Socio-economic Impacts: Land And Resource Use
The environmental impact assessment for the dam outlined multiple ways in which its construction could impact land and resource use as it currently exists on the Lower Churchill River. Nalcor Energy recognized the potential of the project to cause drastic changes to land and resource use and negative affects this could have on the environment/communities of region. Labrador Innu First Nations groups were worried that the dramatic changes to the landscape could affect their ability to access and maintain their traditional lifestyle, leading to a substantial loss of traditional knowledge and more stress on the social infrastructures (Nalcor, 2009 Vol. 3). As a result, Nalcor partnered with Innu Nation to hear their concerns and proposals as well as previous experiences with the other dams on the Churchill River (Nalcor, 2009 Vol. 3). The components of this assessment, specifically disturbances to hunting/gathering/trapping abilities and Increasing or Limiting Access to the project area, were chosen for review at they represent a strong measure of the project's effects on both the land and the simultaneous effect on the life of the people that inhabit it.
How the Assessment was Done:
The components were assessed through separate measurable parameters. For hunting, gathering and trapping, the effect was measured on the loss of habitat/hunting and trapping areas, as well as in a change in habitat for traditionally gathered plants (Nalcor, 2009 Vol. 3). For Increases/Decreases in accessibility of the project area, the impacts were assessed on the change in access to the areas within the project development, the effect of this change on the ability of the Innu to continue their traditional lifestyle, and/or loss of boat ramps (Nalcor, 2009 Vol. 3). For both components Input from the local Innu Nation was also factored in.
Component: Disturbances to Hunting/Trapping/Gathering Patterns
There was cause for concern within the local communities about negative effects of the project on their traditional activities such as hunting, trapping and berry picking through loss of terrestrial habitat from flooding and transmission lines (Nalcor, 2009 Vol. 3). Toxicity of berries due to pesticides applied near transmission lines and increased traveling time to hunting camps and a subsequent smaller harvest due to a shorter hunt were also concerns (Nalcor, 2009 Vol. 3). The local Innu First Nations groups were further worried that, as was their experience with the previous dam built, their trapping gear would be lost when the region was inundated (Nalcor, 2009 Vol. 3).
Nalcor's assessment determined that indeed, some trapping areas were going to be lost during the inundation, but that the number of good hunting and trapping sites that were going to be lost was low when compared to the amount of hunting and trapping sites available in the project area which will not be flooded (Nalcor, 2009 Vol. 3). They also determined that most wildlife would not be greatly displaced due to the dam, and that the increase in riparian shoreline might actually increase opportunities for trapping (Nalcor, 2009 Vol. 3). The proponent also claimed to be willing to compensate any hunters/trappers who could prove continual and successional use, with a cash compensation mechanism for losses in future income and lost/relocated traps to be developed and finalized before the onset of construction (Nalcor, 2009 Vol. 3).
The proponent determined from secondary data on Innu travel times, aside from intermittent disruptions to fly-in camps during the construction of the project, the project development would not effect the ability of the Innu to reach their camps (Nalcor, 2009 Vol. 3). Further, the proponent is committed to not repeating the mistakes made during the 1960's dam construction where Innu trap-lines were inundated and lost during the reservoir flooding (Joint Panel Review, 2011). Nalcor will post community announcements and notices to discourage people from entering the flood area up to a month prior to inundation. This would serve the purpose of preventing unnecessary loss of hunting (Nalcor, 2009 Vol. 3).
The EIA reports that the project lead to a loss of several hectares of berry growing/picking areas. This, however, represents a small fraction of the overall area for berry growth/gathering and its impact is considered low (Joint Panel Review, 2011). As to herbicides applied to plants near transmission lines, Nalcor believed that by committing to the regulatory requirements for the application of herbicides and to posting notices of herbicide application, the threat to human health was low. Of more importance was the loss of habitat of the Canada Yew, a valuable medicinal plant to the Innu. As there were three sites within the development area where this important medicinal plant would be lost, the proponent is willing to relocate all the plants to a suitable new habitat for reestablishment (Nalcor, 2009 Vol. 3).
Component: Increasing or limiting access to the project area
The Labrador Innu were particularly worried that an increase in access to the typically remote project area would be a lead to a decline in their hunting capabilities (Joint Panel Review, 2011). Citing new roads and increased access on a calm reservoir, the Innu believed that instead of being a positive and increasing their ability to hunt this would lead to more competition with sport hunters and anglers who would in turn negatively decrease the availability of game for the Innu (Joint Panel Review, 2011).
