windsor causeway survey report - mi'kmaw conservation
TRANSCRIPT
Windsor Causeway
Survey Report
September 2020
1
Table of Contents
Methodology & Logistics 2 Awareness of Fish Passage Restriction 3 Restoring Free Passage of Fish – Support 4 Bridge – Support 4 Sipekne’katik First Nation Request 5 Highway Construction Plans 5 New Structure Design 6 Motivators 7 Lake Pisiquid 8 Results by Question 9
2
Background & Overview The following report presents the research findings from a survey conducted by Oraclepoll Research Ltd for Oceans North and the Mi’kmaw Conservation Group. It involved collecting telephone research among residents 18 years of age and older from Windsor Hants County, Nova Scotia on issues related to the Windsor Causeway.
Methodology & Logistics
Study Sample & Survey Method A total of N=300 interviews were completed among residents 18 years of age and older between the days of August 30th to September 5th, 2020. This survey was conducted by telephone with live operators using computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) and random digit dialing number selection (RDD). A dual-frame sample database was used that contained cellular and landline phone number contacts. No financial incentives were used, and respondents were assured of confidentiality and that the information they provided was for research purposes only. Oraclepoll adheres to strict privacy codes and no personal identifiers (in this case telephone numbers) will be shared with any outside party or will be reported.
Logistics The data collection period was from August 30th to September 5th, 2020. Initial calls were made between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. Subsequent call-backs of no-answers and busy numbers were made up to 5 times over the call period (from 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., with at least one weekend call) until contact was made. In addition, telephone interview appointments were attempted with those respondents unable to complete the survey at the time of contact. If no contact was made at a number after the fifth attempt, the number was discarded and a new one was used.
Confidence The error rate (margin of error) for the total N=300 sample is ± 5.6%, 19/20 times. Some numbers presented in the tables and graphs of this report may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
3
Awareness of Fish Passage Restriction
“The Windsor Causeway across the Avon River was completed in 1970 without consideration for effective or efficient fish passage. Passage is required to allow fish that spend portions of their life cycle in saltwater to migrate through this barrier to
spawn upstream in freshwater and then return back to the ocean. The existing causeway obstructs fish migration for species such as the at-risk Atlantic Salmon
(Inner Bay of Fundy population). Note there are also more than sixty other barriers in West Hants that do not provide effective or efficient fish passage.”
Yes 72%
No 18%
Q1. "Were you previously aware of the restriction to fish passage on the Avon River resulting from the construction and operation of the
existing gated structure at the Windsor Causeway?"
All N=300 respondents were first read the following descriptive statement about the Windsor Causeway after which they were asked if they were aware (previously) of the restrictions to fish passage on the Avon River as a result of the Causeway.
More than seven in ten or 72% said they were aware of aware of the restriction to fish passage on the Avon River resulting from the existing gated structure at the Windsor Causeway. While a majority of respondents across all demographic cohorts had awareness, a higher number of those 18-29 (80%), 30-39 (78%) and 40-49 (75%) were aware, as were those earning more or $75,000-$99,999 (75%) and $100,000+ (78%). More First Nations respondents were aware 92% (N=22 of N=24 interviewed), while there was a close distribution among males (74%) and females (71%).
4
Restoring Free Passage of Fish - Support
Bridge - Support
Oppose 9% Unsure 14%
Yes support 77%
Q2. “Do you support restoring the free passage of fish to the Avon River?”
Oppose 8% Unsure 11%
Yes support 81%
Q3. “Should a portion of the existing Windsor Causeway be replaced with a bridge to allow the free flow of the Avon River and the
recovery and protection of at risk and other fish species?”
Respondents were then asked if they support restoring the free passage of fish to the Avon River.
There is support among 77% of respondents for restoring the free passage of fish. Only 9% oppose the plan and 14% were unsure. Support was highest with those aged 18-29 (89%), 30-39 (83%) and 40-49 (82%), among First Nations residents (96%, N=23 of N=24) and more females (81%) in relation to males (72%).
