3637 1 MANITOBA CLEAN ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION 2 3 VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT 4 Volume 16 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 6, 2004 22 Radisson Hotel 23 288 Portage Avenue 24 Winnipeg, Manitoba 25 3638 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 3639 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 3640 1 2 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 3 4 Number Page 5 6 MH/NCN 1029: State of Minnesota 7 in Court of Appeals. In the matter 8 of the Petition of Northern States Power 9 Company for review of its 1999 All source 10 Request for Proposals Minnesota Public 11 Utilities Commission 3646 12 MH/NCN 1030: Responses to 13 undertakings MH-49, average flow on Missi 14 Falls and MH-50, Flow discrepancy at 15 Missi Falls 3651 16 CEC-1004: Excerpt from CEAA Assessment 17 Guide 2.0 Assessment 18 Fundamentals 3697 19 20 CEC-1005: Cumulative Effect Intensity of 21 Development Graph and the Associated 22 Thresholds 3739 23 24 25 3641 1 2 INDEX OF UNDERTAKINGS 3 4 UNDERTAKING NO. PAGE 5 6 MH-56: Plot on the second page, of 7 diagram used for the purposes of instructions by the 8 Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency in 9 discussions of threshold, for the respective 10 environmental components that were talked about, fill 11 in the blanks 3701 12 MH-57: Describe how the cumulative 13 effects assessment that Manitoba Hydro and NCN did 14 for the purposes of the Wuskwatim project comply with 15 the eight key criteria, re page 64 of Practitioner's 3718 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3642 1 TUESDAY, APRIL 6, 2004 2 Upon commencing at 10:06 a.m. 3 4 THE CHAIRMAN: As usual, we will call 5 upon Chief Sam Dysart to come -- Elder Sam Dysart. 6 ELDER DYSART: Thank you. I got promoted 7 to Chief. Thanks a lot, Commissioners. 8 Welcome. I hope we have a beautiful day. 9 Let us pray in our own language. You can pray in 10 silent prayer and I'll pray in my own language so my 11 elders can understand me. Thank you. 12 13 (PRAYER) 14 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Welcome back to the 16 ongoing hearing called Wuskwatim Hydro Project and 17 Transmission Lines. I hope that the wonderful rain 18 we got didn't turn any parts into rust. And to avoid 19 that that should happen, we'll pretend that we just 20 didn't stop at all and we'll carry on. So, Mr. Abra, 21 what's the next question? Yes, Mr. Bedford. 22 MR. BEDFORD: I wanted firstly, 23 Commissioners, to observe that Mr. Cormie is with us 24 today primarily to respond to some undertakings that 25 come out of his department and they were undertakings 3643 1 made to Mr. Abra. It's not our intention that Mr. 2 Cormie will be a member of this Panel throughout all 3 of the questioning of this Panel. However, I did 4 make an undertaking several weeks ago to counsel for 5 the Community Association of South Indian Lake that 6 Mr. Cormie would be made available when Ms. Phare 7 asks her questions on behalf of her clients. So 8 presently, Mr. Cormie will be back with us on 9 Thursday this week because based on the present 10 schedule, we anticipate that the Community 11 Association of South Indian Lake will be asking its 12 questions of this Panel on Thursday. 13 Secondly, would you please, please set a 14 deadline for the elusive Mr. Torrie to answer all of 15 the information requests that he is required to 16 answer on behalf of TREE. We have to file a written 17 rebuttle to TREE's information requests certainly 18 before Mr. Torrie attends to do any sort of 19 presentation and we are running out of time. Mr. 20 Torrie did tell us, I think three weeks ago, he would 21 have his material in by Friday of that week. He's 22 obviously missed his own self-imposed deadline. 23 So I repeat, would you please set a 24 definitive deadline. I do know that we received some 25 more answers from him this morning but I gather there 3644 1 are still a number of outstanding information 2 requests from several of the parties at this hearing 3 that he has yet to answer. 4 And thirdly, and finally, you, as 5 commissioners, cautioned the Canadian Nature 6 Federation, Manitoba Wildlands on March 16th to get 7 their written material in in advance. They've done 8 the same thing again to us that they did when they 9 presented in March. I see we have five witnesses 10 tomorrow, four of whom have not provided any written 11 information although I understand they've all been 12 requested to do so. 13 I can note on the record that I do have 14 the written material for Mr. Soprovich, thanks only 15 to the Commission which saw that I was provided with 16 it several weeks ago. So in Mr. Soprovich's case, we 17 have the material and we are ready to hear what he 18 has to say tomorrow. But with respect to the other 19 four, you did caution that there would be 20 consequences if this kind of thing were to continue 21 to occur. Now it's continued to occur. So I leave 22 that with you. 23 And I know that Mr. Cormie is ready to 24 proceed to answer his undertaking and Ms. Matthews 25 Lemieux, on behalf of her client before questioning 3645 1 begins, also has an undertaking to respond to. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bedford. 3 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: Thank you. 4 Actually it's not an undertaking but it's something 5 that is relevant as it's occurred in the period last 6 week when we were off. You'll recall from Mr. 7 Rudnicki's testimony on March 16th that he referred 8 to a matter that was before the Minnesota Court of 9 Appeal. The decision came down from the Court of 10 Appeal in Minnesota last week on March 30th and I was 11 going to tender that decision with you. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 13 MR. MAYER: Did you win? 14 MR. ADAMS: Is that a formal question? 15 In response to Mr. Mayer's question, yes, we did. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Grewar? 17 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman, if we might 18 just assign an exhibit number to the matter which or 19 the item that Ms. Matthews Lemieux has just brought 20 forward is State of Minnesota in Court of Appeals 21 A03836, in the matter of the Petition of Northern 22 States Power Company for review of its 1999 All 23 source Request for Proposals, Minnesota Public 24 Utilities Commission. And we would itemize this as 25 MH-NCN 1029. 