Impacts
The most glaring impacts to the fish habitat that are expected to occur are the direct loss of habitat from the generation of project facilities, the changes in the physical area of the habitat as a result of flooding, and the changes in flow velocities (Nalcor 2009, Vol. 2A) The loss of habitat from project facility development specifically stems from the excavation and installation of the facilities. These facilities will replace existing portions of habitat (Nalcor 2009, Vol. 2A). Furthermore, the flooding from project development will result in a loss of approximately 12% of terrestrial habitat, which is expected to become productive fish habitat naturally (i.e. without further mitigation) (Nalcor 2009). This will result in a net increase in aquatic habitat within the assessment area, but will not change the size of the habitat outside the reservoir boundaries, below Muskrat Falls, or above the existing Churchill Falls tailrace (Nalcor 2009, Vol. 2A) Finally, the change in flow velocities is expected to provide a positive change for the Project environment because the existing habitat is less than idea. The current conditions entail higher velocities than those typically encountered and used by the endemic species to the Churchill area (Nalcor 2009, Vol. 2A). Though the species inhabiting these waters have adapted to the higher flow velocities, Project development will result in slower velocities at the Gull Island and Muskrat Falls reservoirs that are more similar to those found in the preferred habitats of these species (Nalcor 2009, Vol. 2A).
Mitigation
Nalcor proposes mitigation measures to minimize the effects of the impacts on the fish habitat. These measures include thoughtful design of project facilities, an Environmental Protection Plan, and a Fish Habitat Compensation Plan (Nalcor 2009, Vol. 2A) Project design will fall in line with best practice principles. The project facilities will be developed carefully and in concordance with the most efficient use of space and material with respect to both the environment and costs. Additionally, Nalcor has developed an Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) that is consistent with the principles in the existing Environmental Mitigation Systems (EMS) and outlines the appropriate procedures for site workers based on legislation and best practice (Nalcor 2009, Vol. 2A) Some Project aspects that specifically apply to the aquatic environment and habitat include: site personnel and environmental awareness, surface disturbance, vegetation management, hazardous materials handling, and blasting in addition to aquatic disturbance and habitat enhancement and compensation measures (AMEC, 2013; Nalcor 2009, Vol. 2A) With respect to the Fish Habitat Compensation Plan, one large component will include monitoring of modeled predictions to ensure habitats are being maintained as expected (this includes physical traits such as substrate placement, bank stability, and total suspended solids). These stem from the enhancement measures that include strategic placement of structures such as boulders and overhangs to generate preferred water velocities (AMEC, 2013; Nalcor 2009, Vol. 2A) The Plan further entails that compensation focus on specifically on species that are more sensitive to the anticipated changes or experience a time lag before re-stabilizing in the habitat. The Fish Habitat Compensation Plan also addresses the response of fish to entrainment and mercury levels, the impacts of which will be addressed later on (AMEC, 2013; Nalcor 2009, Vol. 2A).
Assessment
In order to assess the impacts associated with this Project's development, Nalcor conducted an extensive literature review to compile data on fish and fish habitat (Nalcor 2009, Vol. 2A). Specifically, they compiled data from the past 35 years and utilized the studies conducted in the Lower Churchill River and its tributaries from the 1980 EIS as a primary source of information about the system they are working with (Nalcor 2009, Vol. 2A) The assessment area was defined as areas within or near any physical disturbance caused by project activity. This excludes lake Melville; However, Nalcor cited that there would be no change in flow, salinity, water temperature, ice, or any other physical disturbance in this region (Nalcor 2009, Vol. 2A) Additionally, Nalcor developed a framework that is unique to the Churchill River to classify and quantify fish habitat. In conjunction with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), various stakeholders including the Innu Nation and locals, the team developed a Habitat Utilization Index (HUI) to quantify fish and describe their utilization of habitat in the Lower Churchill River both pre- and post-inundation as well as with respect to specific species and habitat types (Nalcor 2009, Vol. 2A) The HUI was developed using exhaustive literature reviews to obtain descriptive information on systems as well as studies of fish habitat preferences, habitat models and the effects of hydroelectric projects. Sampling was done from June to September when there was no ice, in as many habitats as possible (some areas provided safety concerns), and with various gear types in an attempt to control for the biases of each technology (Nalcor 2009, Vol. 2A) Further assessment was also supplemented with a radiotelemetry monitoring program spanning two years to monitor fish movement and habitat use in Lower Churchill River. The radiotelemetry monitoring was particularly instrumental to determine winter behaviors of the fish (Nalcor 2009, Vol. 2A).
