ERS 315 Assignment II

Route 389 Improvement Project

Fire Lake Fermont, Quebec

Taylor Stafford
#20408323

Professor Denis Kirchhoff

December 1st, 2014

Stafford #20408323

Description of Proposed Project

Geographic & Political Location
This report is reviewing the proposed activity of making improvements and adding new
road infrastructure to the existing Route 389 between Fire Lake and Fermont, Quebec (Canadian
Environmental Assessment Agency (CEA Agency), 2012). The proposed activity includes the
construction of 55.8 kilometers of new road and the improvement of 13.7 kilometers of existing
road between kilometer 478 and 564 of Route 389 (see Appendix 1.) (CEA Agency, 2012). The
entirety of the project is within the province of Quebec, in the regional county of Caniapiscau
(CEA Agency, 2012). The northern section of the project is within the municipality of Fermont,
with the rest of the proposed project is within the territory of Riviere-Mouchalagane (CEA
Agency, 2012).
Project Proponent
The proponent of the proposed project is the Ministere des Transports du Quebec (MTQ);
the provincially funded Ministry of Transport for the province of Quebec. MTQs mission is to
ensure the reliable, safe and efficient transportation of people and merchandise across Quebec
while taking into account social, economic and environmental dimensions (Transports Quebec,
2014). The aim of the proposed project is to improve road safety and traffic flow on Route 389,
as well as to enhance links and promote access and trade of natural resources between Quebec
and the province of Newfoundland and Labrador (CEA Agency, 2012).
Interested Publics
Interested publics include the residents, local government bodies, environmental
organizations, and businesses of Caniapiscau, Fermont and surrounding areas, as well as First
Nations groups likely to be affected by the project (CEA Agency, 2012). For example, those

Stafford #20408323

First Nations groups whose official territories are within the project boundary should be given
special consideration. The Innu Takuaikan Uashat mak Mani-Utenam First Nations group has
been given a sum of $7,200 by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEA Agency)
to participate in the federal EA process for the project (CEA Agency, n.d.). Representatives of
the Riviere-Moisie Aquatic Reserve may also be interested in the project since the proposed
project will occupy land within the reserve (see Appendix 1) (CEA Agency, 2014).
Construction and Operational Actions of the Project
Construction actions associated with the project primarily include forest clearing, soil
stripping, excavation, blasting, earth grading, stream diversion, stream drainage, culvert
installation and bridge construction, installation of temporary infrastructures, construction of
highway rest areas, as well as modification, relocation and removal of existing structures and
road restoration work (CEA Agency, 2012).
Operational actions of the project primarily include maintenance of roadways, ditches,
bridges, snow removal, use of de-icing agents, vegetation control in the right-of-way,
maintenance or repair of stream crossings and maintenance of rest areas (CEA Agency, 2012).
Closure and decommissioning of the road are not included in the scope of the proponents
environmental assessment (EA) as the road infrastructure will be a permanent component of the
provincial road network under the proponents responsibility (CEA Agency, 2012)

Relevant Legislation and Governing Bodies

A federal EA has been required by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
under the later Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) of 1995. A federal
comprehensive study EA is required under CEAA 1995 due to the project information supplied

Stafford #20408323

by the proponent corresponding with the following; 29(b) an all-season public highway that will
be more than 50 km in length and either will be located on a new right-of-way or will lead to a
community that lacks all-season public highway access. p.6 (CEA Agency, 2012). Fisheries and
Oceans Canada as well as Transport Canada (TC) may both act as regulatory authorities for the
project (RA) and therefore may have to issue authorizations and approvals for the project to
proceed (CEA Agency, 2012). A federal EA committee is also formed of Fisheries and Oceans
Canada, Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada representatives. Other governing
bodies or federal department representatives may be added as necessary (CEA Agency, 2012).
Scoping of Project Alternatives
Temporal and Spatial Boundaries
Temporal boundaries must address all phases of the project, from planning and
construction to decommissioning and reclamation (Kirchhoff, 2014; CEA Agency, 2012)
Furthermore, temporal boundaries must address past, present and future variability (CEA
Agency, 2012). For the proposed project, decommissioning and reclamation are not included in
the projects scope since the proposed highway development will become a permanent
component of Quebecs provincial road network (CEA Agency, 2012). Due to the permanency
of the proposed project, monitoring of cumulative effects resulting from the project postconstruction is vital to keep track of how the proposed project, along with the entirety of Route
389, is influencing the surrounding natural environment. Timelines must be established for each
phase of the project, from the construction phase, through to operations, possible temporary
closures, and foreseeable modifications (CEA Agency, 2012). Respecting the pre-established
temporal boundaries for each project phase is vital to foresee the significance, magnitude and
duration of potential effects resulting from each phase of the proposed activity. Taking into