3646 1 (EXHIBIT MH/NCN 1029: State of Minnesota 2 in Court of Appeals. In the matter 3 of the Petition of Northern States Power 4 Company for review of its 1999 All source 5 Request for Proposals Minnesota Public 6 Utilities Commission) 7 8 THE CHAIRMAN: While Mr. Grewar 9 distributes these, Mr. Cormie. 10 MR. CORMIE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 11 Firstly, undertaking number 39, we were asked whether 12 Excel Energy purchased 40 per cent of Manitoba Hydro 13 power. I can respond that over the last five years, 14 Excel Energy has purchased 41 per cent of our 15 production of our export sales. 16 On the undertaking 49 and undertaking 50, 17 these were -- these undertakings are with regard to 18 why are predictions for average releases from Missi 19 Falls in the material that was supplied are less than 20 historic monthly flows that are in the record. 21 And in response to that and as a bit of 22 background, in 1977, Manitoba Hydro constructed a new 23 water supply system for the Town of Churchill as part 24 of the Churchill River Diversion Project. And 25 between 1977 and 1998, in controlling the outflows 3647 1 from Missi Falls, Manitoba Hydro not only had to 2 abide by the terms of its licence, its interim 3 licence that specified the minimum releases for 4 Missi, but we also had to have regard of the needs of 5 the Town of Churchill with regard to its water 6 supply. 7 The water intake at the Town of Churchill 8 is in the bottom of the river and it depends on an 9 adequate level at the intake in order to ensure that 10 there's adequate flow into the town. 11 In order to maintain that water level, 12 that's dependent upon the flow of the river. And the 13 flow of the river is dependent not only on the flows 14 that are released at Missi but how much water is 15 flowing into the river downstream of Missi Falls but 16 upstream of the town. 17 So during the period when the flows into 18 the Churchill River downstream of Missi Falls were 19 low, higher releases had to be made at Missi in order 20 to ensure that the water level at the intake was 21 appropriate. And during higher periods of local 22 inflow, Manitoba Hydro could reduce the outflows from 23 Missi Falls again in order to maintain the same water 24 level at the intake. 25 And what this meant was that each winter, 3648 1 Missi outflows varied. Sometimes they are a little 2 bit higher, sometimes they are a little bit lower, 3 depending upon the amount of water that was flowing 4 into the Churchill River downstream by Missi Falls. 5 Now in 1988, Manitoba Hydro applied for 6 and was granted an Environmental Act License 2327 and 7 we constructed a weir across the Churchill River near 8 the Town of Churchill. This project was part of an 9 agreement with the Town of Churchill. As a result, 10 the additional flow that had been released previously 11 above the minimum was no longer required in order to 12 ensure the supply, the security of supply for the 13 Town of Churchill because the weir established a 14 stable water level at the water intake. And so we 15 didn't have to release extra water out of concern for 16 shortage of supply or low levels at the intake. 17 So once the weir was constructed, the 18 additional flow was no longer necessary. And we now 19 maintain discharges as required under our 20 environmental license. 21 That license 2327 requires and Manitoba 22 Hydro has maintained on a daily basis releases from 23 Missi Falls that no less than those which had been 24 maintained for the period 1986 to 1998. And that's 25 the period that's required in the license. 3649 1 And these daily minimum releases were 2 established as follows. From January 1st to January 3 29th, there were 3,000 cubic feet per second. From 4 January 30th to February 20th, 2000 cubic feet per 5 second. February 21st to the 28th, 1,500 cubic feet 6 per second. April 29th to October 17th, 500 cubic 7 feet per second. October 18th to the 30th, 2,000 8 cubic feet per second. October 31st to December 9th, 9 4,000 cubic feet per second. And December 10th to 10 December 31st, 3,000 cubic feet per second. 11 So in predicting the future releases from 12 Missi Falls, Manitoba Hydro has programmed its 13 computer models to maintain monthly minimum releases 14 equivalent to the minimum daily releases that I've 15 just mentioned. And the predicted Missi monthly 16 flows are identical with and without the Wuskwatim 17 project and those flows are in accordance with both 18 our interim license for the Churchill River Diversion 19 and license 2327 for the Churchill weir. 20 As a follow-up to that undertaking, 21 undertaking 50 asked us to advise about the 22 discrepancy in flows regarding condition 23 of our 23 environmental license on the flows to continue at 24 Missi. 25 I've just mentioned the daily minimum 3650 1 releases. Those aren't minimum monthly releases and 2 so the equivalent minimum monthly releases are as 3 follows. For the month of January, 2,935 cubic feet 4 per second. February is 1,857 cubic feet per second. 5 March, 1,500 cubic feet per second. For the month of 6 April, 1,433 cubic feet per second. May through 7 September, 500 cubic feet per second. October, 1,242 8 cubic feet per second. November, 4,000 cubic feet 9 per second. And for the month of December, 3,290 10 cubic feet per second. 11 These are the monthly equivalents to the 12 daily minimums that were established under the 13 license. And because our computer modelling is on a 14 monthly basis, we had to convert it into monthly 15 minimums and those are monthly numbers that are in 16 the table that was listed in response to 17 CEC/MH/NCN-EIS II-109d. 18 So although there was perceived to be a 19 discrepancy between the minimum flows specified in 20 condition 23 of the Churchill weir licence and the 21 releases from Missi Falls after 1998, Manitoba Hydro 22 has reviewed the monthly discharges that are listed 23 in table 1 of that interrogatory response 109d and 24 has compared them to the monthly releases listed I 25 just mentioned. And in all cases, the releases shown 3651 1 in table 1 exceed the monthly minimum that was 2 established and there is no discrepancy there. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Cormie. 4 Mr. Grewar? 5 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman, if we just 6 might enter undertaking MH-49, "Provide explanation 7 why predictions re average flow on Missi flows is 8 less than historical monthly discharge as MH/NCN 9 1030. 10 MS. AVERY KINEW: 49 and 50. 11 MR. GREWAR: That's correct. That's also 12 part of the exhibit. My apologies. Advise re 13 discrepancy and flow re condition 23 of licence on 14 flows to continue at Missi Falls, MH-50. Thank you. 15 16 (EXHIBIT MH/NCN 1030: Responses to 17 undertakings MH-49, average flow on Missi 18 Falls and MH-50, Flow discrepancy at 19 Missi Falls) 20 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hicks. 