Assessing the Effect on the Environment
The route of the Georgia Strait Crossing Pipeline intersects some of the most sensitive ecosystems in North America on both the onshore and offshore portions. In accordance with the CEA Act, the proponents of the project were required to assess the impact the proposed project would have on the environment [5, 6, 10]. The Panel's findings are summarized below however there was significant contradiction from the views of many Intervenors.
"... with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures...adverse environmental effects...of the pipeline are unlikely." (Joint Review Panel, 2003) [1]
"It is very difficult to see how the proposed GSX pipeline...can possibly make any contribution to the health of the Sound and Straits area." (Peter Ronald, Georgia Strait Alliance, Intervenor) [2]
Effects on the Marine Environment
The Panel held a Marine Technical Conference on November 14 and 15, 2002 with the goal of narrowing "differences on key technical and scientific issues associated with the marine portion of the Project" (Joint Review Panel). From the beginning of 2002 there were inquiries from the Marine Coalition on the information on the marine portion of the project. The Intervenors selected a team of representatives, qualified scientists, technical experts, and government agencies to discuss the key issues and problems regarding the marine portion of the project. At the end of the conference, four main Valued Ecosystem Components were identified. [1]
Critique
Overall, there was a lack of information needed to make to make a well-informed ruling on the expected impacts on the offshore portion of the project. GSX PL committed to the Panel's recommendations of pre- and post-construction surveys and mitigation measures however, many of these surveys should have been done prior to the initial proposal of the project. The lack of planning beforehand led to a severe outcry by major Intervenors and the general public and a final ruling by the Panel not based in scientific fact [1]. The identification of VECs is a crucial part of scoping in environmental assessment and thus, we would have liked to see a much more thorough assessment of the environment and the assoicated effects as well as sufficient proof that GSX PL was committed to altering their plans accordingly [5, 6].
In September 2000 Peter Ronald of the Georgia Strait Alliance stated that:
Critique
Overall, there was a lack of information needed to make to make a well-informed ruling on the expected impacts on the offshore portion of the project. GSX PL committed to the Panel's recommendations of pre- and post-construction surveys and mitigation measures however, many of these surveys should have been done prior to the initial proposal of the project. The lack of planning beforehand led to a severe outcry by major Intervenors and the general public and a final ruling by the Panel not based in scientific fact [1]. The identification of VECs is a crucial part of scoping in environmental assessment and thus, we would have liked to see a much more thorough assessment of the environment and the assoicated effects as well as sufficient proof that GSX PL was committed to altering their plans accordingly [5, 6].
In September 2000 Peter Ronald of the Georgia Strait Alliance stated that:
"... after attending five of the seven recent Marine information sessions on the GSX, I can't admit to being very much better informed. Little has been presented other than the bathymetric mapping and superficial reports of the tank testing of just three commercial species. I still don't know what the male crabs are going to do without their female mates who, you will recall, have trouble crossing the [41 cm] diameter pipe unless the pipe is trenched in." (Peter Ronald, Campaign Coordinator, Georgia Strait Alliance) [3]
Ecological Reserve No. 67
Located just offshore of Vancouver Island, the Satellite Channel ER 67 is BC's only fully subtidal ecological reserve. This 343 hectare area was established in 1975 by researchers at the University of Victoria as a pristine example of level, soft substrate sea floor that was found to be crucial habitat for the highly diverse community of benthic and demersal species. The reserve was meant to provide sanctuary for the minimum of 67 gastropod, amphipods, polychaete, echinoderms and mollusc species found in the area while also acting as sheltered area for migrating marine species such as orcas, lingcod, harbor porpoises, octopus, salmon and harbour seals. [3] In accordance with the Ecological Reserve Act and Protected Areas of British Columbia Act GSX PL would be required to avoid all areas of ER 67 although, according to Peter Ronald of the Georgia Strait Alliance (a major Intervenor), the preferred route by BC Hydro/Williams both financially and technically intersects the reserve. [4] |
The Joint Review Panel recognized the restrictions on laying the pipeline through the reserve however, there was no defined alternate route proposed. BC Parks commissioned an evaluation of the various routing options but refused to suggest an alternative until the NEB and CEAA made a ruling on the overall project. The Panel concluded that adverse impacts on the environment were unlikely when routing just north of ER 67 but the baseline information was severely lacking to make an informed decision [1]. Baseline data is extremely important in obtaining accurate results. Without it, the Panel's ability to assess potential effects is weakened. As is their ability to address the likelihood of these effects and the sensitivity of the environment to these disturbances.
