Chapter 7 Managing Project Impacts

Question 1

The EA process establishes the measures that are necessary to __________, __________, ___________, or __________potentially adverse impacts and, where appropriate, incorporate these into ______________________.

Answer 1

avoid, minimize, reduce, offset;
environmental management plans

Question 2

Impact management is inherent in what stages of EA?

Answer 2

All of them

Question 3

Impact mitigation

Answer 3

to make “less severe”

Strategy in EA to reduce the significance, risk, or severity of an anticipated, adverse effect.

a hierarchy of strategies from avoiding impacts to offsetting impacts that simply cannot be avoided, minimized, or restored

often by reducing the geographic extent of the impact, the magnitude of change in baseline condition, or the duration of the impact

Question 4

For example, managing potentially adverse impacts to important species habitat should first consider options that ___________________________________, followed by options that ______________ habitat loss, ______________ habitat loss during project operations or at project completion, and finally, ______________ for unavoidable habitat loss. Each of these strategies is discussed below

Answer 4

avoid the loss of habitat;

minimize;

restoring;

compensating

Question 5

Draw diagram for impact mitigation efforts

Answer 5

Fig 7.1 page 127

Question 6

_______________ potentially adverse effects, and thus _____________ , is the most desirable approach to impact mitigation because it reduces the __________ and _________ needed to lower its severity. It also avoids potential conflict and concerns expressed by those who may ______________________.

Answer 6

Avoiding; preventing them from occurring.

time and financial resources

highly value the affected component .

Question 7

Methods to avoid potentially adverse impacts include:

Answer 7

the consideration of alternative project locations to avoid impacts to sensitive habitat;

scheduling project construction activities so that they do not conflict with the timing of wildlife migration;

routing ancillary developments, such as access roads and other linear features, to avoid sensitive habitat, stream crossings, or cultural features;

construction of self-contained work camps to avoid potentially negative socio-economic effects caused by site worker–community interaction.

Question 8

impact avoidance

Answer 8

A form of impact management whereby impacts are avoided at the outset by way of alternative project designs, timing, or location rather than managed or mitigated after they occur.

Question 9

Impact Avoidance should enter the EA equation ____________.

Answer 9

should enter the EA equation early, since most impact avoidance opportunities are presented early in project design processes through alternative locations of project infrastructure or project design options.

Question 10

Ecoducts for Avoiding Wildlife Collisions, Northern Sweden

Answer 10

The construction of ecoducts, also called wildlife bridges or wildlife overpasses, is an impact avoidance strategy in areas where wildlife collisions or disruptions to wildlife corridors or crossings are of concern. The image below shows an ecoduct near the LKAB iron ore mine in Kiruna, Norbotten County, northern Sweden. Operating for more than 100 years, the Kiruna mine is one of the world’s largest underground iron ore mines. The mine’s operations also have a significant surface footprint in an area that has traditionally been used by Sami Indigenous people for reindeer herding. Today, only about 10 per cent of Swedish Sami earn a living from reindeer husbandry, following the herd during its annual migration. The mine, coupled with other land uses, creates a bottleneck for herders when reindeer move between summer and winter pastures and poses high risk for collisions at road and railway crossings. This ecoduct and fence line were constructed at the mine site along the herding route to facilitate the movement of reindeer, minimize habitat fragmentation, and avoid collisions with railway traffic.

Question 11

Buffer zones

Answer 11

An area of undisturbed environment, usually separating a project’s actions or disturbance from background conditions such as a riparian buffer zone.

a common mitigation strategy to minimize sediment loading in streams. While buffer zones and setbacks do not fully prevent erosion or surface runoff from occurring, they do reduce the severity of sediment loading or contamination to aquatic environments caused by runoff.

Question 12

Restoration

Answer 12

An impact management action focused on restoring environmental quality, rehabilitating certain environmental features, repairing ecological functions, or restoring environmental components to varying degrees.

The objective is to return it to a more desirable condition compared to the state created by project actions. It won’t always be returned to the same pre-disturbance use.

Question 13

Provide an example of restoration

Answer 13

For example, in cases where the construction of a project requires clearing the vegetated landscape and destruction of important species habitat, impact management efforts can focus on restoring the landscape during project operations or post-operation to resemble the pre-disturbed state or function.

Question 14

Remediation

Answer 14

The process of post-industrial or post-development site cleanup, which typically involves the removal of contaminants or pollution from soil and water; a part of restoration

Reducing contamination levels of a site to safe levels within the ecosystem to protect human health and to restore certain land uses and hydrological functions

Question 15

An emerging problem in Canada, and internationally, is the increasing amount of ______________project infrastructure and _______________ with no clear party responsible for __________________________.