The proponent addressed this issue this its philosophy that it seeks to maintain the status quo; not to open up new access to the region, only to maintain existing access to the greatest extent possible (Joint Panel Review, 2011). That said, Nalcor acknowledges that of the 375 km of road it will have to build during construction, 15-30 km of it will be left after the flooding of the reservoir (Nalcor, 2009 Vol. 3). With a large amount of workers on site during construction, it is very possible that this access will lead to an increase in non-local hunting. As such, Nalcor plans on restricting access to all roads whenever possible, implementing a strict no-harvesting policy amongst the labor force, requesting the Department of Environment and Conservation to close the construction site to hunting, removing stream crossings following their utilization, and rehabilitating access roads after completion of the project (Nalcor, 2009 Vol. 3). The proponent also noted that the increase in access allowed by the roads may provide an opportunity for the local communities to participate in community-level stewardship initiatives. It would be the responsibility of regulatory and resource management authorities to enforce and maintain the restrictions and regulations on these new roads to ensure they would not be exploited and harm hunting success rates (Joint Panel Review, 2011).
Innu concerns that increased access and competition to the region may play out in the form of snow-mobile traffic (Nalcor, 2009 Vol. 3). Nalcor addressed this issue by claiming that regulatory and resource managment agencies will need to enforce strict policies to ensure the region is only used for conservation and protection. They suggest that new licensing procedures may be necessary to ensure this region gets adequate protection. The proponent is also in the process of negotiating an Impacts and Benefits Agreement (IBA) to help manage these negative effects (Joint Panel Review, 2011; Nalcor, 2009 Vol. 3).
With regards to loss of access to the water for boats, the proponent notes that access will actually improve after the creation of the reservoir and the flooding of rapids (Nalcor, 2009 Vol. 3). Nalcor is committed to reestablishing the flooded boat launches and removing vegetation to a depth of 3 m below the new surface level of the reservoir to ensure continued and safe navigation of the waterway (Nalcor, 2009 Vol. 3).
Mitigation:
The necessary mitigation procedures are summarized below
Follow Up:
Follow up would be the onus of the federal and provincial agencies responsible for land and resource use to monitor changes in the distribution and intensity of land and resource activities within the project area (Joint Panel Review, 2011). Despite this, Nalcor committed to the following: providing quarterly project information which may assist these agencies, providing information on the location and status of all roads in the area, and gathering data on trapping activities to compare to pre-project data on trapping activities (Joint Panel Review, 2011; Nalcor, 2009 Vol. 3). The information they gather on the development and cumulative effects of the project on the local environment would be used to further to verify or further refine the efficacy of the effects management developed by the proponent for the hydroelectric development.
How the Assessment was Done:
The components were assessed through separate measurable parameters. For hunting, gathering and trapping, the effect was measured on the loss of habitat/hunting and trapping areas, as well as in a change in habitat for traditionally gathered plants (Nalcor, 2009 Vol. 3). For Increases/Decreases in accessibility of the project area, the impacts were assessed on the change in access to the areas within the project development, the effect of this change on the ability of the Innu to continue their traditional lifestyle, and/or loss of boat ramps (Nalcor, 2009 Vol. 3). For both components Input from the local Innu Nation was also factored in.
Component: Disturbances to Hunting/Trapping/Gathering Patterns
There was cause for concern within the local communities about negative effects of the project on their traditional activities such as hunting, trapping and berry picking through loss of terrestrial habitat from flooding and transmission lines (Nalcor, 2009 Vol. 3). Toxicity of berries due to pesticides applied near transmission lines and increased traveling time to hunting camps and a subsequent smaller harvest due to a shorter hunt were also concerns (Nalcor, 2009 Vol. 3). The local Innu First Nations groups were further worried that, as was their experience with the previous dam built, their trapping gear would be lost when the region was inundated (Nalcor, 2009 Vol. 3).
Nalcor's assessment determined that indeed, some trapping areas were going to be lost during the inundation, but that the number of good hunting and trapping sites that were going to be lost was low when compared to the amount of hunting and trapping sites available in the project area which will not be flooded (Nalcor, 2009 Vol. 3). They also determined that most wildlife would not be greatly displaced due to the dam, and that the increase in riparian shoreline might actually increase opportunities for trapping (Nalcor, 2009 Vol. 3). The proponent also claimed to be willing to compensate any hunters/trappers who could prove continual and successional use, with a cash compensation mechanism for losses in future income and lost/relocated traps to be developed and finalized before the onset of construction (Nalcor, 2009 Vol. 3).
The proponent determined from secondary data on Innu travel times, aside from intermittent disruptions to fly-in camps during the construction of the project, the project development would not effect the ability of the Innu to reach their camps (Nalcor, 2009 Vol. 3). Further, the proponent is committed to not repeating the mistakes made during the 1960's dam construction where Innu trap-lines were inundated and lost during the reservoir flooding (Joint Panel Review, 2011). Nalcor will post community announcements and notices to discourage people from entering the flood area up to a month prior to inundation. This would serve the purpose of preventing unnecessary loss of hunting (Nalcor, 2009 Vol. 3).