Critique
The first critique of the assessment and mitigation techniques for fish habitat is the exclusion of lake Melville from the assessment area. This was deemed a huge deficiency in Project assessment because Churchill River provides a high percentage of flows into both Goose Bay and lake Melville, making it perfectly plausible that long term measurable effects could be observed in these areas (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2009). Furthermore, there's also a general lack of information on downstream impacts and it is thus difficult to predict the futures impacts on these locations (Zhong and Power, 1996). Furthermore, the Panel Review Report cites a Fisheries and Oceans Canada paper that demonstrates that the mercury effects from the previous Churchill Falls project could be seen in several estuarial species in the waters of lake Melville, a substantial 300 km away from the Smallwood reservoir (Joint Review Panel, 2011). Furthermore, several fish species are known to have important life stages in lake Melville (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2009). In addition to this shortcoming, it would also have been beneficial to provide a better description of how the HUI analysis was conducted (particularly with respect to how the habitats and species were analyzed). This would have made the information more transparent to the public and would have enabled their better understanding. Furthermore, future monitoring for this Project was generally not well described (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2009). This is because many of the mitigation measures are to be developed as the impacts emerge in real time during the project's lifespan. However, Nalcor does recognize that long term monitoring (as much as 20 years) will be needed over the stabilization period (Nalcor 2009, Vol. 2A). Finally, the Fish Habitat Compensation Plan addresses several impacts based on predictions and methods in which they will prevent some of these impacts from occurring. However, the Plan fails to address what actions the proponent will take to implement compensation measures. On a positive note however, Nalcor, in conjunction with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, has committed to develop specific cautionary and critical levels for various biological and physical parameters to serve as thresholds to trigger any prospective adaptive management measures, which will help to maintain overall productivity of the fish habitats (Joint Review Panel, 2011).
The most glaring impacts to the fish habitat that are expected to occur are the direct loss of habitat from the generation of project facilities, the changes in the physical area of the habitat as a result of flooding, and the changes in flow velocities (Nalcor 2009, Vol. 2A) The loss of habitat from project facility development specifically stems from the excavation and installation of the facilities. These facilities will replace existing portions of habitat (Nalcor 2009, Vol. 2A). Furthermore, the flooding from project development will result in a loss of approximately 12% of terrestrial habitat, which is expected to become productive fish habitat naturally (i.e. without further mitigation) (Nalcor 2009). This will result in a net increase in aquatic habitat within the assessment area, but will not change the size of the habitat outside the reservoir boundaries, below Muskrat Falls, or above the existing Churchill Falls tailrace (Nalcor 2009, Vol. 2A) Finally, the change in flow velocities is expected to provide a positive change for the Project environment because the existing habitat is less than idea. The current conditions entail higher velocities than those typically encountered and used by the endemic species to the Churchill area (Nalcor 2009, Vol. 2A). Though the species inhabiting these waters have adapted to the higher flow velocities, Project development will result in slower velocities at the Gull Island and Muskrat Falls reservoirs that are more similar to those found in the preferred habitats of these species (Nalcor 2009, Vol. 2A).
Mitigation
Nalcor proposes mitigation measures to minimize the effects of the impacts on the fish habitat. These measures include thoughtful design of project facilities, an Environmental Protection Plan, and a Fish Habitat Compensation Plan (Nalcor 2009, Vol. 2A) Project design will fall in line with best practice principles. The project facilities will be developed carefully and in concordance with the most efficient use of space and material with respect to both the environment and costs. Additionally, Nalcor has developed an Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) that is consistent with the principles in the existing Environmental Mitigation Systems (EMS) and outlines the appropriate procedures for site workers based on legislation and best practice (Nalcor 2009, Vol. 2A) Some Project aspects that specifically apply to the aquatic environment and habitat include: site personnel and environmental awareness, surface disturbance, vegetation management, hazardous materials handling, and blasting in addition to aquatic disturbance and habitat enhancement and compensation measures (AMEC, 2013; Nalcor 2009, Vol. 2A) With respect to the Fish Habitat Compensation Plan, one large component will include monitoring of modeled predictions to ensure habitats are being maintained as expected (this includes physical traits such as substrate placement, bank stability, and total suspended solids). These stem from the enhancement measures that include strategic placement of structures such as boulders and overhangs to generate preferred water velocities (AMEC, 2013; Nalcor 2009, Vol. 2A) The Plan further entails that compensation focus on specifically on species that are more sensitive to the anticipated changes or experience a time lag before re-stabilizing in the habitat. The Fish Habitat Compensation Plan also addresses the response of fish to entrainment and mercury levels, the impacts of which will be addressed later on (AMEC, 2013; Nalcor 2009, Vol. 2A).