Answer 15

abandoned project infrastructure and contaminated project sites with no clear party responsible for remediation or reclamation

Question 16

Conventional oil and gas deposits are extracted using __________________.

Answer 16

drilling methods whereby the natural pressure of the wells and pumping or compression operations force the resource to the surface

Question 17

Inactive well

Answer 17

one that has stopped producing or operating for technical or economic reasons but that may be reactivated in the future. However, some of Alberta’s inactive wells date to the early 1900s, suggesting that inactive wells often remain inactive.

There are currently 90 000 inactive wells in Canada.

Question 18

additional 77,000 wells in Alberta are abandoned, meaning that the well has been ______________________.

Answer 18

“plugged” or “capped” and is no longer operational, but the site has still not been remediated (cleaned up) or reclaimed (restored).

Question 19

Orphaned well

Answer 19

a well that does not have a legally or financially responsible owner to deal with its closure, reclamation, and site restoration

Orphaned wells occupy land that cannot be safely used for other purposes, are human health hazards, and pose significant risks to the local environment because of leaks and soil and water contamination.

Question 20

Compensation

Answer 20

The measures taken by the proponent to make up for adverse environmental impacts of a project that exist after mitigation measures have been implemented.

Some environmental effects cannot be avoided, mitigated, or rectified. In such cases, the typical action is compensation for those unavoidable, residual, or irreparable impacts that remain after other impact management options have been exhausted or for which no management alternative exists.

Question 21

Compensation involves what?

Answer 21

$$$ or re-create environmental habitats at an alternative site.

Question 22

Compensation can be a controversial form of impact mitigation for many reasons:

Answer 22

the mitigation action is often delayed into the future; the affected component itself is not being replaced in situ; compensating for a physical impact does not necessarily compensate for function; and there can be skepticism that the proponent will actually follow through on compensation measures or payments

Question 23

LNG Canada Export Terminal Wetland Compensation Strategy

Answer 23

The LNG Canada Export Terminal, proposed by LNG Canada Development Inc., involves the construction and operation of a liquefied natural gas (LNG) processing and storage site and marine terminal for exporting LNG via shipping. The project site is near Kitimat, northern British Columbia, in the traditional territory of the Haisla Nation and within the Coastal Western Hemlock Very Wet Maritime Submontane Variant (CWHvm1) biogeoclimatic ecosystem. The project is among the largest in British Columbia’s history. At its peak, the LNG project will produce 26 million tonnes per annum. The project was subject to EA review under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 and provincially under the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Act. The project received federal EA approval and a provincial EA certificate of approval in June 2015.

The project footprint is 412 hectares, which will require vegetation clearing, grading, and replacement with infrastructure and the unavoidable loss of ecological functions of approximately 85 hectares of wetlands. Included among the EA conditions of approval were the development and implementation of measures to offset the residual loss of wetlands and the development of a wetland compensation strategy. The project’s Wetland Compensation Plan identifies 41 hectares of provincially listed or estuarine wetlands within the project’s footprint that are deemed ecologically significant and subject to a no net loss policy. Applying a 2:1 compensation ratio (wetland functions replaced: wetland functions lost), the plan identified 82 hectares of compensatory wetlands to ensure no net loss. The wetland compensation strategy includes the following components:

i. Implementation of marine fish habitat offsetting to establish 17 ha of estuarine wetlands within the Kitimat River Estuary, with similar habitat function to those lost as a result of project development.

ii. In-lieu fees to an environmental non-governmental organization to deliver land securement and the restoration, enhancement, and/or creation of 65 ha of wetlands through a legally binding agreement with LNG Canada.

iii. Development and delivery, by the environmental non-governmental organization, of a wetland monitoring program in accordance with the compensation plan and agreements with the proponent.
iv. Incorporation of traditional-use plants where appropriate and technically feasible in wetland compensation measures and providing access to those sites for the purposes of gathering traditional-use plants.

Question 24

environmental management plans

Answer 24

(EMPs) Plans prepared by a proponent that detail the specific impact mitigation strategies for a project and the ways in which they are to be implemented.

also referred to as environmental protection plans or environmental mitigation plans, are often a mandatory requirement in EA.

