July 28, 1994
"BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD FOR DND"
ST.JOHN'S - Innu Nation representatives are in St.John's today to present
the results of a hard hitting 527-page technical review of DND's second
study on the impacts of military flight training in eastern Quebec and
Labrador. The technical experts retained by the Innu Nation, Conseil des
Atikamekw et des Montagnais, and Naskapi Band of Quebec identified in
excess of 130 deficiencies in the new study (Environmental Impact
Statement). Some of these experts rank amongst the best in the world in
their fields. Their critiques indicate the deficiencies in this second EIS
are serious enough to warrant yet more research before public hearings can
start.
Innu Nation representative Daniel Ashini said the new EIS raises important
questions about DND's commitment to organize research and do a proper EIS
on their activities in Quebec and Labrador. "This is the Department's
second EIS. The public has paid $6.3 million for the first one and about
$10 million for the new one. How much more do we have to pay before DND
gets it right?" said Mr. Ashini. Many aspects of this EIS are not just bad
science, but deceitful, said Ashini.
For example, he cites how DND has purposefully deleted the use of chaff
from the project description because it thinks the environmental assessment
of this radar deflecting material would delay the public hearing process.
This dishonesty was revealed in documents obtained through the Access to
Information Act. Ashini said concern about the use of chaff stems from
complaints by U.K. farmers whose sheep and cows have died or gotten sick
from eating the silica and aluminum substance.
Co-Chief Innu Land Rights Negotiator Cajetan Rich added that the urgency to
get the review finished before the 1996 expiry of the current Multinational
Memorandum of Understanding between Canada and Allied Forces is DND's
responsibility. The Davis Inlet representative said the Department received
a Deficiency Statement from the Federal Environmental Assessment Panel in
May 1990, but they only began work on the new EIS in the spring of 1992.
"DND left the release of the new EIS to the last minute and are now trying
to blackmail the Panel and the public into pushing the study through
despite its serious defects," said Rich. "DND will have to go back to the
drawing board with this EIS, but they'll try to blame the delay on the
Innu. If there are delays, it's because DND either hires incompetent
consultants or else treats research like a public relations game. Any
delays in the process are DND's fault alone."
Rich said the Innu were hoping to have a complete study by this late date,
but the EIS is not ready for public scrutiny. "The Environmental Review has
been dragging on for eight years, and yet DND still hasn't been able to
produce a scientifically credible study. The responsibility for this should
be handed over to an independent body," he said.
-30-
Daniel Ashini is Director of Innu Rights and Environment for the Innu
Nation Cajetan Rich is Co-Chief Negotiator for the Utshimassiu Innu (Davis
Inlet).
Important defects in the EIS: Military Flight Training
1. DND is proposing a new option for its Low Level Training Areas (LLTAs).
"Option B" in the new EIS involves the creation of one giant flying zone
(130,000 km2) by merging the current two LLTAs. This option was not
proposed until June 1993, therefore EIS consultants working for DND clearly
did not have the time to integrate the reconfigured flying zone into their
research analyses.
2. Although Option B is proposed as DND's only solution to the present
crisis in its "avoidance program", vast new areas of Labrador and
southeastern Quebec will be overflown which have not been properly studied
for wildlife and human land use. The avoidance program requires Allied air
force pilots to avoid noise sensitive areas for wildlife, Innu and Inuit
camps, and sportsfishing camps. The avoidance restrictions, however, have
eliminated airspace that the Allies need for their training. The Allies
have protested and DND responded by entering political negotiations on
avoidance criteria rather than basing them on scientific research. DND
admits its avoidance program is in serious crisis and that the Allies will
leave Goose Bay unless the avoidance protection measures are significantly
reduced (DND's "Option A" in the EIS). Option B, however, is not likely to
provide the solution. As DND conducts its ongoing research in the
reconfigured LLTA, it is probable that more concentrations of sensitive
wildlife will be found. This information, when combined with avoidance
restrictions around camps of Sheshatshiu, La Romaine and Natashquan Innu,
will result in substantial areas being eliminated for flying. DND will thus
end up in the same crisis it finds itself in today. A comprehensive
avoidance program is incompatible with the needs of the air forces training
at Goose Bay.
3. DND has intentionally deleted the use of chaff from the project
description so as to avoid assessing the impacts of this material on
wildlife. Chaff consists of thin metal strips that are pumped out of
aircraft to confuse enemy radar systems. Documents obtained through the
Access to Information Act reveal this omission was deliberate. U.K.
farmers, whose livestock have eaten chaff have complained their animals
have died or gotten sick as a result.
4. DND has based its analysis of noise propagation and impacts in the Low
Level Training Areas on a data base of geographic coordinates concerning
the routes the pilots take in the flying zones. The data base is
contaminated with "manual data entry errors" which most likely resulted
from errors in typing the geographic coordinates into the computer. An
examination of the data for one day of overflights indicated a level of
error of 1 in 3. This level of error makes any analysis of noise impacts
impossible.
5. Despite the fact that we are now in the 8th year of the environmental
assessment process (and the 14th year of modern low-level flight training),
DND has only funded one research project into the effects of military
flying on wildlife - Fred Harrington's research into the impacts of low
level flying on the Red Wine Caribou herd. DND has conducted surveys to
identify concentrations of wildlife. However, no research has been
conducted to help explain how moulting Black ducks, the endangered
Peregrine Falcon and Harlequin Duck, or other wildlife may be affected by
the training.
6. The EIS says that a second bombing range will be built northwest of
Sheshatshiu. The EIS says the range will be 300 km2. In reality the EIS
will be about 1063 km2 in size.
7. DND has not included an analysis of impacts on Innu economic development
options in the area of outfitting and adventure tourism. DND and the
Newfoundland government are actively discouraging new developments of such
activities in the training zones, because they eliminate airspace for
training. DND has not assessed the impact of this on future Innu economic
development.
8. DND has refused to assess the impact on military flight training on
aboriginal rights and the land rights negotiation process. This is a
deliberate evasion of the Environmental Assessment Panel's guideline that
require DND to examine the effects of the training on Aboriginal rights and
negotiations.
=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=
Larry Innes internet: es051322@orion.yorku.ca
Environmental Advisor
Innu Nation phone: (709) 497-8398
PO Box 119 fax: (709) 497-8396
Sheshatshiu, Nitassinan
via Canada A0P 1M0
=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=\/=