J. (1994). Benthic macrofauna and sediments in

the Severn Estuary. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 51: 71–81.

Mutz, D.C. & Soss, J. (1997). Reading public opinion: The influence of news coverage

on perceptions of public sentiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 431-451.

Nalcor Energy. (2014). Muskrat Falls hydroelectric generating facility. Retrieved from

https://muskratfalls.nalcorenergy.com/project-overview/muskrat-falls-

hydroelectric-generation-facility/

National Energy Board Act, RSC 1985, c. N-7

Navigable Waters Protection Act, RSC 1985, c. N-22

Nova Scotia Environment (NSE). (revised 2013). A proponent’s guide to environmental

assessment. Retrieved from https://www.novascotia.ca/nse/ea/docs/EA.Guide-

Proponents.pdf

Nova Scotia Department of Energy (NSDOE). (2012). Marine Renewable Energy

Strategy. Retrieved from https://www.gov.ns.ca/energy

Nova Scotia Department of Energy (NSDOE. (2010a). Renewable electricity plan.

Retrieved from

https://www.novascotia.ca/energy/resources/EM/renewable/renewable-electricity-

plan.pdf

Nova Scotia Department of Energy (NSDOE). (2010b). Marine Renewable Energy

Legislation for Nova Scotia: policy background paper. Retrieved from

https://novascotia.ca/energy/resources/spps/public-consultation/NS-MRE-Policy-

Background-Final.pdf

Nova Scotia Energy (NSE). (2001). Seizing the opportunity. Nova Scotia’s Energy

Strategy. Retrieved from

http://energy.novascotia.ca/sites/default/files/Coal%20%28from%20Energy%20S

trategy%29.pdf


58

Nova Scotia Office of Aboriginal Affairs (NSOAA). (2009). Proponent’s guide:

engagement with the Mi’kmaq of Nova Scotia. Retrieved from

http://www.novascotia.ca/abor/docs/Proponants-Guide.pdf

Nova Scotia Power Inc (NSPI). (2014a). Annapolis Tidal Station. Nova Scotia Power.

Retrieved from

http://www.nspower.ca/en/home/aboutnspower/makingelectricity/renewable/anna

polis.aspx

Nova Scotia Power Inc. (2014b). Total System Emissions (All Plants). Retrieved from

https://www.nspower.ca/en/home/about-us/environmental-commitment/air-

emissions-reporting/total-system-emissions-all-plants.aspx

Nova Scotia Power Inc. (2014c). Air Emissions Reporting. Retrieved from

https://www.nspower.ca/en/home/aboutus/environmentalcommitment/airemission

sreporting/default.aspx?envc=bW9kZT0yJnBsPTEsMiwzLDQmZW09NCZtdD0

xJnlyPTIwMTI

Nowacek, D.P., Thome, L.H., Johnson, D.W., Tyack P.L. (2007). Responses of cetaceans

to anthropogenic noise. Mammal Review, 37: 81‐115.

Offshore Energy Environmental Research (OEER). (2008). Fundy Tidal Energy Strategic

Environmental Assessment Final Report. Submitted to the Nova Scotia

Department of Energy. Retrieved from http://www.oera.ca/marine-renewable-

energy/strategic-environmental-assessment/sea-phase-i-bay-of-fundy/

Pennamaquan Tidal Power. (2013). Pennamaquan Tidal Power Plant Project. Retrieved

from http://www.halcyontidalpower.com/projects/pennamaquan-river-me/

Public Utilities Act, RSNS 1989, c. 380

Renewable Electricity Regulations, N.S. Reg. 155/2010

Robinson, H.E. (2007). Law and Money - Aboriginal consultation from the courts to the

ground: Challenge in implementing effective engagement. Cim Magazine 2(3): 26.

Slabbekoorn, H., Bouton, N., Van Opzeeland, I., Coers, A., Ten Cate, C. & Popper, A.N.

(2010). A noisy spring: the impact of globally rising underwater sound levels on

fish. Trends Ecol. Evol., 25: 419‐ 427.

Species at Risk Act, SC 2002, c .29

Sustainable Development Commission. (2007). Turning the Tide: Tidal Power in the UK.

Retrieved from http://research-repository.st-

andrews.ac.uk/bitstream/10023/2215/7/sdc- 2007-turning-the-tide.pdf


59

Thomsen, F., Ludemann, K., Kafemann, R. & Piper, W. (2006). Effects of offshore

windfarm noise on marine mammals and fish. Prepared for COWRIE Limited by

BIOLA and IfAF. Hamburg, Germany. COWRIE Limited, London.