22 MR. HICKS: Mr. Chairman, you will recall 23 at the close of the last session in Winnipeg, there 24 had been clarification asked by the Commission with 25 respect to a future transmission corridor reference 3652 1 in the generation station EIS. We have enlarged one 2 of those drawings so that I think I can more 3 appropriately explain and clarify that situation now. 4 So if you will? 5 MR. ABRA: Well, I wonder before you do 6 so, Mr. Hicks, I have a couple of follow-up questions 7 to Mr. Cormie. 8 MR. HICKS: I'm sorry. 9 MR. ABRA: Mr. Chairman, members of the 10 Commission, Mr. Hecky still hasn't arrived in 11 Winnipeg. He's expected shortly so I'll want him to 12 review the response to the undertaking, Mr. Cormie, 13 to see whether or not there's any follow-up questions 14 to it. But in the meantime, just let me ask you 15 this. 16 Did I understand when the Churchill River 17 Diversion was built, it reduced the flow of water in 18 the Churchill River through the Town of Churchill; 19 am I correct? 20 MR. CORMIE: That is correct. 21 MR. ABRA: And it got to the point that 22 because the flow in the Churchill River was decreased 23 as a result of the Churchill River Diversion, that 24 the fresh water in the Churchill River was not of a 25 great enough volume to prevent the salt water from 3653 1 Hudson Bay from starting to come into the Town of 2 Churchill; am I correct? 3 MR. CORMIE: Out of concern for that 4 issue, Manitoba Hydro moved the water intake from 5 what's known as CR20 to CR30 upstream in order to 6 ensure that there was a -- 7 MR. ABRA: An appropriate supply? 8 MR. CORMIE: An appropriate supply of 9 fresh water, yes. 10 MR. ABRA: And am I correct in suggesting 11 that the weir was built partly to compensate for that 12 difficulty of the fresh water being infringed upon by 13 the salt water? 14 MR. ADAMS: No, you're not correct. 15 MR. ABRA: Well then correct me, please, 16 Mr. Adams. You've done it once. But that's my 17 understanding of the reason for the weir being built 18 or at least partially the reason. 19 MR. ADAMS: No. The weir was built for a 20 variety of reasons. It was built after consultation 21 and negotiation with the Town of Churchill. The 22 pumphouse, as Mr. Cormie said, was moved in, I don't 23 know what year it was, 1977, to ensure that it was 24 way upstream of the fresh water/salt water interface. 25 The fresh water/salt water interface is 3654 1 still downstream of the weir. The weir was built 2 primarily to provide a habitat, if you wish, for the 3 flora and the fauna that the people, the good 4 residents of Churchill thought were important 5 including fish, ducks, geese, other types of animals. 6 It also had the benefit of providing a very solid or 7 stable water level over the new intake, the 1977 CR30 8 intake. 9 So the weir itself has got absolutely 10 nothing to do with the salt water interface. 11 MR. ABRA: Are you saying that it 12 wouldn't have been necessary if the CRD had not 13 affected the flow of fresh water through Churchill? 14 MR. ADAMS: The weir was not necessary. 15 MR. ABRA: It wasn't necessary for that 16 purpose? 17 MR. ADAMS: Right. 18 MR. ABRA: I see. That's your evidence? 19 MR. ADAMS: That's our evidence. 20 MR. ABRA: I see. Mr. Davies, you had a 21 comment? 22 MR. DAVIES: I just wanted to state that 23 the salt water interface is actually downstream of 24 the weir. The current salt water interface is about 25 one kilometre downstream of the weir. So the weir 3655 1 actually doesn't prevent any salt water from getting 2 upstream. 3 MR. ABRA: That's fine. That's the only 4 question I have. Mr. Rempel, you had a response? 5 MR. REMPEL: I was just going to comment 6 that another purpose served by the weir was to 7 provide a recreational opportunity for the residents 8 of Churchill. 9 MR. ABRA: Well, I think Mr. Adams said 10 that a couple of weeks ago if I recall correctly. 11 MR. REMPEL: Yes. 12 MR. ABRA: Yes, that's fine. Thank you, 13 Mr. Chairman. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hicks? 15 MR. HICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The 16 illustration we're going to put up is figure 2.4.2 17 from the Generation Station Volume 1 Environmental 18 Impact Statement. We've altered this only to 19 highlight in green the reference to the future 20 transmission corridor which was the subject of our 21 discussion at our break in Winnipeg. 22 Now the issue that we were having 23 difficulty with is describing, Mr. Chairman, the 24 location of this relative to the generation site 25 proper. I think you observed the location of the 3656 1 corridor is at the northeast of the generation site. 2 The clarification that I was attempting to offer is 3 that this is in the context of layout and long-term 4 future plans for or possible plans for the generation 5 station area. 6 What is being shown is an allowance for 7 possible future transmission not associated with any 8 particular project but potentially Notigi for 9 example, other generation stations that are located 10 in the same reach or may be located in the same reach 11 of the river potentially at Manasan and at Kepuche. 12 And this is an effort to try to make sure that there 13 are no -- within the generation site area, that there 14 is nothing done in the way of a permanent development 15 or a permanent obstruction to that possible future 16 use. It's conventional engineering design practice 17 with allowance for uncertain futures. 18 If I can shift to the corresponding 19 figure in the transmission EIS, you can see now at 20 the centre of the drawing is the actual switching 21 station itself which is proposed as part of this 22 project. Into that station from the south and west 23 would be the three feeder lines from the generation 24 station, one from each of the turbine units. Those 25 are 230 KV lines that would come into the switching 3657 1 station on roughly its southern phase. The three 2 lines that are proposed for the transmission 3 connections here are to the northeast, again another 4 two lines that go out to Herblet Lake, which we've 5 talked about previously. And they would be located 6 along the southeast side of that future transmission 7 corridor. And thirdly, the construction power line 8 in from Wuskwatim which would be located on the 9 northwest side of that future transmission corridor. 