Editing James Bay Project (section)

== Environmental impacts ==
Although there was no environmental impact assessment legislation before the James Bay Project's initial construction phase in the 1970s, a major environmental research program was conducted before Phase I began.{{sfn|Senécal|Égré|1999|p=321}}

The environmental impacts of the James Bay Project largely stem from the creation of a complex chain reservoir through the integration of all the watersheds of the eastern shores of the Hudson Bay, from the southern tip of James Bay to Ungava Bay in the north. This has had the consequence of diverting the flow of water from four major rivers into a large body of water, ultimately changing the dynamics of the land, an environmental political phenomenon labelled by some critics as a "first build, then paint green" policy.{{sfn|McCutcheon|1991|p=97}}

=== Mercury pollution ===
Two of these main diverted rivers are the [[Caniapiscau River]] and the [[Eastmain River]] into which the James Bay Project submerged about 11,000&nbsp;km<sup>2</sup> of boreal forest ([[taiga]]). Consequently, the flooded vegetation's stored [[mercury (element)|mercury]] (Hg) was released into the aquatic ecosystem, and due to the diversion of the water flow to contained reservoirs, the sudden abundance of mercury in the James Bay area in 1979 was unable to be dispersed and diluted as would have been the case in natural waters. Because the James Bay Cree ([[East Cree]]) live a mostly traditional lifestyle including a diet rich in fish and sea mammals, there is a possibility that the damming project has contributed to northern Quebec's Cree having the highest measured methyl-mercury concentration of all Canadian First Nations. Because of the simultaneous mercury contamination in James Bay from other activities in the area, including paper milling, the direct effect of the project on mercury levels has been difficult to ascertain. From 1981 to 1982, a few years after the flooding of [[La Grande River]], mercury levels in [[lake whitefish]] (Coregonus clupeaformis) increased up to fourfold their pre-flooding levels, while those in [[northern pike]] (Esox lucius) rose up to sevenfold during the same period. In natural lakes, these concentrations are five to six times less than in the James Bay area.{{sfn|Roebuck|1999|p=79, 81–82}} This rapid spike of mercury levels in two of the fish species used extensively by the area's Cree is attributed to the processes of [[bioaccumulation]] and [[biomagnification]]. Biaccumulation is the initial consequence of mercury pollution, as the toxin is first incorporated into the given ecosystem's producers. In the James Bay area ecosystem, mercury being released from the decaying flooded trees would be incorporated in trace amounts in [[zooplankton]]. Benthic organisms ([[benthos]]), the whitefish's primary prey, consume a great deal of zooplankton, causing the mercury concentration in a single organism to magnify due to accumulation of mercury and its inability to be excreted. In turn, whitefish, due to their greater size, consume large numbers of benthic [[invertebrates]], thus incorporating the individual mercury accumulations of each organism and creating their own store of mercury.{{sfn|Trudel|Tremblay|Schetagne|Rasmussen|2001|p=395}} The effect is further exacerbated by humans consuming this built up store of mercury. The James Bay Mercury Agreement, signed in 1986 between the [[Grand Council of the Crees]] (of Québec), the [[Cree Regional Authority]], the Cree Bands, the [[Government of Québec]], [[Hydro-Québec]] and the Société d’énergie de la Baie James ([[James Bay Energy]]), aims "to restore and strengthen Cree fisheries [...] but [...] also adequately take into account the health risks associated with human exposure to mercury."<ref>{{cite web|title=Mercury Agreement|url=http://www.gcc.ca/archive/article.php?id=167|access-date=20 February 2013|archive-date=21 September 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150921195915/http://www.gcc.ca/archive/article.php?id=167|url-status=dead}}</ref>

=== Local climate changes ===
The establishment of reservoirs containing large amounts of standing water has the ability to produce local climate changes. Alteration of annual precipitation patterns, increased abundance of low [[stratus clouds]] and [[fog]], and warmer autumns and cooler springs, leading to a delay in the beginning and end of the growing season, have all been observed in the vicinity of the project's major reservoirs.{{sfn|Baxter|1977|p=275}} The doubling of the [[freshwater]] input into James Bay during the winter decreases the [[salinity]] of the [[seawater]], thereby increasing the [[freezing point]] of the bay. The resultant increased ice content at the northern section of the project in the winter has cooled warm air currents more than usual, bringing harsher Arctic weather, including strong winds and less precipitation, to south-central Quebec. The tree line at the southern edge of the development has shifted noticeably southward since the project's construction.{{sfn|Prinsenberg|1980|p=1101–1102}}

