Section 5.0 Assessment Methodology VE51988
TABLE OF CONTENTS PART B - ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS, MITIGATION, AND SIGNIFICANCE OF RESIDUAL EFFECTS... 5-1 5.0... 5-1 5.1 Introduction... 5-1 5.2 Objectives... 5-1 5.3 Environmental Assessment Scope and Considerations... 5-1 5.3.1 Baseline Studies... 5-2 5.3.2 Application Information Requirements... 5-2 5.3.3 Project Description... 5-3 5.3.4 Consultation... 5-3 5.4 Assessment Methodology Framework... 5-4 5.5 Valued Component Scoping and Rationale... 5-5 5.6 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries... 5-7 5.6.1 Spatial Boundaries... 5-7 5.6.2 Temporal Boundaries... 5-7 5.7 Description of Valued Component... 5-8 5.7.1 Information Source and Methods... 5-8 5.7.2 Detailed Baseline... 5-8 5.7.3 Relevant Legislation and Legal Framework... 5-9 5.7.4 Cultural Ecological or Community Knowledge... 5-9 5.7.5 Past, Present or Future Projects / Activities... 5-10 5.8 Potential Effects of the Proposed Project and Proposed Mitigation... 5-10 5.8.1 Identification and Analysis of Potential Project Effects... 5-10 5.8.2 Mitigation Measures... 5-11 5.9 Potential Residual Effects and their Significance... 5-12 5.9.1 Potential Residual Effects After Mitigation... 5-12 5.9.2 Significance of Potential Residual Effects... 5-13 5.9.2.1 Quantitative Versus Qualitative Assessment... 5-18 5.9.2.2 Evaluation of Effects Using Established Thresholds... 5-18 5.9.2.3 Evaluation of Effects without Using Established Thresholds... 5-18 5.10 Cumulative Effects Assessment... 5-19 5.10.1 Rationalisation for Carrying Forward Project Related Residual Effects Into the Cumulative Effects Assessment... 5-20 5.10.2 Interaction Between Valued Components and Other Past, Present or Future Projects / Activities... 5-20 5.10.3 Mitigation Measures... 5-28 5.10.4 Potential Residual Cumulative Effects and their Significance... 5-28 5.11 Limitations... 5-28 5.12 Conclusion... 5-28 5.13 Summary of Assessment of Potential Effects... 5-29 TOC 5-i
List of Tables Table 5.9-1: Biophysical Environment Rating Criteria for Evaluating Significance of Effects... 5-14 Table 5.9-2: Human Environment Rating Criteria for Evaluating Significance of Effects... 5-16 Table 5.10-1: Project Inclusion List... 5-23 Table 5.13-1: Summary of Potential Residual Environmental Effects Analysis 1... 5-29 Table 5.13-2: Summary of Potential Residual Cumulative Environmental Effects Analysis 1... 5-29 List of Figures Figure 5.10-1: Projects and Activities Evaluated for Inclusion in the Cumulative Effects Assessment... 5-27 TOC 5-ii
PART B - ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS, MITIGATION, AND SIGNIFICANCE OF RESIDUAL EFFECTS 5.0 5.1 Introduction The environmental effects assessment methodology for the proposed Kitsault Mine Project (proposed Project) has been developed to meet the requirements of the Application Information Requirements (AIR), as well as criteria of the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office (BC EAO) and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (Agency). This approach considers environmental, economic, social, heritage, and health aspects and how these may be affected by the proposed Project. This section presents the approach and methodology for the effects assessment of the proposed Project. The following subsections describe the objectives of the Environmental Assessment (EA), considerations that define the EA scope, methodology for the selection of Valued Components (VCs), and the effects and cumulative effects assessment (CEA) methodology that meet the requirements of the provincial and federal review processes. These aspects are described in general terms in this section and applied to the effects assessment presented in Chapters 6 (Environmental), 7 (Economic), 8 (Social), 9 (Heritage), and 10 (Health). 5.2 Objectives The EA provides an integrated process for identifying, evaluating and minimising potential effects (environmental, economic, social, heritage, and health) of a proposed project before they occur. The process ultimately incorporates environmental, economic, social, heritage, and health factors into decision-making that is supportive of sustainable development (BC EAO 2010a; Agency 2003). The goals of an EA are to: Identify potential interactions between project components and the surrounding biophysical and human environments; Identify and assess the potential environmental effects of a project before it is carried out; Develop effective and feasible mitigation, enhancement, and / or management measures for identified effects; Determine if any potential residual effects are significant and, if so, whether they are likely to occur; and Determine if any potential cumulative effects are significant and, if so, whether they are likely to occur. 5.3 Environmental Assessment Scope and Considerations The scope of the EA is defined in general terms by baseline studies, the AIR, the Project Description, and consultation with regulatory agencies, the Nisga a Nation, Aboriginal groups, and the public. The assessment scope is further defined through the process of VC Page 5-1
selection, issue scoping, and identification of temporal and spatial boundaries. The following subsections describe four key considerations of the EA scope; baseline studies, AIR, Project Description, and consultation. VC selection and issue scoping methodology is outlined in Section 5.5, and the determination of spatial and temporal boundaries is described in Section 5.6. 5.3.1 Baseline Studies Baseline study results were considered in determining biophysical and human environmental components potentially affected by the proposed Project. Comprehensive baseline studies were conducted in support of the proposed Project during 2008, 2009 and 2010. Complete baseline study reports are included as appendices. Baseline studies determine the state of the environment prior to development and document the current condition. 