Overview:
According to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, a cumulative effect is any change to the environment that is cause by an action in combination with other past, present or future human actions (Government of Canada, 2014). The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) must be done to have a complete and thorough Environmental Impact Assessment (Government of Canada, 2014).
It is expected that a CEAA asses;
Lower Churchill Project Cumulative Environmental Effect Assessment:
Nalcor, carried out a cumulative environmental effect assessment. They relied mostly on experienced and expert opinion for the qualitative assessment (Joint Review Panel, 2009). A screening process was used to consider all past, present and foreseeable projects/activities where biophysical and socio-economic effect could potentially overlap, both temporary and spatially, which could effect the Lower Churchill Project (Joint Review Panel, 2009).
The following projects/activities were assessed:
The valued ecosystem components deemed the most significantly affected are:
Critique:
Overall, the general feeling towards the cumulative effects assessment is that it was less than comprehensive and that the Project is and example of a poor track record of project-based cumulative effects assessment. It seems the cumulative assessment was preformed with little scrutiny and minimal attention. Corners have been cut, important details ignored and a general sense of rushing can be felt throughout this assessment. The negative aspects (found below) heavily outweigh the positive. We believe, that the cumulative assessment should be redone properly.
According to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, a cumulative effect is any change to the environment that is cause by an action in combination with other past, present or future human actions (Government of Canada, 2014). The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) must be done to have a complete and thorough Environmental Impact Assessment (Government of Canada, 2014).
It is expected that a CEAA asses;
- Effects over a larger boundary (may cross over jurisdictional boundaries);
- Effects during a longer period of time (past and future);
- Consider effect on Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs);
- Include past, present and future action as well as evaluate significant effects beyond the local and direct ones (Government of Canada, 2014).
Lower Churchill Project Cumulative Environmental Effect Assessment:
Nalcor, carried out a cumulative environmental effect assessment. They relied mostly on experienced and expert opinion for the qualitative assessment (Joint Review Panel, 2009). A screening process was used to consider all past, present and foreseeable projects/activities where biophysical and socio-economic effect could potentially overlap, both temporary and spatially, which could effect the Lower Churchill Project (Joint Review Panel, 2009).
The following projects/activities were assessed:
- Voisey's Bay Project;
- Labrador West Mining;
- Additional transmission lines (including to the Island);
- Upgrades to the Trans Labrador Highway;
- Commercial forestry;
- Cultural and recreational land use;
- Infrastructure projects and economic development in Upper Lake Melville including 5 Wing Goose Bay Military Base remediation project; and
- Military training (North Atlantic Treaty Organization Special Forces Training) (Joint Review Panel, 2009).
The valued ecosystem components deemed the most significantly affected are:
- Red Wine Mountain Caribou - adverse and significant;
- Aquatic environment - neutral; and
- Economy and employment - positive and significant (Joint Review Panel, 2009).
Critique:
Overall, the general feeling towards the cumulative effects assessment is that it was less than comprehensive and that the Project is and example of a poor track record of project-based cumulative effects assessment. It seems the cumulative assessment was preformed with little scrutiny and minimal attention. Corners have been cut, important details ignored and a general sense of rushing can be felt throughout this assessment. The negative aspects (found below) heavily outweigh the positive. We believe, that the cumulative assessment should be redone properly.
Positive Aspects:
|
Negative Aspects:
|