Vaughn, A. (2014). N.S. Government Announces $4 Million for Tidal Energy Projects

The Canadian Press. Halifax, NS: 28 Mar. 2014. Read More:

http://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/n-s-government-announces-4-million-for-tidal-energy-

projects-1.1750497#ixzz2xVRegJUH.

Wildish, D.J., Peer, D.L., & Greenberg, D.A. (1986). Benthic macrofaunal production in

the Bay of Fundy and the possible effects of a tidal power barrage at Economy

Point - Cape Tenny. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 43:

2410-2417.

Wildish, D.J., & Kristmanson, D. (2005). Benthic suspension feeders and flow.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Witt, M.J., Sheehan, E.V., Bearhop, S., Broderick, A.C., Conley, D.C., Cotterfell, S.P.,

Crow, E., Grecian, W.J., Halsband, C., Hodgson, D.J., Hosegood, P., Inger, R.,

Miller, P.I., Sims, D.W., Thompson, R.C., Vanstaen K., Votier, S.C., Attrill, M.J.

& Godley, B.J. (2012). Assessing wave energy effects on biodiversity: the Wave

Hub experience. Philosophical transactions of The Royal Society A, 307: 502‐529.

Wood, J., Tollit, D., Redden, A., Porskamp, P., Broome, J., Fogarty, L. Booth, C. &

Karsten, R. (2013). Passive acoustic monitoring of cetacean activity patterns and

movements in Minas Passage: pre-turbine baseline conditions (2011-2012).

Prepared for the Fundy Ocean Research Center for Energy (FORCE) and the

Offshore Energy Research Association of Nova Scotia (OERANS). Retrieved

from http://www.oera.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/OEER-2011-2013-Marine-

Mammal-Final-Scientific-Report-July-2013.pdf


60

Appendix I

Interview Questions

General Inquiry

What is your personal or professional connection to Scots Bay? (Supplementary

questions: Do you visit the Scots Bay area for any reason? If so, how frequently,

and why? Do you value some of the areas around Scots Bay, like Cape Split, for

recreational purposes?)

Please explain your familiarity with the Scots Bay proposed tidal barrage.

If you have any concerns about the project, what are they and why are these issues

important to you?

If you see benefits to the project, what are they and why are they important to

you?

Do you think the project will add value to, or detract value from Scots Bay and

the surrounding area? (eg: aesthetic, cultural, commercial value)

Are you familiar with other tidal energy projects currently taking place in Nova

Scotia? If so, please explain your thoughts about them.

Do you think Nova Scotia ought to pay more attention to the development of

other renewable sources of energy such as wind, solar, and biomass?

Specific Inquiry

Government (eg. David Mangle, Deputy Mayor of Wolfville; Everett MacPherson,

Commision Chair for the Village Commission of Canning)

How do you think this development would affect the surrounding communities?

ENGO (eg. Mark Butler, Ecology Action Center Policy Director)

What is the EAC’s stance on the project? Why?

As an ENGO, what is your responsibility as an organization to act and participate

to achieve change? Examples?

First Nations (eg. Sydney Peters, Glooscap First Nation; Janette Peterson, Annapolis

Valley Chief)

Within your community, what are some of the feelings people have about this

proposed tidal barrage? Please explain.

Industry (eg. Lisa Isacman, Coordinator for FERN; John Wood, Minas Energy; Sean

Joudry, Maritime Energy Association)


61

Do you support this project? Why or why not?

Community Members (eg. Natalie Alders, Petition Organizer)

How might this tidal barrage affect your way of life?

Proponent (Ted Verrill, CEO Halycon Tidal Energy)

Why does Halcyon want to undertake this project?

What level of support or opposition does Halcyon expect from Nova Scotians,

both as individuals and in organizations?

What supports does Halcyon need and expect to get from various governments for

the project?

What timeline is expected for the environmental assessment and project

approvals?

How does Halcyon plan to engage with Nova Scotians through the approval

process and, if approved, the construction and maintenance of the barrage?


62

Appendix II

Provincial and Federal Acts applying to tidal energy generation

Provincial

Nova Scotia Environment Act

Environmental Goals and

Sustainable Prosperity Act

Fisheries and Coastal Resources

Act

Endangered Species Act

Energy Resources Conservation

Act

Crown Lands Act

Beaches Act

Special Places Protection

Legislation Act

Electricity Act

Public Utilities Act

Social legislation

Assessment Act

Municipal Government Act

Federal

Fisheries Act

Canadian Environmental

Assessment

Act

Species at Risk Act

Migratory Birds Convention Act

Navigable Waters Protection Act

National Energy Board Act

Oceans Act

Canada Environmental Protection

Act

Shipping Act

Canada Labour Code

(NSDOE, 2010b)

Project FINAL Report 1

Documents

Transcript of Project FINAL Report 1