Hello readers,
In the wake of the Muskrat Falls
hydroelectricity development passing its federal and
provincial environmental assessments, we have decided that this
week, instead of writing on the topic the conservation effects of a different
renewable energy resource, we will be discussing the issues surrounding this
development and what they mean in terms of conservation in Newfoundland and
Labrador.
The Muskrat Falls hydroelectricity
project, proposed for development on the Lower Churchill river located west of
Happy-Valley Goose Bay, Labrador, is a project who's potential for energy
production has been known for quite some time - since about 1894. However,
until now, no project was never put into effect. In total, the proposed project
includes the Muskrat Falls generating facility (dam and two transmission
lines), a Labrador Island transmission link (two converter stations, two series
of overhead transmission lines, and 30 km submarine cables), and finally
a Maritime Transmission Link from the Island of Newfoundland to Nova
Scotia (two converter stations, two overhead transmission lines, and 180 km
submarine cable). The full transmission map (figure 1) shows the complete map
of where the proposed lines and stations will be located. When taking into
account all that must go into such a sizable project like this, one
can easily see how great the potential environmental and conservation
impacts could be, especially in the direct area of the dam (generating
facility) and in the installation of cut lines for overhead cables. In addition
to these direct impacts, one must also take into account the possibility of
habitat fragmentation caused by the number of new roads which must be installed
in order to enable transport in and out of the construction area, as well as
the 1000 person accommodations which will be built to
house construction site employees.
|
||
During the initial analysis of
the environmental impact of this project, a Joint Review Panel
(JRP) was mandated in 2009 in order to assess and make recommendations to both
federal and provincial governing bodies pertaining to all aspects surrounding the
development (e.g. expected monetary returns, alternative energy source
analysis, effects on climate and atmosphere, GHG
emission, environmental impacts, etc.). Through this analysis, it was
determined that the project would have several significant adverse environmental effects
which needed to be dealt with. Some of their highest concerns included the
effects on fish habitat and assemblage in the reservoirs, effects on
terrestrial, wetland, and riparian habitat, effects on the Red Wine Mountain caribou herd,
and possible build up of methylmercury in food stocks used by natives in the
area.
In their addressing of these
known risks, the government of Newfoundland and Labrador has acknowledged that
these risks are present and they will attempt to mitigate these risks as best
as possible within the time frame of the project's development. Hoever, both
federal and provincial governments have stated that ‘the benefits far outweigh
the risks’. In addition, with regards to
some environmental recommendations made by the JRP, the NL
government did not accept all aspects of their advisory. For example, in the
recommendation regarding recovery strategies for endangered species,
the government stated that while they do accept the intent, the reject the
timeline proposed, stating that far too much time is needed in order to
properly assess the potential damage and required recovery strategy amendments needed
for all possible species at risk within the project area. While this is a truly
realistic option if considering the implications from an industry perspective,
this decision from a conservational point of view could be disastrous. While
assessments have been performed to assess any whether any potentially rare
plant species are located within the project zone, these species still require
a full assessment, involving the formation of a recovery team as per provincial
legislation. Since this will probably not happen prior to project approval. In
order to properly assess and fully mitigate the potential environmental risks
associated with this project, both federal and provincial governments need to
allow for proper analysis and consideration. Don’t be in such a rush.
Some useful links for further info:
News Article Surrounding Pass of Environmental Assessment
Mercury in Hydroelectric Reservoirs
Predicting the Entrainment Vulnerability of Fish in Hydropower Reservoirs
Government of Canada Response to the Report of the Joint Federal-Provincial Review Panel
Rare Plant Survey in the Lower Churchill River Valley
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador’s Response to the Report of the Joint Review Panel
Interesting read. You mentioned the build up of methyl-mercury in food stocks as a possible effect. Just curious as to where methyl-mercury comes from and how it's incorporated into food stocks for natives.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think is the best route for the transmission line (assuming it goes ahead.. The EA for that is not yet complete.. Strategically, the EA process was broken up into separate parts for the generating station, the sub sea lines and the cross island transmission line). An earlier p,an suggested the line go through Gros Morne, but that option is no longe on the table... Should it be considered?
ReplyDelete