Stafford #20408323

consideration seasonal and annual variations and how they affect valuable ecosystem
components (VECs) is also of importance (CEA Agency, 2012). As well, knowing the nature of
the effects and their likelihood to influence the natural environment can enable improved
mitigation measures to be developed if necessary. For example, an understanding of the temporal
boundaries involved in a project is important to determine the most appropriate mitigation
measures to address fish habitat (CEA Agency, 2012).
Spatial boundaries must take project components and activities into consideration, and
encompass the entire area within which direct and indirect environmental effects of the project
components occur (CEA Agency, 2012). More research and baseline studies of project
components and VECs must be conducted to determine the true extent of spatial boundaries
involved within the proposed project. An all-encompassing, initial spatial boundary to consider
would be that of the regional watershed within which the proposed activity is to occur. Other
spatial boundaries to consider may be jurisdictional, political or based on First Nations land
claims. Finally, both spatial and temporal boundaries of the project must be confirmed through
consultation with federal and provincial government departments, as well as interested publics
and First Nations groups (CEA Agency, 2012).
Project Alternatives
The primary alternative to the project is a no action or null alternative, where the
project is not realized. This would prevent the occurrence of any environmental and
socioeconomic impacts and benefits from the project, and would save the proponent the cost and
time associated with the project (Kirchhoff, 2014; Noble, 2010).
The preferred alternative for the proponent is to carry out the project as intended as this
would be the most effective means (as determined by the proponent) to achieve the intended

Stafford #20408323

purpose and need for the project (Kirchhoff, 2014; Noble, 2010). This alternative would result in
environmental and socioeconomic effects, including economic stimulus benefits and ecological
impacts on aquatic and terrestrial systems and wildlife (CEA Agency, 2012; Coffin, 2007).
Another potential alternative that would meet the need and purpose of the proposed
project is to establish an air corridor for domestic plane carriers carrying merchandise and people
between Fermont and Baie-Comeau, the municipality where Route 389 begins. This would
increase safety of travel during winter, reduce the negative environmental effects associated with
highway improvements, construction and maintenance, and facilitate linkages and access to
natural resources in Newfoundland and Labrador through fast and effective travel means.
Alternative Means to the Project
Alternative means, or different ways to implement the proposed project, primarily
include determining an alternative location for the proposed highway (Kirchhoff, 2014).
Sensitive aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems and habitat should be considered when determining
the most suitable trajectory for the proposed highway project. Technical and engineering
alternatives should equally be considered, including design methods during the construction and
operational phase that minimize impacts and maximize benefits of the project (Kirchhoff, 2014).
Another alternative means that meets the needs and purpose of the proposed project to increase
travel safety and the efficiency of trade linkages is to upgrade existing road infrastructure.
Maintaining existing road infrastructure through improvements would still provide an economic
stimulus and enable some benefits of the project to be realized, while significantly reducing costs
and environmental and ecological impacts associated with the project.
Identification of Valuable Ecosystem Components (VECs)
Valued ecosystem components (VECs) are defined as any aspect of the environment that

Stafford #20408323

is considered important by the proponent, public, First Nations, scientists and government
involved in the assessment process (Kirchhoff, 2014).
Preliminary List
Below is a preliminary list of potential VECs for the proposed project. The spatial
boundary used for the preliminary VEC assessment is shown in Appendix 2. Of course, this
spatial boundary is not a direct representation of the appropriate boundary for the proposed
project since it does not consider data associated with aquatic and terrestrial habitat, wildlife and
fish populations, groundwater and surface water, sensitive habitat, economic land uses, First
Nations land uses and other baseline data.
Table 1. Preliminary List of VECs
Terrestrial

