4433 1 MANITOBA CLEAN ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION 2 3 VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT 4 Volume 19 5 6 Including List of Participants 7 8 9 10 Hearing 11 12 Wuskwatim Generation and Transmission Project 13 14 Presiding: 15 Gerard Lecuyer, Chair 16 Kathi Kinew 17 Harvey Nepinak 18 Robert Mayer 19 Terry Sargeant 20 21 Tuesday, April 13, 2004 22 Radisson Hotel 23 288 Portage Avenue 24 Winnipeg, Manitoba 25 4434 1 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 2 3 Clean Environment Commission: 4 Gerard Lecuyer Chairman 5 Terry Sargeant Member 6 Harvey Nepinak Member 7 Kathi Avery Kinew Member 8 Doug Abra Counsel to Commission 9 Rory Grewar Staff 10 CEC Advisors: 11 Mel Falk 12 Dave Farlinger 13 Jack Scriven 14 Jim Sandison 15 Jean McClellan 16 Brent McLean 17 Kyla Gibson 18 19 Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation: 20 Chief Jerry Primrose 21 Elvis Thomas 22 Campbell MacInnes 23 Valerie Matthews Lemieux 24 25 4435 1 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 2 3 Manitoba Conservation: 4 Larry Strachan 5 6 Manitoba Hydro/NCN: 7 Doug Bedford, Counsel 8 Bob Adkins, Counsel 9 Marvin Shaffer 10 Ed Wojczynski 11 Ken Adams 12 Carolyn Wray 13 Ron Mazur 14 Lloyd Kuczek 15 Cam Osler 16 Stuart Davies 17 David Hicks 18 George Rempel 19 David Cormie 20 Alex Fleming 21 Marvin Shaffer 22 Blair McMahon 23 24 25 4436 1 2 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 3 4 Community Association of South Indian Lake: 5 Leslie Dysart 6 Merrell-Ann Phare 7 8 CAC/MSOS: 9 Mona Pollitt Smith 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4437 1 2 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 3 4 Number Page 5 6 TREE/RCM 1007: Addendum to 7 interrogatory response 8 filed by TREE and RCM 4440 9 10 CASIL-1003: CASIL reference material 11 for examination of MH/NCN 4689 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4438 1 INDEX OF UNDERTAKINGS 2 3 UNDERTAKING NO. PAGE 4 5 NCN-63: Advise if elders were 6 participants in the development of the definition of 7 "traditional knowledge" 4456 8 MH-64: Advise of the number of elders 9 that were consulted with re heritage resources 4466 10 MH-65: Advise when meeting or workshop 11 on cultural issues took place with the five elders 12 from South Indian Lake and advise of the location 4469 13 MH-66: Advise of when the traditional 14 knowledge study pilot project with eight NCN elders 15 and 10 NCN resource harvesters took place 4472 16 MH-67: Advise if the mandatory 17 reporting scheme will be in place in 2005 4512 18 MH-68: Advise if N2O was included in 19 the figures re greenhouse gases that were given to 20 Mr. McCullough by Mr. Wojczynski 4515 21 MH-69: Confirm the number of tonnes 22 that Wuskwatim will result in a reduction of 23 greenhouse gases in the United States 4519 24 MH-70: Produce copy of CEAA 1994 guide 4652 25 4439 1 TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 2004 2 Upon commencing at 10:06 a.m. 3 4 THE CHAIRMAN: It's time and we're ready 5 to begin. I'll begin by asking our Elder Sam Dysart 6 to come forward for the opening prayer. 7 ELDER DYSART: Thank you, Commissioners. 8 I hope we have a beautiful day. I feel good and I 9 hope everybody feels good. It's good to take 10 something in heart the way you feel about it and let 11 us work together and be good friends and neighbours. 12 Let us pray. 13 14 (PRAYER) 15 16 THE CHAIRMAN: I hope everybody had a 17 good weekend. Okay. Thank you. I hope you had 18 enough bunnies and rabbits and enough chocolate to 19 leave a little bit of hyperness to begin this day. 20 We begin today with cross-examination and I call 21 first upon CASIL to begin the process. 22 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman, just while 23 CASIL is getting ready, I wonder if we can just enter 24 one small exhibit that came in over the course of the 25 weekend which is an addendum to an interrogatory 4440 1 response. It's filed by TREE, Time to Respect 2 Earth's Ecosystems, and RCM. It is addendum to 3 response CEC/TREE/RCM/NFAAT number 9. And it would 4 have the exhibit number of TREE/RCM 1007. 5 6 (EXHIBIT TREE/RCM 1007: Addendum to 7 interrogatory response filed by TREE and 8 RCM) 9 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. You may begin 11 by introducing yourself again, Mr. Dysart, and 12 proceed. 13 MR. DYSART: Leslie Dysart, Community 14 Association of South Indian Lake. Good morning to 15 the Commission and Panel members and everybody 16 present. With our line of questioning, we're going 17 to be focusing on just three certain areas just due 18 to some of the resources that were allocated to us. 19 The three areas that we'll be focusing on we're 20 hoping will be of assistance to the Commission in 21 their deliberations. 22 Having said that, I'll just jump right 23 into the questioning. I'm going to go down the Panel 24 and ask each specific question and I'll go from 25 there. 4441 1 Mr. Adams, I'm wondering if you could 2 tell us, have you ever been to South Indian Lake? 3 MR. ADAMS: Yes. I first went to South 4 Indian to visit at South Indian Lake I think in 1968. 5 MR. DYSART: Have you visited South 6 Indian at all in preparation of their Environmental 7 Impact Statement? 8 MR. ADAMS: I don't see what that's got 9 to do with the hearing here. 10 MR. DYSART: This is questioning in 11 regards to their Environmental Impact Statement. 12 MR. ADAMS: I didn't prepare the 13 Environmental Impact Statement. 14 MR. DYSART: So the answer is no to the 15 question? 16 MR. ADAMS: The answer is I'm not 17 answering the question. 18 MR. DYSART: I see. Mr. Cormie, have you 19 ever been to South Indian Lake? 20 MR. CORMIE: I worked at Missi Falls 21 during the construction of that project. 22 MR. DYSART: Okay. Have you ever been to 23 South Indian Lake in preparation for their 24 Environmental Impact Statement? 25 MR. CORMIE: I wasn't involved in the 4442 1 preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement. 2 MR. DYSART: Okay. Mr. Wojczynski, same 3 questions. 4 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: I have not been to South 5 Indian Lake. 6 MR. DYSART: Mr. Hicks? 7 MR. HICKS: No, I've not. 8 MR. DYSART: Mr. Davies? 9 MR. DAVIES: Yes, I have. 10 MR. DYSART: Have you been into South 11 Indian Lake in preparation for their Environmental 12 Impact Statement? 13 MR. DAVIES: Yes, I was in South Indian 14 Lake a number of times prior to the Environmental 15 Impact Statement and I was in South Indian Lake for 16 the Environmental Impact Statement. 17 MR. DYSART: Mr. Remple, have you ever 18 been to South Indian Lake? 19 MR. REMPEL: I assume you mean the 20 community and the answer is no. I've flown over the 21 lake but not visited the community. 22 MR. DYSART: Okay. 23 MR. REMPEL: I should mention members of 24 my staff have visited areas upstream of what we 25 consider the hydraulic zone of influence but I 4443 1 personally did not. 2 MR. DYSART: Could you be more specific 3 on areas upstream? 4 MR. REMPEL: Upstream of Early Morning 5 Rapids. 6 MR. DYSART: Okay. That would be in the 7 general vicinity of Nelson House though, wouldn't it? 8 MR. REMPEL: No. I'm saying staff, some 9 of our staff, for example, in looking at wildlife or 10 birds went well beyond Early Morning Rapids. But 11 personally, I did not in connection with the EIS. 12 MR. DYSART: Okay. Just for 13 clarification, we'll use, say, Notigi as a reference 14 point. Have they been above Notigi, the members of 15 your staff you referred to? 16 MR. REMPEL: Yes, they were. I think we 17 showed a map earlier in the proceedings where the 18 bird surveys were well beyond Notigi and other lakes 19 in the area that are unaffected by the CRD as well. 20 MR. DYSART: Okay. Specific to South 21 Indian, did they, your staff, do studies, and you 22 referenced birds, in South Indian Lake or around the 23 general area of Southern Indian Lake community? 24 MR. REMPEL: No, no, we did not in 25 connection with the EIS as it was considered beyond 4444 1 the hydraulic zone of influence. 2 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: If you're talking about 3 upstream of Notigi, I thought you were talking about 4 the community of South Indian. I have been upstream 5 of Notigi. But secondly, I'd also like to comment 6 that we don't view this as being particularly 7 pertinent because we are confident that Wuskwatim 8 will have no impact whatsoever hydrologically or 9 otherwise upstream of Notigi or upstream of Early 10 Morning Rapids for that matter. 11 MR. DYSART: Thank you for your comment, 12 Mr. Wojczynski. Mr. Osler, have you ever been to 13 South Indian Lake? 14 MR. OSLER: Yes. 15 MR. DYSART: Have you been to South 16 Indian Lake, the community, in preparation for their 17 Environmental Impact Statement? 18 MR. OSLER: I don't know about their 19 Environmental Impact Statement but I've been there as 20 part of the public involvement discussion and the one 21 meeting we were able to get at South Indian Lake, 22 yes. 23 MR. DYSART: So you weren't there prior 24 to the development of the Environmental Impact 25 Statement or in preparation for the Environmental 4445 1 Impact Statement? 2 MR. OSLER: No, I was there as part of 3 this work. In the one meeting, we were able to get 4 as part of the public involvement discussions at 5 South Indian Lake. I was there along with Janet 6 Kinley behind me. Members of my staff were there. 7 We were also doing the survey, helping NCN do the 8 public opinion survey of members at South Indian 9 Lake. 10 MR. DYSART: Okay. I just have some 11 general questions. I'll just let any member of the 12 Panel answer. I won't be specific on who should 13 answer here. 14 When was the definition of consultation 15 developed in relation to the Environmental Impact 16 Statement? 17 MR. OSLER: Are you referring to the 18 public opinion, the public involvement plan or what 19 are you referring to when you say the definition of 20 consultation? 21 MR. DYSART: Consultation in respect to 22 this whole process, like from the beginning on how -- 23 what is your definition of "consultation"? 24 MR. OSLER: The approach that we took to 25 consultation, its scope and everything else is set 4446 1 out in the public involvement plan that was made 2 public in August of 2002. It, in general, talks 3 about providing information and receiving information 4 and views, provide information about the project to 5 people who may have some potential interest in the 6 project and receiving information from people and 7 their views with respect to both the project and the 8 methods of consulting with them. 9 MR. DYSART: The methods of consultation 10 or the specific definition of consultation, when was 11 it developed? I know it's part of the public 12 involvement plan but that took some preparation I 13 assume? 14 MR. OSLER: The process of consulting 15 with respect to this project has involved many layers 16 as you've heard. It has involved, in the case of 17 South Indian Lake, consultation activities through 18 NCN with respect to the agreement in principle 19 process independently, if you like, of the 20 Environmental Impact Assessment or public involvement 21 plan process. 22 NCN can address that. There's been a 23 document summarizing consultation by NCN with its 24 members including members of South Indian Lake. That 25 activity started I assume certainly in 2000 if not 4447 1 earlier. 2 The consultation process for developing 3 the Environmental Impact Statement beyond NCN really 4 involves two steps; one dealing with members of NCN 5 and in particular people at Nelson House. And that 6 process started after we were jointly retained by the 7 parties in March/April time period of 2000 through 8 meetings with and workshops with members of NCN to 9 discuss their interests, what would be the types of 10 studies that should be done, what types of matters 11 should be investigated in order to address their 12 concerns, et cetera. And that process involved 13 workshops, open houses and other activities that are 14 documented through 2000 and beyond. 15 After 2000, we began to focus on how we 16 might begin consulting with other people beyond NCN. 17 We met with regulators I believe in June of 2001 to 18 begin the process of getting people's minds focused 19 on the development of scoping for the EIS, et cetera. 20 And later that year, we provided the regulators with 21 scoping documents indicating the scope of the EIS 22 studies that we were pursuing based on our work to 23 date with NCN. 24 In the spring/summer of 2001, we began to 25 focus on the matters of a plan to consult with 4448 1 others. We went out, we developed a newsletter to 2 provide basic information on the project as sort of 3 the fundamental courtesy with respect to what this 4 project was about and the approach we were going to 5 take to consultation in a general sense. That was 6 called round one consultation. That process of 7 consultation was directed at leaders, elected leaders 8 and officials of the communities in what we call the 9 project region. We define the project region to 10 include anybody that we could think of that would 11 have a potential concern about being affected by the 12 project upstream or downstream of the location of the 13 project or otherwise related to agreements they may 14 have with Manitoba Hydro or in the areas where 15 transmission projects were being considered. And we 16 went out with the newsletter and asked people if they 17 wanted to meet with us, sent them copies of it. And 18 in the process of meeting with the leaders that would 19 meet with us, we asked them how they would like to be 20 consulted. That process did involve providing 21 information to and meeting with officials of South 22 Indian Lake and many other communities as documented 23 in the EIS. 24 Based on the results of that activity, 25 which was in the time period of September/November 4449 1 2001, we committed to come back in the latter part of 2 2001 and in 2002 in round 2 to present and discuss 3 alternative ways of doing the project, particularly 4 with respect to the transmission routes but with 5 respect to other aspects of the project. In many 6 cases, people asked us to come to the communities 7 rather than just meet with the leaders. And we did 8 that in round 2. So in many respects, the 9 discussions we had had only with elected officials in 10 round one now became community meetings with many of 11 the communities. 12 Based on the results of round 1 and round 13 2, we felt we had information from people throughout 14 the project region as well as from NCN to come up 15 with a public involvement plan process that was 16 released in August of 2002. By that time, the 17 regulators had also provided us with draft 18 guidelines, a process of consultation with the public 19 through meetings held by the CEC in February of 2002. 20 Reports on those meetings and final guidelines are 21 published in April of 2002. So that we felt that we 22 had information from that side of the perspective as 23 well as to what the requirements would be for the 24 EIS. And in the guidelines, there was requirement 25 for us to come up with the public involvement plan. 4450 1 And so effectively, the August 2002 document 2 responded to that. 3 So you've asked me how we came to develop 4 the 2002 document called Public Involvement Plan, I 5 hope I have given you a full response on that. 6 MR. DYSART: Could you repeat the answer? 7 No, I'm just kidding. 8 Going back to my original question. That 9 wasn't what I asked. You did mention a process back 10 in 2000. I guess I'll be more specific. We have 11 already established South Indian has a significant 12 portion of NCN Band members living in South Indian 13 Lake. And we established that in the second week of 14 hearings I believe. Going back to what you said 15 earlier of processes in early 2000 or 2000, were 16 members of the South Indian Lake included in this 17 process, as an example, say, the elders? 18 MR. OSLER: In the process of consulting 19 with NCN? 20 MR. DYSART: Yes. 21 MR. OSLER: I don't recall who everybody 22 was at these meetings but maybe Stuart can recall 23 exactly who was there. Certainly we left to NCN the 24 involvement of its members at the workshops and the 25 sessions we were involved in in 2000. 4451 1 MR. DYSART: Were there any workshops in 2 South Indian Lake in 2000? 3 MR. OSLER: Not to my knowledge, no. The 4 focus was, at that time, very much in terms of open 5 houses and meetings of that nature -- 6 MR. DYSART: But there was not -- 7 MR. OSLER: -- at Nelson House. 8 MR. DYSART: Okay. When was -- 9 MR. OSLER: In terms of the Environmental 10 Assessment Process, I don't know -- I am being 11 reminded by Councillor Thomas that NCN did retain two 12 community consultants from South Indian Lake to 13 assist in communication of NCN of the issues with 14 respect to this project with South Indian Lake 15 members who were NCN members. 16 MR. DYSART: When were they retained? 17 MR. OSLER: I don't recall myself but it 18 was either in 2000 or 2001. 19 MR. DYSART: It was February of 2001. 20 MR. OSLER: Okay. Thank you. 21 MR. DYSART: So just to clarify, there 22 was no workshops or consultation process prior to 23 2001? 24 MR. OSLER: With respect to the 25 Environmental Impact Assessment process, not to the 4452 1 best of my knowledge. I cannot comment with respect 2 to NCN/AIP process. 3 MR. DYSART: Okay. The next question is 4 in relation to traditional knowledge. When was the 5 definition of "traditional knowledge" developed? 6 MR. OSLER: My understanding is that NCN 7 presented that definition to the Clean Environment 8 Commission in the public meeting at Nelson House in 9 2002 February. Essentially one of the councillors 10 presented it there. I don't know before that time 11 when it was developed by NCN. 12 MR. DYSART: Mr. Thomas, maybe you could? 13 MR. THOMAS: You'll have to excuse my 14 voice. I've got a bit of a cold that I'm dealing 15 with. 16 I've just been handed a note that says 17 that all open houses and public forums were cancelled 18 by Mr. Dysart until further notice and we did not 19 receive no dates. That's coming from Val, one of our 20 community consultants from South Indian Lake. I 21 guess that's in response to your queries. 22 With respect to the traditional knowledge 23 aspect of things, my colleague, Councillor Darcy 24 Linklater, has been involved in our process since day 25 one. And he and others like Jimmy D. and Henry Wood 4453 1 and Terry and Charlie I believe have been involved in 2 our activities, and our view of traditional knowledge 3 captures a lot. 4 You're probably well aware that we take a 5 holistic perspective and as a result, we don't 6 necessarily confine ourselves to one particular way 7 of looking at things, that it involves a lot of 8 different ways. And not only that, but the very fact 9 that NCN people are involved and sharing their 10 knowledge is a form of traditional knowledge. So 11 we've had that since day one. 12 When exactly we've come up with a 13 definition to capture all of that in specific wording 14 that can be submitted in written form to the 15 Commission, I can't recall the specific date when 16 that occurred. 17 MR. DYSART: Just to clarify, could you 18 give us -- be more specific as to when day one was? 19 You made a couple of references to day one. 20 MR. THOMAS: When we first started this 21 process, we signed our agreement in 1996 and, if I 22 remember, I think it was '97 when we started talking 23 about the possibility of doing future developments. 24 So from '97. 25 MR. DYSART: Okay. Going back. Since 4454 1 this process started with NCN in '97, were elders of 2 South Indian Lake included in the process of 3 developing traditional knowledge prior to the 4 retainment of the community consultants in February 5 of 2001? 6 MR. THOMAS: I think in response to that 7 question, I should clarify that when future 8 development potential was brought forward to us from 9 Manitoba Hydro, as members of Chief and Council, we 10 looked at the situation that NCN members are made up 11 of both Nelson House people and also South Indian 12 Lake people and other NCN members who reside 13 elsewhere in the province and also in the country 14 and perhaps even the world. 15 So we didn't necessarily try to make 16 distinctions in terms of who resides where. We 17 looked at it from an NCN perspective and we responded 18 to the future development opportunity accordingly. 19 But we did include -- we made special exception for 20 South Indian Lake in that we hired two community 21 members from there that would liaise with the 22 community both for the provision of information and 23 also for getting information from the community. And 24 that involved approaching the leaderships or the 25 various groups in South Indian Lake which would have 4455 1 necessarily included the elders of the community. 2 And we did consult with our elders in NCN as well. 3 Mind you, we didn't hire community consultants in 4 Winnipeg and Thompson and Brandon and elsewhere but 5 we did that for NCN and also for South Indian Lake 6 with the hopes that the NCN members would be 7 represented properly from that perspective. 8 MR. DYSART: Going back to my question, 9 was there involvement from elders specific or from 10 elders from South Indian Lake in development of the 11 traditional knowledge definition? 12 MR. THOMAS: With the community 13 consultants from South Indian Lake working in the 14 Community of South Indian Lake to get information 15 from the community, I would expect that the community 16 of South Indian Lake included the elders of South 17 Indian Lake. 18 MR. DYSART: Going back again specific to 19 the "traditional knowledge" definition, were those 20 elders participants in the development of the 21 definition? 22 MR. THOMAS: I would have to go back to 23 the community consultants from South Indian Lake to 24 ask them which people from South Indian Lake were 25 involved in the process. 4456 1 MR. DYSART: So you'll take an 2 undertaking on that question? 3 MR. THOMAS: Yes. 4 MR. DYSART: Thank you. 5 6 (UNDERTAKING NCN-63: Advise if elders were 7 participants in the development of the definition of 8 "traditional knowledge") 9 10 MR. DYSART: Second question. On April 11 8, Ms. Valerie Matthews Lemieux stated that the 12 public consultation for Wuskwatim included other 13 Aboriginal communities including South Indian Lake. 14 Who from Hydro or the study team facilitated this 15 process with South Indian Lake residents? 16 MR. THOMAS: Many of our Panel members 17 that are sitting here and their staff were involved. 18 We have an environmental management team and they are 19 made up of the various people that sit here on this 20 Panel. And I believe I introduced them all with 21 their titles. 22 MR. DYSART: So there's no one specific 23 who would say have the -- I know you have the 24 portfolio for future development but from the study 25 team, anybody would, say, have the file for South 4457 1 Indian, if I can use those terms? 2 MR. THOMAS: I don't know if we had a 3 specific file for South Indian Lake. I'm getting a 4 no from Cam here. I'll let him answer. 5 MR. OSLER: In terms of the Public 6 Involvement Program beyond NCN, in general, I had the 7 file, other people in our firm dealt with it. But of 8 course, we dealt extensively with both NCN and 9 Manitoba Hydro and the people from the communities. 10 In the case of dealing with South Indian Lake, 11 consultation process is because of 80 to 90 per cent 12 of the members, people residing at South Indian Lake 13 being members of NCN, the process usually involved 14 working closely through NCN for any meetings that 15 were attempted to be held. So it wasn't the same as 16 dealing with other communities beyond NCN. 17 In terms of the process of meetings held 18 that we recognize in our Public Involvement Program, 19 we held a meeting with elected officials in round one 20 and other meetings were attempted beyond round one 21 but never able to be executed. In each one of those 22 cases, the community consultants from NCN that come 23 from South Indian Lake were intimately involved along 24 with NCN and officials such as the head man from 25 South Indian Lake. 4458 1 But in the end, I think two different 2 community forums were scheduled in December '02, for 3 example. They were postponed in each case by the 4 Community of South Indian Lake. So the process 5 involved, because of South Indian Lake's membership 6 with NCN, a very heavy role with NCN in trying to 7 organize these meetings. 8 MR. DYSART: You've kind of answered my 9 second question but I'll ask it because I know 10 there's more detail there. 11 What were the methods of consultation 12 used? And by this, I mean how did the people 13 participate in the process? 14 MR. OSLER: I presume you're thinking of 15 South Indian Lake in particular? 16 MR. DYSART: Yes. 17 MR. OSLER: The meeting that I did attend 18 was a meeting held in your hall. It involved access 19 to anybody from the community. There was some 20 members of NCN, Councillor Thomas and members of the 21 consulting team were there. So that was a public 22 meeting in the end. At that meeting, the newsletter 23 was made available, presentations were made and 24 questions were answered. 25 That's not an untypical way in which we 4459 1 have tried to do public involvement processes when 2 we're in the community. Beyond that, there were 3 opinion surveys that NCN conducted at the community 4 which involved working with the community 5 consultants, involved about 70 per cent of the 6 households at South Indian Lake being represented. 7 There were also some workshops held, if 8 I'm not mistaken, with elders from NCN, five elders I 9 believe, on culture and lifestyle issues. Those 10 would be the items that were able to be executed, 11 carried out with respect to our activities with South 12 Indian Lake, although there were discussions with the 13 community consultants and others with respect to the 14 training programs in particular and the level of work 15 experience at South Indian Lake community because 16 that was the one area where South Indian Lake affects 17 work covered in the Environmental Impact Statement, 18 the effects through training and job opportunities. 19 So people from our staff certainly talked 20 with people from one of the community consultants, 21 one of the representatives on the SIL training 22 program for NCN to get information on that. 23 MR. DYSART: Are you in a position to 24 refute the statement "Consultation/participation 25 requires an ability to influence decision-making in 4460 1 order for it to be meaningful"? 2 MR. OSLER: Am I in a position to refute 3 the statement? Generally, you try and allow 4 consultation or encourage consultation to provide 5 opportunities for people to effect matters to the 6 extent that they fall within their scope of interest 7 or influence, yes. 8 MR. DYSART: Do you believe that holding 9 workshops where pre-prepared information is presented 10 is meaningful? 11 MR. OSLER: Definitely. 12 MR. DYSART: Is there any allowance for 13 any of that pre-prepared information to be changed 14 through a workshop? 15 MR. OSLER: Of course. 16 MR. DYSART: Did that happen in South 17 Indian Lake? 18 MR. OSLER: Well -- 19 MR. DYSART: The one meeting, the one 20 workshop you did have? 21 MR. OSLER: The one time we were allowed 22 to have a discussion in a public forum for the 23 environmental management team at South Indian Lake, 24 we learned some ways to discuss more effectively and 25 explain I think more effectively why this project 4461 1 should not have any effects on the waterways above 2 Early Morning Rapids. 3 We certainly became well aware of the 4 extent at which people from South Indian Lake were 5 very skeptical and very concerned about these issues 6 and that affected our thinking from that point 7 forward. Ultimately, it led to Manitoba Hydro and 8 NCN supporting South Indian Lake representatives 9 retaining their own environmental advisor to go over 10 the Environmental Impact Statements in an attempt to 11 try and allow them the opportunity in their own way 12 to come to the conclusion based on the evidence that 13 there would not be effects upstream of Early Morning 14 Rapids as a result of the Wuskwatim project. 15 So all of these things dealt with what we 16 were able to do in meeting with South Indian Lake, 17 the extent to which we were able to have open houses 18 in public forums. 19 It's being pointed out to me that the NCN 20 opinion survey from South Indian Lake, which is 21 appended to the Socioeconomic Volume 8 at page 18. 22 The results indicate that the public of South Indian 23 Lake -- we asked the question what are the best ways 24 we asked, NCN asked, the question, what are the best 25 ways for us to distribute information about future 4462 1 development? One hundred thirty-seven responses. 2 The top method, 71 per cent was public meetings. 3 Letters to the House was 52 per cent. And as 4 Councillor Thomas is saying, whenever NCN and the EMT 5 tried to have open houses and public forums and to do 6 this type of thing, these were cancelled. And I am 7 told by NCN, they were cancelled by Leslie Dysart 8 until further notice. So we did not have the ability 9 to pursue the methods of communication the people of 10 South Indian Lake have told us that they preferred to 11 use. We still did distribute information to the 12 households in terms of future development. 13 Newsletters on training and employment was developed 14 I am told with extensive involvement of the SIL 15 community consultants in November 2002. 16 I would say that the findings of the EIS 17 was a stage where initial findings in the November 18 2002, December 2002 and we very very much wanted to 19 meet ourselves with communities and we could not get 20 a meeting or open house or a forum as we had 21 scheduled for South Indian Lake. 22 I think -- I know that the community 23 consultant, Mr. Dumas, did have a meeting at what we 24 call a small group level with the leaders of South 25 Indian Lake. And the results of that were provided 4463 1 to us in terms of their concerns and issues at that 2 time. But we did not get the community to have a 3 public forum of the types that we sought to have. 4 MR. DYSART: I'll leave that at that. 5 I'm flattered to learn I have such an influence over 6 your process. 7 The next line of questioning is in 8 regards to the heritage resources and in regards to 9 the transmission line. I've looked at the historical 10 report for the transmission line Environmental Impact 11 Statement and saw no reference to either interviews 12 or traditional knowledge. Is it true that no input 13 from the local people was included? 14 MR. HICKS: No, it's not. I think I 15 spoke earlier in testimony with respect to the fact 16 that traditional knowledge and cultural and sacred 17 sites in the vicinity of Wuskwatim station were a 18 considerable factor in routing of the lines from 19 Wuskwatim south to Herblet Lake as one example. 20 MR. DYSART: I understand generating 21 station and there's some information there. But for 22 the transmission line in total? 23 MR. HICKS: The transmission line work 24 and the people that were doing that did consult with 25 the community representatives, yes. 4464 1 MR. DYSART: How was it used specifically 2 then? 3 MR. HICKS: I'm sorry? 4 MR. DYSART: In the development of the 5 transmission line Environmental Impact Statement, how 6 was the traditional knowledge used? 7 MR. HICKS: I believe it was at the stage 8 of the alternative routes and certainly at the stage 9 when we had come to some preference as to route, we 10 conducted helicopter overflights of the alternatives 11 and of the preferred route. And we, through the 12 community consultants, arranged that elders and 13 resource harvesters at Nelson House were welcome and 14 did in fact participate in those overflights and 15 provided advice to the people on the study team with 16 respect to any concerns they might have had. 17 MR. DYSART: Going back to the generation 18 station, the heritage resources volume. This report 19 does include the use of interviews to gather 20 information. How were these interview participants 21 chosen? 22 MR. DAVIES: There were a number of 23 discussions with the community and with the community 24 leaders, and particularly with the NCN elders. And I 25 think the, I may be corrected on this, but I think 4465 1 the people were chosen basically by the elders 2 advising the archeologist who they should be speaking 3 to. For example, Jimmy D. Spence, Mr. Spence was 4 born at Wuskwatim and was quite familiar with the 5 area and would be able to identify the elders that 6 should be spoken to. That did occur. And again, 7 they were taken for flights over the area and 8 identified some of the areas that should be looked at 9 more intensively by the heritage resource people. 10 MR. DYSART: Okay. Where is the data 11 specific to like say the number of elders that 12 participated? 13 MR. DAVIES: I'm sorry, I didn't hear 14 that. 15 MR. DYSART: Where in the Environmental 16 Impact Statement is the data on, say, for an example, 17 the number of elders that participated in that 18 process? 19 MR. DAVIES: I'm not sure if the number 20 of elders that participated in the process is 21 recorded in the EIS but I can take an undertaking and 22 let you know what the number that were consulted with 23 with the heritage resources specifically. 24 MR. DYSART: Okay. 25 4466 1 (UNDERTAKING MH-64: Advise of the number of elders 2 that were consulted with re heritage resources) 3 4 MR. DYSART: Traditional knowledge is 5 included as one of nine cultural indicators. I would 6 argue that traditional knowledge is more than that. 7 It is a holistic body of knowledge that should be 8 used to conduct the assessment as it is in western 9 scientific knowledge. Wait a minute. Just give me a 10 second here. It's not written out properly. 11 I'm just going to move on to another 12 question. Again, with the heritage resources volume 13 in regards to the generation station, this report 14 includes the term "traditional knowledge" twice. One 15 of the methods used to conduct the heritage resource 16 impact statement is informal gathering of traditional 17 knowledge. 18 Can someone please describe or explain 19 "informal gathering of traditional knowledge"? 20 MR. DAVIES: The heritage resources used 21 methodology called participatory action research 22 which basically means that the process is driven by 23 the community. The archeologists go to the 24 community. The community identifies the areas that 25 are significant to them, the areas that might be most 4467 1 important, the areas that they would like them to 2 take a look at both in terms of physical heritage 3 resources and cultural heritage resources. Through 4 that process of consultation and discussion and also 5 working directly with the NCN members and elders that 6 are participating in the heritage resource studies, 7 traditional knowledge is often passed on to the 8 archeologists and that would be the way that it was 9 done for that. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Osler. 11 MR. OSLER: Just so that the record 12 doesn't confuse you, the heritage resource volume 13 dealt with the physical heritage resources in 14 accordance with the guidelines. The cultural 15 heritage resource which you were starting to ask 16 about a few minutes ago was dealt with under the 17 socioeconomic section under personal family community 18 life as one of the factors under culture. And I 19 think the question you were looking at a few minutes 20 ago was saying that there were nine indicators of 21 culture and traditional knowledge was one of them and 22 you were trying to think of a question to pursue 23 that. 24 So when we're dealing with heritage here 25 to try and relate to some of the things Mr. Gilmore 4468 1 was talking about, both subjects are addressed 2 because the nature of the guidelines, they are 3 addressed in different parts of the EIS. And it can 4 be difficult for people coming at it, looking for the 5 word "heritage". If they just go to the heritage 6 resource section, they will think that the cultural 7 dimension is not addressed. But as Mr. Gilmore 8 allowed, it could well be addressed under 9 socioeconomics and I'm telling you it was in fact 10 addressed there. So we should try and keep that in 11 mind. 12 The other thing is that in the course of 13 doing that socioeconomic work, we did interview 14 separately people including elders. And as I said a 15 few minutes ago, five elders from South Indian Lake 16 were involved in a workshop on cultural issues. So 17 there was a program in the generation EIS work for 18 the socioeconomic of people in the local region. NCN 19 and members at both Nelson House and South Indian who 20 were interviewed or involved in workshops in order 21 for us to get the cultural information that's 22 reported here. 23 MR. DYSART: Just a follow-up question to 24 that. The five elders from South Indian, I'm not 25 going to ask who they were, but could you be more 4469 1 specific as to when that meeting or workshop took 2 place with the five elders? 