TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT: CRITIQUE
Critique of the Terrestrial Environment Assessment
This section of the website represents a critique of the Environmental Impact Assessment of the Darlington New Nuclear Power Project with a focus on a few topics of interest.
Valued Ecosystem Components
As previously mentioned in the Environmental Description rubric of this website, the Regional Study Areas of the Darlington New Nuclear Project and the Refurbishing and Continued Operation of Pickering B Nuclear Generation Station Project overlap. Even though the two projects are different, the former has to do with the construction of new nuclear reactors and the latter has to do with the refurbishing of the existing nuclear reactors, it is very interesting to examine the way their terrestrial environments were assessed as both sites are found in proximity to each other and consequently the baseline conditions at both sites are similar.
In this case, we chose to look at the Valued Ecosystem Components that were evaluated. It is fairly logical to assume that for the purpose of the two assessments there would be an overlap, at least to a certain degree of the choice of VECs examined. There was overlap of VECs only in two instances, both the Muskrat and the Bufflehead were chosen. Moreover, in the case of the Pickering project the impacts on plant species was examined compared to an examination of the impacts on whole ecosystems in the case of the Darlington project (ex. cultural meadow and wetlands). Due to the complex interactions between organisms in an ecosystem, it is arguably more important to examine the ecosystems as a whole, rather than looking at the impacts on isolated species. In addition, the Pickering project assessment does not evaluate the impact on any insect VECs. Furthermore, the reasoning behind the choices was backed by more arguments for the Pickering project (see the tables bellow, which were taken directly from the EIAs for the two projects) making it sound more reliable. It is hard to judge if the differences in the two approaches are signs as to which assessment was conducted better and indeed, both project had different aims. Nevertheless, it is important to note these differences. |
A map showing the extent of the Regional Study Site for the Refurbishing and Continued Operation of Pickering B Nuclear Generation Station Project..
Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus).
|
Habitat Loss
The main impact of the Darlington project will be habitat loss. In the project assessment it is mentioned for each of the terrestrial environmental components and represents an adverse effect that the proponent will try to mitigate, but cannot completely avoid. The proposed mitigation measures include replanting of cultural meadow and woodland and the recreation of ponds to replace the destroyed ones. The replanted areas will represent less than half of the area of the lost habitat and will require further habitat transformations. Habitat loss is currently considered as one of the biggest concerns for environmental degradation. Many scientist link it to significant population declines (Fahrig 1997), for instance it can seriously affect bird populations. In addition, the destruction of three of the ponds on the property will directly affect reptiles and amphibians, as well as the insect population, some species of which are endangered. However, as mentioned in the benefits of nuclear power section of this website, nuclear power generation requires much less habitat loss compared to other methods of power generation. Moreover, most of the habitat loss will occur on the property of OPG, where the plant cover is composed mainly of cultural plantations and it is deemed to be of low ecological importance, due to the high prevalence of invasive species. Lastly, the EIA concludes that many of the affected species of terrestrial animals are already used to the disturbances caused by the relatively densely populated region and will adjust to the changes in their environment rapidly. |
|
Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia).
|
Bank Swallow
The Bank Swallow will be one of the most affected species by the Darlington project. Even though its conservation status is of least concern (IUCN 2013), an important part of its habitat will be destroyed during the construction phase of the project, as the entire shoreline will be removed. It is estimated that 1300 nesting burrows will be affected. OPG proposed to acquire land for the purpose of protection and further studying and protection purposes of the species. Furthermore, the proponent proposed to develop artificial habitat for these birds on site of the Darlington Plant. Nevertheless, it is not clear how these mitigation measure will be executed as there is no clearly set plan of action. In addition, even though OPG wishes to construct artificial structures to be used by the swallows instead of their usual burrow, it is still estimated that 1000 nest will be lost altogether. On one hand, there is evidence that the population of bank swallows is steadily declining due to the transformation of river banks and shorelines and the Darlington project might pose a significant impact on the Lake Ontario population (Garrison 1999). If the proponent honours the proposed mitigation measure, it is very likely that these birds will successfully colonize the artificial habitat (Garrison et al 1989). On the other hand, some scientific literature proposes that other factors, like grassland restoration, are also crucial for the survival of the species (Lind et al 2002), so it is important that a follow-up program is in place to deal with issues unforeseen impacts. |
Dust accumulation
During the construction phase of the project there will be an accumulation of dust that will likely affect plant productivity. According to the Environmental Impact Assessment for the project this will not cause a major problem, since the exposure to dust will be very short and localized, concentrated around roads. After an examination of scientific data on the subject of dust accumulation, it becomes apparent that the negative impacts could be numerous and that there is significant lack of knowledge on the subject and an even greater gap in the understanding of how the effete of dust can impact ecosystems as whole (Farmer 1993). Nevertheless, in the case of the Darlington project those impacts will be of little significance and the proponent is confident that, based on the suspended particulate baseline data used for comparison to guidelines of the federal and provincial governments the impact will not be of great importance. Finally, as a precaution OPG proposes to implement a Dust Management Program, which will include measures such as "application of dust suppressants; stabilization of completed soil surfaces; and suspension of dust-generation activities during periods of inclement weather". |
|
For more information please refer to the TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT for the Darlington project and to the TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT for the Pickering project.