The EIA reports that the project lead to a loss of several hectares of berry growing/picking areas. This, however, represents a small fraction of the overall area for berry growth/gathering and its impact is considered low (Joint Panel Review, 2011). As to herbicides applied to plants near transmission lines, Nalcor believed that by committing to the regulatory requirements for the application of herbicides and to posting notices of herbicide application, the threat to human health was low. Of more importance was the loss of habitat of the Canada Yew, a valuable medicinal plant to the Innu. As there were three sites within the development area where this important medicinal plant would be lost, the proponent is willing to relocate all the plants to a suitable new habitat for reestablishment (Nalcor, 2009 Vol. 3).
Component: Increasing or limiting access to the project area
The Labrador Innu were particularly worried that an increase in access to the typically remote project area would be a lead to a decline in their hunting capabilities (Joint Panel Review, 2011). Citing new roads and increased access on a calm reservoir, the Innu believed that instead of being a positive and increasing their ability to hunt this would lead to more competition with sport hunters and anglers who would in turn negatively decrease the availability of game for the Innu (Joint Panel Review, 2011).
The proponent addressed this issue this its philosophy that it seeks to maintain the status quo; not to open up new access to the region, only to maintain existing access to the greatest extent possible (Joint Panel Review, 2011). That said, Nalcor acknowledges that of the 375 km of road it will have to build during construction, 15-30 km of it will be left after the flooding of the reservoir (Nalcor, 2009 Vol. 3). With a large amount of workers on site during construction, it is very possible that this access will lead to an increase in non-local hunting. As such, Nalcor plans on restricting access to all roads whenever possible, implementing a strict no-harvesting policy amongst the labor force, requesting the Department of Environment and Conservation to close the construction site to hunting, removing stream crossings following their utilization, and rehabilitating access roads after completion of the project (Nalcor, 2009 Vol. 3). The proponent also noted that the increase in access allowed by the roads may provide an opportunity for the local communities to participate in community-level stewardship initiatives. It would be the responsibility of regulatory and resource management authorities to enforce and maintain the restrictions and regulations on these new roads to ensure they would not be exploited and harm hunting success rates (Joint Panel Review, 2011).
Innu concerns that increased access and competition to the region may play out in the form of snow-mobile traffic (Nalcor, 2009 Vol. 3). Nalcor addressed this issue by claiming that regulatory and resource managment agencies will need to enforce strict policies to ensure the region is only used for conservation and protection. They suggest that new licensing procedures may be necessary to ensure this region gets adequate protection. The proponent is also in the process of negotiating an Impacts and Benefits Agreement (IBA) to help manage these negative effects (Joint Panel Review, 2011; Nalcor, 2009 Vol. 3).
With regards to loss of access to the water for boats, the proponent notes that access will actually improve after the creation of the reservoir and the flooding of rapids (Nalcor, 2009 Vol. 3). Nalcor is committed to reestablishing the flooded boat launches and removing vegetation to a depth of 3 m below the new surface level of the reservoir to ensure continued and safe navigation of the waterway (Nalcor, 2009 Vol. 3).
Mitigation:
The necessary mitigation procedures are summarized below
- Development of riparian zones of the new reservoir to encourage growth of shrubs favorable to hunting/trapping.
- Finalize and initiate a compensation plan for any Innu who lost a trapping area where they have demonstrated continual and successional use.
- Community announcement and posted notices warning of the coming inundation up to a month prior to the flooding.
- Restricting road access during and after construction.
- Removing stream-crossings when they are no longer needed.
- Request the project area be closed to hunting during the construction phase.
- Instituting a strict no-harvest and no-firearm policy among the workforce.
- Reservoir preparation to increase navigability.
- Reconstruction of lost boat launches.
- Removal and relocation of all populations of Canada yew threatened.
- Issue public advisories on herbicide use within the affected berry-picking areas.
Follow Up:
Follow up would be the onus of the federal and provincial agencies responsible for land and resource use to monitor changes in the distribution and intensity of land and resource activities within the project area (Joint Panel Review, 2011). Despite this, Nalcor committed to the following: providing quarterly project information which may assist these agencies, providing information on the location and status of all roads in the area, and gathering data on trapping activities to compare to pre-project data on trapping activities (Joint Panel Review, 2011; Nalcor, 2009 Vol. 3). The information they gather on the development and cumulative effects of the project on the local environment would be used to further to verify or further refine the efficacy of the effects management developed by the proponent for the hydroelectric development.
Critique
Positives
|
Negatives
|