The next question asked respondents if they felt a portion of the Windsor Causeway should be replaced with a bridge.
Support for a bridge to replace a portion of the Windsor Causeway increased to 81%, while opposition dropped slightly to 8% as did the number of those unsure to 11%.
5
Sipekne’katik First Nation Request
Support for the initiative is 62%, while oppositon is a low 13%, but there are one-quarter of residents that are undecided.
Highway Construction Plans
“The Province of Nova Scotia is currently twinning Highway 101 and construction plans for the
new causeway include replacing the existing structure with another gated structure. However,
several other organizations including the commercial, recreational and indigenous fisheries
are calling for a design that ensures efficient and effective fish passage for all species
throughout the entire year.”
More than three quarters of residents or 77% do not feel it is acceptable for a replacement structure to restrict fish passage, only 10% do, while 13% were unsure or had no opinion.
There are eight in ten (80%) that said they support the restoration and habitat enhancement of the Avon River ecosystem by continuing to allow saltwater upstream. Few or 5% do not support this and 14% were undecided.
Yes 62% No 13% Unsure 25%
Yes 10% No 77% Unsure 13%
Yes 80% No 5%Unsure 14%
Respondents were read a brief description of a Sipekne’katik First Nation request and were asked if they support it.
Q4. “Sipekne’katik First Nation recently issued a statement requesting the immediate stop to fish blockage at the Windsor Causeway pending an Aboriginal rights review. Do you support
Sipekne’katik First Nation in their request?”
A descriptive statement about the Highway 101 causeway construction plans as well as design options being called for was first read, afterward two questions were asked.
Q5. “Is it acceptable for a replacement structure to restrict fish passage?”
Q6. “As part of the construction plans, do you support the restoration and habitat enhancement of the Avon
River and ecosystem by continuing to allow saltwater upstream, which also enhances fish passage?”
6
New Structure Design
“Although the infilling of the marsh along the causeway has been authorized, the final
design for the waterway and fish passage has not yet been completed, nor received authorization from Fisheries and Oceans Canada.”
Q7. “How important do you feel it is for Fisheries and Oceans Canada to approve a design that brings balance back to the ecosystem and ensures efficient and effective
fish passage, year-round, for all species that use this ecosystem?”
Not at all important 4%
Not important 3%
Neither important nor unimportant 13%
Important 32%
Very important 46%
Unsure 2%
“The proposed design for a new Avon River gate structure will continue to restrict fish passage and also calls for modifications which have the ability to further restrict fish
passage by allowing doors and gates to be closed at will. Native fish species require an unrestricted natural water flow to achieve maximum passage.”
Q8. “How important do you feel it is that the new structure be designed in a way that allows fish to pass unrestricted?”
Not at all important 5%
Not important 3%
Neither important nor unimportant 11%
Important 31%
Very important 44%
Unsure 6%
There was solid support for both questions. Seventy-eight percent claimed it is important or very important for Fisheries and Oceans Canada to approve a design that brings balance back to the ecosystem and ensures efficient and effective fish passage, while 75% said it was important or very important that the new structure be designed in a way that allows fish to pass unrestricted.
Two statements were read prior to asking each of Q7 and Q8 (below) about the importance of the new design. A five-point rating scale (1-not at all important to five very important) was used.
75% Total Importance
78% Total Importance
7
Motivators
“Would each of the following make you more likely to or encourage you to continue to support a design that allows for unrestricted year-round fish passage for all species?”
The area that is most likely to encourage or support a design that allows for unrestricted year-round fish passage (response of yes), related to rebuilding and restoring habitats that can also contribute to a natural solution to climate change (89%). Next highest at 79% was the issue of helping fish populations that support recreational, commercial, and Indigenous fisheries, followed by species being endangered or threatened with habitat destruction (73%). The lowest response of “yes” at 67% was for the design contributing to the increased resilience of the Bay of Fundy as a whole – a significant 19% were unsure.