Aquatic

Socioeconomic

Cultural

Wildlife

Fish

Employment

Traditional
Knowledge

Forest

Wetlands

Communities

Scientific Value

Vegetation

Surface water

Economy

Heritage
Resources

Migratory birds

Groundwater

Human Health

Archeological
Resources

Landscape
geomorphology

Aquatic
Vegetation

Soil

Benthic
Invertebrates

Existing
Infrastructure

Water fowl

Natural
Resources

Impact Matrix of Primary VECs

Wildlife

First Nations
Land Use

Ecological
Resources

Stafford #20408323

Wildlife populations and habitat are most likely to be affected by the proposed project
due to project actions during construction, including forest clearing, stream drainage and soil
stripping (CEA Agency, 2012). As a result, habitat fragmentation will be a significant impact
resulting from the project, thus hindering the movement of wildlife and the connectivity of
ecosystem habitat within the spatial boundary (Appendix 2.) (Goffman, 2005). Wildlife
collisions and fatalities also increase near highways (Goffman, 2005). Forest clearing and stream
drainage are two construction components of the proposed project (CEA Agency, 2012) that can
reduce the quality and availability of natural habitat for wildlife (Goffman, 2005; Trombulak &
Frissell, 2001).
Surface Water
Surface water is also likely to be affected by the project since road salt and other de-icing
agents used during winter maintenance (operations) of the project can leach into waterways,
cause water pollution through chemical run-off and alter the water pH in streams, rivers and
lakes, thus contributing to a decrease in water quality (Goffman, 2005; Trombulak & Frissell
2001; Forman & Alexander, 1998). Stream diversion, drainage and soil stripping are
construction components of the proposed project that can decrease surface water quality and
quantity within the watershed through water channel reconfiguration and increased
sedimentation from soil erosion and other road construction processes (CEA Agency, 2012;
Trombulak & Frissell, 2001; Forman & Alexander, 1998). The spatial boundary of the project
(as approximated in Appendix 2) shows an extensive watershed with a dense distribution of
nearby rivers, streams and lakes that provides probable likelihood that these waterways will be
impacted by the proposed project (Goffman, 2005; Trombulak & Frissell, 2001).
Soil

Stafford #20408323

Soil quality and erosion rates are likely to be affected by project construction
components, including forest clearing, soil stripping, blasting, excavation and culvert installation
(CEA Agency, 2012). Maintenance activities including the use of de-icing agents such as road
salt can also damage soil quality in adjacent areas (Trombulak & Frissell; 2001). It must be noted
that de-icing agents such as road salt are used on a seasonal basis, and therefore their effects will
be subject to seasonal variability.
Fish
Stream diversion and drainage actions within the construction phase of the project will
likely impact fish populations and habitat by reducing stream connectivity and thus impeding the
movement of fish throughout the local and regional watershed. Fish habitat may also be
impacted by soil erosion, chemical run-off from roadways and vegetation and forest removal
near streams and rivers (Goffman, 2005; Forman & Alexander, 1998).
Economy
The local economy is likely to be affected by the proposed highway project. Road and
bridge construction and maintenance activities will have a direct economic stimulus within the
approximated spatial boundary (see Appendix 2.) by providing new employment opportunities
and facilitating quicker and safer travel to the surrounding area (Goffman, 2005). As a result,
settlements near the proposed highway may be impacted by changes in income, property values,
and additional employment opportunities. Economic benefits may also encompass the broader
regional economy and encourage trade between Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador (CEA
Agency, 2012; Munk, Bennett, Camilli, & Nowak, 2010). The proposed highway project may
also conflict with current land uses such as hunting, fishing or other natural resource exploitation
activities and could therefore impact local and regional economic activities.
Figure 1. Impact Matrix

Stafford #20408323

9
Valued Ecosystem Components

Project actions/
components

Wildlife
C

Surface
Water
I

5(-)

Forest clearing
P

Stream drainage

3(-)
R

Soil

? C
3(-)

Fish
I

5(-)
L

5(-)

D P
1(-)

R P
C

Economy

3(-)

D
3(+)

I P

5(-)

1(?)