3 MR. OSLER: I could undertake to get it 4 for you quite quickly. I don't have that. What I 5 have here is that there was a workshop. I don't have 6 the date. 7 MR. DYSART: You don't know when, where? 8 MR. OSLER: I think it was held at Nelson 9 House if I'm not mistaken. Let me get it for you 10 succinctly, Leslie, and we'll have it. 11 12 (UNDERTAKING MH-65: Advise when meeting or workshop 13 on cultural issues took place with the five elders 14 from South Indian Lake and advise of the location) 15 16 MR. OSLER: And the other thing that I'm 17 reminded of is that in dealing with cultural issues, 18 we certainly had confidentiality issues throughout. 19 But not just dealing with what the individual said 20 but there had been things said in this forum here 21 about the dancing circle that I was told to make sure 22 that we didn't put into the EIS, okay, because of its 23 sensitivity. So there are lots of things that were 24 written and discussed when we were reviewing 25 documents that were not allowed to be put into the 4470 1 EIS in order to make sure that the areas or the 2 specific sensitivities were not gotten into in great 3 detail. But they certainly were debated and 4 considered by the members of the NCN taking part and 5 reviewing material or discussing material. 6 So again if you read the EIS, you will 7 see what we were allowed to provide there, the 8 confidentiality screening issue. 9 MR. DYSART: I understand the 10 sensitivities. I'm just trying to get a sense of 11 some of the time line in respect to your undertaking. 12 MR. OSLER: We will undertake to get you 13 the timing of that workshop with the NCN elders from 14 South Indian Lake and the location. 15 MR. DYSART: Going back to my question, 16 Mr. Davies. Could you explain to us the difference 17 between the informal gathering of traditional 18 knowledge as compared to the formal gathering of 19 traditional knowledge? 20 MR. DAVIES: I'll go back one step in 21 regards to the first undertaking. While there is a 22 lot of NCN members and elders that were consulted in 23 regards to heritage resources which started right at 24 February 2000 at the very initial scoping sessions 25 and carried on through the workshops, there were six 4471 1 elders that were particular familiar with the 2 Wuskwatim area. And those are the ones that provided 3 specific information to the study team and also were 4 taken up with helicopter flights to take a look at 5 the area. So the number was six. 6 MR. DYSART: Sorry, just to clarify, is 7 that different from the five Mr. Osler referred to? 8 MR. DAVIES: I believe it is. In regards 9 to the informal gathering of traditional knowledge, 10 that would take place through open houses, general 11 discussions with NCN members during workshops or 12 presentations, and also with NCN members that may be 13 working on the project and just providing information 14 as the process unfolds. The more formal process 15 would be questionnaires and the relatively formal 16 process that NCN undertook in regards to their 17 traditional knowledge surveys with NCN. 18 MR. DYSART: Okay, thank you. 19 MR. OSLER: Leslie, just one more piece 20 of information. I am advised that NCN itself 21 conducted their own traditional knowledge study in a 22 pilot project where they interviewed and they 23 involved eight NCN elders and 10 NCN resource 24 harvesters to develop traditional knowledge. I 25 believe we answered questions about the process and 4472 1 some Canadian Nature Federation round one questions 2 around the 30s as to methodology and confidentiality 3 and things like that with respect to that particular 4 program. So that was separate from what we were 5 running but it was part of the gathering of 6 traditional knowledge in a more formal sense by NCN. 7 MR. DYSART: Again, in respect to the 8 time line, can you be more specific as to when that 9 took place, the pilot project, since it's fairly new? 10 MR. OSLER: Again, I will get you that 11 information, undertake to get you the timing. I 12 don't have it again here in front of me. 13 14 (UNDERTAKING MH-66: Advise of when the traditional 15 knowledge study pilot project with eight NCN elders 16 and 10 NCN resource harvesters took place) 17 18 MR. DYSART: I would refer to the 19 Commission. I apologize, I should have asked or 20 informed you right at the beginning, Ms. Phare is 21 going to be pursuing a line of questioning and then I 22 will return back to the table, my other lines of 23 questioning if you will allow. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: That's fine. 25 MR. DYSART: Thank you. 4473 1 MS. PHARE: Hello. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Good morning. 3 MS. PHARE: Good morning. Could I just 4 ask a question. What time would you be planning on 5 breaking for lunch give or take? 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Around 11:15. 7 MS. PHARE: Lunch? 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Oh, for lunch? 9 MS. PHARE: Yes, sorry. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: 12:30. 11 MS. PHARE: Okay. So half an hour until 12 a break. Okay. I have a whole beginning section of 13 questions that deal with climate change and it's our 14 break and it might be completed before lunch but the 15 break will probably split it right in half. And then 16 I'll be moving on to issues that generally deal with 17 water. 18 But Mr. Adams was asked a question just a 19 moment ago by Leslie Dysart about whether or not he 20 had ever attended South Indian Lake and I just need a 21 clarification of a response that you gave because it 22 impacts quite a bit the nature of the questions that 23 I'm going to be asking and who I'm going to be asking 24 them of. 25 You said that you didn't feel it was 4474 1 relevant to ask that question because you didn't do 2 the Environmental Impact Statement. And if I've 3 paraphrased you correctly, have I? 4 MR. ADAMS: Yes. 5 MS. PHARE: So who owns, whose document 6 is the Environmental Impact Statement? 7 MR. ADAMS: The document is Manitoba 8 Hydro's. 9 MS. PHARE: So the consultants -- 10 MR. ADAMS: I'm sorry, Manitoba Hydro and 11 NCN, yeah. 12 MS. PHARE: Okay. So the consultants 13 wrote the document but you put your name on the 14 document because it's yours is what you're saying? 15 THE CHAIRMAN: I will interrupt for a 16 moment. And I felt like I should have interrupted a 17 while ago and I will ask Mr. Adams to answer the 18 question. You are sitting at the table with the EIS 19 Panel and the question was asked of you whether you 20 were there or not and you had the opportunity to say 21 yes or no. And I will now ask you to say yes or no. 22 MR. ADAMS: I have been to South Indian 23 Lake many times over the last 35 years. I did not 24 visit South Indian Lake with specific reference to 25 the preparation of the Environmental Impact 4475 1 Statement. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 3 MS. PHARE: I'd like to receive answers 4 to the remaining couple of questions I have on this 5 point if that's okay. 6 So is it standard practice for the 7 consultants, maybe one of the consultants can answer 8 this for me, for consultants to not put their name on 9 an Environmental Impact Statement that they've 10 written and to have it be that the proponent puts 11 their name only on the cover? 12 MR. REMPEL: I can take a crack at that. 13 It is not unusual for the consultants to do the work 14 and to have the proponents put their name on it to 15 take responsibility for the commitments that are made 16 in EIS. It doesn't diminish the commitment that we 17 as an EMT have to respond and defend the 18 environmental assessment determinations in the 19 document. 20 MS. PHARE: So I guess both the proponent 21 and the consultants are jointly responsible for the 22 final ownership of the words I guess? And ownership, 23 I mean responsibility for the things that are 24 actually said in the EIS. 25 MR. REMPEL: What I meant is that the 4476 1 proponents can make commitments in terms of 2 monitoring environmental management plans that we, as 3 a consulting team, can put down but it doesn't have 4 the same commitment as when the proponents take 5 ownership of those words. So we have joint 6 responsibility for what's in there. But the 7 proponents have the major responsibility and the 8 commitments to carry out the monitoring for example. 9 MS. PHARE: So in this particular 10 preparation of the EIS, did Manitoba Hydro ever edit 11 any of the work done by any of the consultants on 12 this report? 13 MR. REMPEL: Both Manitoba Hydro and NCN 14 looked at draft EISs, made suggestions for some 15 clarifications. Certainly edits were made to improve 16 the clarity of the message. I don't recall any edits 17 that challenged our basic assumptions in terms of 18 asking us to change a determination that consultants 19 had made. 20 MS. PHARE: So to clarify, you just said 21 that any determinations that you had made were not 22 ever substantively changed by any edits of Manitoba 23 Hydro or NCN? 24 MR. REMPEL: I can't recall any 25 assessment that was changed by Manitoba Hydro and 4477 1 NCN. Do you recall any, gentlemen? 2 MR. DAVIES: I think the only exception 3 to that would be if we misunderstood part of the 4 project description or how the project would operate. 5 And if that was clarified by Manitoba Hydro, we would 6 make the change ourselves. For example, if we 7 misunderstood the operating regime and we provide -- 8 Manitoba Hydro and NCN provided clarification on 9 that, then we may change some of the conclusions that 10 were reached. 11 But as far as having changed any 12 conclusions that the study team made other than that, 13 the answer is no. 14 MS. PHARE: Mr. Osler? 15 MR. OSLER: The process of editing a 16 document leads to a lot of changes whether it's being 17 done by a consulting team or a consulting team with 18 clients. There were two sets of clients. As I said 19 a long time ago, Manitoba Hydro and NCN brought very 20 different perspectives to the review of this 21 document. They both had a lot of input into making 22 sure that they were satisfied with it. In the end, 23 any consultant who testifies to the document takes 24 full responsibility for the words that are here no 25 matter how many times clients had looked at it or 4478 1 colleagues had looked at it. In that respect, we are 2 here testifying to this document as a team. 3 MS. PHARE: I'm just asking whether or 4 not the co-proponents ever substantively edited any 5 of your conclusions prior to the release of the EIS? 6 MR. OSLER: They discussed our 7 conclusions with us. I don't recall editing of what 8 you would call key conclusions in that sense. But 9 everything in this document was subject to review as 10 to wording and thrust. You are talking about 11 scientific edited conclusions that would come from 12 particularly the biophysical area. I do not recall 13 the clients, in a sense that you're asking the 14 question, telling us to change anything. They 15 discussed with us, we discussed with ourselves and 16 the final conclusions represent the view of this 17 panel individually and collectively. 18 MS. PHARE: Okay. 19 MR. OSLER: And in the socioeconomic 20 field as distinct from the biophysical field, it is 21 impossible to do our work without close relation with 22 the people involved. And in this case, one of the 23 proponents is one of the parties most directly 24 affected. So I find it quite normal to have to deal 25 with this issue myself, but it's not the same in the 4479 1 physical, I acknowledge, scientific fields. 2 MR. THOMAS: Could I provide an 3 additional response to that querie there that you 4 just put forward? I'm rather offended by your 5 comment that if there are any findings, that we would 6 do something to try and change the findings. 7 Substantive is the word that you used. We, as NCN, 8 do not engage in those kind of activities. 9 MS. PHARE: I apologize for any -- 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Adams. 11 MR. ADAMS: I too would like to add. I 12 find the line of questioning a little bit disturbing. 13 Manitoba Hydro engages consultants in all sorts of 14 technologies, disciplines. And to the best of my 15 knowledge, and I've been here an awful long time, we 16 have never requested a consultant to change a 17 conclusion. We may have questioned some of their 18 work, that's part of the give and take on the 19 editing, but I am not aware of a single instance, and 20 certainly in the last 25 years when I've had any 21 ability to influence these things, that we have asked 22 a consultant to change a conclusion and then present 23 that conclusion as public. 24 MS. PHARE: If I could, my intention was 25 not to offend either Mr. Adams or Mr. Thomas, my 4480 1 intention was to get a clarification on why Mr. Adams 2 felt that he didn't have to answer a question about 3 his document, about the Environmental Impact 4 Statement. And he said it was because he didn't 5 prepare it. So I was trying to get a clarification 6 on whether there's a difference between his document 7 and the documents the consultants prepared or whether 8 in fact there's a close working relationship. And 9 you've affirmed that there is a close working 10 relationship and that the questions can be answered 11 by Mr. Adams as well as anybody else. 12 MR. THOMAS: Perhaps you should ask that 13 question. 14 MR. OSLER: Just for the record, so it 15 helps you. The process of review of the document 16 involved a committee. Mr. Thomas and several NCN 17 members were on the committee. Various members of 18 Manitoba Hydro were on the committee but in terms of 19 day-to-day review, neither Mr. Wojczynski nor Mr. 20 Adams were on the committee. Although Mr. 21 Wojczynski, as Division Manager, was intimately 22 involved in review of the final documents and 23 discussions. 24 Mr. Adams is farther up Manitoba Hydro 25 chain of responsibility. He would be familiar with 4481 1 the overall results but I think his answers reflect 2 the fact that he wasn't really engaged in that level 3 of review of the documents you're talking about here 4 compared to other members of Manitoba Hydro and 5 particularly Mr. Wojczynski. 6 So I think the level of involvement of 7 who did what in developing the EIS documents in 8 particular is perhaps being reflected in these 9 answers and may be a bit confusing. 10 MR. ADAMS: Mr. Chairman. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Adams. 12 MR. ADAMS: Perhaps I should elaborate. 13 Mr. Dysart was asking what appeared to be a personal 14 reflection or a question of personal participation. 15 To be perfectly honest, I never read the 16 Environmental Impact Statement until it was submitted 17 to this Commission. 18 As a vice-president in our organization, 19 we have, as you can imagine, lots and lots of things 20 to do. I have absolute confidence in Mr. Wojczynski, 21 Mr. Cormie and their colleagues and absolute 22 confidence in the consultants that we engaged that 23 they will put forward a very thorough, complete 24 document in which they have full confidence. 25 So in that context, I didn't think it was 4482 1 relevant for me or I thought it was irrelevant for me 2 to say that I didn't participate in the interviews or 3 anything else of South Indian Lake. But certainly 4 Manitoba Hydro takes responsibility for the document 5 that we filed here. 6 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Just so we all get to 7 say something. As the manager responsible on 8 Manitoba Hydro's side for the environmental 9 assessment, I did review portions of the documents 10 prior to their finalization. But more from the point 11 of view of my understanding what's in there, there 12 were points where there were clarifications or more 13 information requested by Manitoba Hydro. But as Mr. 14 Adams had indicated, at no point did we or would we 15 ever try and get the consultants to change 16 substantive conclusions except in the kind of 17 situation Mr. Davies had indicated whether there have 18 been obviously some misinformation as background. 19 But in those cases, it's still up to the consultant 20 to draw the final conclusions. And certainly in no 21 case in this Wuskwatim assessment did we ask for 22 anything substantive conclusive to be changed. 23 MS. PHARE: Thank you. 24 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: So we do adopt this as 25 our report. 4483 1 MS. PHARE: Thank you. Is everybody 2 done? Okay. Now I'm going on to quite an extensive 3 set of questions dealing with climate change on 4 greenhouse gas emissions. First off, this question 5 is dealing with a couple of points on T line issues. 6 The Environmental Impact Statement states that you 7 use SF6 in your circuit breakers and your switchers 8 along the T line. What is SF6? 9 MR. HICKS: Sulfur hexafluoride. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Would you repeat that, Mr. 11 Hicks? 12 MR. HICKS: Sulfur hexafluoride. It's an 13 essentially inert gas that's used as an insulating 14 medium in some switch gear and occasionally in larger 15 switching stations. Sulphur hexafluoride. 16 MS. PHARE: And I'll get into a little 17 bit later some more detail about that particular 18 greenhouse gas. Before we get there though, I just 19 wanted to confirm that your EIS states, and I added 20 these figures up myself so I'm not sure you if you 21 have them at the tip of your fingers, but that you're 22 going to use four circuit breakers and three circuit 23 switchers along the length of your proposed T lines. 24 Those are numbers we took from the EIS and I'm not -- 25 MR. HICKS: I believe we stipulated the 4484 1 expectations at Herblet Lake station. And I think 2 that was in the EIS and I believe it extended to 3 itemization of the breakers and the content of either 4 carbon tetrafluoride or sulfur hexafluoride. 5 MS. PHARE: Yeah. 6 MR. HICKS: In the case of the Wuskwatim 7 switching station, we did not stipulate because at 8 this point in time, the design is at a conceptual 9 level. 10 MS. PHARE: Our calculations, and it's 11 subject to check because I know you don't -- maybe 12 you can get back to me on whether or not our figures 13 are correct, is that there will be approximately 14 175.5 kilograms of SF6 used along the transmission 15 line. And how we got those figures, if you can 16 confirm for me, is that there will be 54 kilograms of 17 SF6 in the circuit breakers and 121.5 in the circuit 18 switchers and reaching a total of 175.5 kilograms. 19 And you can undertake to get back to me. 20 MR. HICKS: I don't think I need to. I 21 have checked the arithmetic but I'm looking at page 22 337 of the chapter 3 of the T line Environmental 23 Impact Statement. And it does stipulate the volumes 24 for each of the circuit breakers and circuit 25 switchers. 4485 1 MS. PHARE: Okay. Thank you. So a 2 little bit on SF6 itself. You of course are aware 3 that SF6 is a very potent greenhouse gas? 4 MR. HICKS: I'm not certain whether I 5 would characterize it's very potent. I am aware it's 6 a greenhouse gas that is stipulated in the EIS. 7 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: I'm the person in 8 Manitoba Hydro more responsible for climate change 9 generally issues and we are aware that SF6 has 24,000 10 times the greenhouse gas potential than CO2. By very 11 potent, if that's what you mean, we're certainly 12 aware of that. 13 MS. PHARE: Okay. Thank you. That's 14 what I was getting at, yeah. If you could actually 15 go to tab 2 of the binder that I handed out. What we 16 have at tab 2 is reference has been made in previous 17 weeks here to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 18 Change and some of the work that they've done in 19 terms of quantifying climate change. And what we 20 have here is in 2001, which is the most recent 21 report, the working group, one of the volumes of 22 their report is called the Scientific Basis. And I 23 have included the first two pages -- first three 24 pages, pardon me, are basically the table of contents 25 of that chapter. 4486 1 And if you go to the fourth page, and 2 look down to section 4.2.1.4, it speaks of SF6 having 3 atmospheric lifetimes longer than 1,000 years and a 4 large absorption cross-sections for terrestrial 5 infrared radiation. These compounds are far from a 6 steady state between sources and sinks and even small 7 emissions will contribute to radiative forcing over 8 the next several millennia. 9 Are you willing to accept that these are 10 some of the reasons why SF6 is considered to be 11 potent because -- I'm sorry. 12 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Yes. 13 MS. PHARE: Okay. If we could go to tab 14 3 now, please. Do you know the primary sources of 15 SF6 generally in the world? Do you know where they 16 come from mostly? 17 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: The largest source of 18 SF6 in the atmosphere is from electrical switch gear. 19 SF6 has been used for decades as an insulator in 20 switch gear. And this was going back, for instance, 21 back in the eighties, seventies, and the equipment 22 that was designed at that time wasn't particularly 23 concerned about greenhouse gas releases because the 24 issue of greenhouse gas impacts climate change were 25 not particularly prominent then. And so the SF6 kind 4487 1 of switch gear that was being used, which has a lot 2 of various advantages, was not concerned with 3 minimizing the releases. 4 And so in the atmosphere, my 5 understanding is that the single largest increase for 6 SF6 kind of chemicals to be in the atmosphere was due 7 to accidental releases of SF6 from switch gear, 8 although there are other purposes for SF6 as well. 9 For instance, it has been used, until recently, 10 extensively for cleaning of integrated circuits in 11 computers and other electronic gear and SF6 was a 12 chemical used to wash them clean. And in the 13 process, SF6 was just dissipated into the atmosphere. 14 There were other purposes used as well. 15 In the last decade since the prominence of SF6 in 16 climate change has risen, all kinds of techniques 17 have evolved to reduce the SF6 emissions. In the 18 case of integrated circuits, they don't use SF6, 19 these other chemicals. In the case of electrical 20 switch gear, the equipment is being redesigned to 21 minimize and prevent SF6 releases and also procedures 22 for maintenance have been modified so that if there 23 is a necessity to open up a piece of switch gear or 24 do some maintenance on it, the SF6 is all captured 25 and recycled so there is no emission into the 4488 1 atmosphere. And if a piece of equipment that SF6 is 2 in is no longer going to be used because it's faulty 3 or something, the SF6 itself is now recaptured and 4 utilized in future equipment and it's not released 5 into the atmosphere. So SF6 is a significant issue 6 that is being dealt with. 7 MS. PHARE: Okay. Thank you. I think 8 I'll point your attention to table 1 in tab 3. What 9 this document here is Manitoba Hydro's voluntary 10 submission to the voluntary challenge registry which 11 Mr. Wojczynski I think mentioned in probably the 12 first week of the hearings as a national registry of 13 the -- is it of the Canadian Government, Mr. 14 Wojczynski? 15 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: As an agency that was 16 established or somewhat arm's length but initiated by 17 them but with cooperation of others. 18 MS. PHARE: As I understand it, it's an 19 industry government partnership to promote voluntary 20 compliance with regulating and reducing greenhouse 21 gases over time? 22 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Yes, a registry. The 23 intent was to have a mechanism in place prior to the 24 mandatory reporting requirements that we put in 25 place, for instance, as a lead-up to Kyoto given that 4489 1 there haven't been mandatory reporting requirements 2 and mandatory measurements to reduce greenhouse 3 gases. This voluntary challenge registry was 4 established but it is still in place now but it will 5 be dismantled with the start of mandatory reporting 6 requirements. And it's been arm's length from 7 government and industry. 8 MS. PHARE: So the reason I went to this 9 is because this is one of the reports relied on by 10 the Pembina Institute as they did their review of 11 options of the various options for you in the 12 greenhouse gas comparison of options report that the 13 Pembina Institute did for you. The comparison of 14 various options and their relative emission of 15 greenhouse gas, particularly when viewed over a 16 lifetime power generation perspective. So that 17 document referred to the VCR 2002 document of 18 Manitoba Hydro. 19 So I wanted to just point out to Mr. 20 Wojczynski, I suppose who is the one apparently 21 answering most of the questions on this, that table 1 22 sets forth your 1990 baseline for CO2 equivalents, 23 your emission amounts as of 1990; is that correct? 24 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Yes, that's correct. 25 But I need to deal with the preamble to your question 4490 1 as well if I may, if that's okay with you? 2 MS. PHARE: Yeah, sure. 3 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: The Pembina Institute 4 has been very aware of all of the reports submitted 5 to the voluntary climate registry, voluntary 6 challenge registry, pardon me, because they are one 7 of the foremost environmental organizations in Canada 8 concerned about climate change and proactively 9 lobbying and working to deal with the issue. And 10 they were the ones who awarded Manitoba Hydro the top 11 energy utility in Canada for its efforts a couple of 12 years ago. 13 But this report, Manitoba Hydro's annual 14 report on this, was referenced by the Pembina 15 Institute but it was not at all a significant 16 reference or input for the Wuskwatim comparison of 17 emissions of Wuskwatim to others, the report they did 18 for us. They used more basic scientific information 19 rather than the historical emissions reporting. 20 MS. PHARE: Thank you. We'll get to that 21 in a moment. I just wanted to point out -- 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Maybe we should take a 23 break at this point. 24 MS. PHARE: Sure, that's fine. Thank 25 you. 4491 1 THE CHAIRMAN: We'll be back at 11:30. 2 3 (PROCEEDINGS RECESSED AT 11:20 A.M. and 4 RECONVENED AT 11:37 A.M.) 5 6 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. We will 7 continue. You may continue, Ms. Phare. 8 MS. PHARE: I was in the middle of 9 referring to tab 3, table 1. And I just wanted to 10 confirm that the numbers in that table represent your 11 1990 baseline for CO2 equivalent emissions. 12 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Yes, it does. And a 13 piece of information that's probably useful context 14 here is with SF6, unlike most of the other emission 15 sources, we are in the process of establishing a more 16 rigorous inventory control. And so the data source 17 for using particularly historical for SF6 emissions 18 is the amount of SF6 we purchased in that year. So 19 it's an indirect proxy for the emissions and we're in 20 the process of developing a more rigorous inventory 21 control. So that would be related to how much SF6 22 gas we actually purchased in that year. 23 MS. PHARE: So I'd just like to confirm 24 that SF6 emissions from electrical equipment are the 25 largest global source category of SF6 emissions? 4492 1 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: If memory serves me 2 correct, yes. 3 MS. PHARE: Thank you. So could you 4 explain for all of us what a global warming potential 5 is? You made reference to one a few moments ago. 6 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: The most significant 7 source for anthropogenic climate change emissions -- 8 anthropogenic meaning human-caused -- is CO2 in terms 9 of the overall impact but different gases have 10 different abilities to cause climate change or 11 greenhouse gas effect. So through various scientific 12 studies, different gases ability to cause climate 13 change or greenhouse gas warming are measured in 14 terms of multiples of CO2 to get a CO2 equivalent. 15 And so that's where I referenced earlier 16 that SF6 has around 24,000 times the greenhouse gas 17 causing potential of CO2. 18 MS. PHARE: When you say the greenhouse, 19 I guess you said the climate change causing 20 potential? 21 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: That's my own word or 22 phrase, but yes. 23 MS. PHARE: Would you agree that it's 24 generally referred to as the radiative potential, the 25 radiative -- 4493 1 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: That would be the more 2 scientific. I was trying to use more common 3 language, but yes. 4 MS. PHARE: And what that is generally 5 referring to is the ability or the propensity of 6 those particular molecules to trap heat within the 7 earth's surface? 8 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Yes. And when you 9 calculate that potential, it includes the long life. 10 For instance, an SF6, one of the reasons it has such 11 a high number is because of its long life. So that's 12 accounted for, a long life in the atmosphere. That's 13 one of the factors contributing to its high number. 14 MS. PHARE: Okay. 15 MR. MAYER: Is this the material that you 16 now use to replace what was that oily stuff that used 17 to be used as an insulation? 18 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Are you talking about 19 PCB's? 20 MR. MAYER: PCBs? 21 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Well, to a very small 22 degree. But the majority of cases, SF6 is not used. 23 It's only used in the high voltage equipment. And 24 PCBs used to be used in low, medium and high voltage 25 and the SF6 is used in the higher voltage. And in 4494 1 cases where you want to have very good insulating 2 potential and an SF6 base switch gears very small, 3 has a very small land mass, very small footprint, so 4 there's a whole bunch of advantages particularly at 5 cold temperatures. So we don't use it generally to 6 replace PCBs, it's only in the exceptional case. 7 MR. MAYER: Thank you. 8 MS. PHARE: Actually, could you give a 9 little bit more detail on how SF6 is actually emitted 10 in your operations? 11 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: As I indicated before 12 the break, the SF6 is emitted not deliberately, it's 13 emitted more by accident. It's emitted in the first 14 case from just ongoing leaks in equipment. Secondly, 15 it's emitted when there are accidents, equipment 16 breaks down. Thirdly, it's emitted when there is 17 maintenance or when maintenance is done and something 18 has to be opened up and there has to be ongoing 19 regular maintenance done on the equipment and you 20 have to open it up. So those are the three areas of 21 potential emissions of SF6. 22 And what I had indicated is that the 23 equipment from, say, 20 or 30 years ago, that is the 24 majority of the SF6 equipment at Manitoba Hydro, the 25 designs of the equipment and the maintenance 4495 1 procedures that had been used until recently were not 2 particularly concerned about minimizing SF6 emissions 3 and reducing greenhouse gas because that wasn't an 4 issue. 5 Now that has come to the forefront as an 6 issue, the designers and manufacturers of the 7 equipment manufacture them differently to reduce the 8 SF6 emissions. And secondly, the maintenance 9 procedures have been changed to reduce emissions but 10 they are also further changing them so that when we 11 have to open up a piece of equipment with SF6, we 12 have -- for instance, we just one year ago bought a 13 $100,000 cart. Its sole purpose is that Long Spruce, 14 when we open up some of the switch gear that has SF6 15 in it, the cart now has equipment that you can 16 capture all the SF6 that would have been released in 17 the past into the atmosphere and we recycle that. 18 So a whole bunch of things have changed 19 compared to what was done earlier. But those are the 20 ways that SF6 gets released. 21 MS. PHARE: So I guess because it's, as 22 you stated, the majority of the releases are 23 unplanned, that it would be difficult to monitor I 24 guess the releases. Like you wouldn't be able to 25 provide me with an average kind of leak rate because 4496 1 you can't really monitor them. They are leaking 2 along the lines of the transmission. It's not like 3 you have a way to monitor them, do you? 4 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: There isn't a ready way 5 to monitor on a day-to-day basis as to how much SF6 6 has been emitted. But as I indicated a few minutes 7 ago, what we have been doing is measuring how much 8 SF6 we buy because when there are releases, the 9 concentration of the SF6 in the equipment go down, 10 the pressure goes down, and then you can measure 11 that. And then you have to replenish the SF6 in the 12 equipment to bring it back up to the same pressure. 13 So the amount of SF6 you buy generally over the long 14 run on the average will equal the SF6 that has been 15 dissipated, whether it's a slow leak from equipment 16 or whether it's an accidental release for other 17 purposes. 18 The third area, though, is if you put new 19 equipment into place, you need more SF6 for this new 20 equipment. So there's a third area that makes it a 21 bit harder. But we are putting in place and there's 22 a task force at Manitoba Hydro called the SF6 Working 23 Group that will be reporting to the Environmental 24 Management Committee of the corporation which is 25 putting a renewed effort in the company to reducing 4497 1 and minimizing those emissions, and as well, putting 2 in a rigorous inventory control system to give a much 3 better measure of releases. 4 MS. PHARE: So in general, it sounds like 5 what you just said is that the amount that you report 6 in your VCR is generally reflective of the amount 7 that is emitted? 8 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Yes. 9 MS. PHARE: Good, thanks. So who else 10 other than VCR do you report these SF6 emissions to? 11 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: I'm sorry, could you 12 repeat the question? 13 MS. PHARE: Who other than the VCR do you 14 report SF6 emissions to? Do you report to anybody 15 else about these emissions? 16 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: No. I don't believe at 17 this time that there is a reporting requirement to 18 anybody else, although the VCR report is very public. 19 And secondly, Canada is in the process of part of the 20 implementation of Kyoto putting in a mandatory 21 reporting scheme and SF6 will be part of that 22 mandatory reporting scheme. But in the meantime, we 23 voluntarily are reporting it in our VCR report and 24 the procedures for doing that are audited by an 25 independent auditor, who's got expertise in the area, 4498 1 to ensure that our greenhouse gas reporting is 2 consistent with modern practices. 3 MR. MAYER: This is a whole new subject 4 for me. You have indicated or at least in a note to 5 table 1, you have indicated that this gas is used in 6 gas-insulated switch gear and circuit breakers. And 7 some SF6 is used in high voltage gas-insulated 8 transmission lines. My concern comes from my 9 knowledge of some not so responsible gun owners 10 wanting to take pot-shots at some of your equipment 11 on the lines. Is there any possibility that any of 12 this equipment could be damaged by irresponsible gun 13 owners? 14 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Actually it's 15 interesting you pointed out that note. It does say 16 that SF6 emissions from electrical equipment are the 17 largest global source category of SF6. So it 18 confirms what we were saying earlier. 19 MS. PHARE: I read that directly from 20 that quote. Would you agree -- 21 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: I should be paying 22 better attention. 23 MR. MAYER: The first line about powerful 24 greenhouse gas came out of the same -- 25 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Yes. But anyways, it 4499 1 confirmed what I had been saying. So we're all on 2 the same ground. 