Laserfiche WebLink
The public? Having it available for the community and possibly including <br />restoration and monitoring efforts would certainly be a benefit to the community <br />and the lowland forest ecosystem. Most important tin terms of the EA however is to <br />provide more information about the intended use and benefits. <br />The EA states that the "potential social impact is that the communities served will <br />benefit in many ways ". This statement is vague because of the lack of detail (i.e. <br />what ways exactly ?) and it fails to mention negative impacts which may impact the <br />neighboring community by noise and traffic associated with the permit and use of <br />leased land. <br />Section 2.3.2 states future long -term plans may include an educational /vocational <br />and /or industrial arts center; 12' x 16' residential structures and a 12'x 20' <br />washroom area. The long -term plans and required permits should be described to <br />the best degree that they can such that neighbors would know what to expect and <br />such that impacts can be anticipated and potentially mitigated. <br />The EA fails to adequately describe if the proposal would provide the community <br />with opportunities to conduct ecologically sustainable activities (e.g. growing food <br />or other sustainable materials, participating in restoration activities, conducting <br />nature walks or ecological monitoring, etc.) or other benefits on the [leased land] <br />site. <br />3.) Impacts Section <br />Section 3 of the EA, titled Environmental Setting, Impact, and Mitigation <br />Measures gives a cursory overview of the environmental setting, a brief mention of <br />some potential impacts while others are missing altogether. It fails to include <br />cumulative affects and makes no mention of any proposed mitigation measures. <br />Overall, the impacts mentioned in the EA appear to be subjective and conclusions <br />are largely unsubstantiated. An EA should contain factual information and <br />supporting evidence for any conclusions. An example of an unsubstantiated claim is <br />in section 4.b where it says "..the additional volume of traffic to be generated by the <br />proposed activities should be very low." This statement contains no factual support <br />and rather can be taken as a subjective opinion which is meaningless. It leads the <br />reader to seek the [missing] factual information (e.g., what is the expected <br />additional Volume in traffic? what is'low' defined as? Etc.) in order to determine <br />potential impacts and propose mitigation. <br />Biological: In terms of potential the biological impacts, possible and expected <br />impacts to flora and fauna are absent from the EA. Nor is there sufficient <br />information to assume no impacts. <br />Noise: The EA states the proposal "should not significantly affect the overall ambient <br />noise quality of the area ". However, actual noise impacts are neither described nor <br />are impacts considered. Expected increase in visitor use and mode of transportation <br />5 <br />