5.3.2 Application Information Requirements The AIR submitted pursuant to the procedural order issued under section 11 of the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Act (BCEAA) (Government of British Columbia (BC) 2002) provides legally binding guidance to Avanti Kitsault Mine Ltd. (proponent), and provides some certainty for regulators, the Nisga a Nation, Aboriginal groups, stakeholders, and the proponent about the assessment requirements. The BC EAO subsequently issued a section 13 Order for the proposed Project amending the scope in the section 11 Order. The draft AIR for the proposed Project was originally submitted to the BC EAO in November 2010. The draft AIR was reviewed by the BC EAO s advisory Working Group. The draft AIR was revised and re-submitted to the Working Group in February 2011. Following this Working Group review, a public review period of 30 days was held from 9 March 2011 to 8 April 2011. The Working Group review and public review period on the draft AIR provided opportunity for review and comment from: Canadian federal agencies including the Agency, Environment Canada (EC), Health Canada (HC), Transport Canada (TC), Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), Major Project Management Office (MPMO), and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC); BC provincial agencies including the BC EAO, BC Ministry of Environment (BC MOE), BC Ministry of Energy and Mines (BC MEM), BC Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations (BC MFLRNO), BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (BC MOTI), BC Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation (BC MJTI), and Northern Health; Local government agencies including the Kitimat - Stikine Regional District (RD), District of Stewart, City of Terrace, City of Kitimat, District of New Hazelton, and the Village of Hazelton; The Nisga a Nation, including the Nisga a Lisims Government (NLG); Page 5-2
Aboriginal groups, including the Metlakatla, Kitsumkalum and Kitselas First Nations, Gitxsan Chiefs Office and the Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs Office, wilp Luuxhon, wilp Wiitaxhayetwx-Sidok, wilp Gamlaxyeltxw, wilp Gwaas Hlaam and wilp Gwinuu; and Stakeholder groups and the general public. The draft AIR was subsequently modified, finalised and approved by the BC EAO on2 March 2011. Comments from the review of the draft AIR are provided in Appendix 4.1-A. The AIR was developed in accordance to the BC EAO guidance document Application Information Requirements Template (BC EAO 2010a). The purpose of the AIR document is to identify the information needed to conduct the EA, and specify the information that should be provided in the proponent s Application for an EA Certificate for the proposed Project, made under section 16 of the BC Environmental Assessment Act (BC EAO 2010b). Thus, the AIR for the proposed Project provides an outline for the scope and methodology of the effects assessment and establishes the framework for identifying potential effects of the proposed Project on environmental, economic, social, heritage, and health aspects. The AIR review and comment period also helped identify and facilitate the review and consideration of the values, issues, and concerns of the proposed Project from government agencies, the Nisga a Nation, Aboriginal groups, stakeholders, and the public. 5.3.3 Project Description The Project Description (Section 3.0) establishes the framework for the EA relative to the phases, components, and activities of the proposed Project. The phases of the proposed Project include construction, operations, decommissioning and closure, and post-closure and abandonment. Details regarding these four phases are outlined in Section 5.6 and Section 3.0. Project Description considerations were determined by feasibility studies and engineering design. Design alternatives are addressed in Section 3.13 (Alternative Means of Carrying Out the Proposed Project). 5.3.4 Consultation The proponent began consulting with the Nisga a Nation, Aboriginal groups, government agencies, local communities, stakeholders, and the public on the proposed Project in February of 2008. The BC EAO issued a section 10 Order on 24 June 2010, commencing Project review under the BCEAA. A section 11 Order was issued by BC EAO on 24 November 2010, providing direction on which Aboriginal groups are to be consulted. The BC EAO subsequently issued a section 13 Order for the proposed Project on 8 June 2011, amending the definition of Aboriginal groups in the section 11 Order. The proponent continues to engage and consult with the relevant groups potentially affected by the proposed Project, including the Nisga a Nation, Aboriginal groups, the public, special interest groups, and representatives of local communities. Page 5-3
Values, issues, and interests identified through the consultation process have been used to help identify VCs and potential Project interactions with environmental, economic, social, heritage and health components. These values, issues and interests have been incorporated into the assessment of potential effects across multiple disciplines and were also considered in the development of mitigation and management strategies for avoiding or minimising adverse effects, and enhancing positive effects. A full review of consultation activities undertaken during the pre-application phase is provided in Section 4.0 (Assessment Process). This includes a detailed summary of communications, issues, and interest related to the proposed Project identified through consultation with the Nisga a Nation, Aboriginal groups, regulatory agencies, and the public. Key issues raised through consultation are summarised in each section of the effects assessment sections (Sections 6.0, 7.0, 8.0, 9.0, and 10.0). 5.4 Assessment Methodology Framework The methodology used to assess the potential effects of the proposed Project follows the methodology outlined within the proposed Project AIR as issued by the BC EAO and the Agency on 2 March 2011. The development of the assessment methodology was guided by the following documents: Application Information Requirements Template (BC EAO 2010a); Environmental Assessment Office User Guide (BC EAO 2010b); Reference Guide: Determining Whether a Project is Likely to Cause Significant Adverse Environmental Effects (Agency 1999a); Reference Guide: Assessing Environmental Effects on Physical and Cultural Heritage Resources (Agency 1996); Cumulative Effects Assessment Practitioners Guide (Agency 1999b); and Reference Guide: Addressing Cumulative Environmental Effects (Agency 1994). The effects assessment is carried out separately for each discipline, the details of which are presented in Sections 6.0 (Environmental), 7.0 (Economic), 8.0 (Social), 9.0 (Heritage), and 10.0 (Health). The effects assessment process is an iterative process, integrating input from a wide variety of sources including design criteria and consultation input, with a substantial amount of collaboration, integration, and cross-referencing between disciplines. Each discipline-specific effects assessment incorporates the following eight steps: 1. Valued Component Scoping and Rationale: VCs and key issues are identified through issue scoping, and are selected and rationalised based on consultation with government agencies, the Nisga a Nation, Aboriginal groups, and the public, baseline studies and other scientific studies, and their relevance to the proposed Project. 2. Spatial and Temporal Boundaries: boundaries in space and time are identified for each VC. Page 5-4