10 The area in between within the station 11 site will be used temporarily during construction of 12 the generating station as a contractor's work area 13 but there is no permanent development proposed in 14 that area for the reason I have offered that the idea 15 is to protect against possible uncertain futures 16 here. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you for that. But 18 the question that I was referring to is why is that 19 corridor shown as being 600 metres wide? 20 MR. HICKS: The 600 metres I presume you 21 scaled off. I could find no specific reference in 22 the documentation but that's approximately the size. 23 Essentially, it's the maximum available between the 24 access route location and the available site area 25 after allowance for the sewage lagoon. 3658 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Does that mean it's going 2 to be cleared for this width? 3 MR. HICKS: No, it does not. It will be 4 cleared within the generating station footprint, yes, 5 because it will be used for contractor's work area. 6 But outside the footprint of the generating station, 7 the clearing will be limited to the two lines to 8 Herblet Lake and the line in from Thompson Birchtree. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: That was my question, how 10 long that 600 foot wide corridor was going to be? 11 And you are saying it's going to be limited within 12 the -- 13 MR. HICKS: The footprint of the 14 generating station itself, sir. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. That's what I 16 wanted to know. Thank you. 17 MR. HICKS: I could just say as well that 18 this matter of future possibilities is discussed on 19 page 332 of the transmission project volume 1 EIS 20 under the subheading Station Layout and Transmission 21 Line Ingress/Egress. Thank you. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Further 23 questions or undertakings? Mr. Mayer. 24 MR. MAYER: You mentioned two possible -- 25 you mentioned Notigi is a possible future. We know 3659 1 about that. You mentioned Manasan. You mentioned a 2 third one? 3 MR. HICKS: Kepuche. 4 MR. MAYER: Where is that? 5 MR. HICKS: Upstream of Manasan between 6 Manasan and Wuskwatim. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr. Davies? 8 MR. DAVIES: We had one very brief 9 undertaking in response to undertaking number 61. 10 The flushing rate of Cranberry and Wuskwatim Lakes 11 prior to CRD was approximately 26 days under average 12 flow conditions. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. 14 Everybody has had their say? Now, Mr. Abra, your 15 turn. 16 MR. ABRA: Thank you. I propose to begin 17 my questioning today on the area of cumulative 18 environmental effects. Now, we talked a couple of 19 weeks ago, my initial questioning related to the EIS 20 study that's been filed and we dealt of course with 21 the issue of definitions to begin with. And there 22 were various definitions that I asked you about, one 23 of which was cumulative environmental effects. And I 24 believe that we're on common ground but correct me if 25 I'm wrong that in doing a cumulative environmental 3660 1 effects study or cumulative effects study, there are 2 three effects that are to be looked at; that is, the 3 past, the present and the future. And in particular, 4 in this particular case, what we're concerned about 5 for the cumulative effects would be past Hydro 6 projects, the present Hydro project and any future 7 Hydro projects; am I correct? 8 MR. REMPEL: Yes. 9 MR. ABRA: So we're on common ground? 10 MR. REMPEL: Um-hum. 11 MR. ABRA: Now I'd like to distribute to 12 you, you're familiar with the Canadian Environmental 13 Agencies Practitioner's Guide? Is that it that 14 you're bringing out, Mr. Osler? 15 MR. OSLER: Yes, I hope so. 16 MR. ABRA: Now, I'm having distributed to 17 you the definition in the Practitioner's Guide of 18 "cumulative effects." It's in section 2 under the 19 heading "Fundamentals" and it's section 2.1 20 cumulative effects defined. I don't propose to read 21 the whole thing but you'll note for the record it 22 says, 23 "CEA, which is cumulative 24 environmental effects, is 25 environmental assessment as it should 3661 1 always have been, an environmental 2 impact assessment done well. In 3 practice, the assessment of cumulative 4 effects requires consideration of some 5 concepts that are not always found in 6 conventional approaches followed in 7 EIAs. Specifically CEAs are typically 8 expected to; 9 (1) Assess effects over a larger, 10 i.e., regional area that may cross 11 jurisdictional boundaries. 12 (2) Assess effects during a longer 13 period of time into the past and 14 future. 15 (3) Consider effects on valued 16 ecosystem components," 17 which we of course have been referring to as VECs, 18 "due to interactions with other 19 actions and not just the effects of a 20 single action under review. 21 (4) Include other past existing and 22 future, eg. reasonably foreseeable 23 actions. And, 24 (5) Evaluate significance in 25 consideration of other than just local 3662 1 direct effects." 2 Now I'd like to go through each of those 3 as they relate to the cumulative effects assessment 4 that was done by you people for the purposes of the 5 compliance with the guidelines that were given by 6 Manitoba Conservation. 7 Firstly, dealing with the geographic 8 boundaries or which are often referred to I believe 9 as spatial boundaries, what were the geographic 10 boundaries of the cumulative effects assessment of 11 the Wuskwatim generation project to begin with and 12 the Wuskwatim transmission project? 13 MR. OSLER: The geographic boundaries for 14 the generation project were reviewed in volume 1, 15 section 2. They vary depending on the environmental 16 component that we were looking at. They varied 17 because the scope of the effects for each component 18 of the environment, the physical component or the 19 aquatic component or the terrestrial component or the 20 socio-economic component, et cetera, tended to have a 21 different geographic range depending on what we were 22 looking at. And we've been over that already in the 23 transcripts so I won't haul out the section over 24 again and go back over it but I can if you'd like. 25 In terms of dealing with the cumulative 3663 1 effects, as I think I have explained in the 2 presentation I made on the first day, we were looking 3 at overlapping pathways with respect to the effects 4 of this project in combination with other past, 5 current or future projects. And we were looking at 6 overlapping pathways in each one of these 7 environmental components, biophysical, socioeconomic, 8 et cetera. 