3 In terms of your question, Mr. Mayer, 4 there are places in the world where SF6 is used in 5 the transmission line side but only for short 6 distances. For instance, in the downtown substation 7 at Tokyo, for instance, there is no transmission 8 line. And I'm talking about the line as opposed to 9 the station. There's no transmission line in 10 Manitoba which uses SF6 on its line itself. 11 Just for everybody's understanding, 12 because this is going to get mysterious after a 13 while, what SF6 switch gear is is essentially tanks, 14 maybe the size of this table, that have inside of it 15 conductors. And surrounding the conductors is highly 16 compressed SF6 gas. And switch gear the size of this 17 table replace what you would normally see in a 18 traditional open switch gear or switch art the people 19 normally are used to thinking about. The switch gear 20 this size with SF6 would replace something that was 21 bigger than the size of this room. And it also is a 22 lot easier for maintenance and has a whole bunch of 23 other advantages, reliability advantages for example. 24 But they would tend to -- when you have the large 25 switch gear, it tends to be in a building or tends to 4500 1 be -- it's in a station. It's not scattered all 2 over the countryside. 3 We have one by St. James station next to 4 Polo Park and then Long Spruce in the north are the 5 two largest SF6 uses in Manitoba. And then there are 6 numerous stations that have small amounts of SF6 in 7 the high voltage switch gear inside the station. 8 MR. SARGEANT: Can I ask another question 9 on this, Mr. Wojczynski? Table 2 or why should any 10 of the tables in this section that Ms. Phare has 11 given us, you talk about CO2 equivalents. Now when 12 it shows 5 SF6, have you already factored in the 13 23.9000 or do we add that on top and it comes up to 14 125,000? 15 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: No, the 5 in the 16 baseline already includes the fact that it's 24,000 17 times more powerful than CO2. 18 MR. SARGEANT: Thank you. 19 MS. PHARE: When did you begin reporting 20 SF6 in the VCR? 21 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: I believe it was two 22 years ago. 23 MS. PHARE: Okay. You spoke a little bit 24 about what you're trying to do now to reduce SF6 25 emissions. Is it possible to completely eliminate 4501 1 SF6 from your operations? 2 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Okay. There may be two 3 questions in there. I hear two questions. One is, 4 is it possible to eliminate the emissions? And 5 secondly, is it possible to eliminate the SF6? 6 First of all, it's possible to 7 significantly reduce the emissions for the same 8 amount of equipment through the kind of measures I 9 already referred to. You wouldn't totally eliminate 10 but you could significantly reduce. 11 Secondly, could you totally eliminate the 12 use of SF6 in our system or other systems for that 13 matter? It would be possible to totally eliminate 14 the use of it but then you would need much more -- 15 like I said, you'd need a much larger area for 16 equipment, you'd need much different equipment. In 17 the end, you need more other equipment because of the 18 very compact nature of the SF6. But it is possible 19 to run most electrical systems without SF6. 20 MS. PHARE: Are you trying to phase it 21 out yourself? Is Manitoba Hydro trying to phase out 22 SF6? 23 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: We are not trying to 24 phase out SF6 right now, no, because we believe that 25 we can reduce the emissions so that they are much 4502 1 smaller than they were before and down to an 2 acceptable level. If you look at the whole Kyoto 3 kind of approach, for example, of having your 4 emissions be 6 per cent lower, this is the average 5 level, 6 per cent lower than it was in 1990, if you 6 include the SF6 emissions along with all our other 7 emissions and then you look at our future emissions 8 compared to 1990, we are confident that we can reduce 9 them in the long term below 1990 which would be 10 consistent with the Kyoto commitment. 11 MS. PHARE: In that regard, could we go 12 to tab 4, please. Page 2 is actually the page I 13 would like to look at. At the top of the page, it 14 says table 6. Tab 4 is Manitoba Hydro's VCR report 15 for the next year which is, it's the 2003 update 16 which means that it's dealing with the year 2002. 17 What I would like to talk about is first 18 off, do you agree that by the year 2002, I guess you 19 just stated that you are about 3 per cent less than 20 your 1990 baseline and your goal is to get to 6 per 21 cent less than your 1990 baseline; is that correct? 22 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Our voluntary commitment 23 that we've made at Manitoba Hydro is to have our 24 total emissions -- if you average Manitoba Hydro's 25 total emissions from 1990 to 2008, 2008 being the 4503 1 first year of the Kyoto commitment period, so if you 2 take our emissions from 1990 to 2008 over all those 3 years and average them, our commitment is to be 6 per 4 cent lower overall net compared to 1990. 5 MS. PHARE: After averaging? 6 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: After averaging because 7 you're going to have ups and downs in year to year. 8 The big factor for us is whether we have a drought or 9 not. If we have a drought, we have to run our 10 thermal stations more and then there will be a large 11 surge or increase in our greenhouse gas emissions. 12 So that the dominant factor for us is how much we use 13 the thermal generation. 14 MS. PHARE: Okay. When we look at the 15 column dealing with SF6, do you agree that in the 16 year 2000 and in the year 2002, you had dramatic 17 increases in the use of SF6? 18 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: The numbers in 2000 and 19 2002 are significantly higher than the others. If 20 you look at the baseline, it was five. So it's two 21 and five times more. But as I was indicating, on a 22 year-to-year basis, what this column is doing is 23 measuring what we purchased in that year because that 24 was the best proxy we had for releases. And so you 25 have to look at a multi-year average to get an 4504 1 indication of whether it's going up or down. 2 And what particularly happened in 2002, I 3 can't speak about the year 2000 but I can speak about 4 the year 2002, what the company did was we're going 5 to have to do a major overhaul at the Long Spruce 6 station which is our largest SF6 switch gear in the 7 province. And we have slow leaks in that equipment. 8 And historically, we wouldn't have been worried about 9 those leaks but we decided to do, partly because we 10 wanted to reduce those leaks, partly because it was 11 time to do a major overhaul, we bought this new cart 12 that I referenced earlier and we did a major overhaul 13 or started to do a major overhaul at Long Spruce to 14 reduce or eliminate the slow leaks. But it also 15 meant we had to replenish all the switch gear. And 16 also, we had to stock up this cart that I was 17 mentioning. You had to have reservoirs of SF6 in 18 this cart. So what we bought in that year is 19 actually used in more than that year. 20 MS. PHARE: I'll just point out that a 21 moment ago, you stated that these figures were 22 representative of your emissions? 23 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Over a multi-year basis. 24 MS. PHARE: I'd like to point -- 25 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Maybe I can just clarify 4505 1 because that was a very long answer and I sometimes 2 tend to get long-winded. So I apologize for that. 3 All I was trying to say was when you look at the 4 numbers in this table year by year, the fact that the 5 year 2002 had a much higher number doesn't mean our 6 SF6 emissions are increasing, I think it's just a 7 reflection of the fact that we purchase them 8 sporadically but they are used over many years. So I 9 really don't think our SF6 emissions are increasing. 10 If anything, I think they are probably decreasing. 11 MS. PHARE: I didn't set up this book all 12 that well in this particular regard. If you could 13 keep your finger on this one table I've got and then 14 go back to tab 3 and look at table 7, it's just a 15 couple of pages prior. Table 7 is the exact same 16 table for the previous year. And what I'd like to 17 point out, Mr. Wojczynski, is if you look at your 18 future forecast use of SF6 in this table, would you 19 agree that it's 5.4 CO2 equivalent in kilotonnes? 20 You're projecting per year use for 2002 to 2012. 21 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Yes. 22 MS. PHARE: If you go to the next table 23 under tab 4, table 6, would you agree that your per 24 year use of SF6 in CO2 equivalents in kilotonnes has 25 increased by 1.6 for 2003 to 2012? 4506 1 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Yes, the table shows a 2 higher number. But as I was indicating, we have not 3 had a good means for measuring emissions of SF6 and 4 so we're working to improve our inventory control on 5 that. And I think the fact that our estimate was 5.4 6 is indicative of a poor forecast rather than an 7 indication that the emissions levels are increasing. 8 MS. PHARE: Well, I guess if your 9 forecasting is poor then, it would be difficult for 10 us to rely on any of the assertions you're making 11 regarding your use of SF4 in the future or not then. 12 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Our ability to -- up 13 until now, there hasn't been any need to have an SF6, 14 any significant need to have an SF6 inventory 15 control. Because in the last two years, a number of 16 years, it's become clear that we need to have 17 something and we've started doing an inventory 18 control and we are now in the process of improving 19 its capability. 20 As I was indicating, it's not been a 21 major issue. CO2 and methane, for instance, have 22 been much more important. And there what we've been 23 focusing on, now that we've got a good handle on what 24 we are doing in CO2 and methane, now we're focusing 25 on the smaller contributors and that's SF6. So we 4507 1 haven't had great information on SF6 so far, we are 2 in the process of improving it. 3 MS. PHARE: I'm just going by your 4 information, Mr. Wojczynski, that you submit to VCR. 5 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: What we do know is that 6 the measures we are undertaking are reducing the 7 emissions. Our measurement of the total amount of 8 SF6 emissions hasn't been good in our forecasting but 9 we do know the measures we're undertaking are 10 reducing them. That we have confidence on. We have 11 more confidence on that than the actual numbers in 12 this SF6 column. 13 MS. PHARE: I appreciate that you have 14 confidence, I'm just not sure from the information 15 that all of us have that we can have that level of 16 confidence. 17 I would like to ask, do these forecasts 18 include greenhouse gas emissions or in particular SF6 19 emissions from Wuskwatim? 20 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: First of all, the 21 overall didn't include Wuskwatim because Wuskwatim 22 was not yet and is not yet a committed plant. No 23 decision has been made to construct Wuskwatim. 24 Secondly -- well, so it doesn't include Wuskwatim, 25 no. 4508 1 MS. PHARE: So any actual greenhouse gas 2 emissions that are included that are a result of 3 Wuskwatim would be added on top of whatever these 4 kinds of figures are is what you are saying? That's 5 just the corollary of your -- 6 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Yeah, to the degree that 7 Wuskwatim would have greenhouse gas emissions, they 8 would be incremental to what would be in here. 9 MS. PHARE: I just wanted to ask you a 10 couple of questions about the, I'll go with the most 11 recent report although it doesn't make a difference 12 really either way. Would you agree that on table 6, 13 which is in tab 4, that your general, if you look at, 14 for example, let's start with CO2, that the 15 forecasted next 10 years in general have a higher 16 level of CO2 emissions than the previous 10 years? 17 And I haven't done the math but it looks like there's 18 a lot of threes and fours in the previous 10 and it 19 looks like coming up, there's a lot of sevens and 20 eights and nines. 21 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: If you look from '91 to 22 '02 and you look from '03 to '12, I haven't done the 23 math either, it wouldn't surprise me to find that the 24 last 10 years had a higher level than the first 10 25 years, subject to check. 4509 1 MS. PHARE: Would you agree that that's 2 the same general trend regarding methane, which is 3 the next column, CH4? 4 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Yes. 5 MS. PHARE: And that's the same trend for 6 nitrous oxide, I believe that is, N20? 7 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Yes. 8 MS. PHARE: It's not really an 9 appropriate comparison with SF6 because you have the 10 exact same number for every single year for the next, 11 what is it, 10 years. But we had already clarified 12 that that number is already higher than you had 13 predicted in the previous year. So moving onto the 14 total CO2, that in fact your total CO2 is increasing 15 by comparison to the previous 10 years? 16 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: It would be higher than 17 the previous 10 years but what this doesn't include 18 is that Manitoba Hydro is involved in a number of 19 measures to reduce greenhouse gases in various areas. 20 And I'll mention, too, one that's directly pertinent 21 to this table and that is we are doing research and 22 are working with the City of Winnipeg on a landfill 23 gas project, particularly the Brady Landfill site, 24 and where we would, in effect, invest -- Manitoba 25 Hydro would, in effect, invest in that site to reduce 4510 1 the methane emissions and reduce the greenhouse gases 2 from it. And then because that's not required by 3 regulation, that would be a voluntary reduction of 4 landfill gas emissions, then that would be a 5 reduction in CO2 and methane that would act as a 6 legitimate offset to the emissions that we have. 7 So that isn't in this yet because it's 8 not a committed project yet but it's a project that 9 we are committed doing the studies and we have a 10 letter of understanding with the City of Winnipeg 11 where Manitoba Hydro are funding the development work 12 for that and with the expectation that we would be 13 undertaking that project. So if you added that into 14 the forecast, then you would see a significant 15 reduction. 16 The other thing that this table doesn't 17 include but it's elsewhere in the VCR report is 18 included, and we don't have it in this tab, at least 19 I don't think we do, is that greenhouse gases are a 20 global emission. And our system, through the 21 addition of hydroelectric plants and exports, are 22 reducing global emissions. 23 And the third comment I'll make is you've 24 got to compare to the 1990 baseline. And for 25 instance, just the addition of limestone to our 4511 1 system more than offsets anything in terms of the 2 emissions that are in this table. 3 MS. PHARE: My point is merely that your 4 greenhouse gases are increasing over time and that if 5 you look at the year 2002 level by comparison to your 6 2012 level, it's almost predicted to be double. I 7 recognize that you yourself have said that both in 8 terms of plan projects, you are not including that in 9 here, and plan reduction activities. So I guess it 10 really goes back to your ability to forecast your 11 future greenhouse gas emissions? 12 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: My statement about the 13 difficulty in the forecasting emissions was strictly 14 talking about SF6 which is the minor component. We 15 have a much better ability to forecast the other 16 emissions which are the major components. 17 MS. PHARE: But it doesn't include any of 18 your future planned activities either that would 19 increase greenhouse gases or that would mitigate 20 against them? 21 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: This includes 22 essentially the committed projects. It doesn't 23 include the non-committed projects. So if you 24 included the non-committed projects, you'd see the 25 forecasts being lower. 4512 1 MS. PHARE: Okay. So you had said 2 earlier that VCR is closing in 2004. 3 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: I'm sorry, could you 4 repeat that? 5 MS. PHARE: You stated earlier that the 6 Voluntary Challenge Registry is winding down soon. 7 It's my information, which I'm asking if you accept, 8 that it will be happening in 2004? 9 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: My understanding is 10 that's correct because there is going to be a 11 mandatory reporting requirement in place then. 12 MS. PHARE: That was my next question. 13 Is Canada's mandatory reporting going to be in place 14 right away or when do you expect that it will apply 15 to you? 16 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Our understanding right 17 now is that the mandatory reporting scheme will be in 18 place in 2005 but I may want to check that, but 19 subject to check. 20 MS. PHARE: Okay. 21 22 (UNDERTAKING MH-67: Advise if the mandatory 23 reporting scheme will be in place in 2005) 24 25 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: We will be reporting 4513 1 greenhouse gas one way or another as a corporation 2 and we will be measuring and monitoring our 3 greenhouse gas emissions on an ongoing basis. 4 MS. PHARE: Is it correct that the 5 Pembina Institute did not include SF6 in their 6 analysis for you in the report they did for the 7 greenhouse gas emissions? 8 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: SF6 was not included in 9 the Pembina Institute valuation but it would be in a 10 very small increase in emissions if it had been 11 included. 12 MS. PHARE: Do you know, was N2O included 13 in the greenhouse gases that Pembina Institute 14 included? 15 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Nitrous oxide in the 16 reservoir actually would be a reduction in greenhouse 17 gases. The research done in experimental lakes area 18 done by Department of Fisheries and Oceans and 19 independent researchers has indicated that reservoirs 20 of the kind that Wuskwatim would involve and 21 recognizing it would be a very small reservoir for 22 nitrous oxide actually it's a sink. In other words, 23 it absorbs nitrous oxide. 24 And so yeah, if you compare it to the 25 forest and wetlands, it would have been there. So by 4514 1 not including the nitrous oxides, we had actually 2 been, to a very small degree, conservative. 3 MS. PHARE: I spoke with the author of 4 the Pembina Institute report, Mr. McCullough, and he 5 indicated that N2O was included in the figures that 6 were given to him by you. 7 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Well, you know, maybe 8 we'll have to check on that. Let us just check on 9 that. 10 11 (UNDERTAKING MH-68: Advise if N2O was included in 12 the figures re greenhouse gases that were given to 13 Mr. McCullough by Mr. Wojczynski) 14 15 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: As I indicated, the 16 nitrous oxide issue is a relatively small component 17 compared to the overall picture at Wuskwatim. SF6 18 would be a very small component. We are confident 19 that we've got, and I can't remember the name from 20 the Pembina Institute person but I suspect if you 21 asked him, he would have told you that he was 22 confident too that overall, that we've got a good 23 estimate of the greenhouse gas emissions from 24 Wuskwatim. And that whether it's plus or minus 10 25 per cent is not particularly important. Whether the 4515 1 forecast emissions, total emissions from Wuskwatim on 2 a lifecycle basis is plus or minus 10 per cent is not 3 important. 4 If you compare Wuskwatim to wind, the 5 Pembina Institute evaluation, for instance, indicated 6 the wind would be 100 per cent more. I had indicated 7 in my presentation on day one that as far as we were 8 concerned, the wind being 100 per cent, twice what 9 Wuskwatim was in the forecast is not significant, we 10 view them as roughly the same. 11 So you know, to the degree, there's 12 precision in these numbers, we're saying plus/minus 13 10, 20, 30 per cent in the emissions are not 14 significant even though the wind was twice Wuskwatim. 15 What is significant is that Wuskwatim and wind are 16 1/100th to 1/1,000th to that of coal and natural gas. 17 So the precision on the estimates whether you exactly 18 have SF6 or nitrous oxide is not particularly 19 significant to the overall conclusion. 20 MS. PHARE: Well, it might not be to you, 21 Mr. Wojczynski, but it is to my clients. So that's 22 why we're pursuing this line of questioning. In 23 particular given that SF6 numbers, according to your 24 documents here, in general, represent a greater 25 source of greenhouse gases than N2O which you did 4516 1 include in the Pembina Institute report. So 2 according to that logic, SF6 should have been 3 included as well and it wasn't. But I'll move on to 4 my next line of questioning. 5 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: I think I need to make 6 one comment though. You made a statement so I'll 7 take it as a question. And that is that by any 8 reasonable professional look at greenhouse gas 9 emissions, if you have something which is 1/100th to 10 1/1,000th the emissions of an alternate source, 11 having a plus/minus 10 per cent on the first source 12 is not significant. So instead of one out of 1,000, 13 it might be 1.1 out of 1,000. And so that was the 14 context for us saying it wasn't significant. 15 If I could perhaps, this is straight out 16 of the Pembina Institute report, page 44. Anyways, 17 section 3.0, Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions. And 18 in the second paragraph, it says, 19 "However, expected emissions of SF6 20 arising from the electricity options 21 understudy are low relative to 22 emissions as CO2, CH4 and nitrous 23 oxide are not expected to vary 24 significantly between the options. 25 Thus SF6 emissions were not included 4517 1 as a quantitative component in the 2 analysis." 3 And what that is significant to is, as I 4 indicated when talking about table 6, is that the SF6 5 emissions, as you rightly point out in column 4, are 6 higher than the nitrous oxide emissions of table 3 7 but that's because the equipment that was put in 8 place, one of the reasons is that the equipment that 9 was put in place in the eighties and the seventies, 10 that SF6 wasn't designed to minimize SF6. The 11 Wuskwatim equipment clearly will be. So that will 12 significantly reduce the SF6 emissions. 13 MS. PHARE: I'd like to move on actually 14 to my next line of questioning, if you're done? 15 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: I am, thank you. 16 MS. PHARE: As a general premise, I just 17 want to confirm evidence that you gave earlier which 18 is that you say that climate change is a global 19 issue. In fact, I think you reiterated that again 20 this morning? 21 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Yes. 22 MS. PHARE: You'll agree that sources of 23 greenhouse gases are local by nature. They come from 24 a point source generally, at least anthropogenic 25 sources do? 4518 1 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Yes. 2 MS. PHARE: And that the effects can be 3 actually felt at many levels right from local 4 regional to global, the effects of climate change 5 that result from greenhouse gases? 6 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: By definition, because 7 climate change is a global issue, it has the 8 potential to have impacts anywhere and everywhere. 9 MS. PHARE: Thank you. So I would like 10 to talk a little bit about or ask you questions 11 actually a little bit about some of your statements 12 dealing with Wuskwatim's emissions. 13 You state in Volume 4, Section 10 that 14 Wuskwatim will produce approximately 520,000 tonnes 15 of CO2 equivalents. And I think that figure is 16 actually reiterated in the Pembina Institute report. 17 That's the number that they use as well. 18 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: It was probably the 19 other way around. 20 MS. PHARE: Oh, okay. 21 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: The EIS would have used 22 the number because it came from the Pembina Institute 23 report. 24 MS. PHARE: Oh, okay. And then you have 25 stated a number of times that in your opinion, 4519 1 Wuskwatim will result in a reduction of greenhouse 2 gases presumably in the United States of about 3 750,000 tonnes, 760. There's actually two different 4 numbers used in the EIS. 5 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: I don't remember the 6 number offhand but -- 7 MS. PHARE: Subject to check? 8 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Subject to check. 9 10 (UNDERTAKING MH-69: Confirm the number of tonnes 11 that Wuskwatim will result in a reduction of 12 greenhouse gases in the United States) 13 14 MS. PHARE: So if I calculate this 15 correctly, what you're basically wanting us to 16 understand is that the greenhouse gases emitted from 17 Manitoba will go up by about 500 and some, by about 18 20,000 tonnes but it will be displaced in other parts 19 of North America resulting in a net decrease of minus 20 the two, 230,000 tonnes. Is that basically the way 21 you're explaining? 22 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: The concept is right. 23 I'm not sure about the numbers. 24 MS. PHARE: I'm doing 750 minus 520. I 25 get 230. 4520 1 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Yeah, the 760,000 minus 2 500. 3 MS. PHARE: Yeah, 760,000 minus -- 4 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: 500. 5 MS. PHARE: Tonnes. 6 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Yeah. So you're left 7 with 759,000 and something. 8 MS. PHARE: Right. 9 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Reduction, so. 10 MS. PHARE: So the concept though is 11 basically that we produce more greenhouse gases here 12 in order to displace them in other parts of the 13 world. That's basically the model? 14 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Well, without -- 15 MS. PHARE: Without getting into the 16 significance of the numbers, it's regardless of what 17 the numbers are, that's the basic premise, right? 18 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: The basic premise, 19 without getting into the exact numbers, that we can 20 produce one more tonne of greenhouse gases in 21 Manitoba and reduce 1,000 tonnes somewhere else. 22 MS. PHARE: Yes, I understand. We agree 23 on the concept? 24 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: That's the concept, yes. 25 MS. PHARE: Okay. If you could just give 4521 1 me a moment, please. So would you agree that Canada 2 is obviously trying to reduce its greenhouse gases 3 emissions? 4 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Canada is trying to 5 reduce greenhouse gases in the context of the world 6 trying to reduce its greenhouse gases. And what's 7 important is the global amount of greenhouse gases 8 that are emitted. 9 MS. PHARE: So if over time we increase 10 greenhouse gases and it results in a global net 11 decrease, the issue is still though that the 12 percentage of greenhouse gases say that you are 13 producing would go up over time as a percentage of 14 the whole of what's being produced in Canada. 15 Wouldn't you agree with that? 16 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: I suspect that if you 17 looked at it, that our percentage of emissions in 18 Canada will go down over time but I haven't done the 19 Mathematics. Because so far, if you look at 20 industries in Canada, our voluntary commitment to 21 reduce greenhouse gases has been better than most 22 other industries. So I think actually we'd be 23 further ahead. 24 MS. PHARE: I'm getting at a very simple 25 point here. The point is just that if you're 4522 1 continuing to produce power and your power produces 2 greenhouse gases, even though it is very small, if 3 it's displacing other sources, they will go down. 4 And the net result is that over time as a percentage, 5 yours go up as a percentage of the total. That's my 6 only point. 7 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Well, I'm not sure I 8 agree with your conclusion because I think other 9 industries in other sectors are increasing their 10 greenhouse gases at a faster pace than us adding, for 11 instance, Wuskwatim would even in an absolute sense. 12 So I think even your conclusion I disagree with. 13 Now if I could rephrase your question, I 14 could probably agree to it. If your question 15 rephrased was if everything else was equal and we 16 built some Hydro projects which had a very small 17 increase in emissions and everything else was equal, 18 then our percentage of emissions would go up compared 19 to others. And I could agree to that. 20 MS. PHARE: Did you also just state that 21 your ability to displace greenhouse gases cannot keep 22 up with the increase in production of energy from 23 other sources, the production of greenhouse gases 24 from other sources? I think you just said that. 25 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Well, I didn't quite say 4523 1 that but certainly that's true. The growth in North 2 America of electrical energy consumption is, I don't 3 know the exact numbers offhand, but in the order of 4 let's say over the next number of years, something 5 like 100,000 megawatts and Wuskwatim is 200 6 megawatts. And even if you look at the total 7 potential for additional Hydro in the province in the 8 order of 5,000 megawatts, we can't begin to keep up 9 with the electrical demand growth in North America. 10 That's true. 11 MS. PHARE: I've never actually quite 12 understood and maybe you can explain it to me one 13 more time in the way that I do, but I don't 14 understand how you can say that you'll be displacing 15 greenhouse gases when all of the sources of emissions 16 among all sectors into the future are going up? 17 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Okay. Well, let me try 18 an illustrative example. 19 MS. PHARE: Other than I suppose you're 20 meaning they are going to go up slightly less because 21 of us is basically your point, right? 22 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Slightly less on a 23 percentage basis, that's true. 24 MS. PHARE: Okay. 25 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: But still significant 4524 1 nonetheless. 2 MS. PHARE: In your cumulative effects 3 assessment analysis, you stated that you looked at 4 Notigi, Gull and Conawapa and other future projects 5 including forestry projects and you reached certain 6 conclusions about them in terms of greenhouse gas 7 production. Particularly I guess the conclusion was 8 that they would not be significant as compared or 9 overlapped -- they would not be overlapping I think 10 is by comparison with Wuskwatim. Or maybe my 11 question is actually can I get a better clarification 12 on that particular piece of your EIS? 13 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Okay. You're really 14 just focusing on greenhouse gases, not all the other 15 environmental? 16 MS. PHARE: Yes, yes, yes, yes. 17 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Okay. First of all, 18 Wuskwatim has very low emissions per megawatt hour. 19 Secondly, Notigi has -- first of all, will have 20 identically zero additional global emissions because 21 if Notigi goes ahead, there is no increase in Forebay 22 at all. We just use the Forebay that's there now. 23 There's already a road there. There's already 24 structures in place. There's essentially no 25 additional clearing. 4525 1 MS. PHARE: Mr. Wojczynski, before you go 2 on, could I just ask you to first off answer your 3 questions in terms of what would be the figures for 4 Manitoba. I understand that you applied as a global 5 issue where you say we might have a small increase in 6 Manitoba but we're displacing globally. I was just 7 wondering if in your answer to me, when you talk 8 about the greenhouse gases from Gull and Conawapa and 9 Notigi if you could restrict it, first off, to what 10 they will do in Manitoba. And then you could 11 explain, if you have done so, what you project to be 12 their displacement? 13 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Well, first, if you 14 really want to focus on Manitoba, probably the 15 majority of the emissions we're talking about from 16 Wuskwatim, Gull and Notigi are not there because 17 that's a lifecycle basis. And the emissions for 18 making the steel and the concrete and everything 19 else, they are not made in Manitoba. And so a lot of 20 the emissions that we have included in our discussion 21 here are outside of Manitoba actually. 22 MS. PHARE: I'll clarify then. What I 23 meant was as a result of the projects. 24 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Yeah, but that's what 25 lifecycle emissions include. I think what you're 4526 1 trying to get me to say is that Wuskwatim, Notigi, 2 Gull and Conawapa, if they all happened, they would 3 cause -- if you only looked at the borders of 4 Manitoba and ignored the rest of the globe, that 5 there would be an increase in Manitoba emissions. 6 And yeah, I think you're asking me what percentage 7 the increase would be. Is that your question? 8 MS. PHARE: Basically I just couldn't 9 find any information on what your projections were 10 for the future plants, the future Notigi, Gull and 11 Conawapa within the context of your cumulative 12 environmental assessment? 13 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: We have not included in 14 our report a specific forecast of the emissions for 15 Notigi, Gull, Conawapa but we have talked about the 16 emissions from them generally in our overall 17 reporting in our 20 volumes. And in the sense that 18 those kind of reservoirs in Northern Manitoba for 19 those kind of projects would be very low in terms of 20 total emissions. And given that it's a global issue, 21 we're thinking about in terms of other sources of 22 electricity. 23 If we were to put in gas turbines in 24 Manitoba, for example, they would produce much more 25 emissions than on a per kilowatt hour basis than all 4527 1 of those projects. And as we indicated, even if you 2 put in wind, you'd put in more of Wuskwatim. And if 3 you looked at the others, you'll probably find they 4 are roughly the same as the wind. So if you compare 5 the emissions in Manitoba from putting in those Hydro 6 projects as opposed to putting other electricity 7 projects in, you would not find a significant 8 increase. 9 MS. PHARE: When I asked that question, 10 I'm not just referring to the emissions that come 11 from flooding, I'm referring to the emissions that 12 come from construction as well. So which is where, 13 at least according to the information you have 14 provided, the vast majority of the actual emissions 15 in building a generating station, for example, 16 that's where they come from is from the construction 17 phase. And so I am actually just looking for when 18 you did your cumulative affects assessment, you 19 mentioned that you looked at a whole number of future 20 projects but I couldn't find any information that 21 said what would be the greenhouse gas emissions that 22 we predict will flow as a result of those projects. 23 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: From an environmental 24 assessment point of view, what's important are the 25 global emissions. And when you add Wuskwatim with 4528 1 the other Hydro projects, the overall impact would be 2 a reduction in the global greenhouse gases. The 3 emissions particularly in Manitoba are not whether 4 the emissions are in Manitoba or Manitoba and 5 Saskatchewan or Canada or the United States are not 6 particularly significant, it's the global emissions 7 that are significant. 8 So from an environmental assessment point 9 of view, whether it's a screening or a more detailed 10 point of view, it's the global emissions that are 11 clearly important and those would reduce from the 12 addition of further projects. 13 MR. REMPEL: There is a quote on page 14 5-40, section 5 of the Physical Environment section 15 on Wuskwatim GS, Generating Station, Volume 1. And 16 in the middle of the page, it says, 17 "In terms of global greenhouse gas 18 emissions, the net effect of the 19 problem will be a significant 20 reduction in global GHG emissions." 