3. Description of VC: baseline information including data source, methods, and existing baseline conditions are described for each VC, as well as relevant legislation, cultural ecological or community knowledge, and past, present and future projects or activities that may contribute to cumulative effects on the VC. 4. Potential Effects and Proposed Mitigation: potential direct and indirect effects of the proposed Project, and combined effects arising from their interactions are identified, analysed and described for each VC, along with enhancement, avoidance, mitigation and compensation measures to address effects. 5. Potential Residual Effects and Their Significance: potential residual effects after mitigation are identified and described, and whether they are adverse, significant, and likely are assessed for each VC. 6. Potential Cumulative Effects: potential cumulative effects of the proposed Project are identified and described, and whether they are significant are assessed for each VC based on whether potential residual effects of the proposed Project interact with other past, present or future projects or activities. 7. Limitations: any limitations associated with the CEA are described for each VC. 8. Conclusion: a conclusion with respect to potential residual effects and cumulative effects, and their significance are described for each VC. The following sections describe the methodology of each of these eight steps. 5.5 Valued Component Scoping and Rationale The assessment focuses on specific components of the environmental, economic, social, heritage, and health environments called VCs. The BC EAO (2010b) defines VCs as components that are considered important by the proponent, public, First Nations, scientists and government agencies involved in the assessment process. For the proposed Project, importance determination is based on the values and interests of the Nisga a Nation, Aboriginal groups, scientific and regulatory concern, and relevance and sensitivity to potential Project effects. VCs for the proposed Project are grouped into five categories including environmental, economic, social, heritage, and health. In general: Valued environmental components include environmental features and indicators of environmental health and are grouped into the following subject areas: o Atmospheric Environment; o Groundwater; o Hydrology and Surface Water Quality; o Freshwater Aquatic Resources; o Marine Aquatic Resources; o Terrain, Surficial Geology and Soils; Page 5-5
o o o Vegetation and Plant Communities; Wildlife and their Habitat; and Environmental Health. Valued economic components include features or indicators of economic health; Valued social components include activities or sites of social and cultural importance, Aboriginal community interests, and features or indicators of community wellbeing and quality of life; Valued heritage components include sites or objects defined under the Heritage Conservation Act (Government of BC 1996); and Valued health components include features or indicators of community health and health living. For the proposed Project, identification of VCs and the rationale for selection are described within each discipline-specific section of Section 6.0 (Environmental), Section 7.0 (Economic), Section 8.0 (Social), Section 9.0 (Heritage), and Section 10.0 (Health). A list of VCs grouped by subject area considered in the EA is also provided in the description of the existing environmental (Section 6.1), economic (Section 7.1), social (Section 8.1), heritage (Section 9.1) and health (Section 10.1) setting. Each discipline conducted the following three steps to identify VCs and key issues of the proposed Project: 1. Interaction Matrix: An interaction matrix is a tool used to narrow the scope of the proposed Project EA to relevant interactions. An interaction matrix was developed to help identify valid connections and anticipated interactions between Project components and activities and environmental, economic, social, heritage, and health VCs. 2. Issue Scoping: Issue scoping is a tool used to focus the assessment effort on the most important effects from a project. Concerns and issues related to the proposed Project raised by the Nisga a Nation, Aboriginal groups, government agencies, potentially affected communities, Non-Government Organisations (NGO), and the public through consultation, Working Group meetings, and / or review of baseline studies, the AIR, and the Project Description were identified and reviewed by each discipline. These issues, concerns, and potential effects were considered along with professional judgement and organised into related topics termed key issues. Key issues and the rationale for selection are described for each VC. 3. Valued Component Section Rationale: Identification of potential VCs considered concerns and recommendations raised through consultation with the Nisga a Nation, Aboriginal groups, government agencies, and the public. Outcomes of baseline studies, Traditional Use / Traditional Knowledge (TU / TK) studies, and professional expertise were also considered. VCs and associated rationale for selection are described for each discipline. Page 5-6
