P-00352 Tab 25

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mckeagep/My%20Documents/Lower%20Chrurchill/May%2026/Luttermann.htm CIMFP Exhibit P-00352 - Tab 25 Page 1 From: on behalf of Panel Registry [CEAA] Subject: FW: Lower Churchill project Attachments: Luttermann Letter to CEAA Panel_Lower Churchill_May 20 2009.doc; Luttermann Thesis_2007.pdf From: Annette Luttermann<email address removed> Sent: May 21, 2009 6:20 PM To: Pineau,Maryse [CEAA] Subject: CEAR, Assessment 07-05-26178 Dear Madame Pineau, Please accept the attached letter and accompanying document as a submission to the Panel with regards to the Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Project EIS and deficiencies related to the EIS Guidelines. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards, Annette M Luttermann PhD <contact information removed> file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/mckeagep/My%20Documents/Lower%20Chrurchill/May%2026/Luttermann.htm [5/26/2009 9:22:19 AM] CIMFP Exhibit P-00352 - Tab 25 Page 2 Annette Luttermann PhD <contact information removed> May 19, 2009 Maryse Pineau Panel Manager Project Assessment Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 160 Elgin Street, 22nd floor Place Bell Canada Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 Re: Deficiencies in the Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Project EIS with respect to cumulative effects assessment Dear Madame Pineau and Panel Members, In response to your request for comment on the adequacy of the EIS submitted by Nalcor for the proposed Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Project, please accept the following observations regarding some of the deficiencies in the EIS in meeting the Guidelines particularly with reference to cumulative effects assessment. Also, attached is a copy of my doctoral thesis completed in 2007, entitled: “Historical Changes in the Riparian Habitats of Labrador’s Churchill River Due to Flow Regulation: The Imperative of Cumulative Effects Assessment”. This work was intended to contribute to some aspects of cumulative effects assessment in this watershed and the broader region. Many other elements of the ecosystem could be examined in a similar, relatively simple fashion to achieve a better understanding of the landscape level changes caused by facilities built prior to the introduction of environmental assessment regulations in combination with proposed projects. 1. Upstream hydroelectric facilities are essentially screened out of consideration for cumulative effects assessment using faulty rationale and providing insufficient analysis. In Volume 1A, Section 9.9 “Cumulative Environmental Effects” of the EIS the proponent has screened out the Churchill Falls project and other upstream hydroelectric facilities using a stepped approached to screening as opposed to considering all of the criteria suggested by the Guidelines. CIMFP Exhibit P-00352 - Tab 25 Page 3 The Guidelines state: “Cumulative effects are defined as changes to the environment due to the Project where those overlap, combine or interact with the environmental effects of other existing, past or reasonably foreseeable projects or activities” (p.35). With regards to hydroelectric facilities, the proponents consider only those cumulative effects that are perceived to directly overlap with the immediate spatial footprint of the proposed dams, reservoirs and generating stations. (See Figure 9-2 Cumulative Environmental Effects Assessment Screening Process p. 9-29) The authors of the EIS explain that the existing Churchill Falls facilities are excluded from more comprehensive cumulative effects assessment because the effects from that project are already taken into account in the baseline description of the study area. However, the baseline documents demonstrate very limited analysis or understanding of the likely environmental effects of the Churchill Falls project on downstream reaches. There is acknowledgement that the current flow and ice conditions in the lower main stem are to some extent influenced by upstream facilities but little investigation that could offer any ecological insight on present conditions. Furthermore, there is almost no description of “baseline” or current conditions in the upper watershed or adjacent rivers affected by regulation from the Churchill Falls project. The EIS fails to discuss either the decommissioned Twin Falls infrastructure, or the Menihek facility that continues to operate in the upper Churchill River watershed. As a result of this limited analysis, there is no understanding of the incremental effects of hydroelectric development within the watershed let alone in adjacent watersheds that were affected by the existing developments. This does not make ecological sense, nor does it contribute to a meaningful consideration of cumulative effects. 2. The proponents have used the same boundaries for most of the assessment of VECs, whereas the Guidelines suggest that it is appropriate to use larger boundaries in general for cumulative effects assessment. The Guidelines state: “(b) Present a justification of the spatial and temporal boundaries of the cumulative effects assessment. The boundaries for the cumulative effects assessment will again depend on the effects being considered (e.g., will generally be different for different effects). These cumulative effects boundaries will also generally be different from (larger than) the boundaries for the corresponding Project effects;” (p.35). The EIS offers some estimates of the percentage of the habitat of various species or groups of species that would likely be adversely affected by the proposed project within the lower river valley. If the watershed was considered as a whole, a different perspective on the proportion of habitats converted by hydroelectric development projects would be gained. The effects of similar types of habitat conversion due to river regulation within the watershed and across the landscape are ongoing (temporal overlap). They should be considered in any analysis of cumulative effects even within the study area. If we consider the criteria applied to measure environmental effects, i.e. nature, magnitude, duration, geographical extent, frequency, reversibility, certainty of knowledge, and then consider even in a cursory fashion the incremental effects of the multiple CIMFP Exhibit P-00352 - Tab 25 Page 4 projects on this watershed just on riparian habitat, it is inconceivable that this assessment could ignore the reservoirs, and reduced flow rivers adjacent to the proposed project. The proponent is responsible for the Churchill Falls project; it is part of their own infrastructure and they should have more data about it than anyone else. The new facilities rely on the operation of the Churchill Falls facility and must coordinate their operations directly with it. Furthermore, it is widely recognized in the ecological literature that stepped series of dams on rivers have significant ecological effects (i.e. Johnson, 2002), and that watersheds are reasonable ecological boundaries for assessments. The approach to assessing cumulative effects taken by the proponent is clearly not adequate to the task if we are to attempt to assess the costs and benefits of this project and begin to address the question of ecological thresholds of disturbance across this landscape. Such an exceptionally limited approach to cumulative effects assessment is not accepted in principle by Hydro Québec for example. They purportedly advocate a regional and historical perspective (e.g. Bérubé, 2007). 3. Executive Summary provides a confused impression of riparian vegetation along lower river reaches In the Executive Summary, the authors state: “The shoreline areas are reflective of the effects of ice pans washing downstream in the spring especially in areas of high gradient and rapids. This acts to scour riverbanks of any perennial vegetation, leaving a zone that is either devoid of growth or hosting only seasonal riparian grasses and shrubs.” (p.37). There is plenty of perennial vegetation along the river banks. There is a zone of low vegetation cover typical of large northern rivers, but there are many reaches where there is dense vegetation cover down to the shoreline, including aquatics. Almost all riparian plant species in the boreal region are perennials (including all grasses and shrubs), and all grow only seasonally, being covered with ice most of the year. This is natural of riparian areas and one of the factors that makes them rich in species. The section does not explain any relationship between the existing conditions and the effects of the Churchill Falls generating facility, including probable increased shoreline erosion due to more variable winter flows and ice scour. The executive summary should present a more accurate picture of the river shorelines in terms of the diversity of species and habitats relative to surrounding uplands, and include more specific indication of some of the effects of existing river regulation. This is important for the reader who may not be familiar with the area. 4. Misleading discussion regarding the potential for mitigation for the loss of riparian wetlands The adverse effects of the conversion of riparian wetlands in the lower river valley are deemed to be “not significant”. This is partly based on an overly optimistic proposal for mitigation. There is no information on how the proponents will attempt to recreate riparian wetlands. This they promise will come later. But how do people evaluate the EIS on this basis? There is no evidence presented from other projects that anyone has yet been successful in such mitigation endeavors. Evidence

Load more