21 And it refers to section 5.9.1. It goes on to say, 22 "The cumulative effect of Tolko's 23 forest activities would not influence 24 the significant net GHG benefit. The 25 cumulative effect of other potential 4529 1 Hydro projects such as Notigi, Gull 2 Rapids and Conawapa, if they are 3 undertaken, would not affect the GHG 4 benefit from the project and is 5 expected to result in a significant 6 reduction in global GHG emissions." 7 We don't have the particulars with us. 8 But as Mr. Wojczynski said, those details would not 9 influence that conclusion. So there's a significant 10 net GHG benefit in our opinion. 11 MS. PHARE: I guess just part of our role 12 here is to be able to test some of those conclusions. 13 And without any of the information, I understand the 14 logic of what you're saying, but without the 15 information ourselves, we have a hard time knowing 16 whether or not that's a valid conclusion. I clearly 17 get the message from you that you feel it's a valid 18 conclusion. Just without that information for us, we 19 we can't make that -- we can't test that. 20 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: But we have indicated 21 earlier that if you look at the kind of projects that 22 are Notigi, Gull and Conawapa, not just Wuskwatim, 23 you look at the IEA report that we've talked about 24 earlier, if you look at even the material that you've 25 handed out as an exhibit. For instance, table 4 4530 1 talks about emissions from grade of greenhouse gas 2 production and under tab 1 it talks about the 3 emissions there for the projects which have much more 4 flooding and much more emissions than the future 5 projects we're talking about. So I think it's pretty 6 well in the field with people who are specialists in 7 the area and knowledgeable of the area that the Hydro 8 projects that are being planned or considered for 9 Northern Manitoba have low greenhouse gases compared 10 to other kinds of electricity projects or compared 11 even to hydro projects, for instance, in the tropics. 12 So it's in that information that's generally 13 available in the literature and even in your own 14 exhibit. 15 MS. PHARE: Well, our own exhibit talks 16 extensively about the need to look at global climate 17 change in the context of hydro development projects. 18 And part of the way to do that is to have both the 19 backup data that explains how you come to your 20 conclusions and then to apply global climate issues 21 overlaid with potential projects. 22 And you have stated earlier that you were 23 unwilling to look at the global climate models in 24 this particular context because of their uncertainty 25 and now also we don't have any information in front 4531 1 of us to substantiate your claim that all future 2 projects will have no negative effect in terms of 3 climate change at all, and in fact, they will have a 4 positive effect. And I understand that that's your 5 assertion. But we don't need to keep going back and 6 forth on this, obviously we have a difference of 7 opinion and we can -- 8 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Well, I don't think I 9 can leave it at that though. You just made a 10 statement and seeing as you're asking me questions, I 11 have to assume that when you make a statement, I can 12 make a response. 13 MS. PHARE: Of course. 14 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: And the first is that I 15 was ready to explain why we think the emissions, for 16 instance, from Notigi are so low and you asked me to 17 not answer and to provide some other information. 18 But I'm quite ready to explain why we think the 19 emissions from Notigi are going to be very low, why 20 we think they are going to be low from Gull, why we 21 think they are going to be low from Conawapa. And 22 we've given the general indication in our submission 23 information as to why the emissions from these kind 24 of plants are going to be low. And if you want us to 25 go into some additional explanation as to why we're 4532 1 so confident of that, I can do that on those three 2 projects, for example, that I had already started to 3 talk about. 4 In terms of your other comment about us 5 not willing to look, I can't remember your exact 6 words, but that we were not willing to look at global 7 climate change models and regional impact models, 8 actually we are involved, as I had indicated earlier 9 in my testimony a couple of weeks ago, we are 10 involved in looking at those models. I personally 11 have been involved for five years with the Canadian 12 design of a climate change plan. I was one of the 13 industry experts. There are others at this table in 14 our back rows who had been active for years in the 15 area. And one of the areas is the impacts of climate 16 change. 17 But what we said in our study report was 18 that there is a range of possible outcomes in the 19 area of Wuskwatim in the watershed and we generally 20 think there's going to be higher temperatures. And 21 that's the general type of consensus. But whether 22 the precipitation is going to increase or decrease, 23 whether the flows in the rivers are going to increase 24 or decrease, that's unknown and at this point 25 unknowable because there are projections which go 4533 1 either way. 2 So we say we can't, with sufficient 3 confidence, say which way it's going to go. So we 4 couldn't really pose a scenario that could be 5 assessed. But we fully are conversant with the fact 6 there are a whole bunch of different models looking 7 at what the long-term flow impacts might be and we 8 are part of various efforts to get a better handle on 9 that. But it's not that we are not willing to look 10 at that stuff, we are involved and interested and 11 concerned in those issues. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Maybe this is a good point 13 to break for lunch. 14 MS. PHARE: Okay. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: We'll reconvene at 1:30. 16 17 (PROCEEDINGS RECESSED AT 12:37 P.M. 18 AND RECONVENED AT 1:30 P.M.) 19 20 THE CHAIRMAN: We are ready to begin. 21 We are all set to carry on. 22 MS. PHARE: Thank you, I am just going 23 to leave the whole greenhouse gas issue, quit 24 while we are behind. So, I am going -- we are not 25 leaving completely the issue of wind and things 4534 1 like that, though, but this will be quick. 2 Do you agree that wind turbines, the 3 design of wind turbines will likely improve in the 4 next 30 years? 5 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Yes, as we have said 6 in our own testimony. 7 MS. PHARE: Do you agree that improved 8 designs will translate into more productivity or 9 power per turbine per unit of wind, likely? 10 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: The improvements can 11 increase the output per turbine and/or it can 12 reduce the cost per turbine, and the overall 13 effect being to reduce the cost per kilowatt hour. 14 And that is exactly what we did build into our 15 estimates based on a survey and work by 16 consultants, looking at the industry and talking 17 to the manufacturers, and the numbers that we put 18 forward and used in our analysis are consistent 19 with the same numbers that Mr. Hornung put in his 20 evidence the other day for what the Canadian Wind 21 Energy Association thinks will happen. And the 22 numbers that they put forward are consistent with 23 the kind of numbers that we put forward. 24 MS. PHARE: Is that a yes? 25 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: It is a yes, with an 4535 1 explanation as to what the yes meant. 2 MS. PHARE: Okay. Basically that 3 improved designs mean that you will get more 4 power, if the wind stays exactly the same, over 5 time improved designs in wind turbines will likely 6 result in even -- will result in improved power? 7 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: The reason I gave a 8 longer answer than yes is because that may not 9 exactly be the case. The improvements in 10 technology may not cause the output from a 11 particular turbine location to be higher -- it may 12 not cause the output from an individual turbine 13 facility to be higher, it may just cause the cost 14 of it to be lower. So there is a bit of a choice 15 when you have got new technology, which way it 16 goes. So it could be one or the other, or both. 17 That is why I was qualifying my answer. We did 18 build that into our forecast. 19 MS. PHARE: Okay. So I guess related 20 to that cost question, do you agree that it is 21 likely that manufacturing processes will improve 22 over time to use less energy or fewer materials in 23 the production of wind. 24 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Yes. 25 MS. PHARE: Do you have any estimate 4536 1 as to the percentage of increase in efficiency 2 that you would expect from wind turbines, say over 3 the next 30 years? Have you thought about that in 4 your wind kind of division? 5 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: I don't have an exact 6 number at the top of my head here, but we would 7 expect -- you mentioned 30 years that there would 8 be a couple of percentage points increase, in 9 terms of the ability to extract energy out of a 10 given wind resource, but we assumed around a 2 11 or -- offhand I can't remember if it was 2 or 3 -- 12 2 to 3 percent reduction in effect of cost and 13 that would be even more aggressive than the kind 14 of efficiency increases that we are talking about. 15 So I think the kind of improvement that we have 16 would be assuming every year into the future, that 17 range could easily accommodate the efficiency 18 increase that you were just referring to. 19 MS. PHARE: In terms of the life of 20 Wuskwatim, I understand that the greenhouse gas 21 load comes early in the project, right when the 22 land is -- it is predominately, am I correct in 23 assuming that it is predominantly in the beginning 24 part of the project during the construction phase 25 and for some short time period after flooding? 4537 1 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: You are talking about 2 the total emissions from the project, or the 3 reservoir emissions? 4 MS. PHARE: Well, the total emissions 5 of the project are front-loaded is essentially 6 what I am saying. 7 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Yes, that is true. 8 MS. PHARE: Do you have any estimation 9 of about how long it would take, into the life of 10 Wuskwatim, that you would have emitted say 11 90 percent of the lifetime emissions of the 12 project? 13 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: No, we haven't 14 undertaken an analysis like that, but I reiterate 15 what was said earlier that not only is it a global 16 issue, but it is a long term issue. And what is 17 not so important are the emissions this year or 18 next year or the following year, but reducing the 19 overall emissions in the context of decades. 20 MS. PHARE: I am trying to understand 21 the scope of the term that we agreed on, of 22 front-loading greenhouse gas emissions. I am just 23 trying to say, you have predicted Wuskwatim in 24 some of your analysis -- not predicted, you have 25 used a 100 year life span for the dam? 4538 1 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Could you repeat the 2 question? 3 MS. PHARE: You and I agreed that the 4 greenhouse gases that will be emitted through the 5 Wuskwatim project will happen in a front-loading 6 kind of fashion. And what I am trying to get an 7 answer on is, about how much of the total lifetime 8 greenhouse gases will be emitted in that 9 front-loading period, and how long is that 10 front-loading period? 11 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Without trying to be 12 too precise about it, because we haven't really 13 tried to assess it that way, but something in the 14 order of half of the emissions would probably 15 happen in the first ten years. Then the rest 16 would be spread out over the rest, but that is 17 just a very approximate answer. 18 MS. PHARE: Okay. 19 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: The same would be 20 true for the wind turbines. 21 MS. PHARE: When you talk about a 22 35 percent capacity factor in the examples that 23 you have used for the minimum, I guess, capacity 24 factor that would be necessary to economically 25 operate a wind project. Are you referring to 4539 1 break-even costs for Manitoba Hydro in operating a 2 wind project? 3 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: No, actually we never 4 said the 35 percent -- that is not quite what we 5 said. The 35 percent is our best estimate for, if 6 you are going to have a significant amount of wind 7 in Manitoba -- by significant I mean many hundreds 8 of megawatts -- and you use state of the art 9 technology, meaning the most modern technology in 10 the new turbines that are coming out, 35 percent 11 is roughly the kind of wind capacity factor that 12 we would expect. It wasn't meant to be a minimum 13 for economic return, it is our best guess as to 14 what it would be. 15 MS. PHARE: That is what I was trying 16 to get a clarification, so it is not a minimum for 17 economic return. A wind farm, depending I guess 18 on the price that the power can be sold at could 19 be economically viable at a whole range of 20 capacity factors? 21 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Yes. 22 MS. PHARE: I would like to confirm 23 that transmission lines lose power over distance; 24 that's correct? 25 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Yes. 4540 1 MS. PHARE: What would be the 2 transmission line loss of a high voltage T line 3 over say 5 kilometres? 4 MR. WOJCZNSKI: I don't know what it 5 is over 5 kilometres, but Wuskwatim, we have 6 assumed the losses to the U.S. border or to 7 Southern Manitoba is in the order of 10 percent. 8 MS. PHARE: Is it a direct ratio if 9 you work down, if 300 kilometres or 200 kilometres 10 is 10 percent, would -- 11 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: There is many 12 different factors, but as a very first cut one 13 could say that the distance that you have to take 14 the transmission over is more or less proportional 15 to that distance. It does get more complicated 16 than that, but as a very first cut, you can say 17 that. 18 MS. PHARE: So then a very short 19 transmission line distance, like 3 to 5 20 kilometres, would you agree would have negligible 21 losses? 22 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: If you had a very 23 short transmission line and it was the same 24 voltage, meaning high voltage, like for Wuskwatim 25 we are talking about 230,000 volts, 230 kV, then 4541 1 if you only had 5 kilometres instead of than 300 2 kilometres, you would have whatever it is, one 3 over -- I can't do the math -- 1/60th of the 4 losses. I wouldn't -- okay, I will leave it at 5 that. 6 MS. PHARE: Is that the same basic 7 ratio if you are looking at a low voltage line? I 8 am not trying to get at the specifics, but just 9 generally is that the same ratio for low voltage 10 lines? 11 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: No. If you are 12 talking going 300 kilometres, which I think was 13 the number that you had used, in other words a 14 long distance such as we are doing with Wuskwatim, 15 we would go with a high voltage like 230,000 16 volts. If you are going shorter distance, you 17 tend to have much higher losses if you use lower 18 voltage lines. 19 MS. PHARE: But if you have, I guess 20 what I am getting at is, if you have a 5 kilometre 21 low voltage line in Southern Manitoba, what would 22 you predict to be the losses that happen along 23 that line? 24 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: I don't have -- you 25 need so much information to be able to answer a 4542 1 question like that, how much current, what the 2 power is you are trying to pass, how much current 3 it is, what the voltage is. Clearly, if you have 4 5 kilometres, I would expect if you had a 5 5 kilometre lower voltage line, let's say a 66 kV 6 line in Southern Manitoba, as compared to say 300 7 kilometres or something of 230 kV, you would have 8 higher losses with the 230 kV transmission because 9 the distance is so much greater. I can't give you 10 more exact numbers on that right now. 11 MS. PHARE: Could you give them to me 12 later? 13 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Well, again, it would 14 depend on the power, on the amount of power that 15 you are trying to pass through there. We would 16 put together something on that. 17 MR. MAYER: Mr. Wojcznski, you gave me 18 some fairly specific answers to these questions in 19 The Pas. 20 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Yes, but they didn't 21 come out of my head, people had computers and 22 calculators. 23 MR. MAYER: The difference in line 24 loss over -- the difference between the two 25 routes, the line length was 55.2 kilometres 4543 1 increase, and the line loss was $311,000 per year 2 of line loss. And somewhere in these numbers I 3 have exactly how much you had lost, but you were 4 fairly accurate in that. 5 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Yes. Mr. Mayer, 6 those were all 230 kV, 230,000 volts. And the 7 question I was just asked was, what would the 8 losses be at a lower voltage? And so I have to 9 specify with the lower voltages, and then specify 10 the power that would flow through that, and then 11 we could determine the losses. In the case that 12 you are referring to there, the amount of power is 13 the same and the voltage is the same, it is just 14 an additional distance, so we only had one 15 variable left. 16 MS. PHARE: Actually, I think my 17 question was not directly, I don't really need the 18 answer to the low voltage line. What I really was 19 more concerned about was the high voltage. So I 20 think -- we don't need an undertaking on that. 21 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Thank you. 22 MS. PHARE: Just the last set of 23 questions on this bit. Could you explain what 24 re-powering refers to when it comes to a wind 25 turbine? 4544 1 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Yes. I think, I am 2 guessing the reason that you are asking the 3 question is because one of the exhibits that we 4 provided a while ago as an undertaking, if I 5 recall correctly. What we did was we looked at -- 6 this is for the 450-megawatt wind calculation. If 7 you look at a wind turbine facility, what it has 8 are roads, it has underground cable typically, it 9 has a concrete base, a massive base that is dug 10 into the ground. It has a little substation, it 11 has a tower, and then it has the blades and 12 electronic equipment. A lot of that equipment 13 only has a 20 to maybe 25-year life, 20 years 14 reliably, sometimes 25. And I am talking about 15 the electronic equipment and the blades, for 16 example, the motors. But a portion of the cost of 17 the wind turbine facility is in the roads, in the 18 land, in the concrete base, and those have a 19 longer life. So what we did in our calculation, 20 we said, well, let's try and be as realistic as we 21 can, and say at the end of the life of the 22 electrical equipment and the blades, we will 23 assume that the long life equipment is re-used and 24 that we will put in new technology with new 25 equipment to give it another 20 years or so, but 4545 1 you don't have to spend all of the money again, 2 you only spend the amount to replace the old, the 3 aged equipment. And so that way you get a better 4 economics. And when we did that, that reduced the 5 cost, or increased the IRR of the project, and so 6 that is what we mean by re-powering. 7 MS. PHARE: Then I guess at the end of 8 what would be a 40 to 50 year period, you would 9 think you would have to replace -- like if you 10 were going through the third generation then? It 11 is basically that the road and the foundation, the 12 access routes remain -- 13 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Those are the two 14 main features. The foundation, I am not a 15 foundation expert and I don't think that anybody 16 at this table probably is an expert on wind 17 turbine foundations, but my guess right now is 18 that probably at that stage, you probably have to 19 start looking at the foundations as well. The 20 roads I expect would be -- you wouldn't have to. 21 But once you are out to 40 years, 50 years, those, 22 whether you could re-power a third time or not is 23 probably not very significant anymore, 24 particularly as the foundations probably would 25 have to be replaced. 4546 1 MS. PHARE: Okay. I just would like 2 to move on to a completely different area, 3 finally. The issue deals with VECs. So I wanted 4 to ask a question about the aquatic habitat, VECs 5 in particular. I am not sure who this goes to, 6 maybe it is Mr. Davies, I suppose, probably. 7 Would you disagree that habitat protection is one 8 of the most fundamental components of ecosystem 9 protection? 10 MR. DAVIES: I would agree with that, 11 yes. 12 MS. PHARE: Would you agree that 13 essentially if you -- to protect a species you 14 have to protect its habitat, I guess that is 15 another way of saying it, a more simple way of 16 saying it? 17 MR. DAVIES: That is a complicated 18 question. It depends on the amount of habitat 19 that you are affecting, and whether the species is 20 fully utilizing the habitat that is available to 21 it. In some instances there is more habitat than 22 there are animals because of resource harvesting. 23 MS. PHARE: I guess the converse is 24 probably a better way to ask it. A species 25 definitely can't survive without habitat? 4547 1 MR. DAVIES: That's correct. 2 MS. PHARE: Would you agree that 3 habitat is therefore of special ecological 4 significance, or it can be of special ecological 5 significance? 6 MR. DAVIES: Habitat is obviously 7 important to the animals, the resources that use 8 it, yes. 9 MS. PHARE: So I guess I have a 10 question about why habitat wasn't included as a 11 VEC then, given that one of the VEC criteria is 12 that if an element of the ecosystem was of special 13 ecological significance, that that was one of the 14 criteria for VEC selection? 15 MR. DAVIES: For the aquatic 16 component, fish habitat was not called a VEC, but 17 there were several hundred pages that were 18 directed towards aquatic habitat. In fact, it was 19 one of the largest areas in the document. It was 20 partly because it is the foundation for building 21 your assessments, particularly on fish and lower 22 trophic levels. It is also important under the 23 Fisheries Act, and because of that we dealt with 24 it in as much detail as if it would have been 25 called a valued ecosystem component. 4548 1 MS. PHARE: I guess that didn't really 2 answer my question. I agree with you that there 3 was extensive research, and I read every page of 4 it, about habitat. I guess what I am asking is, 5 why wasn't it included as a VEC, particularly 6 given your statement that you just made about how 7 important it is? 8 MR. DAVIES: There is no requirement 9 under the Fisheries Act to include it as a VEC, as 10 far as I am aware, and I know that some proponents 11 include it, others don't. The fact that we were 12 dealing with it in as much detail as we did, we 13 didn't feel that we needed to call it a VEC. It 14 wasn't something that was selected by NCN as a 15 valued component, specifically as a valued 16 component, although all components of the 17 environment were considered valuable to NCN. 18 MS. PHARE: I would just like to turn 19 to tab 8, please? What I would like to do is just 20 follow up and get a clarification regarding an 21 undertaking that Manitoba Hydro fulfilled, I guess 22 it was a couple of weeks ago now, regarding flow 23 rates out of Missi Falls. I would just like to 24 have -- I actually will turn to tab 9 first, and I 25 just want to read into the record and confirm that 4549 1 Mr. Cormie, in testimony, stated that Manitoba 2 Hydro's licence 2327 requires, and Manitoba Hydro 3 has maintained daily releases from Missi Falls no 4 less than those which had been maintained for the 5 period 1986 to 1998, and that the daily minimum 6 releases were set out at the bottom of the first 7 page at tab 9. 8 Do you confirm, Mr. Cormie, that you 9 stated that in the record? 10 MR. CORMIE: Yes, I do. 11 MS. PHARE: I would like to go, just 12 to explain the background to my question first, to 13 tab 8. Tab 8 is a table that I will briefly 14 explain and then ask my question. It is a series 15 of six pages that would be easier to see the flow 16 of if they were one above the other, because they 17 go on the left-hand column from January all the 18 way down to December 31st. 19 On the top they are, and I will read 20 from right to left, the first column are the CRD 21 licence levels, according to the original CRD 22 licence for each of the days of the year. 23 The second column I will come back to 24 in a moment. The third column are the figures 25 that are presented, that were presented to us by 4550 1 Mr. Cormie in undertaking Manitoba Hydro-49. And 2 you can see as you go through the pages that, as 3 you go through various times of the year, the 4 numbers change, obviously. The middle column are 5 the numbers that Mr. Cormie referred to as the 6 licence limits converted to monthly averages. So 7 the licence 2327 column are actually the daily 8 flow requirement in the licence. The next six 9 columns are data that I received from Alf 10 Warkentin at the Water Resources branch. He is 11 the senior hydraulic forecaster from the Manitoba 12 Waters Branch, and he received this data -- I have 13 an E-mail to this effect if anybody needs it -- 14 from Manitoba Hydro. 15 So I wanted to first ask Mr. Cormie, 16 do you agree that in the month of January, for 17 example -- and I will go through each one of these 18 questions in turn -- that the figures highlighted 19 in orange are less than the numbers in the 20 corresponding dates under the column licence 2327? 21 MR. CORMIE: With regard to your 22 comment that these numbers were provided to you 23 from the Water Resources Branch, I don't believe 24 that is correct. The Water Resources Branch 25 provided you metric measurements. 4551 1 MS. PHARE: That is true. I have to 2 actually make a correction. Mr. Warkentin in an 3 E-mail to me advised me to multiply these numbers 4 by 35.515, which I did. And I have a table that I 5 can get to you and the Commission to verify those 6 numbers, subject to check, of course, but I just 7 followed what he told me to do. 8 MR. CORMIE: That conversion factor is 9 incorrect, so this conversion of metric numbers to 10 Imperial numbers is incorrect, so the table is 11 incorrect. 12 MS. PHARE: What is the conversion 13 factor? 14 MR. CORMIE: The conversion factor is 15 .3048, raised to the cube power. And the 16 multiplier that you are using here is off by 17 approximately 1 percent. 18 MS. PHARE: Okay. So I guess your 19 testimony then would be that none of these figures 20 are correct? 21 MR. CORMIE: I don't know what this 22 data is. It is converted from metric into 23 Imperial incorrectly, so I can't comment on the 24 colours, or the meaning of the information. 25 In addition, you have labeled the 4552 1 third column licence 2327 as 3,000 cubic feet. 2 The licence doesn't state a discharge. Those are 3 the discharges that the Manitoba Hydro has 4 established, in interpreting the licence. The 5 licence says, Manitoba Hydro shall maintain flows 6 no lower than those established in the ten years 7 from 1996. Manitoba Hydro looked at the record 8 and established those numbers as its requirement, 9 its target discharge that met the requirements of 10 the licence. It is not a licence number, it is a 11 number that we have established in interpreting 12 the licence. 13 MS. PHARE: So the regulator has 14 approved those? 15 MR. CORMIE: The regulator hasn't said 16 anything about that, no. 17 MS. PHARE: So you have independently 18 set flow conditions that the regulator hasn't 19 approved? 20 MR. CORMIE: The regulator requires us 21 to maintains flows not lower than those that were 22 discharged between 1986 -- and we do that. 23 MS. PHARE: You set flow conditions 24 without regulatory approval? 25 MR. CORMIE: We follow our licences. 4553 1 MS. PHARE: Well, I have to apologize 2 because this was the conversion factor provided to 3 me by the Manitoba Government. 4 MR. CORMIE: Sorry, it is incorrect. 5 MS. PHARE: What I would like to do is 6 go back and apply the correct number. If you can 7 give me the actual formula, I will do that. Would 8 you be prepared to do that? 9 MR. CORMIE: We regulate the Missi 10 Falls control structure according to the licence. 11 The licence is in Imperial units. And converting 12 the Imperial discharges to metric discharges and 13 truncating them to one decimal place, as you have 14 done, and then converting them back to Imperial, 15 results in changes to the discharges. That record 16 is not -- is not the way you should measure 17 whether Manitoba Hydro is in compliance with its 18 licence. 19 Missi Falls is a remote control 20 structure. It is unmanned. Manitoba Hydro sets 21 the discharge in anticipation of the water levels 22 and we release water as required by our licence, 23 and we record the discharge after the fact. Those 24 discharges are a function of the water levels that 25 occur on a daily basis at the generating station. 4554 1 There are times when, because of wind effects, 2 water levels will vary higher or lower than the 3 forecast, and there will be minor variations 4 around the discharges that were targeted. And you 5 will see in the record, as there will be times 6 when there will be minor variations, below the 7 3,000, if that was the target, or above the 3,000, 8 but we deem that to be in conformance with the 9 requirements of our licence. 10 MS. PHARE: What I would like to do is 11 get the actual numbers, the data from your 12 measuring gauge, which is what I was given by the 13 Government of Manitoba. And I would like to 14 compare them against your licence requirements. 15 And if there is conversion factors that need to 16 happen in order for that to occur, I would like 17 you to give them to me. And I am wondering if you 18 would be willing to give me that information? 19 MR. CORMIE: We can give you the 20 record discharges at Missi Falls. 21 MS. PHARE: I actually believe I 22 already have that. Haven't you provided that to 23 Manitoba Conservation? 24 MR. CORMIE: The discharges at Missi 25 Falls are recorded in Imperial units. The record 4555 1 that the Province of Manitoba has is in metric 2 units. 3 MS. PHARE: Will you give me the 4 conversion factor then? 5 MR. CORMIE: No, I will give you the 6 discharges at Missi Falls in Imperial units, so 7 you can measure that against the licence which is 8 also in Imperial units, so we don't have to worry 9 about the Imperial/metric conversion. Because we 10 don't regulate Missi Falls in metric, we regulate 11 it in Imperial units. 12 MS. PHARE: Maybe if I just asked you 13 directly for the data and not gone through 14 Manitoba Conservation -- 15 MR. CORMIE: You could have done that, 16 yes. 17 MS. PHARE: -- then I might have been 18 able to get the original numbers. They informed 19 me that that was what they received from you. 20 MR. CORMIE: Yes, that is true. They 21 also want it in a format that is consistent with 22 what they require, which is one decimal place. 23 When you convert from Imperial to metric and you 24 truncate it to one decimal place, you lose 25 information and it results in minor variations 4556 1 from the licence thresholds that are set. 2 MS. PHARE: Okay. So I just have one 3 further set of questions. 4 As I understand it, one of the 5 fundamental positions within your EIS is that the 6 objectives and the conditions -- the current 7 operation of the CRD will remain the same? 8 MR. CORMIE: Yes, that is correct. 9 MS. PHARE: Have you ever refined the 10 operational model of the CRD in the last 15 or 20 11 years? 12 MR. CORMIE: The only refinement that 13 we have made to the modeling of the Churchill 14 River Diversion is to reflect the new 15 environmental licence requirements that were 16 established because of the construction of the 17 Churchill weir, and it resulted in higher minimum 18 releases in the winter time than were being 19 released historically. 20 MS. PHARE: So over time, if you 21 integrate, if you learn that operating the CRD a 22 certain way results in different responses of a 23 reservoir, for example, do you change your model 24 to reflect more efficient modes of operating, 25 given that particular response of the reservoir? 4557 1 I am just using an example. 2 MR. CORMIE: We are constantly 3 responding to changing conditions, whether they 4 are hydrologic, whether they have stakeholder 5 impacts, we are sensitive to all of those issues 6 when we operate the Churchill River Diversion, and 7 we are not tied to any modeling assumptions that 8 may or may not be in a computer model. 9 MS. PHARE: My only question I guess 10 then is, wouldn't that kind of change, qualify as 11 a change to the operation of the CRD over time? 12 MR. CORMIE: The changes that occur 13 are not dependent on whether Wuskwatim is there or 14 not though. 15 MS. PHARE: No. Clearly I understand 16 that that is also a statement that has been made, 17 but I am trying to understand the statement that 18 is been made that said the operations of the CRD 19 will not change? 20 MR. CORMIE: We said the operation of 21 the CRD will be identical with and without 22 Wuskwatim. Wuskwatim has no impact on how we are 23 operating the CRD. It will be operated 24 identically whether Wuskwatim is put into service 25 or not. So other changes can occur, like the 4558 1 construction of the Churchill weir, or changes in 2 water supply that may or may not occur due to 3 climate change, those will all have an impact, but 4 they will occur whether Wuskwatim is constructed 5 or not. 6 MS. PHARE: So the operational model 7 that is going to govern Wuskwatim will not change 8 the operation of the CRD is what you are saying. 9 The operational model of Wuskwatim will be 10 completely independent -- 11 MR. CORMIE: That's correct. 12 MS. PHARE: -- of the CRD? 13 MR. CORMIE: Yes. 14 MS. PHARE: That is all I have. Thank 15 you. Mr. Dysart is going to continue with some 16 more questions. 17 MR. OSLER: Mr. Dysart, I can give you 18 a response to the undertakings that you gave me 19 earlier, if you want? 20 MR. DYSART: Perhaps when I am 21 finished. 22 MR. OSLER: Fine. 23 MR. DYSART: I just have one follow-up 24 question in relation to Mr. Cormie's responses 25 regarding the discharges of Missi Falls. I have 4559 1 been to Missi Falls a number of times, and it is a 2 fairly large solid structure. I don't know how 3 many metres across, or feet if you prefer Imperial 4 today. I am just wondering with the statement 5 that you made considering wind effect on 6 discharges. Could you be more specific how wind 7 affects discharges through your concrete and steel 8 structure? 9 MR. CORMIE: Yes. There are six large 10 40-foot wide steel gates that are operated in 11 order to effect the appropriate discharge. If you 12 open the gate, for example, two feet, you might 13 pass 2,000 cubic feet per second. But the amount 14 of water that actually passes depends upon the 15 water level in front of the dam. So on a day when 16 there is a strong west wind and the water from the 17 southwest end of Southern Indian Lake is blowing 18 up into the northeast corner, the water level in 19 front of the dam will rise slightly, maybe 2 or 3 20 inches. That will affect the actual discharge 21 through the gate. Instead of 2,000 cubic feet per 22 second, you might get 2,050 cubic feet per second. 23 Conversely, if there is a strong north wind and 24 the north arm of Southern Indian Lake is blown 25 down, and the water at Missi Falls is slightly 4560 1 lower, instead of passing 2,000 cubic feet per 2 second, you might only get 1,990 cubic feet per 3 second, just because there is less, the water 4 depth in front of the gate is slightly lower, 5 because the wind has blown the water to the other 6 side of the lake. 7 In the record you will see that, 8 although the gate has not changed its opening, the 9 gate has been set, the position has been fixed, 10 the water, the discharges from the dam fluctuate 11 very modestly around the actual, the target 12 discharge because of things like wind effects. 13 MR. DYSART: Are not these gates 14 operated by Manitoba Hydro on, for example, on a 15 daily basis, if they choose to? 16 MR. CORMIE: No, the Missi control 17 structure is not manned continuously. An operator 18 goes in there on a routine schedule, and whenever 19 it is necessary to change the gate setting in 20 order to change the flows -- for example, at the 21 end of January we had to go in and reduce the flow 22 and change the gate setting. So the operator 23 would have gone in and changed the gate and 24 adjusted the outflow from the dam. So it is not 25 manned continuously, the gates -- they may only be 4561 1 moved four or five times a year, they are not 2 automatic gates operated from Winnipeg or from 3 Kelsey or from a control centre. 