5.6 Spatial and Temporal Boundaries 5.6.1 Spatial Boundaries Spatial boundaries used for the EA are identified for each VC. Spatial boundary identification considered the following criteria: Physical extent (terrestrial, freshwater aquatic, and airshed) of the proposed Project; Extent of terrestrial, freshwater aquatic, and marine ecosystems and applicable resources potentially affected by the proposed Project; Extent of potential social, economic, heritage, and health effects, including those of the Nisga a Nations and Aboriginal groups arising from the proposed Project; and Results from consultation with the Nisga a Nations, Aboriginal groups, the public, and government agencies on the scoping of issues to be addressed in the Application. Each VC section includes a description and rationalisation for each study area boundary. Maps outlining the spatial extent of the Local Study Area (LSA) and Regional Study Area (RSA) are provided. The Cumulative Effects Study Area (CESA) varies for each VC. Spatial boundaries reflect the range of geographic areas within which specific effects may be experienced and are based on applicable guidance documents, reasonable expectations and professional judgement, including: Proposed Project footprint (includes each on-site facility described in Section 3.7 and on-site roads); LSA includes the proposed Project footprint plus a buffer encompassing the zone of potential direct project-specific effects; RSA includes the proposed Project and surrounding region encompassing the zone of influence for potential project-specific effects; and CESA includes the proposed Project and surrounding region where past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future human activities likely result in residual effects on each VC; only those human activities that have residual effects which have a temporal and spatial overlap with the proposed Project s residual effects are considered. Where effects to VCs are anticipated, baseline data is used to assess potential effects related to the proposed Project. This includes the expansion of study areas of selected VCs where appropriate. The study areas were expanded for the Social Assessment RSA. 5.6.2 Temporal Boundaries Temporal boundaries are time limits for the EA. Temporal boundary selection is based on a reasonable expectation of the time over which the proposed Project could affect biophysical and human environment receptors. Page 5-7
The rationale for temporal boundary selection for each VC is presented in Section 6.0 (Environmental), Section 7.0 (Economic), Section 8.0 (Social), Section 9.0 (Heritage), and Section 10.0 (Health). Temporal considerations taken in selection of temporal boundaries are described, including the following: Each proposed Project phase (i.e., construction, operations, decommissioning / closure, and post-closure) and the possibility of economic and social effects occurring before construction; and Any annual or seasonal variation related to VCs and biophysical constraints for each proposed Project phase. Preliminary temporal boundaries of the proposed Project, which are contingent on permitting, include four primary phases: 1. Construction Phase - estimated 25 month period. Includes: o o Site clearing and preparation, earthworks such as excavating and site grading; Facilities, such as the mine processing facilities, Tailings Management Facility (TMF) South Embankment, and water management facilities; o Camp complex; and o May include the Patsy Creek diversion. 2. Operations Phase - estimated at approximately two months of commissioning, and 15 to 16 years of mining (last two years are milling low grade ore). This includes progressive reclamation. 3. Decommissioning and Closure Phase - estimated at 15 to 17 years. Includes a closure period during which the buildings and un-needed infrastructure would be removed and the sites reclaimed. 4. Post-closure Phase - estimated at five years or more. This includes post-closure monitoring until on-site water quality has stabilised and indicates no future adverse effects on local receiving waters. Stabilisation of the WRMF and TMF would also be considered in post-closure monitoring. 5.7 Description of Valued Component 5.7.1 Information Source and Methods The source of information and methods used to obtain detailed baseline information on the selected VC is described in each VC effects assessment under the heading Information Sources and Methods. 5.7.2 Detailed Baseline Detailed baseline information of the VC in relation to the Project setting is described in each VC effects assessment under the heading Detailed Baseline. Detailed baseline information improves the ability of the EA to predict how the proposed Project would affect or alter the environment and how the environment may respond to such changes. In addition, baseline Page 5-8
studies also help to identify issues, concerns, and sensitivities in relation to the surrounding environment of the proposed Project. 5.7.3 Relevant Legislation and Legal Framework Legislation and the legal framework related to the assessment of the VC environment is described and provided for each VC. A description of standards used for baseline studies and EA analysis, including applicable provincially and regionally developed Best Management Practices (BMPs), land management plans, and guidance documents considered during implementation is also provided for each VC under the heading Relevant Legislation and Legal Framework. 5.7.4 Cultural Ecological or Community Knowledge Cultural ecological and community knowledge is a phrase used to cover a range of information related to the Nisga a Nation and Aboriginal groups rights, interests, issues, values, and concerns as expressed in publicly available documentation on the Nisga a Nation and Aboriginal groups websites, reports, publications, maps, land use planning, treaty processes, and in signed treaty agreements. The purpose is increased understanding, consideration, and integration of local-level information into the EA Application, and Project development and design. The requirement for the collection and consideration of this information arises from BC EAO section 11 Order issued 24 November 2010, with an amendment in section 13 Order issued 3 June 2011. BC EAO guidance is also provided in the Application Information Requirements Template (BC EAO 2010b), the Proponents Guide for providing First Nation Consultation Information (Non-Treaty First Nations) (BC EAO 2010c), and the Proponents Guide for providing First Nation Consultation Information (Treaty First Nations) (BC EAO 2010d). There are five Aboriginal groups potentially affected by the Kitsault transportation route, including the Kitselas, Kitsumkalum, and Metlakatla First Nations, as well as Gitxsan and Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs. Desk-based research, conducted in spring 2011, resulted in information on the Nisga a Nation and Aboriginal groups. Cultural ecological or community knowledge was collected for a buffer of 15 kilometres (km) around the mine site and along the transportation route (i.e., Alice Arm road, Nass Forest Service Road (FSR), and Highways (Hwys) 37 and 113). This information was used to inform understanding of existing conditions in the local and regional environment, selection of VCs, identification and description of potential effects, and selection of locally meaningful mitigation measures to address the concerns and issues of the Nisga a Nation and Aboriginal groups. Summaries of relevant parts of cultural ecological or community knowledge are provided in each VC effects assessment sections under the heading Cultural Ecological or Community Knowledge and as a whole in Part C and D of the Application and Appendix 8.0-C (Road Use Effects Assessment), and in the Nisga a Economic, Social, Cultural Impact Assessment (Rescan 2012), Appendix 13.0-A (Nisga a Rights, Interests, and Values) and Appendix 16-A (Aboriginal Group Profiles). VE51988 Section 5.0 April 2012 Page 5-9
Ongoing consultation and engagement efforts with the Nisga a Nation and Aboriginal groups may provide additional information and insight into relevant Aboriginal rights, interests, values, and concerns. 5.7.5 Past, Present or Future Projects / Activities In accordance with BC EAO Application Information Requirements Template (BC EAO, 2010b) the context of each VC is provided prior to the effects assessment by identifying the past, present and future projects and activities that may contribute to cumulative effects on the VC under the heading Past, Present or Future Projects / Activities. A description of past, present and future projects considered in the cumulative effects assessment are provided in Section 5.10.2. 5.8 Potential Effects of the Proposed Project and Proposed Mitigation Each specific VC effects assessment in Sections 6.0 through 10.0 identifies potential adverse and / or positive effects resulting from the proposed Project s construction, operations, decommissioning and closure, and post-closure phases, as well as measures to mitigate potential adverse effects or enhance positive effects. The following subsections describe the methodology for identifying potential Project effects and characterising mitigation measures. 5.8.1 Identification and Analysis of Potential Project Effects Assessment of effects on a VC include consideration of effects from Project components (direct effects) and effects from other VCs (indirect effects) affected by the proposed Project on the selected VC during each Project phase (construction, operations, decommissioning and closure, and post-closure). The following steps are used to identify potential effects (direct, indirect, and combined (direct effects combined with indirect effects)) during each Project phase of the proposed Project on a selected VC: 1. Screening of each potential direct effect that may occur during each Project phase to determine whether there is a valid interaction between the Project components and the selected VC. 2. Determination of whether direct effects of the proposed Project on the VC are likely to result in indirect effects on other VCs. 3. Determination of whether there is an indirect effect on the VC from the interaction between residual Project effects on other Project components and direct effects of the proposed Project on the VC. 4. Assessment of potential combined effects of the proposed Project resulting from the interaction of direct and indirect effects on the VC. Screening of each potential combined effect of the proposed Project during each Project phase to determine if it is likely to occur (e.g., impacts on air quality from vegetation clearing in combination with dust generation caused by soil disturbance during the Project construction phase). VE51988 Section 5.0 April 2012 Page 5-10
5. Potential effects of the proposed Project not eliminated through implementation of changes to Project design are carried forward in the assessment. For the purpose of the assessment, further steps are taken to determine potential direct and indirect effects of the proposed Project on the VC, defined by the following: Interaction: Occurs between Project components and the VC identified. The Influence is considered indirect, less in extent or less in importance; Key interaction: Could occur when the assessment / identification of an interaction may determine or anticipate that the potential effects or consequence of the interaction could destroy or alter habitat or affect important life-style prerequisites for the identified VC. The influence would be considered direct, greater in size or extent, which may approach or exceed defined limits. Interaction, when compared to key interaction, would be considered the lesser of the two; and Benefit: The influence is considered advantageous or good. Results are described and summary tables are included for each step described above within each VC effects assessment (Sections 6.0 through 10.0). 5.8.2 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures including management and compensation plans that would be implemented to address potential effects are described in each VC effects assessment. This includes a specific breakdown of the Project design, mitigation or enhancement measures that can and would be done to: Enhance positive environmental, economic, social, heritage or health effects; Eliminate the threat / risk to environmental, economic, social, heritage, and health components completely (change to Project design (e.g., alternate approaches, different chemical / material used)); Prevent / reduce impacts of the threat / risk to environmental, social, economic, heritage, and health components (e.g., berms, training, pollution prevention equipment / technologies); and Respond to threat / risks to environmental, social, economic, heritage, and health components when it occurs (e.g., emergency response, clean up). Additionally, the breakdown includes an Unknown category for suggested mitigation or enhancement measures which are untried elsewhere in similar circumstances and the response of the target (e.g., organism or physical process) is unknown. The anticipated success of each breakdown above is rated as high, medium or low. Mitigation / Enhancement measure for potential effects of the proposed Project by Project phase and relevant mitigation success rating are described and summarised in a table format. Page 5-11