=== Water flow modifications ===
Following construction of the project, the area's water flow was substantially modified. In the James Bay area in general, the average monthly [[surface runoff]] rate in the winter increased by 52%, doubling the total freshwater input, while that of the summer months decreased by 6%. The James Bay area's water flow is most affected by the hydroelectric project from January to April because rivers have their lowest runoff rates in the winter months when freezing occurs. Additionally, runoff rates in the damming system can be altered to meet power needs, which are highest in the winter and lowest in the summer, thereby more completely reversing the natural water flow cycle. As evidenced by the 500% increase in its winter runoff, the La Grande River is the pillar of the James Bay project's hydroelectric capacity, with the runoff increasing from an average yearly amount of 1,700 m<sup>3</sup>/s to 3,400 m<sup>3</sup>/s, and from 500 m<sup>3</sup>/s to 5,000 m<sup>3</sup>/s in the winter. This immense harnessing of the area's energy at La Grande was made possible by reducing the Eastmain River's water flow at its mouth by 90% and by reducing that of the Caniaspiscau River's by 45%, and then by diverting these rivers into La Grande. Not only does this alter the runoff amount of the Eastmain and the Caniaspiscau Rivers, but also their drainage location, since prior to having been directly merged with La Grande, these rivers’ drainage locations were separate from the La Grande River. The summer runoff rate of La Grande increased by 40%, making the average annual runoff rate 91% greater than its natural rate.{{sfn|Prinsenberg|1980|p=1101–1102}}

Because of the change in the runoff rates of James Bay, massively increasing in the winter months, and increasing considerably in the summer as well, there has been more extreme fluctuation in the water levels. This has killed many trees along the shoreline, which are not equipped with deep enough root systems and tolerance of prolonged exposure to seawater to withstand these fluctuations. As well, the increased riverbank [[erosion]] downstream of the dams has washed the [[flora]]’s habitat down the river.{{sfn|Whiteman|2004|p=431}} The result has been considerable decay ([[decomposition]]) of dead trees along the shoreline, consequently releasing stored mercury into the area's [[terrestrial ecosystem]] through bioaccumulation in [[decomposers]] and [[detritovores]] and eventual biomagnification up the [[food web]]. This has left the area's Cree susceptible to [[mercury poisoning]] from both land and sea. Any shoreline plants that could potentially provide vegetation growth to replace any of the lost [[wetland]] habitats in these zones of periodic fluctuations are destroyed.<ref>{{cite report|last=Environment Canada|title=Second Report on James Bay environmental studies: status of projects as of December 1972 |date=1973 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=tGbNAAAAMAAJ}}</ref>{{sfn|Schetagne|Verdon|1999|p=46}}

=== Changes in migration routes ===
Other changes in the delicate balance of the James Bay ecosystem can be illustrated through the [[animal migration]] patterns, salmon spawning, and destruction of wildlife habitats. The significant loss of wetlands and the blocking of passageways to those wetlands that remain has inhibited salmon spawning and migration in the James Bay area.{{sfn|Sarkar|Karagoz|1995|p=979}} Additionally, diverting rivers towards the James Bay could cause changes in the geographical pattern of river water discharge into the sea.[36]

Caribou populations, which have been expanding since the 1950s, have adopted migration routes throughout much of the Quebec-Labrador Peninsula and have thus been increasingly abundant in the James Bay area, the valley of the Caniapiscau, and around [[George River (Quebec)]].[37] Variations in the water flow of the Caniapiscau River from 1981 to 1984, during the period when the Caniapiscau Reservoir was being filled, may have contributed to the death by drowning of 10,000 [[migratory woodland caribou]] in September 1984, representing about 1.5% of the herd at that time. On the other hand, the reduced flow of the Caniapiscau River and the [[Koksoak River]] has permanently reduced the risk of natural floods on the lower Caniapiscau during the period of caribou migrations, giving hunters greater access to caribou than ever before. About 30,000 caribou are killed each year by [[Inuit]], Cree and American and European hunters.{{Citation needed|date=April 2021}}

Seasonal reversal in the flow of rivers can potentially rob the rich nutrients that thrive in various [[mudflats]] and coastal [[marshes]], affecting millions of migratory birds such as waterfowl, [[Canada geese]], and various inland birds that use the coastlines of both the James and Hudson Bays during their spring and fall migrations.[38]