CEA

cumulative effects

total enviormental changes resulting not from a single event but from accumalution of many idnvidual, minor actions overtime

how traditonal, project centered approach fails

focuses on single project and assesses its indivudal impacts on enriornment

• narow context and scope 

  • goal of regulatory approval,not understanding total stress on ecosystem

  • goal of approval =  incnetive to minmize the scope and effeorts of the cummaltive impact section, and frame their impacts as insignnfignace - honest broker needs to come in- ensuring all those that are making theose reg. approvalas are propeorly INFORMED

• lack of thresholds

  • hard to deerming tipping points within scope of single project

• litmited time horizons

  • project EAS treat current enviromenta s baseline

• lack of collabs= responsiblity gap

  • single project cant be held responsble for managing combined effects of other activites in region ( grass mountain coal project)

CEA- VC centered framework

starts by idnentifying VC then asseses the combined impacts on that VC from all soruces of stress- past present and furture

• a systamtic process with five essential compoentns

steps  of CEA

1. scoping = spatial and temporal bounaries

2. analsyis = retrospecitive and prosptective

3. action = monitoring and managment

scoping

sets the important spaital and temporal boundaries for the assesemnt

• key with bieng ecologically relevant

types of scales

• pheneomen  -most important for CEA

  • reflects area where your VC is part of and operates ( range of speical fish)

• spatial 

  • actual geogrpahic extent of assesment

• adminstrative

  • realiteis imopsed by jursdictions

• analysis

  • resoultion or granuality of the data used to examine impacts iwhtin the chosen boundary

temporal boudaires

to avoid shifitng baseline syndrome,

• boundary must extend into past to establish meaniful reference point - allowing measuring true extent of change

• extened into future to capture full range of human activities and changes that could affect the VC’s sustainaiblty

retrosepcibive snsaysis

diagnositic stage

• To understand the current accumlated state of the VC by analsyzing hisotirical data, trends and drivers of change

• ganswer what changes happned, what casued the and where are we now reaktve to a helatiehri past ocndition

• requires stressbased anakysis and effects based analysis

  • establishes clear evideice based starting point and reveals realthonship btwn human acivities and environet responses

prospective analysis

predictive stage

• uses modesl and realtinships idienfiied in retrospectives ansylsi to predict how enviorment might respond to more strees from future developmetn and natural events

• done using scenario based modeling

• allows decisosn makers to visialize and compare longterm consqueinces of differnt paths before they’ve chose- moving from reactive to proactive stance

4. monitoring

crucial for CEA, not just about single projects complicnae, its a coorinatoed regional effort to provide cruciial feed back

• goal to create regional dataset that allows verifying predciotns, detect early warning signs, and adapt managment stragegies based on realworld eviedence

3 essential elements

• refernce conditioning- establish benchmark for evaluating change

• effects based montioring - tracks achtual chnages in the enviroment

• stressed based montoring- tracks human acivies casuing the stress

5. managment - from assesment to action

monitofing brings us to the ulitmate goal, to use scientific knowlege to make informed decsisons- managment

• best manamgent is to AVOID

• CHAERCTIERSICS OF good  MANAGMENT

• MANAGING WITHING LIMITS

  • requies estblishing thresholds that trigger managment when theyre appraoched and reached

• AUTHROITY TO ACT -  problem - somethimes has poltical will but doesn’t have the authroity to enact that will

  • effective managment requries poltical will and reugaltory authorty to

    • implent enhanced mtiigation on exisitng projects

    • requries copensatory measures - restoring old road to amke room for new one

    • saying no to new deveopment that would push system beyone accepatble limit

grassy mountian coal project context

• project

  • open pit coal mine

• location

  • along slopes of rocky mountians in soab, within crowsnest river watershed

  • projected located in blairmore and gold creek

• VC

  • westslope cutthtrhoat trout, a speices at risk

  • gold creek= critical haptiat for gentically pure pop of WSCT

  • Blairmore= contians near pure conservation population with high potnetial for recovery

WSCT

• species in decine, listed as threatned under SARA

• populationon the edge - gold creek pop. one of only ten remianing pos in albera cosndiered to be vialbe in longterm

• high need for preotection

  • due to existing habitat degradation from other human activites, gold creek already was idnfiited as being high need for habitat protection b4 GMP was even consdiered

• mandate = under sara theres LEGAL REQUIRMETN to prevent activies that woudl jeopardize survival or recoer of the speices, any harm must be avoidaed this set high bar for projects approval

propoents veiw

• followed tradional, project cented approach, onlu quantifyingits own direct impacts and proosed localized solutions

• assmesnet calcuated direct phsyical footprint

• proposed solution

  • through a prelimarly habiitat offsetting plan

    • To counterbalance the " unavoidable" damage that would be created by this project happening in aother area - reconnnecting isoalted sections of gold creek, an enhancing degraded habitat

• conclusion = projects residual effcts of the WSCT = not sig.

  • rested on core assumption that projects direct, localized impacts could be fully counter balanced by targeted, onsite resotriation efforts w/o considering broasder regional context

regulators view

failure to assess cummltive effects

• inaccuate baseline and understimated harm

  • asssemsent was based onoutdated def. of ciritcal habat and failed to collect suffienct data = systamtic understamtion of projects effects on key habitat fucntiosn like food suppy, water temp and quality

• critical failure = inadeuate CEA

  • not quantiative and failed to account for projects mpact in vombo with exisitng and furturestresors, likewhirling dieseas, timber ops, recreational use and CC

what were the speicifi failures of the CEA

• no quantiative basis

  • assessemtn was qualtiaive and based on assumtpions rhater than data driven alaysis

• ignores other stressors

  • whirling disiease

  • exisitng timber ops

  • recreation and livestock

  • CC

• compounded uncertanty - had many gpas and uncertiantiire form other analsyes