5.9 Potential Residual Effects and their Significance The Agency document titled Reference Guide: Determining Whether a Project is Likely to Cause Significant Adverse Environmental Effects (Agency 1999a), provided guidance in deciding whether the proposed Project is likely to cause significant environmental effects and determining the significance of the potential effects. Residual effects include beneficial effects and those adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided or mitigated through the application of environmental control technologies or other acceptable means, including emergency response and contingency plans. The findings of residual effects assessments are summarised for each separate VC. To determine the significance of the residual effect, existing environmental standards, guidelines and objectives such as the Approved Water Quality Guidelines (BC MOE 2006) and the Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) 1999) are considered; as well as the carrying capacity, tolerance level or assimilative capacity of the natural system(s), where possible. However, based on a review of BC MOE and CCME guidelines with respect to site-specific conditions, some modifications of standard guidelines were made to derive proposed site-specific guidelines for disciplines such as Surface Water Quality and Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. A full discussion of the derivation can be found in Section 6.7 (Appendix 6.7-B). In the absence of defined environmental standards, guidelines and objectives for a particular VC, the criteria discussed in the Agency (1999a) guide to determine the adversity, likelihood and significance of environmental effects are considered. For more information on the specific standards used for the assessment of VCs, refer to Sections 6.0 through 10.0. The framework consists of the following three general steps: Step 1: deciding whether the environmental effects are adverse; Step 2: deciding whether the adverse environmental effects are significant; and Step 3: deciding whether the significant adverse environmental effects are likely. These steps are described below and have been modified to follow the steps presented in the AIR. 5.9.1 Potential Residual Effects After Mitigation Residual effects for the VC are described and the results are summarised in a table. The direction of whether the potential effect is adverse (negative), beneficial (positive) or neutral is presented. Page 5-12
5.9.2 Significance of Potential Residual Effects Whether any residual adverse effects after mitigation would be significant is assessed for environmental and social effects by analysing the following factors and applying the significance rating criteria presented in Table 5.9-1 and Table 5.9-2: Magnitude - Magnitude describes the nature and extent of the environmental effect. The magnitude of an effect is quantified in terms of the amount of change in a parameter or variable from an appropriate threshold value, which may be represented by a guideline or baseline conditions; Geographic Extent - Geographic extents are similar to the spatial boundaries of the assessment (e.g., LSA, RSA); Duration - Duration is defined as a measure of the length of time that the potential effect could last. It is closely related to the Project phase or activity that could cause the effect; Frequency - Frequency is associated with duration and defines the number of occurrences that can be expected during each phase of the proposed Project; Reversibility - Reversibility is the ability of the physical parameter, biological or social community to return to conditions that existed prior to the adverse environmental effect. The prediction of reversibility can be difficult because environmental effects may, or may not, be reversible. It is important to ascertain reversibility because it has an important influence on the significance of an effect; Ecological Context (Biophysical Environment Only) - Ecological context is a measure of the relative importance of the affected ecological component to the ecosystem, or the sensitivity of the ecosystem to disturbance. It indicates the degree to which an effect on the component would affect the ecosystem; Level of Confidence - Using the previously described rating criteria, the significance of adverse environmental effects is evaluated based on a review of project-specific data, relevant literature, and professional opinion. To this is added the level of confidence in the prediction; Certainty - To arrive at a high level of confidence for a significance rating, it is usually desirable to apply rigorous scientific and / or statistical methods (quantitative approach). Where such methods are not feasible, professional judgement is usually employed (qualitative approach). Rating the certainty of the significance rating is an additional step that can be used to justify or substantiate the level of confidence in the evaluation; and Probability of Occurrence - The probability of effects is the likelihood that the effect would occur. Each potential residual effect determined to have an effect on the environmental, economic, social, heritage, or health components is subjected to the above-listed criteria. Other metrics considered in the assessment include cumulative consequences as defined in Tables 5.9-1 and 5.9-2. Page 5-13