Question 25

typical components of a environmental management plan:

Answer 25

1. Introduction a. Project’s regulatory context b. Project description c. Assessment area and affected components d. Description of potential impacts 2. Impact Management Strategies e. Affected component “X” i. Avoidance ii. Minimization iii. Restoration iv. Offset or compensation v. Residual impacts 3. Monitoring and Reporting f. Targets, indicators, or benchmarks g. Roles and responsibilities 4. Conclusion

Question 26

Are the following mitigation statements effective: “the proponent will exercise supervision and control during construction to prevent bank erosion,” “the proponent should give special consideration to use of machinery in sensitive riparian zones,” “construction noise will be minimized,” or “the project will be carried out in such a way as to ensure as minimal disturbance as possible to sensitive habitat”

Answer 26

no; too vague requires a degree of precision in the way that strategies or recommendations are formulated.

Question 27

Management options should reflect a hierarchy from ________ to ___________.

Answer 27

avoidance to compensation.

Question 28

the following minimum standards must apply for ensuring good-practice impact management prescriptions in the EA process:

Answer 28

☑ Management actions clearly demonstrate the nexus between the proposed mitigation and the adverse effect of concern. ☑ Management actions focus on the potentially significant adverse effects. ☑ Management prescriptions reflect a hierarchical consideration of viable options, including: ❍ Options to avoid ❍ Options to minimize or reduce ❍ Options to restore ❍ Options to compensate ☑ Consideration is given to the known or anticipated efficacy of the prescriptions, including uncertainties, and any potentially adverse side effects: ❍ Based on previous, similar projects or assessments ❍ Based on scientific or technical literature ❍ Based on expert judgment, with appropriate substantiating evidence ☑ Management prescriptions set out targets, benchmarks, desired conditions, or objectives against which the efficacy of a prescribed mitigation action can be evaluated. ☑ Consideration is given to the scientific and technical (design) feasibility. ❍ Based on the significance of the adverse effect ❍ Based on the size or scope of the project under consideration ❍ Based on the available science and technology ☑ Prescribed management actions do not contradict existing regulations, land-use plans, or established management objectives. ☑ Where there are uncertainties and the potential for significant adverse effects, project management actions are part of a larger process of adaptive management.

Question 29

Adaptive management

Answer 29

Fundamental to impact management, especially where uncertainty exists about the nature of potential impacts or how the affected environment might respond to mitigation options A multi-step, deliberative process that involves exploring alternative management actions and making explicit forecasts about their outcomes, carefully designing monitoring programs to provide reliable feedback and understanding of the reasons underlying actual outcomes, and then adjusting objectives or management actions based on this new understanding. expect the unexpected due to the complexity of environmental and socio-economic systems, and uncertainties caused by exogenous factors such as the emergence of new technology or changing political or market conditions. a structured, well-planned approach to environmental management that treats management prescriptions or mitigation as experiments to test hypotheses, monitor the outcomes, and subsequently adapt actions as new knowledge and understanding are gained