R S

L P

R S

5(-)

Blasting

?(-)

4(-)

L L

? C

3(-)

Excavation

?(-)
L

L L

I C

3(-)
?

5(-)
L P

1(?)

I ?

?(-)

1(+)

L S

D P

5(-)
? P

?(-)

4(-)

De-icing agents

2(-)
L ?

?(+)
L

(Noble, 2010; Kirchhoff, 2014)

Discussion of Impact Significance
The following section aims to examine the impact significance of the projects

Stafford #20408323

10

components on the key VECs presented in the previously displayed impact matrix (Figure 1).
Wildlife
The project components that are most likely to have a significant impact on wildlife are
identified in the impact matrix (Figure 1) as being forest clearing and blasting (CEA Agency,
2012). Forest clearing directly destroys natural, potentially undisturbed wooded ecosystems that
provide necessary habitat for local wildlife. These wooded areas also encourage connectivity
among habitats that can allow for the necessary migration and movement of wildlife throughout
the landscape (Goffman, 2005). Blasting and associated disruptive construction activities cause
disturbances to the natural ecosystem and habitat by producing noise and disrupting soil,
vegetation and possible groundwater sources (Coffin, 2007; Trombulak & Frissell, 2001). The
impact of forest clearing to make space for the proposed project will have permanent effects on
wildlife population dispersal, available habitat, and will promote ecological fragmentation and
reduce connectivity of the landscape (Goffman, 2005). In result, the impact of forest clearing and
blasting on wildlife habitat is expected to have a major, negative significant impact. The effects
of the proposed project on wildlife populations should also be considered with regards to
potential hunting activities.
Surface Water
Stream drainage and the use of de-icing agents such as road salt were the two project
components having the most significance of impact on surface water due to their magnitude and
duration (see Figure 1). Stream drainage will displace large amounts of surface water, therefore
impacting the distribution of surface water throughout the watershed and contributing to new
stream channel configuration. Surface water quality will also be diminished through
sedimentation during the relocation of the surface water (Forman & Alexander, 1998). Road salt

Stafford #20408323

11

and other de-icing agents are often chemical-laden and leach off roadways into nearby streams,
rivers and lakes (Coffin, 2007; Goffman, 2005). This can alter water pH and overall water
quality, having significant indirect effects on fish, wildlife, terrestrial vegetation, aquatic
vegetation and groundwater (Forman & Alexander, 1998). The seasonal variability of de-icing
agents and its consequent variability in impacts on surface water must also be taken into
consideration.
Soil
Soil is most likely to be significantly affected by the largest number of project
components. Within these components, forest clearing and de-icing agents pose the most
significant impact in terms of magnitude, duration and timeframe (Figure 1). Forest clearing
leads to massive soil erosion, a decrease in soil organic matter, soil porosity and overall soil
health. De-icing agents such as road salt alter the soils pH, reduce porosity and lead to soil
infertility and depletion (Coffin, 2007; Trombulak & Frissell, 2001). Soil is an important
component of a healthy ecosystem and when quality is diminished, other aspects of the
environment can be impacted such as vegetation, aquatic systems and groundwater (Coffin,
2007; Trombulak & Frissell, 2001).
Fish
Fish populations and their habitat is an important VEC to consider given the density of
lakes, streams and rivers present within the projects spatial boundary (Appendix 2), local and
regional watershed, and broader regional landscape. However, information is lacking on the
significance of potential effects of the project on fish. More studies must be conducted to
examine the species of fish, their populations, overall health, and migration patterns within the
regional landscape to better understand how project components will impact their habitat