Table 5.9-1: Biophysical Environment Rating Criteria for Evaluating Significance of Effects Rating Criteria Significance Not significant (negligible) Not significant (minor) Not significant (moderate) Significant Direction Negative Positive Neutral Description Impacts are point-like or local in scope, short-term or chronic, low frequency (once or intermittent), and their effects are indistinguishable from the natural range of variability in physical, chemical and biological characteristics and processes. Impacts are local in scope, short-term to chronic, low frequency, and their effects can be distinguished from the natural range of variability in physical, chemical and biological characteristics and processes. Impacts are local to regional in scope, medium-term to chronic, occur at all frequencies, and their effects and consequences are distinguishable at the level of populations, communities, and ecosystems. Impacts are local to regional in scope, long-term to chronic, occur at all frequencies, and are consequential in structural and functional changes in populations, communities and ecosystems. Effect is worsening or is not desirable. Effect is improving or is desirable. Effect is neither worsening nor improving. Magnitude Scale Nil or none Effects are not measurable. Low 1 to 10% change, depending on the parameter. Medium 5 to 20% change, depending on the parameter. High >5 to >20% change, depending on the parameter. Geographic Scale Point Effect generally does not exceed 100 m 2 or distance from the source is less than 5 m. Local Effect is confined to the local study area. Regional Effect extends to the regional study area. Duration Short-term Medium-term Long-term Chronic (permanent) Frequency Once Intermittent Continuous Reversibility Yes No From less than one day to one year. From one to three years (construction phase). Throughout operations, decommissioning and closure. Beyond post-closure. Impact occurs on one occasion. Impact occurs several times. Impact occurs continuously. Effect is reversible over one to a few cycles of the physical event after the impact ceases (Physical). Effect is reversible over one to a few life cycles after the impact ceases (Biological). Effect is not reversible over the time scales listed. Page 5-14
Rating Criteria Description Ecological Context Biological Environment and specific to each effect (categories given are general) None or nil Low Medium The impact has no effect, i.e., the linkage is invalid. Affects some population and community functioning. Affects 10 to 50% of population and community components functioning to some extent. High Affects most population and community functioning or a critical population or community component. Level of Confidence Subjectively based on professional opinion Low Medium High Certainty Low Medium High Probability of Occurrence Low High Low to moderate correlation of data and single or few lines of evidence supporting the conclusion. Moderate correlation of data and a moderate number of lines of evidence, at least some of which are quantitative; alternately a relatively high amount of corroboration from qualitative data sets. High correlation of data and multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion, some or all of which are quantitative. Based on third-party professional judgment (literature, comparison to other sites). Based on personal professional judgment from firsthand experience at the site and similar sites within the same or very similar contexts. Based on quantitative evaluation of reliable site-specific data. The effect on the VC is well understood and there is a low probability of effect on the VC as predicted. The effect on the VC is well understood and there is a high probability of effect on the VC as predicted. Unknown The effect on the VC is not well understood and based on potential risk to the VC, effects will be monitored and adaptive management measures taken as appropriate. Cumulative Consequences None or nil The impact has no residual effect. Additive Countervailing Synergistic The combined effect produced by the action of two or more human or natural activities, being equal or less to the sum of their separate effects. The combined effect produced by the action of one human or natural activity that counterbalances the action of another human or natural activity with equal force, power, or effect. When the magnitude of effects of two or more simultaneous impacts is larger than a sum of magnitudes of these effects if they occur separately. Page 5-15
Table 5.9-2: Human Environment Rating Criteria for Evaluating Significance of Effects Rating Criteria Significance Not significant (negligible) Not significant (minor) Not significant (moderate) Significant Direction Negative Positive Neutral Magnitude Scale Nil or none Low Medium No effects are evident. Description Low-level effects are distinguishable but are within the range of normal variability. These are usually limited to the short-term and are geographically restricted and require no management or mitigative response. Effects are clearly distinguishable and usually short-term in duration. Effects, if negative, can be managed or mitigated using current programs, services or infrastructure. Effects are highly distinguishable and are usually long-term in duration. Effects, if negative, cannot be managed or mitigated using current programs, services or infrastructure. Effect is worsening or is not desirable. Effect is improving or is desirable. Effect is neither worsening nor improving No effects. Effect that occurs might or might not be detectable, but is within the normal range of variability. Effect is unlikely to pose a serious risk or benefit to the VC or to represent a management challenge. High Effect is likely to pose a serious risk or benefit and, if negative, represents a management challenge. Geographic Scale Point Not applicable. Local Effect is confined to the local study area. Regional Effect extends to the regional study area. Provincial Effect extends to the Province Duration Short-term Medium-term Long-term Chronic (permanent) Frequency Once Intermittent Continuous Reversibility Yes No Effect extends throughout the construction phase. Not applicable. Throughout operations, decommissioning and closure. Beyond post-closure. Impact occurs on one occasion. Impact occurs several times. Impact occurs continuously. Effect is reversible within part of a whole generation after the impact ceases (VC and impact dependent). Effect is not reversible over the time scales listed. Page 5-16