4 MR. DYSART: Just to clarify, a Hydro 5 employee has to physically go to Missi Falls to 6 open or close the gates? 7 MR. CORMIE: Absolutely. 8 MR. DYSART: There is no remote 9 operation? 10 MR. CORMIE: No, we do not as a policy 11 allow remote operation of gates because people can 12 be immediately downstream of the dam. 13 MR. DYSART: Is it possible, though? 14 MR. CORMIE: I don't believe it is 15 possible, no. 16 MR. DYSART: So whatever technology 17 that could, that does, or that quite possibly 18 exists today is not -- 19 MR. CORMIE: It is not desirable, 20 because people do fish downstream of these control 21 structures. 22 MR. DYSART: My question is, is it 23 possible? Is there technology currently in place 24 at Missi Falls that could allow Manitoba Hydro to 25 do this from a remote location? 4562 1 MR. CORMIE: We do not have the 2 machines in place. 3 MR. DYSART: It is not part of the 4 operating system? 5 MR. CORMIE: No. It was designed to 6 be operated with an operator at the gate, in 7 attendance, making sure that was safe when the 8 gate was operated. 9 MR. DYSART: Just another follow-up 10 question. You say the wind does have an effect on 11 discharges. A lot of the -- some of the 12 literature I have reviewed with the environmental 13 impacts, say to erosion, does not consider wind 14 effect, yet it does seem to have an effect in the 15 operation of a control structure, and yet it is 16 not considered in, say erosion, for example? 17 MR. REMPEL: Mr. Dysart, I don't agree 18 that the EIS said that. I think -- 19 MR. DYSART: It said wind eliminated. 20 MR. REMPEL: Let me expand on that. 21 The water levels, when we talk about the forebay 22 elevations and the Wuskwatim Lake elevations, we 23 do refer to wind and wave effects eliminated. In 24 other words, to measure the forebay elevation, we 25 don't take account of the variations, it might be 4563 1 a 4 inch wave one day, 8 inches the next. It is 2 still the same stable water level, if you like, 3 wind and wave eliminated. But for erosion, wind 4 was the predominant factor in estimating the rates 5 of shoreline recession and loss of land. Wind 6 effects are the basic cause of erosion on 7 Wuskwatim Lake. 8 MR. DYSART: I am just trying to 9 clarify this for myself, and I think for others. 10 Wind does have an effect on erosion? 11 MR. REMPEL: Absolutely. 12 MR. DYSART: Now, it could have a 13 significant effect on erosion? 14 MR. REMPEL: Absolutely, we believe 15 that it is the main vector in shoreline erosion on 16 Wuskwatim, today and in the future. 17 MR. DYSART: But it is not used as any 18 significant effect on elevation? 19 MR. REMPEL: No, it is a case, when we 20 say wind eliminated water level, for example, if 21 you go to Lake Winnipeg and you say, what is the 22 water level? It depends on where you are on Lake 23 Winnipeg. In some cases the wind will have driven 24 the water level up in terms of a measurement. In 25 other cases, it will be down from the normal 4564 1 average, if you like, for that particular 2 condition. So, the water level stage that we are 3 talking about is wind and wave eliminated, but it 4 does not factor into what we did on erosion 5 estimates. Wind was the main vector, as I 6 indicated, in estimating erosion rates. 7 So it is two different things. One is 8 measuring the typical still weather water level 9 stage, if you like, and the other is estimating 10 the effects of wind on shoreline erosion. 11 MR. DYSART: That is kind of off my 12 line of questioning, but it has created some 13 questions in my mind. 14 Mr. Cormie, I wasn't exactly clear 15 with some of the undertaking, I don't know if you 16 provided it or have refused to provide it, the 17 conversion rates that Manitoba Hydro utilizes. 18 Will you be providing those? 19 MR. CORMIE: We will provide you the 20 history of flows at Missi Falls in Imperial units. 21 MR. DYSART: You will not provide the 22 conversion -- 23 MR. CORMIE: You can convert them 24 yourself. 25 MR. DYSART: I am just wondering if 4565 1 you will provide the rate -- 2 MR. CORMIE: We will provide the 3 history of flows at Missi Falls in Imperial units, 4 because those are the units that we use to 5 regulate, and those are the units that are used in 6 the licences. Converting them doesn't do 7 anything. There is no purpose served by 8 converting them, it just creates confusion. There 9 is the issue, there is the issue of truncation, 10 there is issues of -- 11 MR. DYSART: Issues of averaging? 12 MR. CORMIE: Sure. What is wrong with 13 using the record that actually was recorded? 14 MR. DYSART: It is just that the 15 members of the Commission, and even myself and 16 members of the public, more accurate -- 17 MR. CORMIE: It is not more accurate, 18 it is less accurate, because you are converting it 19 into a unit that it wasn't measured in. 20 MR. DYSART: You said it had no 21 significance, though? 22 MR. CORMIE: It has significance when 23 you are -- it is like a speed limit on the 24 highway. If the speed limit is 60 miles a hour, 25 the officer doesn't convert it into Imperial, or 4566 1 into metric and say, you are speeding. He says, I 2 measured it, you were speeding, the speed limit is 3 measured in these units, and that is how you judge 4 whether you are in violation of the law, not 5 converting it into other set of units. 6 MR. DYSART: I will just leave that 7 line alone for the moment and proceed into my 8 other questioning. 9 Now, I will just ask the question and 10 one of the panel, you guys can select who is going 11 to answer. Would you agree that Southern Indian 12 Lake is central to the CRD project and is affected 13 by its ongoing operation? 14 MR. CORMIE: Could you repeat that 15 again? 16 MR. DYSART: Would you agree that 17 South Indian Lake is central to the Churchill 18 River Diversion project and is affected by its 19 ongoing operation, the CRD operation? 20 MR. CORMIE: Yes, that is true. 21 MR. DYSART: Would you agree that the 22 water that flows out of South Indian Lake through 23 the manmade diversion channel travels downstream 24 to the Rat and Burntwood Rivers to Wuskwatim Lake? 25 MR. CORMIE: That is true. 4567 1 MR. DYSART: In the generating station 2 EIS, you estimate that 25 percent of the sediment 3 will be transferred downstream of the Wuskwatim 4 dams. Is it fair to assume that 25 percent of the 5 sediment is typically transferred downstream of 6 dams? 7 MR. REMPEL: Mr. Dysart, I think you 8 misinterpreted one of the charts. We didn't 9 consider that 25 percent would be transported 10 downstream of Wuskwatim. Is that what you believe 11 we said? 12 MR. DYSART: Yes. 13 MR. REMPEL: No. We did a 14 sensitivity, what if our estimates were not 15 correct and there was an additional sediment 16 released downstream of 25 percent, what effect 17 would it have on the suspended solids 18 concentrations in the water column downstream of 19 Wuskwatim? And it turned out to be, I think it 20 was 1 milligram per litre or something less than 21 that. But our actual determination is that that 22 will not happen, that there will be virtually a 23 very small amount that will be transported 24 downstream of Wuskwatim. In fact, we have 25 indicated that the conditions in terms of what 4568 1 comes in and what goes out will not change. There 2 will be additional shoreline erosion, and much of 3 that sediment we believe will be deposited in the 4 near shore, and the rest in the deep waters of 5 Wuskwatim Lake. But the 25 percent number that 6 you are talking about was a sensitivity check we 7 did to see, what if that circumstance doesn't 8 apply? 9 MR. DYSART: Is there say an average 10 that you could use as far as sedimentation 11 transfer, if I can call it that? I know this 12 doesn't just stay there and settle. 13 MR. REMPEL: Sorry, is there a what? 14 MR. DYSART: Is there an average 15 percentage of sediment transfer, if I can use 16 those terms, that say is exported from Wuskwatim 17 Lake? 18 MR. REMPEL: We relied to some extent 19 on studies done at Southern Indian Lake by Dr. 20 Hecky and Greg McCullough, I guess, I believe they 21 were with the Freshwater Institute at the time, 22 and they indicated that 50 to 80 percent of the 23 shoreline sediment was deposited in the near shore 24 and the rest in the deeper waters. So we used the 25 50/50 split for our most likely circumstance, and 4569 1 tested against what if 80 percent was deposited in 2 the near shore and 20 percent in the deep water? 3 Then over and above that, as a further 4 sensitivity, we said what if 25 percent was 5 actually transported out of that lake, the body of 6 water, the Wuskwatim Lake? So we did the 7 sensitivities. But in terms of a typical 8 percentage, I guess we thought that the Southern 9 Indian Lake experience done fairly recently, done 10 by competent scientists, on a shoreline that was 11 probably similar in terms of the character of the 12 sediments -- I know there is more permafrost in 13 Southern Indian Lake than Wuskwatim, but the 14 shoreline sediments we think are fairly similar. 15 So that was the body of work that we relied on 16 fairly heavily. 17 MR. DYSART: Pardon my confusion here, 18 but are you implying, or just from the report that 19 you quoted, that there is no sediment transfer, 20 sediment transportation I guess, at all? 21 MR. REMPEL: No. In fact, I will 22 look for a chart which -- we think, for example, 23 in Wuskwatim Lake right now that there is -- and I 24 am going on page 8-11, volume 4 of the Wuskwatim 25 Generating Project EIS. We estimate that there is 4570 1 about 315,000 tonnes per year of sediment coming 2 into Wuskwatim Lake at present, and 258,000 tonnes 3 per year leaving down the river, down the 4 Burntwood River. So there currently is that much 5 sediment coming in, based on data that we have, 6 and that much sediment going out. So certainly 7 there is a lot of sediment that will continue to 8 go downstream. 9 MR. DYSART: That will be in addition 10 to the sediment created through erosion effects; 11 am I correct? 12 MR. REMPEL: No. We predict that much 13 of the sediment even now -- in fact, we suggest 14 that there is a substantial amount of sediment 15 currently being deposited on the near shore and in 16 the deep water. That will increase, but we don't 17 expect that the amount of sediment leaving 18 Wuskwatim Lake will change very much at all. 19 MR. DYSART: I understand what you are 20 saying. I might not necessarily agree with it. 21 But just to try and clarify, there is sediment 22 being imported, if I can use that word, into 23 Wuskwatim Lake, through I guess the Rat River 24 system? 25 MR. REMPEL: Certainly there is 4571 1 315,000 tonnes per year we think coming in there 2 right now. 3 MR. DYSART: And then there will be -- 4 I can't recall the number. 5 MR. REMPEL: 258,000 currently is 6 being exported out. 7 MR. DYSART: Exported out of Wuskwatim 8 Lake? 9 MR. REMPEL: Yes. 10 MR. DYSART: But there is also, 11 basically on a dally basis, sediment coming into 12 the lake from the shoreline, is there not? 13 MR. REMPEL: Yes, we estimate it to be 14 about 45,000 tonnes per year. 15 MR. DYSART: That is why I said it is 16 in addition to that. 17 MR. REMPEL: And the number of 45,000, 18 we expect to go up in the first five years after 19 the station is constructed, and then gradually 20 decrease to the present levels. 21 MR. DYSART: I am not sure if you are 22 going to agree with this next question. The 23 reason I asked the initial question regarding 24 sediment, I was just trying to establish there is 25 sediment transportation from one lake to another 4572 1 via the river system. Is that -- do you agree 2 with that statement in general? 3 MR. REMPEL: Rivers transport 4 sediment, absolutely, yes, I agree with that. 5 MR. DYSART: Even accounting for 6 sediment accumulation at Notigi, basically some 7 sediment does not go through Notigi downstream to 8 Wuskwatim, would you agree that the increased rate 9 of erosion on Southern Indian Lake could result in 10 some sediment transfer downstream of the lake? 11 MR. REMPEL: Downstream of Southern 12 Indian Lake? 13 MR. DYSART: Yes? 14 MR. REMPEL: It could. 15 MR. DYSART: Could this increase in 16 sediment affect downstream water quality and 17 parameters? 18 MR. REMPEL: I think we indicated that 19 there was data prior to the CRD that showed the 20 kinds of sediments in the water column of the 21 Burntwood River, and that those went up after the 22 CRD was put in place. And then they went down 23 again to what appears to be very close to what 24 sediment levels, sediment concentrations that 25 existed prior to the diversion. And for our case, 4573 1 in our case for the analysis we looked at data 2 coming into Wuskwatim and downstream of Wuskwatim. 3 We didn't look at SIL data. 4 MR. DYSART: That leads me to my next 5 question. So how were the potential cumulative 6 effects on water quality due to changes on the 7 lake, due to the ongoing operation of the CRD 8 project assessed for interactions from this 9 project? 10 MR. REMPEL: Are you talking about 11 suspended solids particularly? 12 MR. DYSART: Yes. 13 MR. REMPEL: We looked at the existing 14 environment, which we know has been affected by 15 the CRD. We have data coming into Wuskwatim Lake 16 in terms of suspended solids. That is the 17 existing environment. We think those levels have 18 been fairly stable for the last while. We looked 19 at water column results inside the lake itself, 20 and downstream at measuring stations such as 21 Thompson. And again, we find those suspended 22 solids concentrations are fairly stable. 23 Williamson and Raleigh, I think, I indicated 24 earlier, Provincial scientists have reported that 25 they believe, or their data indicates that those 4574 1 suspended solids have more or less stabilized at 2 what appear to be pre-CRD levels. So as far as 3 our analysis on our particular proposed project 4 was concerned, we looked at the additions that 5 would result from the forebay being created, and 6 factored that into those concentrations. 7 MR. DYSART: Okay. Just give me a 8 moment here. 9 Would you agree the whole environment 10 associated with the past CRD project, biophysical 11 and socioeconomic, has experienced stress over the 12 past 30 years? 13 MR. REMPEL: I am not sure that we 14 caught the question fully, Mr. Dysart. Would you 15 mind repeating that? 16 MR. DYSART: Would you agree that the 17 whole environment associated with the past CRD 18 project, both biophysical and socioeconomic, has 19 experienced stress over the past 30 years? 20 MR. DAVIES: I would say that the area 21 affected by Churchill River Diversion has 22 experienced effects over the last 30 years, and 23 that the degree of those effects are different in 24 different areas of the environment, but they have 25 all experienced some effects over the last 30 4575 1 years, yes. 2 MR. DYSART: Would you agree that an 3 environment experiencing stress is typically more 4 sensitive than an undisturbed environment, for 5 example? 6 MR. DAVIES: Not necessarily. It is a 7 very complicated question. There are -- there is 8 some adaptation that takes place, and the new 9 organisms and the new populations can become 10 adapted to the new environment. In some cases, 11 not necessarily with regards to the Churchill 12 River Diversion, but in other areas where you have 13 a diminished species diversity, the population can 14 actually become more stable, not necessarily 15 stable in a good way, but it is stable. It 16 doesn't have the same productive capacity, it 17 doesn't have the same biodiversity, but it is 18 stable. It's a very complicated question and I am 19 not sure that there is a yes or no answer to it. 20 MR. DYSART: I will move on. If I can 21 get you to refer to the document that we have 22 provided for reference, tab 6. I just want to 23 read an excerpt from a CARC, as it is commonly 24 referred to, which is the Canadian Arctic 25 Resources Committee. And that is under tab 6, I 4576 1 will quote: 2 "The current state of the environment 3 is particularly important when 4 predicting future impacts. Impacts on 5 already disturbed systems may be much 6 more significant than those on a 7 system which has seen little 8 disturbance." 9 MR. SARGEANT: Where are you reading 10 from, Mr. Dysart? 11 MR. DYSART: Tab 6, page 11, second 12 last paragraph. 13 MR. SARGEANT: Thank you. 14 MR. DYSART: I will read the quote 15 again: 16 "The current state of the environment 17 is particularly important when 18 predicting future impacts. Impacts on 19 already disturbed systems may be much 20 more significant than those on a 21 system which has seen little 22 disturbance." 23 Now, in relation to that quote, how 24 did your determination of the significance account 25 for this? 4577 1 MR. OSLER: The key word is "may." 2 The answer to the question depends on which 3 environment we are talking about. In looking at 4 each one of the environments, we looked at the 5 situation as it exists without the project, which 6 reflects the situation today, and project it into 7 the future in the case of CRD, the CRD. We have 8 gone through that discussion in terms of such 9 effects as mercury, erosion, and sedimentation in 10 terms of this hearing. We talked about the extent 11 to which this project would create new changes to 12 those environments; mercury, for example, or 13 erosion or sediment. And we assessed the 14 significance of the changes that would result from 15 this project in the predictions. 16 Where it was possible to discuss the 17 concept of a threshold or a measurement, such as 18 water quality, even if it is a measurement that is 19 made against certain standards based on a baseline 20 that is there, we used those approaches to try and 21 assess the state of that particular element of the 22 environment after the project, given all of the 23 factors that are affecting it, including the 24 factors from projects done before we came along 25 with this Wuskwatim project. 4578 1 Where it was not possible to use such 2 an established standard or threshold indicator, 3 professional judgment and all available 4 information was used to assess whether the change 5 resulting from Wuskwatim would indeed be 6 significant or not significant, as required by the 7 guidelines. The extent of the disturbance of the 8 environment was in all cases carefully considered 9 in making those assessments. 10 MR. DYSART: I am going to refer to 11 tab 12, the document. Give me a moment here -- I 12 refer to tab 5, I apologize -- the Canadian 13 Environmental Assessment Agency Practitioners 14 Guide discusses this in section 2.2, how 15 cumulative effects occur, and it includes physical 16 chemical transport where sediment is given as an 17 example, spatial and temporal crowding. For the 18 latter, it goes on to say, 19 "Cumulative effects can occur when too 20 much is happening with too small an 21 area or too brief a period of time. A 22 threshold may be exceeded and the 23 environment may not be able to recover 24 to pre-disturbance conditions. This 25 can occur quickly or gradually over a 4579 1 long period of time before the effects 2 become apparent. Spatial crowding 3 results in an overlap of effects among 4 actions. Temporal crowding may occur 5 if the effects from different actions 6 overlap or occur before the VEC has 7 had time to recover." 8 Are you in a position to disagree that 9 the CRD and the Wuskwatim project include effects 10 on the same water system? 11 MR. OSLER: The CRD, to be precise, 12 the CRD -- our evidence all the way through -- has 13 disrupted the environment where the Wuskwatim 14 project, the aquatic environment where the 15 Wuskwatim project is to be developed. 16 MR. DYSART: Do you agree that the 17 effects of these two different projects on water 18 could occur on the same day, month, or year? 19 MR. OSLER: In the area where they 20 overlap, they will occur concurrently. 21 MR. DYSART: You state in the 22 Environmental Impact Statement that in the case of 23 water, the Manitoba water quality standards, 24 objectives, and guidelines were used, and I quote: 25 "To provide comparison of project 4580 1 related impacts against environmental 2 thresholds." 3 I am quoting from the 4 aquatic environment -- the Generating Station EIS, 5 tab 12, line 1 of the second paragraph. 6 MR. OSLER: So you are in tab 12 of 7 what you gave us; right? 8 MR. DYSART: Yes. That is a quote out 9 of the EIS. 10 MR. OSLER: And that is from 11 section -- 12 MR. DYSART: Five. 13 MR. OSLER: 92 of volume 5 of the 14 aquatic environment EIS? 15 MR. DYSART: Yes, the first line of 16 the second paragraph. 17 MR. OSLER: Yes. 18 MR. DYSART: In the same section -- in 19 the same section, page 126, the EIS states that 20 the level for total suspended solids that you are 21 using to determine an environmental threshold for 22 aquatic health in this case will exceed the 23 chronic water quality objective. 24 Are you in a position to disagree with 25 the statement that for these five years that this 4581 1 parameter exceeds its environmental threshold? 2 MR. OSLER: Mr. Davies will answer the 3 questions that relate to water quality because 4 they come from the aquatic environment. 5 You have just jumped to another page, 6 I believe? 7 MR. DYSART: Yes. 8 MR. OSLER: From the same volume? You 9 have to get volume 5 and go to page 126, section 10 5.2. 11 MR. DAVIES: Sorry? 12 MR. OSLER: Is it 5-126, is that the 13 number at the bottom? 14 MR. DYSART: Yes. I don't have that 15 reference specifically here. 16 MR. OSLER: We will see if we can get 17 it. You will probably have to repeat the question 18 when we get it? 19 MR. REMPEL: Just a point of 20 clarification, Mr. Dysart, are you talking about 21 construction effects on total suspended solids? 22 Is that what the context is? 23 MR. DYSART: I would say there would 24 be both? Have you separated the construction 25 effects and I guess operational effects? 4582 1 MR. REMPEL: Yes, they typically are 2 discussed separately, but we now have the page and 3 Mr. Davies will discuss it. 4 MR. DAVIES: Again, I don't have the 5 previous pages which would identify whether we are 6 talking about construction or not, but during 7 operation -- I think this was said before -- we 8 are expecting that during the first five years the 9 increase in total suspended solids going 10 downstream will be approximately 1 milligram per 11 litre, and that will not exceed the guidelines. 12 During construction there are two periods, when 13 the cofferdam goes and when the cofferdam is 14 coming out, there is a number of activities in the 15 second period where the guidelines may be exceeded 16 for short periods of time. And that is recorded 17 in the document, for total suspended solids. 18 And further in regards to that, there 19 is a sediment management plan that is being put in 20 place, and that has been filed as part of the 21 undertakings. It is also being discussed with the 22 Department of Fisheries and Oceans, who along with 23 Department of Environment are responsible for 24 that, and they are looking for methods to reduce 25 the total suspended solids to the amount 4583 1 practicable. 2 I should also say there is another 3 component. When I was talking about the increase 4 of 1 milligram per litre, I specifically referred 5 to the downstream areas. Where we are looking at 6 shoreline erosion during the first five years on 7 Wuskwatim Lake, the guidelines won't be exceeded 8 for Wuskwatim Lake as a whole, but right along the 9 shore where that erosion is occurring there will 10 be areas that will exceed the guidelines. As the 11 erosion occurs and the mud or silt that goes into 12 the lake, the area where it falls in obviously 13 will exceed the guidelines before it is diluted 14 into the lake itself. There will be some areas 15 right at the shoreline where the erosion is 16 occurring, where it will be greater than that. 17 MR. DYSART: I am just looking to the 18 Commission in regards to the time as far as -- 19 THE CHAIRMAN: We are doing fine, for 20 another approximately 25 minutes. 21 MR. DYSART: Just in relation to a 22 break, you are okay. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 24 MR. DYSART: I want to go into another 25 line of questioning here regarding the baseline. 4584 1 Would you agree that the current biophysical 2 environmental baseline, as it exists today, would 3 be different from the baseline in five years time? 4 MR. DAVIES: Are you referring to with 5 or without the Wuskwatim project? 6 MR. DYSART: With. 7 MR. DAVIES: And which baseline? 8 MR. DYSART: The baseline of 9 Wuskwatim? 10 MR. OSLER: Which environment 11 component do you want us to focus on? 12 MR. DYSART: Water. 13 MR. OSLER: Water quality? 14 MR. DYSART: Yes. 15 MR. DAVIES: I think I am not 16 completely clear on the question, whether you are 17 looking at the baseline as it exists today, 18 whether that is going to be different in five 19 years from today, or whether the baseline that 20 will exist when Wuskwatim is built will change 21 over the following five years? 22 MR. DYSART: Maybe just to clarify, 23 let's for example say Wuskwatim begins 24 construction tomorrow, say for example -- I know 25 there is seasonal reasons -- given that, the 4585 1 baseline used today, would that baseline change if 2 construction proceeds tomorrow within five years? 3 MR. DAVIES: Are you talking about 4 whether the baseline would change without the 5 effects of Wuskwatim being added to it? 6 MR. DYSART: I am talking about 7 Wuskwatim being constructed, the baseline of water 8 for example, water quality, would that change? 9 MR. DAVIES: Once the generating 10 station is constructed, there will be changes 11 caused by the construction itself, and they are 12 obviously documented in the EIS. We are looking 13 at the shoreline erosion and the effects on TSS 14 that we just discussed. So that will change the 15 existing environment. 16 We also know that over the first five 17 years we will see the majority of the erosion 18 occur, and then it will start to decrease after 19 that and get back to levels that we currently see 20 after a total of about 25 years. So we will see 21 the baseline changing in the first five years, but 22 that baseline again is the baseline as influenced 23 by the Wuskwatim Generating Station, the 24 construction and operation of it. And those are 25 the effects of the project. 4586 1 MR. DYSART: You have actually 2 answered a number of following questions. I think 3 Ms. Phare covered some aspects of the remainder of 4 my questions. So, given that, I will say we are 5 finished. 6 MR. OSLER: Do you want me to give you 7 the undertaking that I had undertaken to give you? 8 MR. DYSART: Yes, thank you, 9 Mr. Osler. 10 MR. OSLER: The questions all related, 11 if we have it right, to the number of elders 12 involved, or the time periods of sessions. The 13 number of elders involved in the heritage topic to 14 do with NCN, including members at South Indian, 15 five South Indian Lake elders were at a workshop 16 on March 19, 2002. Now, some of these may well 17 live at Nelson House, but they are members of 18 South Indian Lake and they trap and hunt and fish 19 in that area. 20 Four elders were interviewed at Nelson 21 House in March/April 2002 time period. Six elders 22 were taken on an overflight, two groups of three 23 each went with the archeologist to look for areas 24 that may have graves, and to talk about things 25 that they remembered about the area, such as the 4587 1 falls and the dancing circle. This took place in 2 February of 2002. 3 And then finally with respect to the 4 NCN/TK project that I referred to, that involved 5 eight elders our people drew on, both in terms of 6 Virginia Petch's works and our work, drew on the 7 results from it. 8 The TK project, interviewing with the 9 elders, occurred between September of 2001 and 10 February of 2002, with respect to the elders and 11 with respect to the resource harvesters in the 12 spring of 2002. And as I just said earlier, the 13 elders' workshop involving SIL elders took place 14 on March 19, 2002. 15 I believe that covers all of the 16 questions that you left me with. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The next 18 group that is to come and cross-examine is 19 Consumers Association Canada. 20 MS. POLLITT-SMITH: If I have to bolt 21 from the room suddenly, it is because I have to go 22 throw up because I am too nervous to be here. 23 Good afternoon, my name is Mona 24 Pollitt-Smith, and I am an articling student with 25 the Public Interest Law Centre and, as most of you 4588 1 know, we represent the Consumers Association and 2 the Manitoba Society of Seniors. 3 Most of the questions that I have, and 4 the issues that are of concern to me and our 5 clients, have been covered over in Mr. Abra's very 6 able cross-examination and some have been covered 7 by CASIL. I sort of just have a few general areas 8 that I want to get clarification on for myself, 9 because I am not an expert in environmental 10 science or anything like that, so most of my 11 cross-examination will be getting some further 12 information from you, I think, and going over a 13 bit more on that pesky cumulative effects 14 assessment that everybody keeps asking questions 15 about. 16 To start with some general questions, 17 from my analysis of your methods of study, you 18 have sort of looked at two data bases of 19 information, right, the scientific knowledge and 20 the traditional knowledge. That is basically what 21 you testified to so far; right? 22 MR. OSLER: That's right. 23 MS. POLLITT-SMITH: In terms of the 24 scientific knowledge, I think it was Mr. Wojcznski 25 who said last week that there has been extensive 4589 1 studies done of the Churchill River Diversion 2 project in terms of pre-diversion studies, I think 3 you mentioned the 1975 study, and studies that 4 occurred afterwards; is that true? 5 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: There have been 6 several studies done. There was, I mentioned the 7 1975 study. There have been other studies done. 8 Shawinigan did a study in 1987. It was published. 9 It was done jointly with Manitoba Hydro and South 10 Indian Lake members on the board, to address the 11 concerns for looking at the augmented flow 12 program. There was another study done, reported 13 in 1989, done jointly, in this case with the 14 Northern Flood Committee, NFC representatives, two 15 NFC representatives, two Hydro representatives, 16 and there was a bilateral management panel that 17 did an initial environmental evaluation of CRD 18 AFP. There were a number of other studies done as 19 well. There is a number that were done for CASIL, 20 that Hydro had -- funded by Manitoba Hydro but 21 directed by CASIL, that were done in preparation 22 for the negotiations for CASIL. They are not ones 23 that I believe are public, because they were done 24 privately for CASIL, funded by us but directed by 25 CASIL. And then Mr. Davies had reported that the 4590 1 Federal Government had done a series of 2 environmental monitoring program studies that 3 would be classified as an assessment. And also 4 the Manitoba Government undertook some studies as 5 well. There are also a number of other studies, 6 but those are the main ones. 7 MS. POLLITT-SMITH: In terms of the 8 pre-CRD studies, was there just the 1975 study 9 that was done, or were there others? I think you 10 referred to that one as close to an environmental 11 assessment; right? 12 MR. DAVIES: The Study Board Report 13 started their studies around 1970 and continued 14 until it was published in 1975. There were I 15 believe a number of other studies that were 16 conducted by the department of Fisheries and 17 Oceans in anticipation of the increased water 18 levels at South Indian Lake, looking at 19 establishing a baseline that could compare the 20 effects of the Churchill River Diversion on the 21 biota once the diversion occurred. 22 MS. POLLITT-SMITH: In terms of the 23 1975 study, I think you said that that was -- I 24 want to get it right -- I think Mr. Wojcznski 25 referred to it as historic, and I don't think that 4591 1 he used the word historic, but unique for its 2 time. 3 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Leading edge I 4 believe was the term. 5 MS. POLLITT-SMITH: That was the word, 6 thank you very much, sir, you took the words from 7 my mouth -- but that it was leading edge, it was 8 equivalent to -- would you call it equivalent to 9 the type of environmental impact study we would do 10 today, or was it sort of its time? 11 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: I had said that it 12 was a leading edge one, and it is impressive in 13 terms of Environmental Impact Assessment for the 14 standards of its time. But others would probably 15 be in a better position to comment in more detail 16 on that -- 17 MR. REMPEL: We considered it to be a 18 very impressive piece of work. It was done by the 19 Federal Government, the Manitoba Government, there 20 were academics involved, a range of consultants. 21 As Mr. Davies said, the study started I believe in 22 1971 -- 23 MR. DAVIES: 1970. 24 MR. REMPEL: -- in 1970, was completed 25 in '75. I believe there was probably about 4592 1 somewhere between 12 and 20 different groups 2 involved in putting it together. It was an 3 impressive environmental impact assessment, in our 4 opinion, considering the time. And I guess the 5 fact that it was a multi-party assessment was also 6 kind of ground breaking at the time. 7 MR. OSLER: Just to add, I was 8 actually involved with some of the work planning 9 for the outcomes of the study, after it was 10 underway. It was a Federal/Provincially funded 11 study. Its intent was to do the types of things 12 that people are trying to do today. They brought 13 in a man called Mr. Harry Hill, who was working 14 with Acres in Ontario, who had a lot of experience 15 with water studies of this type, to help advise 16 how to pull together the material. So it wasn't 17 just a data collection exercise, it was a serious 18 attempt at trying to assess what would be the 19 likely effects on each one of the environments as 20 they were looking at it then. 21 It had all of the limitations of the 22 learning curve way back then compared to today. 23 It didn't have all of the practitioners guides and 24 everything else that we keep quoting to each other 25 today. They had to go about taking the knowledge 4593 1 they had at this time and trying to put together 2 over several years a good study. 3 MS. POLLITT-SMITH: And in your 4 assessment, for the most part it got it right in 5 terms of predicting what was going to happen? 6 MR. OSLER: That is a very specific 7 question that we would have to go section by 8 section of the document. I don't have that, in 9 preparing for this exercise I don't have that in 10 my mind. It wasn't as though -- a couple of cases 11 we talked about in the course of -- 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Osler, the question 13 was asked in general terms, not in specifics, 14 answer it in general terms. 15 MR. OSLER: In general terms, to the 16 best of my knowledge, it had directed itself to do 17 the job that had to be done, it did it properly, 18 and it predicted a lot of the effects that we are 19 talking about, sometimes more than we see actually 20 happened. 21 MR. DAVIES: There was a report done 22 by Dr. Hecky in 1984 that looked at the 23 predictions that were made for South Indian Lake, 24 and assessed the accuracy of the predictions that 25 were made prior to the Churchill River Diversion 4594 1 to what the actual outcome was afterwards. And 2 what they found for South Indian Lake, 3 specifically for the biophysical section, was that 4 the predictions that were made on the water 5 quality and lower trophic levels were fairly 6 accurate, predictions that were made on fish 7 populations were much less accurate. 8 MS. POLLITT-SMITH: What about 9 mercury? 10 MR. DAVIES: Prior to the Churchill 11 River Diversion, mercury wasn't really found to be 12 associated with reservoirs. The knowledge base 13 wasn't there yet. 14 MS. POLLITT-SMITH: So it was sort of 15 an unforeseen effect, no matter how extensive and 16 how well studied the entire area was before you 17 put in the project, it was sort of an unforeseen 18 effect that crept up on you? 19 MR. DAVIES: Mercury was an unforeseen 20 effect at that point in time. 21 MS. POLLITT-SMITH: It did end up 22 becoming I guess one of the main issues post 23 Churchill River Diversion, of concern to the 24 people in the area, and considering the amount of 25 effort that is being put into monitoring mercury 4595 1 now, of concern to present studies? 