Question 30

Draw the diagram for the adaptive management cycle

Answer 30

7.2 page 136

Question 31

Tales of Adaptive Management from Two Mining Projects

Answer 31

Although most commonly applied in the context of resource management, AM has become commonplace in impact mitigation and management plans for major resource development projects in Canada—including the Bipole III Transmission Line, the Energy East Pipeline, and the Pacific Northwest LNG project, to name a few. But not all AM initiatives proposed by project proponents, or required by review panels and regulatory authorities, live up to the nature and intended objectives of AM. Indeed, what is often labelled adaptive management in EA is too often haphazard management, conventional management inappropriately labelled, or a means to defer responsibility for solving a problem. The Diavik diamond mine is located on a 20 km2 island in Lac de Gras, Northwest Territories, approximately 300 km from Yellowknife. The Diavik project received approval for permitting and licensing in 1999, and mine production commenced in 2003. Water licences issued for mine operation required that Diavik include an AM strategy as part of its aquatic effects mitigation and monitoring program. The Diavik diamond mine adaptive management plan for aquatic effects (Diavik Diamond Mines Inc., 2007) provides a framework for how the mine’s aquatic effects monitoring program will be used to identify additional mitigation strategies to minimize the project’s impact on the aquatic environment. The plan defines AM as “a systematic process for continually improving mine operation practices by learning from the outcomes of performance monitoring and review programs . . . a cyclical process of plan, monitor, review, revise plan, monitor etc.” A 2008 review of Diavik’s AM plan, however, concluded that AM “is being viewed with much less rigor than required to be done properly, or is being misunderstood as managing adaptively” (Murray & Nelitz, 2008, p. 5). Diavik’s approach does not conform to the experimental design of AM, and the aquatic effects monitoring program was never intended to be undertaken to improve management goals or objectives. Rather, the program was established to manage impacts—both known and unexpected—through monitoring for management. Neither the mine itself nor the impacts caused by its operations was designed as an experiment but rather as development activities with environmental effects to be monitored and managed. This approach does not mean that Diavik’s aquatic effects monitoring program is not effective or that monitoring for management is not a worthwhile activity, but it should not be confused with AM (Murray & Nelitz, 2008). Diavik’s approach is typical of how AM is often used in EA, but AM is more than monitoring and responding. In the case of Imperial Oil’s Kearl oil sands mine project, however, the use of AM is much more controversial. The Kearl oil sands mine is located in the Athabasca oil sands region, Alberta, approximately 70 km north of Fort McMurray. Kearl is an open-pit oil sands mine and tailings management facility. The joint federal–provincial panel appointed to review the project issued its recommendation in 2007 and found no adverse environmental effects from the project. The panel’s recommendation, and the project authorization, were legally challenged by environmental organizations, based in part on the uncertainty about the effectiveness and technical and economic feasibility of “end-of-pit-lake” technology (Kwasniak, 2010). An “end-of-pit-lake” is a mined pit that will receive mine tailings near the end of the mining operation; in Kearl’s case, this is about 60 years after project start-up. The proposed concept is that, after covering the last of the tailings and filling the pit with fresh water, it will be possible to create a lake that will again support fish populations. Uncertainty relating to the effectiveness and technical and economic feasibility of an end-of-pit-lake mitigation program was a key AM issue. Imperial Oil proposed an adaptive management approach to its end-of-pit-lake plan. The Federal Court reviewing the legal challenge indicated that some uncertainty existed with respect to end-of-pit-lake technology but that the level of uncertainty was not enough to deny project approval. The uncertainty was not the complexity of the environmental system per se but rather whether the proposed mitigation would work given the state of knowledge about the technology. Kwasniak (2010, p. 427) argues that AM was being used as a substitute for committing to specific impact management measures and that AM “cannot be used to attempt to cover a situation where a proponent is not sure how to mitigate a negative environmental impact but commits to finding the technology or science in the future, if a problem arises.” What Imperial Oil proposed is not AM but managing adaptively—i.e., if the proposed technique does not work, we will try something else.

Question 32

without clear and measurable _____________, ___________________, ____________, ____________________, and ________________, __________________, ______________, there would appear to be little to no basis for concluding that the uncertainty associated with proposed mitigation measures will actually be reduced, let alone that these measures will prove effective and that significant adverse environmental effects will be mitigated.

Answer 32

objectives, indicators, hypotheses, thresholds, and commitments with respect to monitoring, follow up and adjustment, which is to say rigorous AM,

Question 33

Making impacts _________________- is not good enough. As Gibson (2011) argues, “ultimately, the enhancement we need to deliver through environmental assessment is confidence that ________________________.” Development projects can often create as many __________ impacts, particularly economic ones, as they can ___________ impacts. Thus, an important management strategy is to___________________, _______________________________, and _________________________ —especially for those communities most adversely affected by the project. One of the primary instruments for ensuring that communities affected by development also receive substantial benefits from development is ____________________.

Answer 33

Making impacts less severe is not good enough. As Gibson (2011) argues, “ultimately, the enhancement we need to deliver through environmental assessment is confidence that every approved undertaking will move us positively towards a desirable and durable future.” Development projects can often create as many positive impacts, particularly economic ones, as they can negative impacts. Thus, an important management strategy is to create new benefits, enhance existing benefits, and maximize the duration of those impacts—especially for those communities most adversely affected by the project. One of the primary instruments for ensuring that communities affected by development also receive substantial benefits from development is negotiated agreements.

Question 34

Negotiated agreements, often referred to as impact benefit agreements (IBAs):

Answer 34

legal agreement between a proponent and a community or group that will potentially be affected by a project; generally applied to ensure that the resources for maximizing the benefits associated with the development are fully capitalized on. IBAs typically include negotiated measures to mitigate adverse project impacts beyond those included in the EA and to ensure that affected communities will benefit from project contracting and employment opportunities

Question 35

With few exceptions, _____________ are not directly involved in the development and negotiation of these agreements.

Answer 35

governments

Question 36

The growth in IBAs in recent years may be attributed, in part, to the

Answer 36

deficiencies of EA in negotiating community socio-economic issues, impacts, and benefits at the time of the development proposal and impact assessment.

Question 37

IBAs addressed many issues of concern to the local community, including ______________________________________.

Answer 37

community–industry relationships and benefits-sharing, that project EAs did not

Question 38

draw diagram for Timing of IBA negotiation in the EA process

Answer 38

pg 140, also description of the three in that page