Valued Ecosystem Components
Across the board, the major Intervenors expressed concern about the ability of GSX PL to accurately predict the impact on the environment and although GSX PL committed to pre-and post-construction surveys for all potential impacts there was still a lack of baseline information for the initial ruling. Potential impacts on the four main VECs are summarized below. [1]
Across the board, the major Intervenors expressed concern about the ability of GSX PL to accurately predict the impact on the environment and although GSX PL committed to pre-and post-construction surveys for all potential impacts there was still a lack of baseline information for the initial ruling. Potential impacts on the four main VECs are summarized below. [1]
Benthic Fauna
Marine Mammals
|
Marine Fauna
Marine Flora
|
Effects on the Terrestrial Environment
This project is located in the Nanaimo Lowland of the Georgia Depression of Vancouver Island. This is an area of high seismic activity due to the multiple fault systems in the surrounding areas. It is also an extremely nutrient-rich area supporting a vast array of sensitive ecosystems. The terrestrial portion of the pipeline passes through many different land use areas including [1]:
- Two biogeoclimatic zones: Coastal Douglas Fir and Coastal Western Hemlock
- Protected old growth forests
- Five aquifers in both unconsolidated deposits and consolidated bedrock
- Agricultural and residential land
- Traditional territory of 8 First Nation tribes
Critique
The terrestrial portion of the environmental assessment was more thorough and well supported than the marine portion but there were still many shortcomings. Similar to the marine portion, the Panel chose a ruling of unlikely adverse environmental impacts regardless of a lack of baseline and supporting evidence [1, 5]. For example, although there was a significant potential cumulative impact of construction activities on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions the Panel noted that there was no defined criteria to measure the significance of GHG emissions in an environmental assessment [1]. Additionally, the Panel stated that the proposed route would "directly alter forested wildlife habitat to early successional vegetation" while still ruling that adverse effects were unlikely [1]. Many Intervenors expressed concern over the terrestrial impact assessment arguing that:
The terrestrial portion of the environmental assessment was more thorough and well supported than the marine portion but there were still many shortcomings. Similar to the marine portion, the Panel chose a ruling of unlikely adverse environmental impacts regardless of a lack of baseline and supporting evidence [1, 5]. For example, although there was a significant potential cumulative impact of construction activities on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions the Panel noted that there was no defined criteria to measure the significance of GHG emissions in an environmental assessment [1]. Additionally, the Panel stated that the proposed route would "directly alter forested wildlife habitat to early successional vegetation" while still ruling that adverse effects were unlikely [1]. Many Intervenors expressed concern over the terrestrial impact assessment arguing that:
"...the consultation process should have been more comprehensive and inclusive, and that more systematic procedures, such as current environmental impact assessment tools, should have been used..." (Joint Review Panel, 2003) [1]
Value Ecosystem Components
Public and government consultation processes, literature review, consultation with technical specialists and review by the GSX PL assessment team led to the identification of the Valued Ecosystem Components on the terrestrial route of the pipeline. The potential impacts on the terrestrial VECs are summarized below [1].
Public and government consultation processes, literature review, consultation with technical specialists and review by the GSX PL assessment team led to the identification of the Valued Ecosystem Components on the terrestrial route of the pipeline. The potential impacts on the terrestrial VECs are summarized below [1].
Ground and Surface Water
Physiography and Soils
Wildlife
|
Fish and Riparian Habitat
Air quality
Vegetation
|
Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs)
These areas and their associated plant communities "...stabilize shorelines and control rates of erosion and material deposition in intertidal and offshore subtidal areas." Additionally, ESAs are "...of considerable importance as areas of human resource use and culture." Potential impacts on ESAs include [1]:
|
Species of Concern
GSX PL identified seven species of concern during their initial wildlife surveys [1]:
|
Mitigation Measures and Panel Recommendations
- Precautionary Principle, all impacts could not be measured due to a lack of baseline information
- Horizontal Directional Drilling would minimize the impact around exit hole when the pipeline made landfall
- Route of the pipeline was chosen in order to minimize the impact on sensitive habitats
- Timing of construction activities was specifically chosen to avoid sensitive breeding and migration behaviour of killer whales, lingcod, freshwater species, and migratory and resident birds
- GSX PL had to commit to pre-construction surveys to accumulate more baseline information and:
- Post-construction surveys, follow-up and monitoring programs to assess the actual impact of the project on the environment
- Revegetation and transplantation program for riparian habitats and sensitive vegetation
- Maintenance of watercourse flow during construction