2 MR. DAVIES: It was a concern by 3 residents in some areas much more than in other 4 areas. It was a concern to residents in South 5 Indian Lake and Nelson House much more than it was 6 to individuals in Cross Lake, where water levels 7 decreased rather than increased and there was no 8 increase in mercury. The same holds true for 9 Split Lake, where there hasn't been a significant 10 increase in mercury levels as a result of Lake 11 Winnipeg Regulation or Churchill River Diversion. 12 MR. REMPEL: We have talked a lot 13 about erosion. One of the effects that were 14 over-predicted in the study that we talked about, 15 the Lake Winnipeg/Churchill River Study Board, was 16 the amount of river erosion and sediment transport 17 that was anticipated. With the CRD resulting in 18 very large increases in flows, the engineers at 19 the time predicted a great deal more shoreline 20 erosion along the rivers, and even along the 21 lakes, than actually did occur. I know there is 22 still a lot of concern about the amount of erosion 23 that did in fact occur, but it is of interest that 24 the Study Board Report actually predicted much 25 greater effects. 4596 1 MS. POLLITT-SMITH: So I guess you 2 would agree with me in saying that it is entirely 3 impossible to accurately, with 100 percent 4 certainty, predict any effects of any kind of 5 project, you can only make sort of your best guess 6 based on the data that you have? 7 MR. REMPEL: Drawing on the analogy 8 that I just spoke of with respect to erosion, at 9 that time the engineers were facing a challenge of 10 predicting what effects would occur based on 11 putting roughly 30,000 cubic feet per second down 12 a river that had typically experienced about 13 3,500 cubic feet per second, so it was about an 14 eight times increase in flow, in river conditions, 15 where the lake levels were rising ten feet. 16 In our case, looking at erosional 17 effects on Wuskwatim Lake, we are looking at a 18 water level that will be stabilized within a range 19 that it has already experienced quite frequently. 20 So there is a great deal more known, and the range 21 of extrapolation that is required is so much 22 different, that the degree of confidence is very 23 different in terms of this project with half a 24 square kilometre of flooding, a stable water level 25 in a regime that has experienced those water 4597 1 levels already. So I don't think that it is a 2 fair comparison between the accuracy that was able 3 to be shown back in 1975, as compared to the 4 confidence levels that we have now. 5 MR. DAVIES: As Mr. Rempel said, there 6 is quite an increase in the knowledge base, but as 7 the guidelines stated, uncertainty was noted where 8 there was uncertainty. Generally, where there was 9 uncertainty, a worst case scenario was looked at 10 in order to predict effects, or at least predict 11 what we felt would be the absolute magnitude of 12 those effects. And mitigation was also provided 13 where we felt that there was some uncertainty, and 14 mitigation was often provided in the form of 15 monitoring. 16 MS. POLLITT-SMITH: Moving right 17 along, I guess moving into the present I suppose 18 now, in terms of your Environmental Impact 19 Assessment studies and your cumulative effects 20 studies, I am assuming that you have drawn on the 21 range of studies that have occurred since the 22 Churchill River Diversion in 1977, and the studies 23 that occurred before then. In terms of preparing 24 for this project, in terms of the field studies in 25 the EIS, what was the average range of time that 4598 1 you spent? I know, I was flipping through it last 2 night and I found, for fish it said that the field 3 studies were from 1998 to 2002. Were there ranges 4 in terms of field studies about that for most of 5 the VECs and the components of the environment 6 that you looked at, or did they, were you looking 7 at ten year ranges or? 8 MR. DAVIES: For the generation 9 component, the aquatic and fisheries studies went 10 from 1998 actually to 2003. There was an 11 additional year that was done last year, and there 12 would be some additional work that would be done 13 to strengthen the data base as we go forward. The 14 number of years that each component was studied 15 varied on the component. There is more variation 16 in some components than there are in others. If 17 we are looking for medicinal plants or rare and 18 endangers species, once you have done a good 19 thorough survey, you don't necessarily have to do 20 the same survey in the same area three times. For 21 other items like caribou, where you want to get a 22 better idea of long term movements, we used two 23 things; one, longer term studies, and we also made 24 sure that we accessed traditional knowledge which 25 gives us not only the shorter snapshot in time 4599 1 that the studies occurred, but a period going back 2 for hundreds of years. 3 MS. POLLITT-SMITH: I am just bringing 4 this up, because I was here for the presentation 5 made by Mr. Soprovich, and I believe his hat that 6 he used as a prop -- I just put that in because it 7 amused me so much. He addressed, in terms of the 8 HSI modeling, and I know that is more to do with 9 the transmission corridor than with the generation 10 station, but in terms of modeling generally, and 11 the scientific modeling, I think he addressed the 12 limitations in terms of modeling that you have to 13 have not only a good model, but you have to be 14 collecting data well and collecting the right 15 data. And the models are also limited in terms of 16 how long you have done the modeling for. I think 17 he used example of the eight year study for moose 18 in some region or something like that. And then 19 you have a hard winter and all of your certainties 20 get thrown out of the window. In terms of his 21 presentation, would you agree with that assessment 22 that he made on the limitations in modeling and 23 their ability to predict? 24 MR. HICKS: The transmission line, EIS 25 volume 4, specifically addresses the limitations 4600 1 on the HSI models in much the same way that 2 Mr. Soprovich did. I think the point to be 3 considered here is that the transmission line 4 studies for this particular project commenced with 5 the appointment of ourselves by NCN and Hydro in 6 late 1999, and continued actively through to the 7 submission of the EIS documents in April, but have 8 continued on and will continue on until 9 construction begins. But, again, in the case of 10 transmission lines, many of the effects associated 11 with them are not peculiar to this project, they 12 are rather generic in nature, so that there is a 13 great deal of history and a great deal of other 14 background work that has been brought to bear on 15 the conclusions and the analysis done here. 16 MS. POLLITT-SMITH: But in terms of 17 the general assessment of the limitations of 18 modeling, you would agree with what he had to say 19 on that day, or disagree? 20 MR. HICKS: I absolutely agree, the 21 modeling has some very severe limitations, which 22 were recognized in the study. And that is of 23 course why we -- as I recall, Mr. Bedford in the 24 course of cross-examination drew out the fact that 25 we had used something like ten different tools to 4601 1 conduct the assessment. 2 MS. POLLITT-SMITH: And in terms of 3 the modeling, or the types of studies that were 4 done for the generation project, would that same 5 idea flow through as well, that the studies that 6 you have done are limited because they are limited 7 in time, and you did -- in terms of scientific 8 studies, those are the limitations in terms of 9 modeling and in terms of collecting data and 10 knowing what that data means. 11 MR. DAVIES: I would like to give you 12 a long answer for that, if that is all right. It 13 was unfortunate that Mr. Soprovich was only able 14 to read selected pieces of the Environmental 15 Impact Statement, because there was much more 16 information that was missed, and I think sometimes 17 for myself I find it easier to read than write, 18 and I think if sometimes people have read more, 19 they could have written less. 20 In regards to caribou, just using that 21 for an example, it was only one of the tools that 22 was used. Traditional knowledge contributed to 23 the description of the existing environment, where 24 the animals were, how many animals, where their 25 movements were, not only through the studies that 4602 1 were conducted by the EMT, but also through 2 studies that were conducted by Manitoba 3 Conservation. We did a separate traditional 4 knowledge study on Woodland caribou. Traditional 5 knowledge also provided us with a historic 6 perspective on the species, whether the population 7 is increasing or decreasing over time. 8 Traditional knowledge also gave us an idea of the 9 harvest levels that were occurring in the area for 10 Woodland caribou. We also conducted a harvest 11 calendar as part of the resource use study, where 12 we had a very large portion of the entire Nelson 13 House community participate, and they filled out 14 calendars on a daily basis to provide us with 15 information on resource harvesting. Woodland 16 caribou was one of the items that NCN does 17 harvest. 18 There were two aerial surveys that 19 were conducted that provided information on 20 population numbers and locations of the animals. 21 NCN trackers, professional trackers with a huge 22 amount of experience were hired to provide 23 information on where the caribou were, both summer 24 and winter time. We had break strings along some 25 of the areas where we felt they may be crossing 4603 1 existing transmission lines. We had a number of 2 different numbers thrown out, but I think it is 3 about 45 kilometres in total that the strings were 4 strung, and they were checked numerous times to 5 see if the animals were crossing. 6 In addition to that, we tagged over 7 10 percent of the entire population. There was 24 8 animals that had radio collars put on, 24 animals 9 out of a total of 200, and those have been 10 monitored for several years now to see what there 11 movements are in the area. All of the published 12 information that was relevant to the area was 13 reviewed. Professional judgment was used, along 14 with experience. And there was a reference that 15 was made to the number of ungulate kills that 16 occurred during the Limestone experience. The 17 number was one. 18 We took a look at the linkages between 19 the animal, the impacts, and the project, and 20 those were used along with the professional 21 judgment, the scientific information, the 22 traditional knowledge, to form the basis of 23 providing the impacts on Woodland caribou for the 24 area. Basically, we have just talked about the 25 assessment of the effects of the project on 4604 1 Woodland caribou. We haven't actually even 2 mentioned the HSI models yet, or the models that 3 were used for the project. 4 A very extensive data base was 5 collected, both traditional knowledge, western 6 science. All of that information was used. The 7 models a very small portion that, and, as I said, 8 I think if Mr. Soprovich had had the time, or the 9 opportunity to read a broader section, he may have 10 had more comfort with the information that was 11 provided. 12 MS. POLLITT-SMITH: In terms of 13 dealing with the information that you collected 14 around the generation station, and in terms of the 15 use of traditional knowledge, I guess it is sort 16 of a two part question to sort of alleviate some 17 of my concerns in terms of the modeling and the 18 predictions that you are making based on the data 19 that you have collected. One is that it sounds 20 like, in terms of the 50 kilometre piece of 21 string, and radio tagging the moose and the deer 22 and things like that, all of those things sound 23 like they are studies that are being done now. So 24 that would fall into Mr. Soprovich's concerns 25 about not having a long-term indication, you know, 4605 1 his example with the deer and the eight years and 2 a hard winter. The second part is in terms of the 3 use of traditional knowledge -- I want to get this 4 right, but -- in terms of the use of traditional 5 knowledge, I think last week it was described as 6 this vast reservoir of data that has been 7 collected since time immemorial on how the 8 environment works, and how the waters flow and 9 things like that. I guess it would be a more 10 accurate predictor because there is a vast 11 reservoir of data that has been collected since 12 time immemorial. You have more confidence in the 13 predictions you are making, not like in say the 14 two years of data collection that Mr. Soprovich 15 was talking about. But in terms of the impact of 16 Churchill River Diversion on that reservoir data, 17 is there a change, since the ecosystem has changed 18 dramatically, I mean, the Churchill River 19 Diversion has upset how the waters flow, it has 20 upset how the animals react, where the animals are 21 going to be, what they are doing there, who they 22 are doing it with. Is that another consideration 23 in terms of the accuracy of even using, applying 24 the traditional knowledge that was built up 25 surrounding a natural ecosystem and applying it to 4606 1 a regulated ecosystem? 2 MR. DAVIES: It is a factor that was 3 considered and it is noted in the EIS, 4 particularly in regards to the aquatics for 5 Wuskwatim Lake itself. But in regards to, in the 6 broader context, just using two examples, when we 7 first talked to the elders, the NCN elders 8 regarding the populations of caribou, the estimate 9 that was given to us was about 200 animals, which 10 was considerably higher than the Manitoba 11 Conservation estimate. 12 After we conducted two years of fairly 13 expensive aerial surveys, the number that the 14 biologists came up with was 200, which was exactly 15 the same as what we were told before we started. 16 The radio collars that are put on caribou are 17 quite expensive and they are tracked by air. The 18 traditional knowledge study that was done by 19 Manitoba Conservation with about 66 NCN elders, if 20 you take the map that is provided by them in 21 regard to where the animals are at certain times 22 of the year and their movements throughout the 23 system, and you overlay that with the relatively 24 expensive radio tracking work, they are almost 25 identical. 4607 1 MS. POLLITT-SMITH: So why are we 2 employing the scientists? 3 MR. DAVIES: I think some of the NCN 4 elders probably wonder the same thing. 5 MS. AVERY KINEW: Is there a reference 6 for that? Did you ever say that? 7 MR. DAVIES: I think there is a 8 reference for the 200 animals, I am not sure if 9 there is a reference for the maps. But the maps 10 are actually, they are incredibly detailed, but 11 they are more detailed from the traditional 12 knowledge than they are from the radio tracking 13 surveys, and the maps are almost perfect overlays. 14 MS. AVERY KINEW: But that wasn't 15 referenced -- 16 MR. DAVIES: The exact locations of 17 course are confidential, but they have been shared 18 with Manitoba Conservation. 19 MS. AVERY KINEW: I am just wondering 20 if it was noted, written in the EIS about how 21 accurate the traditional knowledge is? I didn't 22 see throughout that much -- you gave me more 23 detail in these two sentences than I found. 24 MR. DAVIES: I think we probably could 25 have done a better job in making sure that people 4608 1 understood there was a lot of consistency between 2 the two types of knowledge. I think sometimes 3 that people feel that there isn't. 4 MR. MAYER: This is really the first 5 reference that those of us at this table have 6 heard about it. 7 MR. OSLER: Yes, and I think that -- I 8 know I have certainly heard the point about the 9 comparability of what the traditional knowledge 10 told Stuart and what the scientists came up with. 11 I hadn't actually heard myself the fact that we 12 started off with a number that was so much lower 13 before we confirmed what the traditional knowledge 14 people had told us. But the disruption of the 15 environment, when you get to the aquatic 16 environment, the CRD very much affects things 17 there, but it has been studied and studied and 18 studied a great deal after the effect. And there 19 has also now been comprehensive NFA implementation 20 agreements. So it is not just the scientists who 21 have studied it, NCN has looked at it and 22 discussed it with their own advisors, and come to 23 some agreements with Hydro. 24 The terrestrial environment, I think 25 you would find from a traditional knowledge point 4609 1 of view wouldn't have the same degree of 2 transformation, particularly for some of the 3 things that you are talking about right now, due 4 to CRD. It might have it due to other things, 5 putting in highways, developing other things in 6 the area. So it is a good thing to keep in mind 7 that there is a lot of things affecting this 8 environment, but NCN's traditional knowledge 9 perspective includes the knowledge they have of 10 how the environment has been disrupted by CRD, 11 just to complete the chain of thought. 12 MS. POLLITT-SMITH: And that sort of 13 leads into the last little part of this first 14 section that I want to talk about. So my 15 impression is that the NCN traditional hunters, 16 they have adapted to the changes of CRD, and they 17 have a good understanding of what has happened in 18 the environment, and making accurate predictions. 19 MR. DAVIES: I want to make sure that 20 it is clear that that is the case in a number of 21 areas, there are some very specific areas, such as 22 Wuskwatim Lake itself in regards to some of the -- 23 there is less information there now than there 24 normally would be because it is harder to access 25 and there hasn't been as many people that have 4610 1 been able to get specifically on Wuskwatim Lake 2 itself. But in general, the other comments I made 3 hold true -- 4 MS. POLLITT-SMITH: In terms of the 5 water regime -- which you are leading me right to 6 where I want to go -- dealing with modeling again, 7 I think it was Mr. Osler here that just told us 8 that the water regime is more compromised from the 9 Churchill River Diversion than the terrestrial 10 regime. So your predictions and your accuracy of 11 your models, and knowing how that regime would 12 respond, would be less certain then in dealing 13 with terrestrial matters. I think I am 14 summarizing what he said -- 15 MR. REMPEL: -- could I comment on 16 that? In terms of water regime, I wouldn't agree 17 with that. The water regime has been very 18 thoroughly studied. Manitoba Hydro has maintained 19 hydrometric stations where they measure levels and 20 flows on, I don't know how many locations, but 21 they are numerous, probably 30 or more stations on 22 the Rat/Burntwood system. They have been 23 monitoring it from the start of the diversion. 24 They've developed very good models, engineering 25 models on the physical manner in which the water 4611 1 will make its way along the river, both summer and 2 winter. So there are very good models in terms of 3 predicting water regime effects on the Red River, 4 southern rivers, and Manitoba Hydro has invested 5 heavily in understanding the northern rivers where 6 there is a very difficult characteristic of winter 7 ice and frazil ice, et cetera. But they have 8 honed those models over the last 30 years, and I 9 think there is a belief now, and I certainly 10 support it, I am a water resource engineer myself, 11 and I believe that they have very good, very solid 12 models, both winter and summer. And they use a 13 suite of models, it is not just one model, that 14 cross check each other. For example, there is one 15 dimensional, two dimensional, three dimensional 16 models. They predict velocity, they predict 17 depth. There is very good modeling available. 18 The physical modeling is not the same as the 19 biological modeling, which is obviously more 20 difficult with living organisms. 21 MS. POLLITT-SMITH: -- and you are 22 relying mostly on models when you are dealing with 23 the water regime, is that correct? Because you 24 are dealing with, from my understanding you only 25 have the 25 years of post CRD data to deal with, 4612 1 and in terms of the modeling, just in terms of 2 reading the flow record, you are not relying on 3 the data you have collected, so much as you are 4 applying the simulated flow record and relying on 5 that in making your predictions? 6 MR. REMPEL: No, I think both data 7 sets are being relied upon. The data set of 30 8 years post CRD is not insignificant, but it does 9 have some drier periods, which by virtue of 10 infilling some of the historic data, as Mr. Cormie 11 explained some days ago, he has I believe he said 12 a high level of confidence in the reconstructed 80 13 year period of record, Mr. Cormie, is that -- 14 MR. CORMIE: Yes, that is correct. 15 MS. POLLITT-SMITH: Okay. Well that 16 sort of finishes off my first section then. I can 17 see you guys are just sweating in your boots there 18 with my grilling -- or lack thereof. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: So that we can give 20 them a period to cool off, all of that sweating in 21 their boots, we will give them a little break. We 22 will be back at 20 to. 23 24 (PROCEEDINGS RECESSED AT 3:25 AND 25 RECONVENED AT 3:40 P.M.) 4613 1 2 THE CHAIRMAN: We can continue with 3 questioning. 4 MS. POLLITT SMITH: I just have a 5 quick, I hope it is going to be quick, section. I 6 just wanted to sort of I guess if you could 7 provide like a -- I have a few questions dealing 8 with the general overview of the region. We have 9 heard a lot of information dealing with the 10 project site, the footprint of the project site, 11 and the region concerning that NCN area there. 12 But I was hoping that you could place where this 13 project is in context of the environment that -- 14 the general environment that it finds itself in. 15 So I have a few questions dealing with that, and 16 the characteristics of the general boreal shield 17 environment. 18 I guess the first question would be, I 19 am sure there are a lot of important aspects of 20 the environment, but the three that I have picked 21 out that I want to discuss with you right now are 22 soils, vegetation and water, with whoever your 23 environmental, I guess you have experts on 24 everything sitting up there, but I guess you would 25 tend to agree those are important aspects to 4614 1 understand the natural environment when you are 2 considering a cumulative effects assessment or an 3 environmental impact? 4 MR. DAVIES: That's correct. 5 MS. POLLITT SMITH: In terms of the 6 soils, what are the general characteristics of the 7 soils of the boreal shield region? 8 MR. REMPEL: Are you speaking in terms 9 of the generation station area, the transmission 10 line or in general? 11 MS. POLLITT SMITH: I'm speaking in 12 general. I have done a bit of reading. I suppose 13 I can help you out directing you where I want to 14 go. Much of this reading tends to put me to sleep 15 because it comprises every geography class that I 16 slept through in high school. My understanding, 17 and hopefully you can correct me if I am wrong, is 18 that the soils in that region are generally 19 sensitive to things like acidic deposition. And 20 that this has an effect on their ability to 21 sustain, you know, plant life, trees, and it 22 limits the types of trees and the variety of trees 23 that can grow there; is that true? 24 MR. DAVIES: The area is -- the boreal 25 shield eco-region is very, very large and has a 4615 1 wide diversity of soil types. In a lot of areas 2 the tree species are limited by a combination of 3 soil depth. Soil depth is less in northern areas 4 than it is in some other areas. And also climate, 5 very cold, very slow growing season. 6 MS. POLLITT SMITH: And the 7 limitations on the soil in terms of the soil -- 8 you mentioned the soil depth, and that is due to, 9 in the general reading I have done, that is 10 because the top layers of the soil were scraped 11 away by glaciation years ago. But in terms of 12 what the plant life and trees can grow in there is 13 just a thin layer of soil in that general region, 14 is that true? 15 MR. DAVIES: That is generally true, 16 but not every where. It is thick enough to 17 support vegetation in most areas, but again it is 18 a very large area and it varies. But generally it 19 is relatively thin. 20 MS. POLLITT SMITH: In terms of if we 21 are looking at the boreal forest region in 22 northern Manitoba, would you say the soils there 23 are generally thin? 24 MR. DAVIES: Not in all areas, no. 25 MS. POLLITT SMITH: In your area? 4616 1 MR. REMPEL: I think we can perhaps 2 point you to a table, it is in section three, 3 volume 4 of the Wuskwatim generation project, page 4 3-7, there is a distribution of the types of 5 surface material, bedrock, bog, fen bog, deep 6 clay, shallow clays, sand, et cetera, a 7 distribution by area. The largest percentage 8 seems to be deep clay, weakly broken bog and fen, 9 at 32 percent. They are not all shallow. There 10 are certainly shallow areas. For example, clay 11 shallow looks to be about 13 percent or so. But 12 there is a distribution of the types of shore and 13 surface deposits given in table 3.3-1. 14 MS. POLLITT SMITH: And in terms of 15 you said the 32 percent region, which is the clay 16 bog, whatever, what grows in that? Do the trees 17 grow in that area or is it mostly the mosses and 18 things like that? 19 MR. REMPEL: Those would be brushes. 20 Not a lot of trees. It would be broken forest I 21 guess you would call it. 22 MS. POLLITT SMITH: In terms of where 23 the trees do find their homes is that in the 24 thinner soils, generally speaking? 25 MR. REMPEL: Not necessarily. There 4617 1 is some deep sand deposits that would support 2 trees. 3 MS. POLLITT SMITH: Okay. 4 MR. DAVIES: There is also some 5 lacustrine areas that have deeper soils that would 6 support trees. Again, it is mostly black spruce. 7 MS. POLLITT SMITH: But limitations, 8 generally limitations on things like the growth of 9 trees and the type of plant life that can develop 10 are, generally speaking, the limitations are that 11 this soil does -- there is a tendency for this 12 soil to be thinner in some areas due to the 13 effects of glaciation, and there is also limits on 14 the nutrient availability in the soil, at least 15 that is some of the general reading that I have 16 done. 17 MR. DAVIES: On the boreal shield you 18 tend to have less soil than you would on boreal 19 plains, and in lacustrine areas you tend to have 20 more soils. 21 MS. POLLITT SMITH: Going from the 22 soils into the vegetation. In terms of the trees 23 that grow there, is there a lot of biodiversity in 24 terms of the types of trees? It seems to me there 25 is generally four or five different types, the 4618 1 Jack, the dry Jack Pine, the -- 2 MR. DAVIES: There is about eight 3 species in the area. It is relatively low with 4 regards to biodiversity. 5 MS. POLLITT SMITH: Is eight species 6 good for biodiversity in terms of other forest 7 environments? It seems like a small number of 8 trees. 9 MR. DAVIES: Would you repeat that? 10 MS. POLLITT SMITH: If you are 11 comparing the boreal shield forest to other types 12 of forest environments, eight different species, 13 does that express diversity or is that a low 14 amount of diversity? 15 MR. DAVIES: The eight species that 16 are found in that area as common, would be the 17 sort of common number of species that you would 18 find in the boreal forest. 19 MS. POLLITT SMITH: In terms of 20 comparing it to other forest environments, not 21 boreal, like they are common among the boreal 22 forest, but in terms of other forest environments, 23 the boreal forest environment does not express a 24 lot of diversity in terms of tree types, is that 25 not true? 4619 1 MR. DAVIES: It has low species 2 diversity, but it would be considered fairly rich 3 because they are the natural species. They are 4 not transplanted species like we would have say in 5 southern Manitoba, you have all of your apple 6 species and apricots and things that are not 7 natural to the area. The eight species that occur 8 there are natural to the area. 9 MS. POLLITT SMITH: And they occur 10 there because that area can only sustain these 11 types of species, is that true? It is a very, I 12 don't want to say harsh environment, but it is 13 limiting to what can grow there? 14 MR. DAVIES: It is generally limited 15 by the climate, yes. 16 MS. POLLITT SMITH: And I would assume 17 that factors like the soil and -- 18 MR. DAVIES: And the surface 19 materials, that's correct. 20 MS. POLLITT SMITH: The trees that are 21 found there, they are hardy, they are adapted to 22 that area, you are not going to find an oak tree 23 there. 24 MR. DAVIES: That's correct. 25 MS. POLLITT SMITH: In terms of the 4620 1 vegetation, we talked about the soils and some 2 general limitations in the soils. In terms of the 3 vegetation, dealing with I think the tree species 4 that, or the four that you dealt with the most in 5 you EIS, which were the balsam fir, the white 6 spruce, the dry Jack Pine, these are species and 7 this type of forest, from what I read, that is 8 generally considered vulnerable to human impacts, 9 is that not true? 10 MR. DAVIES: They are not necessarily 11 an uncommon species. They are fairly widespread. 12 But they are the least common in the study area. 13 So for that reason they were identified as the 14 least common. 15 MS. POLLITT SMITH: And in terms of 16 species, from much of the reading that I have 17 done, it talked about the fact that in terms of 18 say the dry Jack Pine, it is maintained by wild 19 fire and that a change in how -- changes in the 20 environment like the wild fire frequency rates and 21 stuff like that, could have a significant 22 detrimental effect on the tree growth of that 23 species, is that not true? 24 MR. DAVIES: Jack Pine is more 25 dependent on the soils itself. But we talked 4621 1 about Jack Pine on dry mineral soils as an area 2 that is a bit more uncommon in the area. But fire 3 is certainly a major determinant in the area. 4 MS. POLLITT SMITH: So a change in the 5 fire regime could have a significant effect on 6 these types of trees? 7 MR. DAVIES: Not necessarily on 8 species diversity, but it would obviously have an 9 effect on the amount of growth that would be there 10 given time. 11 MS. POLLITT SMITH: And I think it is 12 mentioned in your EIS materials that the habitat 13 is sensitive to the frequency and severity of 14 fires. And that in terms of the dry Jack Pine, I 15 think it states, I can't cite for you the exact 16 place, but it states that two fires within a short 17 time interval or one unusually severe fire could 18 burn off all of the organic material that the 19 trees depend upon and that could have a 20 significant detrimental effect on that kind of 21 stand of trees in that area, is that right? 22 MR. DAVIES: Fires have been taking 23 place in the area for a millennium, and the eight 24 species that have been there are still there. 25 They would come back -- depending on the type of 4622 1 fire would depend on the amount of time it may 2 take that species to re-establish itself, but it 3 wouldn't create an area that couldn't be 4 re-established over time. 5 MS. POLLITT SMITH: As you said, it 6 depends on the type of fire, right? These trees 7 are maintained by the natural rhythms of fire 8 frequency. Like fire as a natural occurrence in 9 that area maintains the sort of health and vigor 10 of that environment and those types of trees. But 11 if you are having a frequency of fires say brought 12 on by global warming due to the increased 13 temperatures or by increased human activity in the 14 region, that would change -- that would have a 15 significant impact on those trees, because it is 16 not a natural occurrence, right? 17 MR. DAVIES: Fires are a natural 18 occurrence in the area. Increased frequency of 19 fires would cause an increase in the amount of 20 vegetation loss at a given time. 21 MS. POLLITT SMITH: And would it also 22 have an effect on the ability of these areas to 23 recover after a fire? Like, if you have an 24 increased -- if it keeps getting hit and hit again 25 with a fire, that would not only have a 4623 1 detrimental impact on the trees, but I'm assuming 2 you are talking about the material and the 3 nutrient material in the soil being burned off 4 which I'm assuming would have an impact on the 5 ability of the area to regenerate, is that true? 6 MR. DAVIES: That is true, yes. 7 MS. POLLITT SMITH: So increased 8 frequencies in fires, and I think you mentioned in 9 your EIS that you are anticipating, or there has 10 been an increase in fire frequency since the 11 1960s. I'm not sure if that is from the EIS or 12 whether I read it somewhere else, but there has 13 been an increase, and you are expecting increases, 14 or potential increases due to effects such as 15 global warming and increased human activity in 16 that area, is that true? 17 MR. DAVIES: We don't expect any 18 increases as a result of the project due to 19 mitigation that has been taking place, and that is 20 described in the EIS in the terrestrial volume, 21 volume 6. 22 MS. POLLITT SMITH: But there is a 23 chance, like not a chance, with effects like 24 global warming where you are potentially having a 25 dryer environment, there would be a greater 4624 1 potential for severe forest fires and more 2 frequent forest fires? 3 MR. DAVIES: If global warming occurs 4 and you have higher temperatures, you probably 5 would expect to see a greater frequency of forest 6 fires, that's correct. 7 MS. POLLITT SMITH: And 8 notwithstanding mitigation measures and fire 9 prevention measures and everything that is 10 included in your EIS, generally speaking the more 11 people you have in an area or the more people who 12 have access to an area, especially an area that is 13 say, due to global warming, dryer and potentially 14 a tinder box, if you have more people in that area 15 camping or whatever, you have a greater potential 16 for forest fires to start through human means. 17 MR. DAVIES: That was identified as a 18 concern in the EIS, and there was a discussion on 19 that. And that was one of the components that was 20 addressed through the access management plan, and 21 again that is controlling access, and also through 22 the fire suppression measures that are discussed 23 in the EIS. 24 MS. POLLITT SMITH: Moving from the 25 soils to the vegetation to the water. And I think 4625 1 it is easy to say that water has been a 2 significant resource in this region. People have 3 historically travelled down it to do their 4 trapping and hunting and fishing and things like 5 that. And the water in the region, and maybe you 6 can confirm this, from some of the reading that I 7 have done, I have read it is considered to be acid 8 sensitive, that things like acid precipitation can 9 have a more dramatic effect on the water in this 10 region, is that true? 11 MR. DAVIES: Acid precipitation can 12 have an effect on any water body. But the lakes 13 in the area wouldn't be particularly sensitive, 14 particularly with the addition of the Churchill 15 River Diversion because there is a greater 16 buffering capacity because of the nature of the 17 water. 18 MS. POLLITT SMITH: You said a greater 19 buffering capacity? 20 MR. DAVIES: That's right. 21 MS. POLLITT SMITH: And -- but what 22 about the effect of -- because from my 23 understanding high acidity in water stems from 24 industrial effects such as, you know, nickel 25 plants and things like that. So, since you have 4626 1 had a nickel plant going on there for quite some 2 time, would that not be creating increased 3 sensitivities in terms of the water? 4 MR. DAVIES: For most of the areas, 5 the Wuskwatim Lake area would be outside of the 6 area generally affected by acid rain with the 7 exception of Inco. The study that was done in 8 1981 by Selaney & Company did demonstrate that 9 Wuskwatim Lake would be in the secondary 10 depositional zone for Inco. So the amount of 11 deposition that would occur in the Wuskwatim Lake 12 area would be relatively small. There hasn't been 13 a lot of work that has been done since then, but 14 based on interviews with people at Inco we have 15 the understanding that the amount of production is 16 probably going to decline in the future rather 17 than increase. And again it is in the secondary 18 depositional zone, so we wouldn't expect to see a 19 significant effect of that. 20 MR. REMPEL: Just one point on that. 21 That issue was discussed in section 2, volume 4 of 22 the Wuskwatim GS, page 2-8 and wind data recorded 23 at Thompson was reviewed. And as Mr. Davies said, 24 this indicated that the study area would typically 25 not be subject to deposition from the industrial 4627 1 facilities operating in Thompson. Opegano Lake 2 may be within the secondary deposition zone of 3 emissions from Inco, but not the Wuskwatim Lake 4 area itself. 