9 In the case of -- sorry, in the sense to 10 get down to the detail, we have to go by each 11 component of the environment, in the case of the 12 generation station. The one area where the 13 assessment in the generation component as it has been 14 conducted to date, including work done in 15 supplementary filings, the one area where it went 16 beyond what is in the EISs filed in April is in 17 dealing with the system water regime issues that Mr. 18 Cormie talked about with respect to Lake Winnipeg 19 Regulation. And work was done in response to 20 questions since the EIS was filed that looked at the 21 extent to which a cumulative effects analysis could 22 also be looked at with respect to Lake Winnipeg 23 Regulation issues. 24 With respect to any given study area such 25 as the physical environment, the approach was to look 3664 1 at the area of effect that was assessed looking at 2 the existing environment including current and past 3 projects and then to assess whether any of the future 4 projects that we included within the scope of our 5 assessment would overlap with any of the effects that 6 we just discussed. 7 We did a scoping exercise that's covered 8 again in section 2 of the generation EIS of the 9 future projects that would be included in our 10 cumulative effects analysis. 11 When we looked at those projects, we 12 looked at them whether they were Conawapa or Notigi 13 or Gull to take three examples, and there were other 14 ones in the list of scoped projects. We looked at 15 them to see whether they would overlap in their 16 effects in the physical environment or the -- any one 17 of the biophysical environments or the socioeconomic 18 environment. The result was quite different 19 geographic areas ranging from, in the case of a lot 20 of the biophysical work, and water regime in 21 particular, from the Missi Falls -- from the Early 22 Morning Rapids down to Opegano Lake and Birchtree 23 Lake, study region you've heard a lot about and 24 whether there's any overlapping effects from future 25 projects in that area. 3665 1 In the case of the socioeconomic at the 2 other extreme, we were aware that effects pathways 3 from Wuskwatim would extend through employment in the 4 construction phase and stuff like that throughout a 5 much broader region, particularly the Burntwood 6 Nelson River region which included communities 7 ranging from South Indian Lake through to Cross Lake 8 down to Fox Lake. 9 And so the cumulative effects assessment 10 examined the potential for overlapping effects from 11 Conawapa and other projects that were listed in the 12 future study scope within this broader region for the 13 purpose of socioeconomics. 14 For the purpose of dealing with the 15 transmission, the nature of the work established a 16 broad study area to start with to cover off all the 17 alternatives that could be under consideration. The 18 study area had to be broad enough to cover the range 19 of the alternatives that the team was looking at. 20 Information therefore tended to be collected for this 21 broader area and it was one area rather than a series 22 of areas. 23 But I guess when you get down to looking 24 at the details of the physical or biophysical or 25 socioeconomic environments within this area, people 3666 1 focused again on the effects pathways that would be 2 associated with the transmission options and the 3 extent to which they would overlap with other 4 activities. 5 In all cases, we were tending to treat 6 the existing and past projects as part of the 7 baseline for the essential initial analysis as we 8 explained in the opening comments as is consistent 9 with the practice in the guide. And we tended to 10 treat the cumulative effects assessment therefore in 11 general, with a few exceptions, as dealing with the 12 future project scope to be examined. 13 Mr. Hicks may want to elaborate a bit 14 more on the specifics. 15 MR. ABRA: Before we deal further with 16 the transmission project, dealing with the generation 17 project. With respect to the water regime, you've 18 taken the position numerous times for the purposes of 19 the Environmental Impact Statement, the water regime 20 spatial boundaries or geographic boundaries or Early 21 Morning Falls upstream and Opegano Lake downstream; 22 am I correct? 23 MR. OSLER: Correct. Well sometimes it 24 goes to Birchtree Lake, but that general area. 25 MR. ABRA: That general area, okay. Did 3667 1 you extend those geographic boundaries at all with 2 respect to the water regime as they relate to the 3 cumulative effects assessment? 4 MR. OSLER: With the exception of the 5 system water regime issues I noted where it is 6 extended to look at the issues relating to system 7 water regime effects flowing from the Lake Winnipeg 8 operation, no. 9 MR. ABRA: You didn't? 10 MR. OSLER: No. 11 MR. ABRA: And the reason for that was 12 what? 13 MR. OSLER: Because the overlapping 14 effects in the water regime, and that's what we're 15 focused on in this conversation, that would occur 16 from the Wuskwatim project were the basis for 17 assessing the geographic scope that would be relevant 18 for cumulative effects with overlapping effects of 19 future projects. Keep in mind that in the context of 20 what's written in the quote you've given us from the 21 assessment guide, we think that our approach had 22 already gone beyond what some might call the local 23 site area where you're building the generating 24 station. 25 You know, the analysis that we took as 3668 1 basic analysis was already taking a broader regional 2 framework of effects scope upstream and downstream of 3 where you're physically building the local site 4 activity called the generating station. And in that 5 sense, the definition of scope was focused on where 6 does this project have the potential to make any 7 material difference in combination with future 8 projects. 9 MR. ABRA: But the cumulative effects 10 again are past, present and future. Now you've made 11 a decision that you were going to include in your 12 baseline for your cumulative effects assessment the 13 past projects; am I correct? 14 MR. OSLER: Absolutely. 15 MR. ABRA: And so once that's the 16 baseline, then effectively for the purpose of your 17 cumulative effects assessment, are you not just 18 looking at the present and the future? 