Yes 67% No 14% Unsure 19%
Yes 89%
No 4%
Unsure 7%
Yes 79% No 8% Unsure 13%
Yes 73% No 17%
Unsure 10%
Respondents were read a series of five statements and after each one were asked if they would make them more likely to support a design that allows for unrestricted year-round fish passage.
Q12. “Some of these species are endangered or threatened, with habitat destruction being a significant factor in their population decline.”
Q10. “The design would rebuild fish populations and restore habitat for both fish and migratory birds, which could also contribute to Canada’s natural
solutions to climate change.”
Q11. “These fish populations support recreational, commercial, and Indigenous fisheries and should be provided every opportunity to recover.”
Q9. “The design would contribute to the increased resilience of the Bay of Fundy as a whole”
8
Lake Pisiquid
Q13. “How important is it to you that the existing man-made reservoir (Lake Pisiquid) be maintained?”
Not at all important 5%
Not important 4%
Neither important nor unimportant 13%
Important 25%
Very important 29%
Unsure 24%
Slightly more than half or 54% feel it is important or very important that the existing man-made reservoir Lake Pisiquid be maintained, while 9% answered it is not or not at all important and 13% held a neutral view (neither important nor unimportant). Almost one quarter or 24% were unsure or had no opinion.
Only 14% feel that the existing man-made reservoir (Lake Pisiquid) should be prioritized over indigenous rights and the need to restore free passage of fish and balance to the ecosystem, compared to 65% that do not. A high number of 21% did not know.
Yes 14%
No 65%
Unsure 21%
Q14. “Do you believe maintaining the existing man-made reservoir (Lake Pisiquid) should be prioritized over indigenous rights and the need to restore free passage of fish and balance to the ecosystem?”
The final two questions were about maintaining the existing man-made reservoir (Lake Pisiquid).
54% Total Importance
9
Results by Question
“The Windsor Causeway across the Avon River was completed in 1970 without consideration for effective or efficient fish passage. Passage is required to allow fish that spend portions of their life cycle in saltwater to migrate through this barrier to spawn upstream in freshwater and then return back to the ocean. The existing causeway obstructs fish migration for species such as the at-risk Atlantic Salmon (Inner Bay of Fundy population). Note there are also more than sixty other barriers in West Hants that do not provide effective or efficient fish passage.”
Q1. Were you previously aware of the restriction
to fish passage on the Avon River resulting from
the construction and operation of the existing
gated structure at the Windsor Causeway?
Frequency Percent
Yes 217 72.3
No 83 27.7
Total 300 100.0
Q2. Do you support restoring the free passage of fish to
the Avon River?
Frequency Percent
Yes support 231 77.0
No 26 8.7
Unsure 43 14.3
Total 300 100.0
Q3. Should a portion of the existing Windsor
Causeway be replaced with a bridge to allow the
free flow of the Avon River and the recovery and
protection of at risk and other fish species?
Frequency Percent
Yes 243 81.0
No 23 7.7
Unsure 34 11.3
Total 300 100.0
10
Q4. Sipekne’katik First Nation recently issued a
statement requesting the immediate stop to fish
blockage at the Windsor Causeway pending an
Aboriginal rights review. Do you support Sipekne’katik
First Nation in their request?
Frequency Percent
Yes support 186 62.0
No 39 13.0
Unsure 75 25.0
Total 300 100.0
“The Province of Nova Scotia is currently twinning Highway 101 and construction plans for the new causeway include replacing the existing structure with another gated structure. However, several other organizations including the commercial, recreational and indigenous fisheries are calling for a design that ensures efficient and effective fish passage for all species throughout the entire year.”
Q5. Is it acceptable for a replacement structure to
restrict fish passage?