5 MS. POLLITT SMITH: And your 6 confidence in this information is based on studies 7 that are basically as old as I am? 8 MR. DAVIES: Certainly not as old as I 9 am. 1981 was, as far as I know, sort of the major 10 study that was undertaken by Inco. It is based on 11 that, but it is also based on wind direction in 12 the current operation and very recent, probably 13 within a year of filing the EIS, interviews with 14 Inco staff, key person interviews were conducted. 15 MS. POLLITT SMITH: But the numbers 16 that you are relying on and confident in are 20 17 odd years old? 18 MR. DAVIES: No, we are relying on the 19 key person interviews, the prevailing winds and 20 some of the information that was provided in the 21 1981 Selaney study. 22 MS. POLLITT SMITH: In terms of the 23 key person interviews, did they provide you with 24 data? Did they provide you with the numbers in 25 terms of emissions and deposit zones and things 4628 1 like that? 2 MR. DAVIES: They provided us with the 3 information that their emissions will be probably 4 decreasing in future rather than increasing. In 5 regards to the cumulative effects assessment that 6 was taken into account and that is described in 7 the EIS. 8 MS. POLLITT SMITH: So in terms of 9 what you are confident in -- they could still only 10 be just relying on 20 year old data, you don't 11 know what data they relied upon to tell you what 12 was happening with their emissions? 13 MR. DAVIES: They are relying on the 14 efficiency of their operation which they have a 15 much better understanding than I do, and also the 16 amount of ore that they are processing and what 17 their future plans are. 18 MR. MAYER: If I may, it is my 19 understanding that Inco continues to monitor their 20 emissions and are required to continue to monitor 21 their emissions, especially from the stack. It is 22 also my understanding that, at least Inco has 23 alleged, that the lake surrounding the community 24 are slightly basic and therefore less susceptible 25 to acid rain than one would ordinarily expect. Is 4629 1 that the information that you have? 2 MR. DAVIES: That's correct, and that 3 is why I was talking about the buffering capacity. 4 MR. REMPEL: I would like to add that 5 we did reference in page 2-6 that there was 6 ongoing monitoring of the Thompson operations, 7 Inco operations, and we do reference a Manitoba 8 Conservation report in 1997. So there was more 9 recent data. 10 MR. OSLER: There is also a review of 11 this in volume 10 of the generation studies, page 12 3-13 to 3-15 just in terms of the data base, 13 including the reference to the recent Manitoba 14 Conservation monitoring. 15 MS. POLLITT SMITH: And those -- 16 because I know you mentioned the studies on those 17 pages that you cited, but it doesn't say whether 18 those were published or whether they were publicly 19 available. It said they were expected out in 20 2003. 21 MR. OSLER: Yes, and it said also that 22 the sites, the 16 active monitoring sites 23 maintained by Manitoba Conservation are not 24 located in the Wuskwatim area. But it said they 25 were sampled in 1997 and 2002, and the report is 4630 1 tentatively scheduled for completion in 2003, 2 based on personal communication cited there. So I 3 don't know if we have more information now as to 4 whether those reports are out or not. 5 MS. POLLITT SMITH: So, I guess I was 6 trying to lay the ground work for in terms of the 7 soils and in terms of the vegetation and its 8 vulnerabilities, this could to some extent be 9 considered a vulnerable ecosystem, could it not? 10 MR. DAVIES: It wouldn't be considered 11 a vulnerable ecosystem because of Inco and other 12 operations occurring in the area, it would be 13 considered relatively pristine to some of the 14 other areas. 15 MS. POLLITT SMITH: Even though there 16 is nickel smelting operation on one -- at one 17 location, forestry operations going on in other 18 locations, a big hydro diversion project diverting 19 water from the Churchill River down the Nelson and 20 Burntwood River, it is pristine? 21 MR. DAVIES: If we are talking about 22 the terrestrial environment, the amount of habitat 23 that has been affected, in relation to the total 24 amount of habitat is relatively small. If we are 25 talking about the aquatic environment, that is 4631 1 definitely not pristine. 2 MS. POLLITT SMITH: The aquatic 3 environment perhaps you would consider vulnerable 4 then, or at least under stress? 5 MR. DAVIES: The aquatic environment 6 had a number of fairly large changes that occurred 7 in 1976. The largest changes occurred probably 8 between 1976 and the early 1980s and then we saw 9 things like erosion starting to decrease. We saw 10 mercury levels peak around 1984/85, and then start 11 to decrease. We are at a state right now in 12 regards to the aquatic environment where erosion 13 levels are either, in Wuskwatim Lake area itself, 14 are either stable or slightly decreasing. Mercury 15 levels have returned to approximately pre-project 16 levels. We see other water quality parameters 17 that are measured at Thompson not showing any 18 significant changes any more. So, we do have an 19 environment that did undergo some fairly large 20 changes in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and we 21 are seeing that environment becoming more stable 22 as time goes on. 23 MS. POLLITT SMITH: Would you say that 24 in terms of not just the aquatic environment, but 25 I'm thinking in terms of the vegetation and the 4632 1 soils and things like the projected frequency of 2 forest fires and things like that, that it could 3 be vulnerable to stress, this environment? 4 MR. DAVIES: The things that are more 5 vulnerable to stress are some of the animals that 6 live in the areas where the impacts are occurring. 7 If we take a look at muskrat populations and 8 beaver populations, they are affected annually by 9 water level draw downs and water level changes on 10 the lake. So those species are much more 11 vulnerable to change and have been impacted more 12 by the existing project, because those types of 13 operations and those changes occur on an annual 14 basis. When we did take a look at muskrat 15 populations and beaver populations that are still 16 affected, that was described in the EIS and they 17 formed -- the fact that they were being stressed 18 in the Wuskwatim Lake area, was described as part 19 of the existing environment. 20 MS. POLLITT SMITH: I don't know, I 21 just -- I know this cumulative effect assessment 22 paper was referenced by CASIL, the McLeod 23 Institute Guidelines. Are you aware of those 24 ones? 25 MR. DAVIES: Yes, I am. 4633 1 MS. POLLITT SMITH: I believe they 2 were mentioned in the interrogatories as well, so 3 I'm assuming that you are familiar with them. And 4 in terms of them talking about northern ecosystem, 5 they are talking about them being characterized by 6 high sensitive and low resilience to stress. 7 Would you agree with that assessment? In terms of 8 this ecosystem, would the same sorts of concerns 9 apply? 10 MR. OSLER: If you go to the McLeod, 11 they were dealing with the Northwest Territories, 12 if I'm not mistaken, and they were talking about 13 how to advise the Government to take this type of 14 assessment practice, and what they should be 15 thinking about out there. The more north you go 16 in that sense, you get the climate issues, the 17 short growing season, all sort of things that 18 increase sensitivity, and you might say 19 vulnerability to sudden changes brought about by 20 new developments. So, I put those comments that 21 they are making there in the context of the area 22 that they are writing about and the issues that 23 they are talking about coming at them in terms of 24 new developments. 25 We've tried to go beyond sort of the 4634 1 generality here and deal with each of the 2 environments that we are talking about, that you 3 have been going through, and try to figure out 4 where it is at in terms of the stresses that it 5 was subjected to in the context of say CRD. And a 6 lot of what you are hearing is that it isn't 7 accurate to say today that it is stressed in the 8 way that it was at all after the project occurred. 9 A lot of the adjusting process over 25 years or 10 more has taken place to the point that you have a 11 different -- you have a new environment today. I 12 think there is that point. 13 Is a northern environment, and the 14 more northern you get, tending to be vulnerable to 15 disruptions like this? Yes. In this particular 16 case there was a very big disruption in the CRD, 17 and a lot of changes happened over a period of 18 time that we talked about, and a number of things 19 have "come down back to where they were like 20 before," which is an indicator of how long it 21 takes in this environment for it to adapt to some 22 of the factors that we have been talking about. 23 MS. POLLITT SMITH: Okay. Moving 24 along to the next issue which I broach with great 25 trepidation, I actually just -- I know you were 4635 1 speaking about the cumulative effects assessment 2 in Mr. Abra's cross-examination last week, I think 3 it was last Tuesday, and I have a few I guess 4 questions of clarification on your methodologies 5 and the models that you chose. So, I guess I just 6 want you to -- I want to seek further 7 clarification and understanding on how you perform 8 this cumulative effects assessment. Now, my 9 understanding of the cumulative effects assessment 10 is it is like an environment management tool, is 11 that correct? 12 MR. OSLER: Well, it is a part of the 13 assessment of a project and the interpretation 14 that we've taken is that it is an integral part of 15 environmental assessment and it is environmental 16 impact assessment done well. So, it presumes you 17 are focusing on the problem of how to assess the 18 impact of a project, and it is an integral part of 19 the methodology required to do that. 20 MS. POLLITT SMITH: And in terms of 21 choosing the model that you are going to use to 22 assess the particular environment, there is no one 23 model, you sort of adapt the model that you are 24 going to use to the specifics, the project that 25 you are dealing with and the environment that you 4636 1 are dealing with, is that sort of right? 2 MR. OSLER: Sort of. What we try to 3 explain is that you deal with each one of the 4 environments that we are charged to look at, 5 physical, et cetera, aquatic, terrestrial. You 6 use the best tools that you have to look at the 7 issues that are in that environment relating to 8 the project that you are talking about. And in 9 that sense you may use what appear to be quite 10 different parameters in terms of space or time 11 that you are looking at, scoping, because the 12 nature of the effects are quite different 13 depending on the environment that you are talking 14 about or the issues that you have to address. 15 MS. POLLITT SMITH: So instead of one 16 tool for the project, you are using a bunch of 17 different tools for each aspect of the project? 18 MR. OSLER: I think I would be more 19 comfortable with that type of statement, yes. 20 MS. POLLITT SMITH: That makes things 21 way more clear for me, thank you. 22 And I suppose if we are going to 23 analyze the cumulative effects assessment that we 24 are looking at, is each different tool adequate to 25 assess each of the different components in the 4637 1 environment? 2 MR. OSLER: Yes, I think that is what 3 we have been inviting Mr. Abra and others to do, 4 is to get specific to the issue and the chain of 5 effects that we should be examining and see how 6 the tools are working in that context. 7 MS. POLLITT SMITH: So even for this 8 assessment, there is no definitive model that you 9 are using. Your model is shifting with each 10 component that you are examining, just so I 11 understand. 12 MR. OSLER: The word model to 13 practitioners has very specific types of meaning. 14 The approach in terms of philosophy and approach 15 of what you are trying to do doesn't fundamentally 16 change. But the tools that you use, whether you 17 are talking about, to take a terminology that you 18 heard about, habitat suitability index modeling, 19 or Mr. Davies may have mercury assessment models, 20 or Mr. Rempel may have erosion prediction models, 21 these are very specific tools to a very specific 22 set of issues. They may have very fundamental 23 similarities to some analyst that wants to look at 24 them in a very high level. But to me anyway they 25 look pretty different. And they are designed to 4638 1 deal with the specific issues for each profession 2 and each topic. 3 MS. POLLITT SMITH: You have your one 4 approach, I guess theme that you are following in 5 terms of how you are going to look at it -- 6 MR. OSLER: Conceptual framework 7 maybe. 8 MS. POLLITT SMITH: That is the word I 9 was fishing for. You have your conceptual 10 framework and that sort of informs each process 11 that you do in your evaluation. 12 MR. OSLER: I feel comfortable that is 13 a good way of describing what we are trying to 14 describe. 15 MS. POLLITT SMITH: In terms of your 16 particular conceptual framework that you used for 17 this project, I think you spoke of it in the 18 cross-examination. I want to get the exact quote 19 because I don't want to put words in your mouth, 20 you are speaking of in terms of -- I think Mr. 21 Abra was talking to you about scoping. And I 22 think you referenced section 3.1 in the 23 practitioner's guide. If you don't have it handy, 24 I made a bunch of copies. I don't know if anyone 25 needs one but -- 4639 1 MR. OSLER: I have it here. Do you 2 have any idea of what page in the transcript? 3 MS. POLLITT SMITH: In terms of the 4 transcript I don't have the page handy. But you 5 basically said what you have been saying, you are 6 talking about the scoping and you are talking 7 about including the past and present projects in 8 the baseline, and what you did there. And I think 9 you said something to the extent that you tended 10 to treat the existing and past projects as part of 11 the baseline for the analysis, and you said that 12 that was consistent with the practice in the 13 guidelines. Is that about what your thinking on 14 the matter is? 15 MR. OSLER: Yes. 16 MS. POLLITT SMITH: And so your basic 17 submission was that the practice of including the 18 past and present projects in the baseline is 19 consistent with what is suggested in the 20 guidelines. 21 MR. OSLER: It is consistent with 22 methods that are recognized in the guidelines to 23 be fairly often used, and it was recognized in the 24 earlier, 1994 practitioners -- I'm not suggesting 25 that is the only approach that you could take, but 4640 1 for this project that was the conceptual framework 2 that we took. And my point was it was consistent 3 with good practice as you can see by reading the 4 practitioners guide. 5 MS. POLLITT SMITH: I was puzzling 6 over this all weekend. You reference specifically 7 3.1, which dealt with the assessment framework, 8 and I just wanted to go through that to make sure 9 that I'm on the right track with what you are 10 doing here. You are talking about -- like, my 11 understanding when I'm reading section 3.1 is it 12 is talking about what an accumulative effects 13 assessment is and what a cumulative effects 14 assessment should do, is that correct, in terms of 15 what it is saying? 16 MR. OSLER: It is talking about the 17 assessment framework and a very high level review 18 of how you should approach it and the elements 19 that should be involved in it. 20 MS. POLLITT SMITH: In terms of the 21 framework, it contrasts what the cumulative 22 effects assessments is doing with what you would 23 do in an environmental impact assessment and it is 24 saying, as you said, a cumulative effects 25 assessment is an environmental impact assessment 4641 1 done well. And it is saying that you are 2 following -- the assessment framework is the same, 3 it is saying you are scoping, you are analyzing 4 the effects, you are identifying mitigation, you 5 are evaluating significance and then you are doing 6 follow-up. To my mind when I'm reading that it is 7 saying you have the two processes and they are 8 following a similar framework. Is that what that 9 section says? 10 MR. OSLER: We are jumping back and 11 forth between sections 2.1 and 3.1. 12 MS. POLLITT SMITH: Did I mention 2.1 13 before? 14 MR. OSLER: Well, the comment about it 15 is good practice and the way it has always been 16 done is actually in 2.1. But you were mentioning 17 3.1, and it is listing a series of steps, for 18 example, and our submission is that those steps 19 woud be part of a basic analysis, environmental 20 assessment analysis, the scoping, analysis of 21 effects, identification, mitigation, evaluation of 22 significance and follow-up. So there are certain 23 expansions that this guide suggests occur when you 24 are dealing with cumulative effects. You would 25 look beyond the footprint into the broader area. 4642 1 We do that as part of our basic assessment before 2 we even get into using the word cumulative. You 3 look at longer period time periods. The time 4 periods that we looked at in our basic assessment 5 were informed by the nature of the environmental 6 effect that we were dealing with and where 7 required were pretty long term. The VEC focuses 8 that we took weren't materially modified with a 9 few exceptions that I noted. So a lot of these 10 things that are listed here were part of the 11 practice that we adopted in the basic approach. 12 And essentially the difference in the cumulative 13 effects that we brought to the table when we did 14 what we call cumulative effects was to consciously 15 focus on certain future projects. In that sense 16 section 3.1 says, on about the third page, "with 17 the exception of the consideration of future 18 actions, the above," which is listing a bunch of 19 things that have to be done, "are identical to the 20 requirements of a good EIA. (The consideration of 21 the effects of other actions is not necessarily 22 new to CEA as the existing environmental setting 23 of a project has typically recognized other 24 actions at least within the EIA study area.)" 25 MS. POLLITT SMITH: So when you are 4643 1 looking at that quote -- your practice in terms of 2 what you did in this assessment is basically to 3 put it, I guess crudely, is you took what the 4 cumulative effects assessment requires, you 5 subtracted what you did in your very thorough EIS, 6 and you were left with looking at future 7 cumulative effects. 8 MR. OSLER: Yes. 9 MS. POLLITT SMITH: I guess the thing 10 that confused me is when you were speaking last 11 week, you were mentioning that these guidelines 12 endorse that kind of practice, but when I was 13 reading through this section it doesn't talk about 14 doing that sort of mathematical calculation in 15 terms of your assessment, I am not saying it is 16 wrong to do that, but it doesn't say that in the 17 guidelines. It just says this is how you do an 18 environmental impact assessment and a cumulative 19 effects assessment is doing this assessment but 20 doing it over a broader range, and it didn't 21 include any kind of endorsement of that kind of 22 technique of I guess that sort of mathematical 23 approach to the problem, like killing two birds 24 with one stone I guess. 25 MR. OSLER: I agree that it doesn't 4644 1 explicitly state this is the way to do it, the way 2 we are doing it. My point is that it is 3 consistent with the practice laid out here. It 4 was much more explicitly stated in the 1994 5 reference guide that it was quite normal for 6 people to already include in their baseline 7 assessment the existing and past projects. So I'm 8 looking at the issue in terms of reading these 9 things over time, and it is not a novel idea for 10 people to do good practice to include the existing 11 baseline when they are looking at the materials 12 that are there. Really, the spirit of cumulative 13 effects assessment has forced broad practice to be 14 better and specifically has focused attention on 15 thinking about things that aren't there yet, the 16 projects that will be carried out, and trying to 17 get some ground rules as to how far you should go 18 in thinking about them. 19 MS. POLLITT SMITH: But in terms of 20 the -- like how you use the guidelines is 21 basically it didn't tell you to do this, you are 22 extrapolating from what you have read and your own 23 experience, and it is not -- what you are doing 24 isn't wrong but it is not what was in these 25 particular guidelines. 4645 1 MR. OSLER: It doesn't direct you to 2 do only this. It allows you to do this as part of 3 good practice. You could write up -- there has 4 been some questions given to us by the CEC as to 5 different ways you could tackle writing a 6 cumulative effects assessment. You could do it as 7 an integral part of the job, the way we have done 8 it. And in that sense the EIS guidelines we were 9 given, we interpreted to direct us towards using 10 this as an integral part of our assessment. You 11 could also do it I guess in terms of the guide as 12 a separate document entirely, separately analyzed, 13 separately written up as an entirely separate 14 volume, and some practitioners in some 15 circumstances may do that. We did not. We took 16 the integral approach. 17 MS. POLLITT SMITH: So you didn't 18 follow what was -- like, I guess the point I'm 19 just trying to make is you didn't follow what was 20 in the -- the guidelines don't express this as 21 best practice, you followed the guidelines for 22 most of what you were doing, but in terms of how 23 you applied the cumulative effects settlement you 24 sort of jumped off the page and used -- not used 25 your own methodology, but adopted your own best 4646 1 practice based on your past experience. 2 MR. OSLER: I wouldn't agree with 3 that. You are characterizing us like a lemming 4 going to the edge of the cliff and jumping off, 5 and you can appreciate the degree of nervousness 6 that -- 7 MS. POLLITT SMITH: I choice the wrong 8 metaphor, I am sorry. 9 MR. OSLER: I think my point again is 10 that the approach that we took we think is 11 consistent with good practice as described in the 12 1994 reference guide and is written up in the 13 practitioners guide that you are referencing. I 14 acknowledge that the practitioners guide does not 15 direct everybody to do it the way that we have 16 done it. It allows latitude to do things many 17 different ways. But the way we took was well 18 within the ambit of the latitude and the 19 approaches that are called good practice by the 20 guide. 21 MS. POLLITT SMITH: But the directors 22 guide doesn't advocate that approach at all, as 23 far as I could see in that section. It is 24 basically contrasting the two methods -- 25 THE CHAIRMAN: You are being 4647 1 repetitious with your question and you are leading 2 to repetitious answers. 3 MS. POLLITT SMITH: Sorry, I will move 4 on to the next point. In terms of the scoping 5 that you did for your cumulative effects 6 assessment, considering the fact that you included 7 past and present projects in the baseline for your 8 cumulative effects assessment, in terms of your 9 temporal scoping, does that mean that when you 10 performed your initial environmental impact 11 assessment that the temporal scoping you did was 12 comparable to what would be expected in a 13 cumulative effects assessment? In terms of that, 14 how far back in time did you look? 15 MR. OSLER: In terms of looking 16 backwards in time as part of the temporal scoping, 17 where it was appropriate in order to understand 18 the nature of the baseline, you have heard 19 evidence of the erosion, mercury, sediment, people 20 look back to the time period before the CRD and 21 looked at the nature of the changes that have 22 occurred since then and where we are in the 23 changes that have been going on. So in some cases 24 we looked back pre-CRD as a matter of just doing 25 the analysis. In terms of the general conceptual 4648 1 framework, we were looking at the baseline as it 2 exists today with all of the effects that have 3 come from past and current projects and trying to 4 focus our mind moving forward more than setting 5 any particular time period to "look backward." We 6 did not set a specific time period like some 7 studies did and said, well, we are going to look 8 backward ten years and forward ten years. I'm 9 paraphrasing a CSR report done by DFO for the 10 project in Quebec, which they literally talked 11 about their parameters that way. We didn't do it 12 that way in terms of going back. 13 MS. POLLITT SMITH: So you did 14 consider some aspects of the historical baseline 15 pre-CRD? 16 MR. OSLER: Some specific cases that I 17 noted and they have been talked about at length on 18 the record, and the reasons we did it is because 19 the practitioners in those areas wanted to 20 understand where we were and so did the clients. 21 22 MS. POLLITT SMITH: In terms of 23 looking forward in terms of dealing with the 24 baseline, you have your past and present projects, 25 their effects don't stop at the baseline. How do 4649 1 you account for them in terms of future cumulative 2 effects? I know in terms of looking at the EIS, 3 you mentioned that some variables you did include 4 in the cumulative effects assessment in terms of 5 the Churchill River Diversion. I think the only 6 one that I found was, there was a particular tree 7 that grows within 300 metres of the water. That 8 was the only one that I could find. Were there 9 any others? 10 MR. OSLER: You did very well if you 11 found that. There were a couple of exceptions 12 where the analyst, and that was somebody from the 13 terrestrial side, looking at it specifically 14 wanted to think about the problem under cumulative 15 effects, while everybody else was looking at it 16 from the point of view of a baseline effect. So 17 they called it a cumulative effect, and it was a 18 shoreline tree, and they were looking at the issue 19 of erosion. But there weren't, to my knowledge, I 20 can't think about any other ones that people 21 explicitly went backwards, when looking at what 22 they called the cumulative effects, unless Stuart 23 can remember one. 24 MR. DAVIES: We did look at mercury in 25 terms of what it was prior to CRD, and we 4650 1 discussed it previously. Just in terms of your 2 tree, if you are interested, it was white spruce, 3 and the majority grow within 300 metres of the 4 water. And that was taken into account in the 5 assessment. 6 MS. POLLITT SMITH: Is there a 7 conceptual difference in the analysis, in terms of 8 just looking at this stuff in the baseline and 9 moving forward with a, I guess an evolving 10 baseline, and looking at it as part of the 11 cumulative effects assessment, there was this 12 White Birch tree that was a part of it, and 13 everything else you just included in the baseline. 14 I guess the question that I have is, is there a 15 difference in the analysis that you are doing in 16 terms of why one particular component was part of 17 the cumulative effects assessment and everything 18 else was in the baseline? 19 MR. OSLER: Conceptually, if you do it 20 properly, it doesn't matter whether you approach 21 the problem as part of the baseline, or you 22 approach it the way that one particular tree was 23 looked at. And when you are trying to do 24 something this large, with all of the various 25 practitioners involved, generally speaking, the 4651 1 conceptual framework that we are talking about 2 ended up being used all of the way through, and 3 there were a few exceptions and they reflect just 4 the timing of how that issue unfolded with that 5 particular discipline and how they wrote up that 6 particular set of issues. The point in the end 7 is, did they do the job of looking at it, yes or 8 no? And that is the requirement for good 9 practice, and hence the requirement also in the 10 law for the CEAA. 11 MS. POLLITT SMITH: Okay. Moving off 12 this somewhat tedious topic to my last section, 13 dealing with adverse effects and the significance 14 of adverse effects -- just before I move on, I 15 just got a note from the boss. I haven't seen 16 actually that reference from the 1994 guide, could 17 you provide it -- that we talking about earlier in 18 terms of the cumulative effects assessment? 19 MR. OSLER: I don't know whether it is 20 in the record. I have a very marked up copy. We 21 can see if we can get you a clean copy. It is on 22 the website too. 23 MS. POLLITT SMITH: Which one? 24 MR. OSLER: Canadian Environmental 25 Assessment Agency's website. Do you want a copy? 4652 1 MS. POLLITT SMITH: If you could 2 provide me with one, that would be swimming. 3 MR. OSLER: Do you just want one 4 yourself, or do you want one for the whole record? 5 MS. POLLITT SMITH: Unless the record 6 wants one, but I would like to see one for myself. 7 That would be greetly appreciated. Thank you. 8 9 (UNDERTAKING # MH-70: Produce copy of CEAA 1994 10 guide) 11 12 MS. POLLITT SMITH: Moving on to the 13 last section -- which hopefully won't proceed for 14 too long -- dealing with the significance of 15 adverse effects, actually, when I was looking at 16 section 3.1, it is spurred me to thinking about 17 this. In terms of the analysis you followed in 18 terms of determining adverse effects and the 19 significance of effects, you followed an analysis 20 that runs from your initial scoping to the 21 analysis of the effects, to the mitigation, to the 22 significance, and then to the follow-up; is that 23 correct? 24 MR. OSLER: Generally, yes. 25 MS. POLLITT SMITH: Okay. 4653 1 MR. OSLER: I mean, significance was 2 something taken into account after considering 3 mitigation would be recommended or predicted. 4 MS. POLLITT SMITH: But you generally 5 consider significance after mitigation? 6 MR. OSLER: Definitely. 7 MS. POLLITT SMITH: When I was reading 8 through section 3.1, it also mentions that it is 9 also a valid practice to consider mitigation after 10 significance, in which case you would be 11 looking -- I guess when you put significance 12 first, you are looking at the best case scenario; 13 and when you put effects before mitigation, or 14 significance before mitigation, you are looking at 15 the worst case scenario. And that is also valid 16 practice; is that correct? 17 MR. OSLER: Well, you can't, as a 18 matter of good practice, look at it only before 19 mitigation. You have an obligation and a 20 requirement to look at it after mitigation. In 21 fact, residual effects section of the guidelines 22 that we were given require that, in the EIS 23 guidelines for both projects, and the CEAA, 24 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, section 16, 25 requires that you effectively involve thinking 4654 1 about all of these things, but when you go to the 2 CEAA, what they call the CEAA determinations by 3 the Minister, or the responsible authority, it has 4 to be done after consideration of the mitigation. 5 So your bottom line requirement is to make a 6 determination based on what will happen after all 7 mitigation that is predicted, recommended, 8 assumed, or required. If you want to go about a 9 process of considering significance in a two-step 10 way, looking at it before and after mitigation, 11 there is nothing to stop you from doing that, it 12 is not necessarily bad practice. But if you want 13 to cut to the chase, you have to do it after 14 mitigation that you are recommending or assuming. 15 MS. POLLITT SMITH: By looking at 16 significance after mitigation, that is generally 17 there is an inherent assumption that all of the 18 mitigation measures are going to work, that you 19 have accounted for everything, and that things are 20 going to be mitigated -- like whatever is left, 21 like the effects that came before have been 22 100 percent mitigated, you are making sort of a 23 prediction? 24 MR. OSLER: You are making a 25 prediction, but you have an obligation to comment 4655 1 on its levels of likelihood. The key words are 2 "adverse, significant,"after mitigation," and 3 "likely." And you have to address -- if it is 4 something that is physical, you will plant so many 5 trees, you will put together this much habitat 6 replacement, you will design the spillway this 7 way, those types of things, okay, they are 8 relatively straight forward. But as Mr. Davies 9 has pointed out, dealing with DFO, there will 10 often be a monitoring program required to monitor 11 whether or not the net habitat replacement is 12 going to work, and there will be an ongoing 13 obligation to do extra measures if the predicted 14 effects or the predicted mitigation that you are 15 saying is going to work doesn't bear up to fruit. 16 So, the likelihood issue is not swept under the 17 rug at all. 18 MS. POLLITT SMITH: So I guess the 19 point that I'm trying to make is that when you do 20 this assessment, you are relying, you are counting 21 on identifying all of the environmental effects 22 and mitigating all of the environmental effects, 23 and I think you do identify in your EIS, but there 24 is a level of uncertainty involved in that 25 process? 4656 1 MR. OSLER: Very definitely, and as 2 you have elicited in your cross-exam, there is 3 always the issue of the effects that you didn't 4 predict, such as happened with mercury in the 5 context of the Churchill River Diversion studies 6 in the 1970s, a new effect emerged afterwards. So 7 you always have to be humble enough to recognize 8 that that can happen again. 9 MS. POLLITT SMITH: And as with 10 mercury, these unforeseen effects can have a huge 11 untold impact on what happens and they can't be 12 accounted for? 13 MR. OSLER: They can, yes. 14 MS. POLLITT SMITH: You just took my 15 next point, so I have to move on. In terms of 16 measuring significance, that involves various 17 value judgments; isn't that correct? 18 MR. OSLER: Not necessarily. I think 19 I read out at one point, there is another guide 20 issued on assessing significance, a reference 21 guide determining whether a project is likely to 22 cause significant adverse environmental effects 23 put out by the Canadian Environmental Assessment 24 Agency. The point that I made there was that the 25 concept is very much one of scientific analysis 4657 1 rather than value judgment. For example, I quoted 2 the part of the guide that talked about, where 3 does public input fit in? And the point was made 4 that issues that are not directly linked to the 5 scientific (including traditional ecological 6 knowledge) analysis of environmental effects, such 7 as long term unemployment in a community, or 8 fundamental personal values, cannot be introduced 9 in the determination at this step, meaning the 10 step of evaluating significance. Those types of 11 matters, in the Canadian Environmental Assessment 12 practice, belong in a panel level, or mitigation 13 level of assessment, not an assessment of 14 significance by a RA or a Minister. So it is not 15 the concept, the way the Canadian Environmental 16 Assessment practice is put out, it is not the 17 concept of different values, it is the concept of 18 assessing scientifically in the area that you are 19 looking at whether there is a likelihood of a 20 significant adverse effect on that particular 21 component of the environment. It cannot be 22 justified in this analysis by saying there is a 23 better effect somewhere else that affects it, or 24 it is good for society, or somebody just doesn't 25 like it. It is not quite as simple as that. 4658 1 When we do bring value in, if you 2 like, as in saying these VECs are very important 3 to people, that is a place where value comes in. 4 And I explained earlier that when trying to 5 explain all of this to a mixed -- to any set of 6 clients and people, but in particular in 7 Aboriginal communities that have been affected by 8 the CRD, the issue of not considering their values 9 is not something that is easily accepted. 10 Traditional knowledge includes, among other 11 things, what is valued. 12 MS. POLLITT SMITH: So in terms of 13 measuring significance for your purposes, you are 14 looking more at what can be quantified than -- 15 MR. OSLER: Quantified or 16 qualitatively professionally assessed by 17 practitioners, and that would include traditional 18 knowledge practitioners. 