User:Jemelanson/sandbox

Newfoundland and Labrador archaeology regulations control archaeology-related activities in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Provincial Archaeology Office
The Provincial Archaeology Office (PAO) is a regulatory agency that is represented on the Government's Environmental Assessment Committees. The PAO is responsible for administering the Historic Resources Act, which ensures the protection of historic resources, and provides quality control for archaeological practice in the province. They are also responsible for consultation with various other groups with archaeological interests, and academics in regards to research projects and field work. Finally, the PAO is involved with the federal government's land claim negotiations with Aboriginal Peoples.

Heritage Foundation
Under Part IV of The Historic Resources Act enacted by the House of Assembly in 1984, the Heritage Foundation of Newfoundland and Labrador (HFNL) was established. The province considers its architectural heritage to be its most visible dimensions of its culture, so it is the Heritage Foundation's job to preserve it. “The mandate of the Foundation is to preserve this built heritage through: the designation of heritage buildings, structures and districts; the provision of grants to assist with the preservation of designated buildings, and the provision of professional advisory services to individuals and organizations; and through this, to stimulate an understanding and appreciation of the architectural, cultural and historical value of the cultural landscape”. In fulfillment of this mandate, the HFNL first oversees designation, funding and plaquing programs for heritage structures. They also have a granting program for fishery related buildings, and offer an educational or sponsorship role. The Foundation itself is composed of a Board of Directors of twelve members appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. The positions include a chairperson, vice-chairperson, a government representative, and the rest as board members. The administrative staff on the other hand includes an executive director, a finance minister, and a heritage preservation officer. The HFNLs approximate annual budget is $475,000 CDN.

Historic Resources Act
The Act gives authority to the Foundation to preserve the built heritage through the following: the designation of heritage buildings, structures and districts; the provision of grants to assist with the preservation of designated buildings, and the provision of professional advisory services to organizations and individuals. This is how the HFNL shows an appreciation and understanding of the cultural, historical, and architectural value of the cultural landscape. In the Act, it states that it is applied in concurrence with the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act, and if there is an inconsistency or conflict between the two acts, then the latter Act has precedence over the provision of the Historical Resources Act.

Historic and Palaeontological Resources Investigation Permit
In the Historic Resource Act, there is a section on Historical and Palaeontological Resources regarding Investigation Permits. A person is not allowed to carry out any palaeontonogical or archaeological investigation in the province without a valid permit. It is the minister's job to issue this permit and they have the power to limit it to a certain time frame or location, to ask for a progress report, or to cancel the permit at any time. The holder of the permit must deliver all archaeological objects and significant fossils recovered as the result of the investigation to the minister, if the minister sees fit. The permit give the permit holder permission to enter onto the land that is subject to the permit only with the permission of the land owner, or person in occupation or possession of the land. If the land belongs to the Crown, the permit holder has the permission to enter onto the land for the sole purpose of carrying out the activities that are underlined in the permit. The Crown does not hold any liability for issuing this permit. If throughout the archaeological or palaeontological investigation something was harmed, or the value of the land decreased due to their presence there, the permit holder is the one responsible for paying the land owner.

Historic and Palaeontological Resources Impact Assessment
If the minister deems that an operation or activity will result in alteration, damage, or destruction of historic or palaeontological resources, he can tell the permit holder the following: An assessment must be carried out to determine the effect of the proposed operation or activity on historic or palaeontological resources in the area where the operation is taking place. They may need to submit to the minister, in accordance with the order, a report containing the assessment talked about above, and they may need to undertake preservation and protection measures. They may also have to take any other action that the minister deems necessary. Until the completion of the ministers tasks, the minister has the power to require a municipal authority to withhold or suspend a permit.

Historic Resources Assessment and Impact Management
There are three types of assessments within the province when it comes to Heritage Resources Impact Management. The Historic resources overview assessment, the detailed impact assessment, and the impact management: mitigation. The historic resources overview assessment is usually the first step in the Historic Resources assessment process. The purpose of this assessment is to determine how involved the Historic Resources assessment needs to be in the future of the site. It recommends the appropriate scope and method for the detailed impact assessment in the next stage. There needs to be a background research on relevant archival material and data sources, direct consultation with individuals or organizations with knowledge of the Historic Resources in the study area. There also may be some preliminary field reconnaissance, to varying degrees depending on the site. The detailed impact assessment is the next step after the historic resources overview, and is in place “to gain the fullest possible understanding of the historic resource and its interactions with the proposed development”. This is the study that determines the appropriate action, if the historic resources assessment process continues to step three and four. The objectives of this assessment are to identify and evaluate historic resources within the specified development project area. Also, to identify and assess all impacts on historic resources imposed by the development, and based on the results, to recommend viable alternatives or options for managing unavoidable adverse impacts. It is not enough to merely identify the project-related impacts, so there needs to be an assessment on their level of effect on historic resources. Impact assessment should include careful consideration of these level-of-effect indicators: Magnitude, severity, duration, range, frequency, diversity, cumulative effect, and rate of change. The third stage, impact management: mitigation, includes a broad range of acceptable activities that follow from the decisions made in stage two. The following main objectives of this stage are direct quotes taken from the HRIA Summary page on the Department of Tourism, Recreation, and Culture website :
 * To commence implementing acceptable measures for mitigating unavoidable adverse impacts on historic sites before project implementation.
 * Where appropriate, to report the objectives, methods, and results of implementing the impact management actions.
 * To recommend and discuss the nature and general scope of any follow-up surveillance, wherever this activity is required.

Case Study
In March of 2012, the federal government of Canada gave the controversial Muskrat Falls hydroelectric dam a green light despite the fact that there is a joint federal-provincial panel that warned that the plant will endanger fish, wetlands, caribou, fishing and sealing industries and local culture. The one hundred percent owned NALCOR project will be a 824 Megawatt hydro-electric facility, with two dams, and one powerhouse. The reservoir for the area will cover a sixty kilometer stretch of land, and the construction will cost approximately $2.9 billion. According to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the benefits of the project outweigh the risks. The benefits being much needed jobs and energy to meet the areas growing demand. They claim that the hydro-electric dam is a way to be as “low-carbon” as possible. Gilbert Bennett of the provincial power authority argues the dams represent a big source of clean energy that can fuel the economy while cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Realistically, most of the energy from the dams will be used in Newfoundland, or sold to the United States. Major Canadian environmental groups believe that “alternatives, like wind power, or conservation demand management, were not examined and the panel failed to obtain the information needed to assess such alternatives”, says Bruno Marcocchio, spokes person for the Sierra Club. The Native Inuit population has lived on and around the area of Muskrat Falls for hundreds of years and they believe that all land is supposed to be respected and used properly. Many locals say they want none of it. “These guys have got tunnel vision and got no concern for Labrador, ” says Alex Saunders, a native Inuit whose family was one of the first to settle in the region of Muskrat Falls. His family now lives in a town of about 7,500 people called Happy Valley-Goose Bay. He is among the many there who say that the dam will disrupt water levels below the dam and flood and pollute the river valley above it. The land is crucial to the Inuit identity and the destruction would make their already challenging way of life, even more difficult. Certain environmental groups have filed an application with the Federal Court for a judicial review challenging the joint panel's assessment, saying that their assessment was incomplete. These groups are represented by lawyers for Ecojustice. Bruno Marocchio says they want the court to send the review back to the panel to assess the need and effects of the project. He is certain that if the panel were to re-examine its review, it will find that the project is not justified.