19 MR. OSLER: Well, I can give you a quote 20 in the guide that says if you take the practice, 21 which is not at all unusual, it's quite common, of 22 continuing to include in the baseline for the initial 23 assessment the past and current projects, then the 24 key distinction for cumulative effects is the 25 examination of some specific future projects that 3669 1 haven't yet been built. That effectively is the 2 approach we took and that is effectively the way in 3 which the guide would discuss it if you went further 4 on to section 3.1. It discusses that approach in 5 that context. 6 So our point, the requirement as we see 7 it, is that the overall environmental assessment has 8 to beat certain tests. It has to include in its 9 consideration current, past and future projects. By 10 including past and current projects in the baseline, 11 our view is that we are meeting that requirement. 12 MR. ABRA: Let me ask the same question a 13 different way, Mr. Osler. Do you agree that 14 notwithstanding, I think it's common ground, although 15 correct me if I'm wrong, that there was really no 16 environmental assessment done at the time that the 17 Churchill River Diversion was done and -- 18 MR. OSLER: Sorry, is that a question? 19 MR. ABRA: No. Well, do you agree or do 20 you disagree that the environmental impact of the 21 Churchill River Diversion was significant? 22 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Perhaps I can just speak 23 briefly on that and others could say more. This 24 topic has come up before of has there been an 25 environmental assessment done of -- we're focusing 3670 1 right now on CRD including AFP. And actually for the 2 record, and speaking on behalf of Manitoba Hydro, 3 there has been extensive environmental assessment and 4 extensive monitoring done of the CRD and the AFP. 5 MR. ABRA: I think you gave that evidence 6 last time, Mr. Wojczynski, if I recall. I am not 7 trying to interrupt you or cut you off but there was 8 evidence the last day we were here and I don't want 9 to be unduly repetitive in my questions. There had 10 been environmental studies done of CRD post CRD? 11 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: There was also, 12 concurrent with the CRD, AFP facilities being put in 13 place, before they are operational. We had the Lake 14 Winnipeg Churchill Nelson River study board report 15 and that was discussed earlier. That was -- for the 16 time frame that that was done, it was an impressive 17 Environmental Impact Assessment. It was an 18 assessment. 19 MR. ABRA: I don't dispute that. I think 20 it was, what, 1979 or -- 21 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: 1975. 22 MR. ABRA: '75? 23 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: It was started actually 24 earlier in 1970/71 and completed in 1975. And there 25 was an extensive assessment done. We also had 3671 1 referenced some other ones but we just gave some 2 examples last time. And given that this topic seems 3 to be one of significant interest, it might be just 4 useful to indicate that we have had a number of 5 studies done. The ones already discussed, other ones 6 that had been done over the course of time including 7 specifically of the augmented flow program. But you 8 know, just even starting with the Lake Winnipeg 9 Churchill Nelson River one, that was not just an 10 impressive one, it was leading edge for the time done 11 by Canada/Manitoba Academics Consultants. 12 MR. ABRA: That may very well be. 13 I'm not trying to be critical of what was done by way 14 of environmental assessment as far as CRD is 15 concerned but would you agree or do you disagree, I'm 16 not making a suggestion to you, that based upon the 17 environmental assessments that were done of CRD, that 18 the conclusion reached was that in the terms that are 19 generally now used, I gather, for environmental 20 assessments of significant or insignificant as far as 21 a specific VEC is concerned, that the environmental 22 impact generally of CRD was significant? 23 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: I think I'll leave it to 24 the experts to comment on the use of the word 25 significant because I understand it has a very 3672 1 specific meaning in assessment technology. So I'll 2 leave it to the experts to comment on the use of that 3 term. 4 MR. ABRA: Because there has been many 5 terms thrown around here, not by Hydro, but by other 6 parties about the traumatic effect of CRD and the, I 7 can't remember the expression that Ms. Kempton used. 8 But effectively what she was trying to lead the 9 Commission to believe was that the impact was 10 significant. 11 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: There were major 12 effects, there's no question, of CRD. 13 MR. ABRA: Devastating I think was her 14 word, Mr. Mayer has reminded me. 15 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Major adverse impacts of 16 CRD. There's absolutely no question of that. The 17 word "significance" has a very particular meaning in 18 environmental assessment and the use of that word 19 that I'd rather the experts comment on. Manitoba 20 Hydro has quite clearly stated many times that we 21 acknowledge and understand that there were huge 22 impacts due to CRD. 23 MR. ABRA: Okay. 24 MR. OSLER: Do you want to get back to -- 25 MR. ABRA: Well, what I'm asking is from 3673 1 an environmental assessment point of view, was the 2 impact of CRD significant? 3 MR. OSLER: In my judgment, if you were 4 to do an assessment using today's standards and you 5 do that at the time that the project was being 6 considered, you would have a series of different 7 significant adverse effects to address. 8 MR. ABRA: Okay. And when you say a 9 series, that would refer to the different VECs? 10 MR. OSLER: Right, the different 11 environments we've been asked to look at here. You 12 probably have different significant adverse effects 13 to address in most if not all of the environments 14 we're being asked to assess here. 15 MR. ABRA: Well, I can tell you, the ones 16 I intend upon getting into, and not at significant 17 length and it's not going to be a surprise to 18 anybody, are fish, mercury, which Mr. Davies has 19 already given much evidence about, caribou, migratory 20 birds, and then of course water regime, sedimentation 21 and so on. Those are the ones that I intend upon 22 getting into in my questioning. 23 So dealing with those VECs, would you 24 agree, Mr. Osler, that each of those VECs were 25 significantly affected by CRD? 3674 1 MR. OSLER: Okay. I don't want to 2 interfere with the flow of your thoughts but the way 3 our studies have been done, they haven't necessarily 4 called all of those things VECs. Many of them they 5 have. 6 MR. ABRA: You can correct me when I get 7 to them. 8 MR. OSLER: Certainly going down the 9 list, there were significant effects on fish. You've 10 already seen the issues to do, in terms of the whole 11 CRD, including South Indian Lake, you've heard 12 material on that. You've certainly seen the evidence 13 of the changes in mercury and the time period 14 required for that to come back to levels that might 15 exist without CRD. I don't know about caribou. 