Stafford #20408323

12

(Kirchhoff, 2014; Noble, 2010). The most obvious project component that will directly and
majorly impact fish habitat is stream drainage, as this action direct removes fish habitat and also
reduces connectivity of water channels, thus increasing the likelihood of stream drainage causing
indirect effects to fish habitat in other areas of the watershed (Forman & Alexander, 1998). The
effects of the proposed project on fish populations should also be considered with regards to
potential fishing activities.
Economy
The local and regional economy can be positively and negatively affected by the project
components within various degrees of likelihoods, time frames, magnitudes and duration (Noble,
2010; Figure 1). Baseline economic studies must be conducted to assess how components of the
projects construction and operations phase will impact the economy across geographic scales.
Current and potentially conflicting land uses with First Nations groups and other economic
activities must be taken into consideration (CEA Agency, 2012; Noble, 2010; CEA Agency,
n.d.). Construction and operations or maintenance of the proposed project will provide a new
source of employment, while also facilitating travel and trade between Quebec and
Newfoundland and Labrador (CEA Agency, 2012; Munk et al. 2010). In result, there is a
significant likelihood that the local and regional economies within the project area (and within
broader spatial boundaries) will benefit from the project, both through direct and indirect means
(Munk et al. 2010; Goffman, 2006). Negative impacts from the project onto other local economic
activities such as hunting, fishing and perhaps certain forms of tourism must be considered
through the use of baseline and land-use studies (Noble, 2010).

Stafford #20408323

13
Works Cited

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEA Agency) (2014). Route 389 Improvement
Project between Fire Lake and Fermont. Appendix 1. [map]. Government of Canada.
Retrieved November 17th, 2014 from http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/detailseng.cfm?evaluation=66250
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEA Agency) (2012). Route 389 Improvement
Project between Fire Lake and Fermont (kilometre 478 to 564); Final Guidelines, v. 1705-2012. Retrieved online October 11th, 2014 from http://www.ceaaacee.gc.ca/050/documents-eng.cfm?evaluation=66250&type=1
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEA Agency) (n.d.) Archived - Route 389
Improvement Project between Fire Lake and Fermont Federal Funding Allocated to
Participate in the Environmental Assessment. Government of Canada. Retrieved
November 17th, 2014 from http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=687299
Coffin, A. (2007). From roadkill to road ecology: A review of the ecological effects of roads.
Journal of Transport Geography, 15(5), p. 396-406
Forman, R. & Alexander, L. (1998). Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review of
Ecology and Systematics, 29, p. 207-231.
Goffman, E. (2005). Highways and environmental impact issues. Environmental Policy Issues,
CSA Illumina/ ProQuest. Retrieved November 10th, 2014 from
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/ern/05apr/overview.php
Kirchhoff, D. (2014). The scoping stage of EA. [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from
learn.uwaterloo.ca
Munk, I., Bennett, C., Camilli, K. & Nowak, R. (2010). Long-term impact of de-icing salts on

Stafford #20408323

14

tree health in the Lake Tahoe Basin: Environmental influences and interactions with
insects and diseases. Forest Ecology Management, 260(7), p. 1218-1229.
Noble, B. (2010). Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment: a Guide to Principles and
Practice, 2nd Edition. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.
Transports Quebec (2014). Organisation. Gouvernement du Quebec. Retrieved November 20th,
2014 from http://www.mtq.gouv.qc.ca/ministere/organisation/Pages/default.aspx
Trombulak, S. & Frissell, C. (2001) Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and
aquatic communities. Conservation Biology, 14(1), p. 18-30.

Stafford #20408323
Appendix 1. Map of Proposed Activity

CEA Agency (2014). http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/details-eng.cfm?evaluation=66250

15

Stafford #20408323
Appendix 2. Spatial Boundary for Preliminary VEC Assessment

www.googlemaps.com

16

Stafford #20408323

17

Individual Work
Assignment Checklist
Please read the checklist below following the completion of your assignment. Once you have
verified these points, hand in this signed checklist with your assignment.
1. I have referenced and footnoted all ideas, words or other intellectual property from other
sources used in the completion of this assignment.
2. I have included a proper bibliography, which includes acknowledgement of all sources used to
complete this assignment.
3. This assignment was completed by my own efforts and I did not collaborate with any other
person for ideas or answers.
4. This is the first time I have submitted this assignment or essay (either partially or entirely) for
academic evaluation.
Signed: Taylor Stafford
Date: December 1st, 2014
Print Name: Taylor Stafford
UW-ID# 20408323