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

Project FINAL Report 1

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to Project FINAL Report 1

Similar to Project FINAL Report 1 (20)

Project FINAL Report 1