16 Somebody else would have to comment on caribou or 17 migratory birds. Whether it's called a VEC or not, 18 there were material changes to the water regime by 19 definition in terms of the whole approach including 20 at South Indian Lake and including all the way 21 downstream. 22 And as I said in my opening comments, we 23 have -- our approach to looking at Wuskwatim in 24 accordance with the EIS guidelines has been to focus 25 on those areas where change in the environment, I 3675 1 think the EIS says, and you quoted it at some point, 2 it's a disrupted environment that we are putting 3 Wuskwatim into. Wuskwatim Lake, as Jimmy D. Spence 4 testified, is a disrupted environment courtesy of the 5 CRD. So we are putting this project into a disrupted 6 environment. That's been our fundamental approach 7 from day one. And we have looked hard at the 8 evidence with respect to very specific VECs or 9 important indicators, mercury erosion and 10 sedimentation I think I've singled out on day one is 11 key areas where we've tried to pay attention in our 12 research and analysis to where is this environment at 13 today when we introduced this project into the 14 record. 15 I think you've explored with my 16 colleagues in some detail mercury and erosion and I 17 expect you are going to explore in some detail some 18 of the other topics. 19 MR. ABRA: Well, I still have to do 20 erosion but certainly mercury, as I say Mr. Davies 21 has already given significant evidence in that 22 regard. 23 MR. OSLER: I think Mr. Remple discussed 24 with you at some length some erosion but you may want 25 to discuss more. But the bottom line is we did look 3676 1 at those things in terms of where are we at in this 2 environment at Wuskwatim Lake because it certainly 3 was disrupted in a material way back in the 1970s. 4 So I presume we're focusing at the moment on the 5 generation. 6 MR. ABRA: Well, we are and I don't want 7 to get too far ahead as far as my questioning is 8 concerned. But the bottom line, as I'm sure you 9 understand, the Commission has to be satisfied with 10 and we commented on this in the past and my initial 11 questioning is related to the EIS and Mr. Sargeant 12 made much the same comment. That with respect to 13 virtually all of the VECs, and correct me if I'm 14 wrong, but I believe that with respect to virtually 15 all of the VECs, you've come to the conclusion that 16 the environmental impact is going to be insignificant 17 from an environmental impact point of view. 18 MR. OSLER: The environmental impact on 19 this project we've been asked to assess, our 20 conclusion is that it does not have any significant 21 adverse effects on any of the environmental 22 components we've been asked to look at. 23 MR. ABRA: The Commission has to of 24 course be satisfied that notwithstanding that the 25 impact may be significant from an environmental 3677 1 impact point of view, is when you add that to what 2 the impact was of CRD or any of the other 3 hydroelectric projects that were built back prior to 4 Wuskwatim, such as Long Spruce and so on, that this 5 particular insignificant project, from what you've 6 determined to be an environmental effect, is not 7 going to be sufficient to put the environmental 8 impact over the threshold, which we'll be getting to 9 shortly. But you understand the term "threshold" I'm 10 sure? 11 MR. OSLER: I understand the concept. 12 MR. ABRA: What do you understand it to 13 be? 14 MR. OSLER: Conceptually, the idea of a 15 threshold is that it's something that we can 16 determine as a tolerance level that if you go beyond 17 it in a particular environmental vector, indicator, 18 whatever, you will create a significant problem. And 19 all of us had the idea very clearly in our heads, 20 it's a very difficult idea many times in practice to 21 implement. It isn't always clear-cut what that 22 threshold is but it's a core concept that 23 practitioners have in their mind and strive to try 24 and use when they can. And all of the work that 25 we've been doing has had that type of thought in mind 3678 1 where it's appropriate but you'd have to get down now 2 to the detail of environment by environment. 3 MR. ABRA: Well, the way I understand the 4 concept, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that you can 5 have a number of projects that may, by themselves, 6 have an insignificant environmental impact. But as 7 you do more and more of such projects, then as they 8 accumulate or the cumulative effects of each of them 9 reaches the point where a threshold has been passed 10 so that if you have one more insignificant isolated 11 project on top of the cumulation of all the previous 12 isolated insignificant projects, suddenly it becomes 13 significant. 14 MR. OSLER: Right. The core -- 15 MR. ABRA: Do you agree with that 16 concept? I am not asking if you agree with it with 17 respect to Wuskwatim. 18 MR. OSLER: I agree that the core 19 thought, and it doesn't have to be only through 20 thresholds, it might be through other ideas, but the 21 core thought is that assessing a project all by 22 itself may well show the changes to be insignificant. 23 But that if you take into account all the other 24 projects and you look at the total effect on a given 25 environment, let's take water quality or something 3679 1 you think you can measure, that somehow in certain 2 circumstances one can easily imagine that all of 3 these things together would take it past some 4 acceptable level of quality or some threshold point. 5 Having got those ideas in our head, and 6 you can almost think of it like a column, you know, 7 one project by itself doesn't give this magical 8 threshold but we've defined some level in this column 9 three-quarters of the way up or something that says 10 we go beyond this point, we're in trouble, we've gone 11 beyond the threshold. 12 The interesting thing we have to think 13 about is we are in practice taking into account in 14 our minds all of the current and past projects to 15 establish where we are. So if we're getting close to 16 that threshold because we've taken into account all 17 of these other projects, that should come out in the 18 analysis. We are then selectively looking at certain 19 future projects that meet certain tests. 