Assessment
In order to assess the impacts associated with this Project's development, Nalcor conducted an extensive literature review to compile data on fish and fish habitat (Nalcor 2009, Vol. 2A). Specifically, they compiled data from the past 35 years and utilized the studies conducted in the Lower Churchill River and its tributaries from the 1980 EIS as a primary source of information about the system they are working with (Nalcor 2009, Vol. 2A) The assessment area was defined as areas within or near any physical disturbance caused by project activity. This excludes lake Melville; However, Nalcor cited that there would be no change in flow, salinity, water temperature, ice, or any other physical disturbance in this region (Nalcor 2009, Vol. 2A) Additionally, Nalcor developed a framework that is unique to the Churchill River to classify and quantify fish habitat. In conjunction with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), various stakeholders including the Innu Nation and locals, the team developed a Habitat Utilization Index (HUI) to quantify fish and describe their utilization of habitat in the Lower Churchill River both pre- and post-inundation as well as with respect to specific species and habitat types (Nalcor 2009, Vol. 2A) The HUI was developed using exhaustive literature reviews to obtain descriptive information on systems as well as studies of fish habitat preferences, habitat models and the effects of hydroelectric projects. Sampling was done from June to September when there was no ice, in as many habitats as possible (some areas provided safety concerns), and with various gear types in an attempt to control for the biases of each technology (Nalcor 2009, Vol. 2A) Further assessment was also supplemented with a radiotelemetry monitoring program spanning two years to monitor fish movement and habitat use in Lower Churchill River. The radiotelemetry monitoring was particularly instrumental to determine winter behaviors of the fish (Nalcor 2009, Vol. 2A).
Critique
The first critique of the assessment and mitigation techniques for fish habitat is the exclusion of lake Melville from the assessment area. This was deemed a huge deficiency in Project assessment because Churchill River provides a high percentage of flows into both Goose Bay and lake Melville, making it perfectly plausible that long term measurable effects could be observed in these areas (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2009). Furthermore, there's also a general lack of information on downstream impacts and it is thus difficult to predict the futures impacts on these locations (Zhong and Power, 1996). Furthermore, the Panel Review Report cites a Fisheries and Oceans Canada paper that demonstrates that the mercury effects from the previous Churchill Falls project could be seen in several estuarial species in the waters of lake Melville, a substantial 300 km away from the Smallwood reservoir (Joint Review Panel, 2011). Furthermore, several fish species are known to have important life stages in lake Melville (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2009). In addition to this shortcoming, it would also have been beneficial to provide a better description of how the HUI analysis was conducted (particularly with respect to how the habitats and species were analyzed). This would have made the information more transparent to the public and would have enabled their better understanding. Furthermore, future monitoring for this Project was generally not well described (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2009). This is because many of the mitigation measures are to be developed as the impacts emerge in real time during the project's lifespan. However, Nalcor does recognize that long term monitoring (as much as 20 years) will be needed over the stabilization period (Nalcor 2009, Vol. 2A). Finally, the Fish Habitat Compensation Plan addresses several impacts based on predictions and methods in which they will prevent some of these impacts from occurring. However, the Plan fails to address what actions the proponent will take to implement compensation measures. On a positive note however, Nalcor, in conjunction with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, has committed to develop specific cautionary and critical levels for various biological and physical parameters to serve as thresholds to trigger any prospective adaptive management measures, which will help to maintain overall productivity of the fish habitats (Joint Review Panel, 2011).