19 MS. POLLITT SMITH: Just going to 20 something you said, you were talking about how 21 effects cannot be offset against one another. So 22 you are saying that never occurred in -- because I 23 seem to recall reading about the Bald Eagle and 24 talking about the effect that the changed water 25 regime is going to have on its habitat. But the 4659 1 negative effects for its habitat loss would be 2 offset by the fact that all of the -- there is 3 going to be fish going through the turbines and it 4 is going to have some free lunches. So that is a 5 different process in terms of the EIS then? 6 MR. OSLER: There is two different 7 types of -- there is probably many different types 8 of ways that you can think about offsetting 9 issues. One of them is when you are looking at 10 the Bald Eagle, or you are looking at Mr. Davies' 11 fish, a particular species of fish, it may be that 12 in one aspect the Bald Eagle is being subjected to 13 some negative factors, and in the other aspects 14 the Bald Eagle is getting some free lunch, and 15 overall you are trying to assess the overall 16 effect on the Bald Eagle, as if that is a VEC of 17 what this project is doing. In that sense it is 18 not uncommon for people to look at, to try to 19 assess the pluses and minuses of the effect on 20 that VEC. 21 What I was getting at was the fact 22 that the Bald Eagle may end up being assessed to 23 be getting a good deal doesn't do you any good 24 when you try to assess the fish per se. The fish 25 have got to be assessed on their own merit. There 4660 1 was a question that Mr. Abra raised with me, you 2 have to look at each VEC from its own point of 3 view, that is what I took to be the point. You 4 have to look at the Bald Eagle from the Bald 5 Eagle's point of view, you have got to look at 6 each fish species from its point of view and 7 assess overall what is happening to them, to that 8 VEC. 9 MS. POLLITT SMITH: In terms of values 10 and following the significance for each VEC, what 11 about the poor Leopard Frog, I haven't heard much 12 about the poor Leopard Frog, and I thought I would 13 bring it up. Because the Leopard Frog has no 14 economic profile, and it is of low economic value 15 to anyone, but it is considered an ecological 16 indicator; is that not true? 17 MR. DAVIES: I actually wrote a paper 18 on Rana pipiens as a young man. Frogs in general 19 are good indicators of environmental change, yes. 20 MS. POLLITT SMITH: When you are 21 assessing the significance on the leopard frog, 22 from the reading that I have done, it is an 23 important ecological indicator. Over the last 20 24 years, mysterious things have been happening with 25 the leopard frog and it has been disappearing from 4661 1 the boreal forest region, and in terms of this 2 environmental impact assessment, you are talking 3 about losing the limited habitat that it has in 4 the area, but it is of low significance? 5 MR. DAVIES: There were three frogs 6 potentially in the area, I think it was the boreal 7 forest frog, the wood Frog, and the leopard frog. 8 The leopard frog actually wasn't found in the 9 area, the other two are. 10 MS. POLLITT SMITH: But it is of the 11 boreal forest? 12 MR. DAVIES: It does occur in some 13 areas, yes. 14 MS. POLLITT SMITH: You were looking 15 for the leopard frog when you were doing your EIS; 16 right? 17 MR. DAVIES: Basically, we were 18 looking for all types of frogs, but the three that 19 were expected to occur in the area were those 20 three. 21 MS. POLLITT SMITH: It is not so much 22 that the leopard frog doesn't occur, but that you 23 didn't find it, or is there any traditional 24 knowledge concerning the leopard frog, because I 25 trust that more than scientific studies right 4662 1 now? 2 MR. DAVIES: We did talk to the local 3 residents and did access traditional knowledge on 4 that. As far as I know, there wasn't any 5 information provided to say that they were in the 6 area. Both the other ones were both found and 7 both acknowledged by NCN as occurring in the area. 8 MS. POLLITT SMITH: So the loss of 9 their habitat was considered insignificant because 10 they are not as important, a leopard frog, that 11 you didn't find in the area? 12 MR. DAVIES: No, the leopard frog 13 normally occurs in more southern areas, but there 14 is the potential that they could occur there, so 15 they were looked for, but they don't normally go 16 that far north. 17 MS. POLLITT SMITH: I thought I had to 18 bring up the leopard frog because no one else 19 would. 20 In terms of the last short area I want 21 to cover, it is in terms of the mitigation 22 measures that you have in place. And in terms of 23 the access management plan, you have spoken of 24 adaptive management, and what are the benefits of 25 putting adaptive management in place. My 4663 1 understanding is that for the access management 2 plan, you are going to be adapting the plan during 3 the construction phase, taking into account any 4 detrimental things that happen and adapting it to 5 what occurs; is that true? 6 MR. OSLER: Yes, in a sense -- you are 7 thinking of the road access management plan in 8 particular. The word I guess "adaptive 9 management" is being used in two senses there. 10 One is the operation plan will be developed, 11 refined over the period of construction based on 12 what we have learned, what NCN and Manitoba Hydro 13 have learned during that time period, as well as 14 new things that may emerge such as Nelson House 15 resource management area planning exercises that 16 would provide context for management planning. In 17 addition, the way in which the access management 18 plan is structured would also allow for a shorter 19 run adaptive management in the sense that the 20 parties can look at the results on a year-by-year 21 basis, and see whether or not they have problems 22 that are emerging and that they need to adapt new 23 measures for. The concept of adaptive management 24 involves an iterative thinking where you don't go 25 just to sleep and say I have done it, but you look 4664 1 at results, and you talk to the right people, and 2 decide whether or not you have to do something new 3 in order to achieve your goals. In both senses, 4 the access management plan envisages the 5 opportunity for adaptive management. 6 MS. POLLITT SMITH: That is basically 7 the benefit of the plan, is that if you are 8 working with sort of imperfect knowledge on 9 everything that is going to happen, you can adapt 10 it to changes that occur while you are going. Are 11 there also risks associated with using such a 12 plan? 13 MR. OSLER: Yes, in the sense that it 14 leaves open the process of making sure that 15 somebody is paying attention to the mechanism 16 called adaptive management, and if they don't, it 17 will not do what it is intended to do. If 18 somebody doesn't do the monitoring, somebody 19 doesn't review the results, somebody doesn't have 20 regular sessions to assess whether or not there is 21 a need for new action, then adaptive management, 22 dependent as it is on human beings, will not do 23 what it is assumed to be doing. 24 It isn't intended to be a substitute 25 for doing those things that can be done and locked 4665 1 in. It is more -- when you are dealing with road 2 access, you are dealing with the issue of whether 3 people coming into the area may do excessive 4 hunting, fishing, trapping, et cetera, among other 5 things. It is a human being related issue. You 6 have to think of some way to manage the human 7 beings, if you are going to let them into the area 8 at all. So humans, being what they are, merit 9 close attention to adaptive management techniques. 10 You have to pay attention to what they are 11 actually doing from time to time and see whether 12 or not it is fitting into your objectives. 13 MS. POLLITT SMITH: So ideally the 14 adaptive management plan would work best if 15 someone is looking over the shoulder of whoever is 16 implementing the plan to make sure they are doing 17 it? 18 MR. OSLER: Not necessarily. If the 19 people involved are conscientious, concerned, and 20 directly involved in the results, they don't 21 necessarily need anybody looking over their 22 shoulder. If they are not, if there is nobody 23 involved who has a direct interest in the 24 outcomes, then you may need to make sure that 25 there are some people involved who have a direct 4666 1 interest in the outcomes. 2 MS. POLLITT SMITH: Looking at other 3 types, have you considered in terms of this 4 project -- I mean, it seems that in terms of the 5 environmental effects and the long-term effects of 6 this project, there is a lot of public interest. 7 Have you considered undertaking any kind of, I 8 suppose like an environmental audit or something, 9 like presenting the public with information on 10 regular intervals with what has been done, what 11 needs to be done, I guess seeking some sort of, I 12 guess review for what you are doing, to keep the 13 public involved in what you are doing and also to 14 let people criticize what you are doing, and make 15 sure that, you know, sort of I guess have someone 16 proof read what you are doing as you go along? 17 MR. OSLER: I think that the clients 18 can address their considerations, but our 19 understanding is that the nature of this project 20 it, as has been said many times in this hearing, 21 the first time in a long time that somebody has 22 tried to develop a new hydroelectric project in 23 this area, the first time it has been done this 24 way, and in Manitoba Hydro's expectations or 25 hopes, it will be the first of some other ones. 4667 1 In which case I will be very confident that any 2 monitoring that is done, any reviews that are 3 done, will get an awful lot of attention in the 4 next five years, ten years, whenever these other 5 projects are being looked at. And I wouldn't be 6 at all surprised if the regulatory agencies and 7 the clients would want to make sure that they find 8 a way to help the public review this type of thing 9 in an orderly way. 10 MR. DAVIES: There is a commitment in 11 the Environmental Impact Statement for annual 12 reviews in the community of Nelson House with the 13 NCN members. The reports will also be made 14 public. I think there was a commitment made that 15 that will be put on the public registry. In 16 addition to that, all of the reports on the 17 aquatic side will be reviewed by the Department of 18 Fisheries and Oceans and Manitoba Conservation, 19 and the reports on the terrestrial side will be 20 reviewed by Manitoba Conservation. 21 MS. POLLITT SMITH: And I am assuming 22 you would also, at the same time, be continuing to 23 do research and adding to your knowledge base, as 24 well as reporting in terms of what is going on in 25 the area and things like that? 4668 1 MR. DAVIES: There is detailed 2 monitoring plans that have been provided, and 3 there is also some additional research that is 4 currently being undertaken, actually even before 5 the project. 6 MS. POLLITT SMITH: Because research 7 and monitoring are basically two different things, 8 right? Like monitoring, you are checking out what 9 is happening, but in-depth research on the 10 region -- especially considering I suppose since 11 you are planning to do more operations in the 12 region, that you could build a reservoir of 13 knowledge that can be used in later operations? 14 MR. DAVIES: There is two types of 15 research, one is peer research and the second is 16 applied research. Peer research is normally done 17 to create a larger knowledge base that other 18 people can use for purposes in the future. 19 Applied research is generally research that can be 20 more readily adapted to the situation on hand. 21 The research that would be conducted for Wuskwatim 22 would be applied research. 23 MS. POLLITT SMITH: And in terms of 24 the fact that you are planning to develop -- 25 MR. ADAMS: Before you move on, I 4669 1 would like to respond to the suggestion of a 2 public review. As our environmental consultants 3 said, we continue to do a tremendous amount of 4 monitoring and research of various kinds, and that 5 is published for peer review. The regulators, and 6 in this case there would be at least three, 7 probably more, require extensive reporting, and 8 that sort of information is provided to the 9 regulators, and as far as I know, it becomes 10 public the moment that we provide it to them. 11 Manitoba Hydro also issues on an annual basis what 12 we call a sustainable development report which 13 discusses a wide range of environmental and other 14 social issues, which is a form of accountability 15 process. Under the Crown Corporations 16 Accountability Act we have to submit ourselves, 17 once a year in three different locations, to 18 public review of anything that the public wants. 19 I shudder at the thought of initiating a specific 20 public review of an Environmental Impact Statement 21 several years after the effect. 22 MR. DAVIES: Just to give an idea of 23 the geographic extent of dissemination of some of 24 the information, NCN and Manitoba Hydro have 25 approved that Dr. Janzen, who is the mercury 4670 1 expert that has been working on the project, to 2 give a paper in Ljubijana, Slovenia in regards to 3 the information that was collected for Wuskwatim. 4 So the information is also taken and being 5 disseminated at an international level. 6 MR. ADAMS: One final point I would 7 like to make, to the extent that we can, the 8 environmental monitoring and research that we 9 conduct is usually done in consultation with the 10 community most locally affected. So in that 11 respect, it is a form of public review, but it is 12 not a review such as this, but certainly the 13 community most affected is involved in that 14 process most of the time. 15 MR. OSLER: One last point on that is 16 that I responded to your question in the context 17 of the broad public. It is an integral part of 18 the recommended monitoring that it be reported on 19 regularly in a language that can be understood to 20 the NCN members and any other group that is 21 actively interested in terms of affected party 22 downstream, or anything else in terms of results. 23 So I was taking the thrust of your question to be 24 the broader public, beyond those that reside at 25 NCN or would be interested directly as communities 4671 1 downstream in particular aspects of water quality 2 monitoring. 3 MS. POLLITT SMITH: Okay. In terms of 4 the last little question that I have, basically 5 continuing on with the various types of management 6 processes for once you have Wuskwatim in place, 7 and I think you actually do mention in your EIS 8 like land use studies and regional planning, and 9 my understanding is that you are concentrating 10 that on -- or at least I think it was in the 11 cumulative effects assessment guide that it was 12 dealing mostly with the regional NCN area, but not 13 much outside of that area. Have you ever 14 considered land use planning in the context of the 15 wider area, and in terms of including the other 16 industries that develop projects in the area, like 17 the forestry industry, the Inco smelter, mining, 18 and things like that, considering they are all 19 going to be -- they are all taking a piece out of 20 the boreal environment and they are all going to 21 be continuing to develop in that area, continuing 22 land use studies or working in tandem with these 23 other interests. I know you have consulted with 24 the Inco people. Have you consulted with others, 25 and are you continuing to consult, and are there 4672 1 plans to incorporate research together instead of 2 doing your separate studies? 3 MR. OSLER: Just to be very specific, 4 what we have said in the EIS, the generation, for 5 example, section 1.5.5, page 1-18, we have focused 6 on article 6 of the 1996 Northern Flood 7 Implementation Agreement between NCN, Manitoba 8 Hydro, Manitoba and Canada, and the process that 9 is laid out there for land use and resource 10 management planning by NCN and Manitoba for the 11 5.6 million acres of land in the Nelson House 12 resource management area. So we have focused on 13 that because that is the area that is the biggest 14 affected area of the generation station, and there 15 is a planning process framework established by 16 that agreement, and an ongoing process for dealing 17 with that particular area in all of its respects. 18 There are other resource management 19 planning areas downstream, for example, 20 Tataskweyak Cree and Split Lake resource 21 management area, the transmission line, the 22 Cormorant resource management area, and I believe 23 that OCN is developing a framework of some 24 understandings, but Mr. Hicks can confirm that. 25 The point is that where there is a 4673 1 resource management planning in a board sense, we 2 tried to note it and fit within it, involving the 3 local community and Manitoba. Beyond that, we 4 haven't considered anything beyond the sort of 5 scope and approach to specific monitoring programs 6 of the type you have heard for DFO or for 7 particular interests. The resource management 8 planning that I just referred to is still, I would 9 think it is safe to say, in the early stages of 10 evolution, and one would expect to see that evolve 11 to meet its objectives with those communities. 12 And then maybe in the longer run, other things may 13 emerge in the whole area that we are talking 14 about. 15 I think you also heard reference, in 16 an answer by Manitoba Hydro, to do with Sturgeon, 17 I think the general answer given on Thursday about 18 all of the various things they have been doing, 19 one of the areas they talked about was Sturgeon. 20 In the case of some very specific things like 21 that, there have been broader monitoring and 22 review processes that go beyond the specific 23 communities, one community at a time if I'm not 24 mistaken. Maybe somebody else could elaborate on 25 that, either Hydro or Mr. Davies. 4674 1 MR. HICKS: Just to speak to the 2 transmission line for a moment, certainly the 3 emphasis in the case of the generating station and 4 portions of the transmission line is on the 5 Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation and its resource area, 6 but the transmission line also traverses the Town 7 of Snow Lake, the community of Cormorant, who has 8 a resource management area of which it is a 9 co-manager. The Opaskwayak Cree Nation in The Pas 10 are in process of negotiating a similar sort of 11 resource management arrangement with the Province, 12 although it is not firm at this point in time. 13 And throughout all those areas we have 14 communicated and consulted with the people 15 responsible for them. We have also talked, 16 wherever we were able to identify other activities 17 or projects that were either ongoing or in the 18 process of cumulative effects likely to be an 19 issue for us. We have talked to, for example, 20 Tolko. We endeavored to share research 21 information with them. We talked to lodge 22 operators and outfitters in the area. We have 23 talked to trappers and resource harvesters in all 24 cases with a view to trying to assemble and 25 assimilate as much as we can of their knowledge 4675 1 and understanding of the way the landscape works 2 and the way that things interrelate within that 3 landscape. 4 MS. POLLITT SMITH: You say you have 5 talked with Tolko. In terms of these other sort 6 of economic or industrial interests in the area, 7 have you engaged in say joint study programs, or 8 trying to come up with sort of an environmental 9 study of the area with other economic interests 10 that are having huge environmental impacts on the 11 area, not in terms of like a cumulative -- I mean, 12 this one you are looking at the cumulative effects 13 assessment on Wuskwatim, but you are going to be 14 developing more hydroelectric development in the 15 area, and I'm assuming these other interests will 16 as well, like in terms of smelting plant things, 17 and forestry, and issues like that? 18 MR. ADAMS: Make sure -- be careful we 19 don't get our roles confused here. From our 20 perspective, the concepts of lodge area planning 21 and resource management is not Manitoba Hydro's 22 responsibility, it is a Government responsibility. 23 And that is the way it plays out with the resource 24 management areas between the Province and First 25 Nations -- what do they call it -- the large area 4676 1 planning that the Government is facilitating on 2 the east side of the lake right now. Manitoba 3 Hydro, and I can't speak for Tolko or Inco, but 4 Manitoba Hydro is perfectly willing to participate 5 in these activities. Because we do expect to 6 continue to be developing in the -- for the 7 foreseeable future. From our perspective, the 8 initiative has to be taken by the person 9 responsible for allocating and managing the 10 resource. 11 MS. POLLITT SMITH: Okay. I think 12 that is the bulk of my questions. Thank you. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mayer. 14 MR. MAYER: One issue that came out of 15 the last piece of cross-examination is this issue 16 of adaptive management. And I'm wondering, we 17 have just been provided with Dr. Schaffer's paper, 18 and I'm wondering if anybody has had an 19 opportunity to read it yet? For interest's sake, 20 you seem to have said a lot of the things that he 21 recommends, so I guess we will hear about that 22 tomorrow? 23 MR. OSLER: You will probably hear 24 more about the things that we didn't say. 25 Would you like, Mr. Chairman, you 4677 1 posed a question to us last week about the map and 2 the access road and the streams, and we have had 3 ready to go, at the right time, a response to 4 that. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: I would prefer, if they 6 are ready to go, that we proceed with the 7 O-Pipon-Na-Piwin cross-exam. Are you prepared to 8 proceed with your cross-exam at this time? No. 9 Are there other groups that are ready 10 to proceed at this time? 11 Then, Mr. Osler, we will take up that 12 proposition. 13 MR. REMPEL: Actually, Mr. Cam 14 MacInnes, an NCN technical advisor will make a 15 short presentation discussion on this matter. He 16 will show a map -- I believe that was your 17 request, Mr. Chair, to show a map of the access 18 road area, so we will fire up the computer and 19 then Mr. MacInnes will speak to it. 20 MR. MACINNES: Mr. Chairman, you will 21 recall that last Tuesday towards the closing, you 22 indicated that you might have been asleep at the 23 switch, and that we switched off on to another 24 topic, but we didn't forget. 25 The question that you posed was, how 4678 1 did the road get where it is? And I thought that 2 we should step back a little bit and describe the 3 process that NCN and Manitoba Hydro used to come 4 to the position of the proposed access road. 5 The process actually took place over a 6 period of about 18 months, between mid 2000 and 7 the end of 2001. There was an entity entitled the 8 alternatives committee which was set up. It 9 included about a dozen members, the core group of 10 it included about a dozen members of NCN, 11 including some of the people in this room, Charlie 12 Joe Hart, and Terry Linklater, and Jimmy Spence, 13 and Ron Spence I can see back there. These are 14 NCN resource users and managers and people who 15 know the land. In addition to that, there were 16 members of Manitoba Hydro, technical people, 17 engineers, and added to that were a number of the 18 consultants that are members of the Environmental 19 Management Team, some of the people in the back 20 row here. 21 The process was a real example of the 22 collaborative procedure that NCN and Manitoba 23 Hydro have developed over the last five years or 24 so. Initially, to get the process started, there 25 was a screening exercise to reduce the options 4679 1 suggested from a wide range of possibilities down 2 to a manageable number. So I would like to 3 describe it a little bit there. 4 This is one of the materials that we 5 used, and the essential requirement of this road 6 location exercise was to provide a route in from 7 where transportation is to the project site. And 8 there is a few extra details which are necessary. 9 First of all, there are a couple of borrow sites, 10 which are, I think the person with the cursor 11 there can show where the important ones are 12 relative to the project site. And these would be 13 used in the construction of the project, so it was 14 necessary to have a road between them and the 15 project site. So, I guess I can't really see 16 right here -- Glen, could you show kind of the 17 route between the project site and the borrow 18 pits? So that was a piece of the road that was 19 necessary in any case. 20 Now, beyond that it was necessary to 21 get materials into the site and people and so on. 22 So, basically, initially the scope was 23 wide open, and I will just indicate a couple of 24 the basic concepts that were initially proposed. 25 First of all, and probably most obvious, would be 4680 1 a route that came off highway 6 and went in very 2 short distance across to the project site. And it 3 is just shown on that graphic as just almost a 4 straight line. That looks attractive because of 5 its distance -- it is quite short. NCN had a 6 problem with this route because of the access 7 issues, the entrance to the road was very far from 8 Nelson House. And so for those who wished to use 9 the road when it would have been built, it would 10 have been quite a long distance to get to it. And 11 for those NCN people who were not necessarily 12 using the road, they had minimal control over who 13 might come up highway 6 and utilize the road. 14 From the project's perspective, there are two 15 major rivers that have to be crossed with that 16 route, so they would require a bridge each, which 17 actually made the road distance less attractive 18 because of the cost of the bridges. So, those are 19 kind of the major factors which were affecting 20 that route. 21 Now, from the other side it was 22 suggested that perhaps a road could come from 23 somewhere near Nelson House to link up with the 24 other, with the short piece of road which was 25 necessary. The advantages of that were 4681 1 potentially to provide NCN with a starting point 2 to facilitate development of the back side of the 3 reserve on the south side of Footprint Lake. If 4 there was a road actually going across there, it 5 would make it a lot easier to do that. You can 6 see that the length of that road is quite 7 extensive. In addition, all of the materials that 8 would have to be transported to the site would be 9 going a very long way to get to the site. So when 10 that was evaluated, it meant that the cost of that 11 option was actually quite high in terms of 12 schedule and project costs. 13 In addition to those factors, there 14 was the "constructability" within a time period, 15 it was thought that would probably take two years 16 to do rather than a shorter period. And there is 17 difficult terrain in the middle. In addition to 18 that, the possible interaction of project traffic 19 with the NCN was seen a concern, both in terms of 20 the social interaction and possible traffic risk. 21 Councillor Thomas has just passed me a note 22 saying, which I now recall, at one time it was 23 considered that possibly the construction camp 24 could be located there, and in at long run turned 25 into a NCN community satellite and provided a 4682 1 start to satisfying the housing shortage. So 2 those two outside routes are significant 3 disadvantages. 4 The third concept initially was 5 essentially a route that followed the north side 6 of Birchtree Brook, and it escaped having to cross 7 major streams, so it was the third concept. So 8 over a period of time between June 2000 and about 9 the summer of 2001, these alternatives were looked 10 at back and forward. And they were evaluated 11 carefully, because you can see that there is 12 conflicting objectives, there are difficulties in 13 measuring values of social impacts and comparing 14 them to the cost of building a road, for example. 15 So the weighing of the different factors was not 16 an easy thing to do. 17 The alternatives committee and all of 18 the people that helped, including the community 19 consultants of Nelson House, they took these 20 concepts to the people in a workshop in the summer 21 of 2000, and received input from people. They 22 asked them what they thought about all of these 23 ideas. The criteria that were looked at could be 24 summarized as project interests, the environment, 25 and the impact on NCN. 4683 1 So after almost a year's worth of 2 evaluation, NCN came to the conclusion that they 3 preferred routes that were kind of in the middle. 4 And they mostly range between this route that is 5 along side of Birchtree Brook, which was now 6 called the Mile 5 route, and somewhere over there 7 where the cursor is pointing, it is called Mile 8 20. The Mile 20 route showed up because -- I 9 guess if we switch to the geological features 10 picture -- the Mile 20 intersection with highway 11 391 is actually the point where significant 12 glacial feature is there. And it runs, you can 13 see the green and red areas down there. This is a 14 significantly elevated area tending to have coarse 15 materials underneath, so it provides for easy 16 construction. So that was a possible that showed 17 up, not at the beginning necessarily, but it was 18 there by mid 2001. 19 So the latter half of 2001 was spent 20 in refining the road choices in that general area 21 to arrive at the final one. And several 22 alternatives were looked at carefully. They are 23 shown on figure 361, which is in your volume 3. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: That is the map I was 25 looking at that still begs the question, when you 4684 1 veer, if you start -- well, if you go back to the 2 next map, the original map that you had -- you 3 come down directly south for a little ways -- 4 oops, you have gone too far -- at that point. Why 5 did you not choose to go a little further south 6 directly to avoid the footprints on these streams 7 that you are going through, and rejoin it further 8 down to the deposits coming down, bypassing a 9 couple of the streams, and rejoin that area? It 10 seems that it wouldn't add much distance, but it 11 would avoid going through a number of additional 12 streams. So, there must be a reason, but it is 13 not self-evident when you are looking at the map, 14 because it seems that there are a number of 15 streams that you could have avoided passing and 16 rejoining the road further down south. 17 MR. MACINNES: Yes, that was your 18 question. In the detailed analysis stage of this 19 committee's work, they looked at the biological 20 and terrestrial areas that they were proposing to 21 pass through, and the routes were adjusted to 22 allow for effects on the environment and potential 23 cultural sites and existing cultural sites. And 24 the area that you speak of, which appears to have 25 not many streams, is also off the deposit and it 4685 1 is in unfavorable terrain for building a road. 2 The streams that are crossed are, in total there 3 are eight I think before you get to the project 4 site. And each one of them is doable with a large 5 culvert or two large culverts, and each one has 6 been looked at by visitation. And the crossings 7 were conceptually designed at this point. There 8 has been some interchange with DFO on the stream 9 crossings. 10 Now, in terms of where near this 11 deposit would be a good place to put the road, 12 there are two factors which stick in my mind. One 13 of them was there is a Jack Pine growth, which is 14 more or less on top of the deposit, it is a unique 15 feature. So the route was adjusted toward the 16 east to just skirt the edge of this feature, and 17 also it is on the east side the deposit. And 18 further along it has been identified that there is 19 caribou calving sites on the west side of that 20 feature, which is basically where it appears there 21 are not too many streams, but in fact it is 22 possible caribou calving areas. So the road 23 corridor was adjusted to be as far away from that 24 as possible. That is the reason for that. 25 Eight streams in 50 kilometres is 4686 1 actually pretty good, in terms of what could have 2 happened with road siting. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: I expected you would 4 give us some explanation, or some rationale for 5 choosing the area that you had. But it was 6 self-evident in looking at the map that you had to 7 cross those eight streams, and I could see where 8 you could pass, according to the map that we had 9 in hand, and avoid at least two of those streams 10 and not lengthen -- with no addition in terms with 11 length of road, basically, by coming down further 12 at the first bend in the road, coming further 13 west. Yes, somebody has it there now -- the 14 actual choice road, coming down, going straight 15 south -- that is coming west now, at that bend, 16 carry on southwest, avoiding that stream, coming 17 down, avoiding the next stream, to the west, to 18 the west, all right. Now come down to your -- 19 coming down to that area you have got your borrows 20 and whatnot was avoiding the streams, and at the 21 same time coming into the borrows area. But you 22 are saying the reason for avoiding it is because 23 the caribou calving ground? 24 MR. MACINNES: It was a major reason, 25 yes. 4687 1 THE CHAIRMAN: That is the reason why 2 you have gone that route? 3 MR. MACINNES: In addition to that, 4 the cost of building the road through that area 5 would have been higher than was estimated for the 6 final chosen route as well, due to the terrain. 7 The map that is there doesn't really show a clear 8 picture of what it is like. When you have a 9 swamp, you don't necessarily have streams flowing 10 through. 11 I guess I should also mention, at the 12 junction, originally it was thought reasonable to 13 site the route entirely on top of the glacial 14 deposit, because it does go right to the highway. 15 However, NCN has a cultural site there. And so 16 the wish was to move away from there as far as 17 possible, and so that was accommodated. There is 18 a cost to that, and it was judged that the cost 19 was acceptable in light of the other factors which 20 were all weighed qualitatively with each other. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. I'm satisfied 22 with that. It is just that I couldn't find 23 satisfactory explanations in the documents to 24 explain, except for saying that you had avoided 25 calving grounds, but there was no clear indication 4688 1 exactly where those were in regards to the road. 2 Somebody had commented to the effect 3 that one of the environments that could readily, 4 or more readily be adversely affected would be 5 streams. And therefore the question, it begged 6 the question, if the streams are the locations 7 where you would have the greatest, or the most 8 adverse environmental impact, why choose to cross 9 over more streams than you had to? And that is 10 the sense of my questions. 11 MR. MACINNES: Yes, thank you. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: So, I thank you for 13 that. I believe there were no other groups or 14 individuals who wanted to come up forward to ask 15 questions of the panel, NCN and Hydro, at this 16 time, to raise additional questions having to do 17 with the Environmental Impacts Assessment? 18 Because if there are, this is an opportunity. If 19 there aren't, I will ask Mr. Grewar to put some of 20 the documents on the record. 21 MR. GREWAR: Not so much documents, 22 Mr. Chairman, that I would have to enter now, it 23 is just to elaborate just in terms of the 24 continuation of cross for the panel, both 25 O-Pipon-Na-Piwin Cree Nation and also the Canadian 4689 1 Nature Federation are hoping to have an 2 opportunity tomorrow afternoon to cross-examine 3 the panel, and that would follow the presentation 4 in the morning by the Boreal Forest Network. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Would you put this one 6 on the record? 7 MR. GREWAR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 8 that is a good point, I had neglected to enter 9 that as an exhibit. If you will give me a moment, 10 I will determine the most appropriate number. 11 CASIL reference material for the examination of 12 Manitoba Hydro/NCN would be CASIL 1003. 13 14 (EXHIBIT CASIL-1003: CASIL reference 15 material for examination of Manitoba 16 Hydro/NCN panel) 17 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. In that 19 case, we will now adjourn until 10:00 o'clock 20 tomorrow. 21 (ADJOURNED AT 5:30 P.M.) 22 23 24