Rating Criteria Description Ecological Context Biological Environment and specific to each effect (categories given are general) None or nil Low Medium The impact has no effect, i.e., the linkage is invalid. Affects some population and community functioning. Affects 10 to 50% of population and community components functioning to some extent. High Affects most population and community functioning or a critical population or community component. Level of Confidence Subjectively based on professional opinion Low Medium High Certainty Low Medium High Probability of Occurrence Low High Unknown Cumulative Consequences None or nil Additive Countervailing Synergistic Low to moderate correlation of data and single or few lines of evidence supporting the conclusion. Moderate correlation of data and a moderate number of lines of evidence, at least some of which are quantitative; alternately a relatively high amount of corroboration from qualitative data sets. High correlation of data and multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion, some or all of which are quantitative. Based on third party professional judgment (literature, comparison to other sites). Based on personal professional judgment from firsthand experience at the site and similar sites within the same or very similar contexts. Based on quantitative evaluation of reliable site-specific data. The effect on the VC is well understood and there is a low probability of effect on the VC as predicted. The effect on the VC is well understood and there is a high probability of effect on the VC as predicted. The effect on the VC is not well understood and based on potential risk to the VC, effects will be monitored and adaptive management measures taken as appropriate. The impact has no residual effect. The combined effect produced by the action of two or more human or natural activities, being equal or less to the sum of their separate effects. The combined effect produced by the action of one human or natural activity that counterbalances the action of another human or natural activity with equal force, power, or effect. When the magnitude of effects of two or more simultaneous impacts is larger than a sum of magnitudes of these effects if they occur separately. Page 5-17
5.9.2.1 Quantitative Versus Qualitative Assessment For each VC, one or more measurable or qualitative parameters are selected to evaluate the potential effects. Measurable parameters are indicators used to determine the level or amount of change to a VC (e.g., predicted sediment in water discharged from the mine is a quantifiable parameter; the potential infusion of cash from employment into a community is another). Qualitative parameters are used as subjective assessments of the state of a VC as a result of project effects (e.g., perception of aesthetic effects on viewscapes or the quality of a wilderness experience). Since the proposed Project has not been developed, much of the assessment is based on known effects from similar projects and on quantitative or qualitative modelling of potential effects. The potential degree of change in these parameters is used to classify effects. 5.9.2.2 Evaluation of Effects Using Established Thresholds An assessment of the significance of cumulative environmental effects (CEE) specific to the proposed Project requires the identification of ecological thresholds, management objectives or community / societal standards against which the level of an effect can be evaluated (where possible, quantitative thresholds are used to evaluate significance as described above at the beginning of Section 5.9.2). Established standards, such as BC Water Quality Guidelines (BC MOE 2006), are employed where they exist; other metrics include government regulations, scientific literature, land use plans, and resource management agency goals. 5.9.2.3 Evaluation of Effects without Using Established Thresholds Thresholds or regional objectives are not available for some VCs. Where established thresholds are not available, professional judgement is used to provide a qualitative classification based on a weight of evidence approach. The approach is based on the magnitude of expected change in the VC as a result of the proposed Project. Four categories are established: Not significant (negligible); Not significant (minor); Not significant (moderate); and Significant. Ratings are established based on experience with similar projects, modified as appropriate by current community and regulatory perceptions of significance of a particular effect as determined through engagement throughout the assessment process. Ratings criteria are summarised in Tables 5.9-1 and 5.9-2. Page 5-18
In general, to be considered to have potential for a significant effect, the VC being assessed must meet one of the following criteria: Have a medium magnitude at a regional spatial extent and have a long-term or chronic duration; Have a high magnitude at a local spatial extent and be long-term or chronic in duration; or Have a high magnitude at a regional extent of any duration. If effects on VCs are rated as significant based on magnitude, spatial extent and duration, then the frequency, reversibility, ecological context, direction and certainty of those effects are used to fully assess significance. Not significant (minor and moderate) and significant residual Project effects are carried forward into the CEA. 5.10 Cumulative Effects Assessment Various human activities, which individually are considered to cause insignificant effects on a VC, may combine within a period of space and time to cause significant changes on that VC. The Agency defines cumulative effects as: changes to the environment that are caused by an action in combination with other past, present and future human actions (Agency 1999b). Under this definition, actions include humans, projects and activities. Projects are typically some form of commercial or industrial development that is planned, constructed, and operated a mine development or resource access road, for example. Activities may either be part of a project or may arise over time because of ongoing human presence in an area. Examples of activities are public traffic, hiking, and hunting (Agency 1999b). The CEA for the proposed Project has been conducted to assess cumulative effects that are likely to result from the proposed Project in combination with other projects or activities that have been or will be carried out, taking into consideration the following factors: The VC; Significance of the cumulative effects; and Federal and provincial agencies, the Nisga a Nation, Aboriginal groups, stakeholder, and public comments. Appropriate parameters are selected for each VC that adequately characterises their present condition. As described in Sections 5.8 and 5.9, effects on the VC are reviewed individually by each subject area including direct, indirect and combined project effects. In each VC section of the Application, the probabilities of occurrence, probable magnitudes Page 5-19