Frequency Percent
Yes 29 9.7
No 231 77.0
Unsure 40 13.3
Total 300 100.0
Q6. As part of the construction plans, do you
support the restoration and habitat enhancement
of the Avon River and ecosystem by continuing to
allow saltwater upstream, which also enhances
fish passage?
Frequency Percent
Yes 241 80.3
No 16 5.3
Unsure 43 14.3
Total 300 100.0
11
“Although the infilling of the marsh along the causeway has been authorized, the final design for the waterway and fish passage has not yet been completed, nor received authorization from Fisheries and Oceans Canada.”
Q7. How important do you feel it is for Fisheries and Oceans Canada to approve
a design that brings balance back to the ecosystem and ensures efficient and
effective fish passage, year-round, for all species that use this ecosystem?
Frequency Percent
Not at all important 11 3.7
Not important 8 2.7
Neither important nor unimportant 39 13.0
Important 96 32.0
Very important 139 46.3
Unsure 7 2.3
Total 300 100.0
“The proposed design for a new Avon River gate structure will continue to restrict fish passage and also calls for modifications which have the ability to further restrict fish passage by allowing doors and gates to be closed at will. Native fish species require an unrestricted natural water flow to achieve maximum passage.”
Q8. How important do you feel it is that the new structure be designed in a way
that allows fish to pass unrestricted?
Frequency Percent
Not at all important 15 5.0
Not important 9 3.0
Neither important nor unimportant 34 11.3
Important 92 30.7
Very important 132 44.0
Unsure 18 6.0
Total 300 100.0
“Would each of the following make you more likely to or encourage you to continue to support a design that allows for unrestricted year-round fish passage for all species?”
Q9. The design would contribute to the increased
resilience of the Bay of Fundy as a whole
Frequency Percent
Yes 200 66.7
No 43 14.3
Unsure 57 19.0
Total 300 100.0
12
Q10. The design would rebuild fish populations
and restore habitat for both fish and migratory
birds, which could also contribute to Canada’s
natural solutions to climate change.
Frequency Percent
Yes 266 88.7
No 13 4.3
Unsure 21 7.0
Total 300 100.0
Q11. These fish populations support recreational,
commercial, and indigenous fisheries and should
be provided every opportunity to recover.
Frequency Percent
Yes 237 79.0
No 24 8.0
Unsure 39 13.0
Total 300 100.0
Q12. Some of these species are endangered or
threatened, with habitat destruction being a
significant factor in their population decline.
Frequency Percent
Yes 218 72.7
No 51 17.0
Unsure 31 10.3
Total 300 100.0
Q13. How important is it to you that the existing man-made reservoir (Lake
Pisiquid) be maintained?
Frequency Percent
Not at all important 15 5.0
Not important 12 4.0
Neither important nor unimportant 39 13.0
Important 76 25.3
Very important 87 29.0
Unsure 71 23.7
Total 300 100.0
13
Q14. Do you believe maintaining the existing man-
made reservoir (Lake Pisiquid) should be
prioritized over indigenous rights and the need to
restore free passage of fish and balance to the
ecosystem?
Frequency Percent
Yes 43 14.3
No 194 64.7
Unsure 63 21.0
Total 300 100.0
D1 Age
Frequency Percent
18-29 56 18.7
30-39 54 18.0
40-49 60 20.0
50-59 62 20.7
60-69 47 15.7
70 and over 13 4.3
Refused 8 2.7
Total 300 100.0
D2 Income
Frequency Percent
Under 50,000 48 16.0
50,000 -74,999 66 22.0
75,000 -99,999 67 22.3
100,000 and over 32 10.7
Refused 87 29.0
Total 300 100.0
14
D3 Do you identify as Indigenous or as a
member of a First Nations community?”
Frequency Percent
Yes 24 8.0
No 276 92.0
Total 300 100.0
D4 Gender
Frequency Percent
Male 141 47.0
Female 159 53.0
Total 300 100.0