20 The ultimate thing we're trying to assess 21 still is the net effect of this project. And if you 22 gave me a whole bunch of future projects to look at 23 and they already pushed us beyond this threshold, one 24 of the ironic conclusions would be this project's 25 effect would still not be the one causing the 3680 1 problem, if you follow me. In other words, if the 2 environment is already so disrupted that this project 3 can't make it any worse. 4 MR. ABRA: Yes? 5 MR. OSLER: Then this project is not the 6 one that's causing the problem. The cumulative 7 effects assessment in the end, after you looked at 8 the future projects as well as the past and the 9 current ones, is still trying to look at the net 10 effect of this project on the situation. That's the 11 challenge the practitioner has. 12 MR. ABRA: Well, is it on that basis 13 then, and I don't want to generalize. I mean we're 14 dealing I understand with different VECs and it may 15 vary from one to the other. So as I say, it's not 16 fair for you to generalize. But when you use the 17 term "insignificant" as you've done, is that in 18 essence what you're saying is that it's just not 19 going to aggravate a situation that's already 20 significantly disrupted? 21 MR. OSLER: In some cases you may find 22 that that's what the key point is. In other cases, 23 mercury and -- the one you're familiar with, mercury, 24 it showed that the environment that was very badly 25 disrupted has come back down a long way. So frankly, 3681 1 the assessment is very much against an environment 2 that's recovered a lot in terms of mercury. And the 3 point is it's not likely to get it back in trouble 4 again. 5 So the test there is quite different than 6 might be the case if you were looking at some 7 particular variable, and I don't want to try and 8 imagine where the environment is deemed to be still 9 very disruptive. 10 Erosion, I'd let Mr. Remple or others 11 talk about. But again, my understanding of the 12 analysis is that it's not that dissimilar to what 13 you're hearing in mercury. A lot of recovery, if 14 you'll like, or a lot of amelioration of the level of 15 effects of erosion has happened over 25 years or so 16 since the CRD. And again, we're not dealing with the 17 same degree of erosion ongoing that we would have had 18 right after the CRD. But the environment itself has 19 already been quite disrupted from the point of view 20 of anybody whoever lived at Wuskwatim Lake and that 21 can't be reversed. It's not an untouched environment 22 at all in terms of -- so if you're interested in an 23 untouched environment, in that sense, you would 24 probably say if you had that perspective, this is 25 disruptive and how much difference is this project 3682 1 going to make to that degree of disruption. But now 2 I'm getting really beyond technical things. 3 MR. ABRA: That's fine. We'll deal with 4 each one of them as we deal with the individual VECs. 5 But I think I understand your position. 6 Does anybody else have any addition to 7 make? Because what I propose at this juncture on the 8 spatial boundaries, Mr. Osler, I believe it was Mr. 9 Osler, basically as far as the water regime is 10 concerned, indicated that the geographic area for the 11 CEA, the cumulative environmental effects assessment, 12 was really not much different than what was done for 13 the EIS. 14 MR. OSLER: For the generation. 15 MR. ABRA: With respect to the other VECs 16 that I mentioned that I anticipate getting into, Mr. 17 Davies, with respect to mercury, you've already given 18 significant evidence as to the area that you've 19 covered in that regard as far as the EIS is 20 concerned. Did you expand that area at all for the 21 purposes of the CEA? I'll try not to use buzz words, 22 clearly the cumulative effects assessment because 23 we'll have so many definitions in the transcript, 24 it'll be impossible. 25 MR. DAVIES: Actually, I'd like to go 3683 1 back one step and again to use mercury as an example. 2 If we're talking about thresholds, the two thresholds 3 that were used for mercury were .2 parts per million 4 and .5 which is the domestic and commercial limits. 5 When we measured mercury, the level that currently 6 exists on Wuskwatim Lake was used as the baseline, in 7 other words, the existing environment was 8 incorporated into that. 9 Whatever level increase in out level that 10 would have been attributed to the project was added 11 to that. And if it took the limit over .2 or over .5 12 then the effect would have been attributed to the 13 Wuskwatim project. When we looked at beaver and 14 muskrat, the same thing was done. We looked at the 15 current status of beaver populations which are being 16 affected by the Churchill River Diversion and in some 17 areas, the populations are quite fragile. That 18 information was used in combination with the effects 19 of Wuskwatim project to see whether or not the 20 threshold or how significant the effect would be on 21 beaver and muskrat. So I think similar to what you 22 were talking about, we felt that was done. 23 In regards to cumulative effects 24 assessment for mercury, we took a look at the spatial 25 extent that we would expect mercury to be transported 3684 1 both upstream and downstream. And the spatial extent 2 upstream was Early Morning Rapids. There's no fish 3 movements upstream of that so there's no transfer of 4 biota moving upstream of Early Morning Rapids and 5 obviously as the water flows down, there's no chance 6 for the mercury generated in Wuskwatim get upstream 7 of that area. That was the boundary. We didn't look 8 at mercury levels in other areas upstream of that 9 because there would be no spatial overlap. 10 When we looked at the downstream area, we 11 looked at Birch Tree Lake as the maximum area that 12 would be affected again because we didn't feel that 13 there would be any significant transport of mercury 14 downstream in terms of water. And we also looked at 15 it in terms of biota and we felt that the effects of 16 mercury increases in Wuskwatim Lake probably would 17 not be detectable even by Opegano Lake but we did 18 take a look at it in terms of Opegano and the next 19 downstream area which would be Birchtree Lake. Any 20 cumulative effects past that point were not looked at 21 because there would be no effect of Wuskwatim past 22 Birchtree Lake. 23 MR. ABRA: So, and I don't say this in a 24 critical sense, but effectively what you're saying is 25 that the spatial boundaries for the cumulative 3685 1 effects assessment were the same as the ones for the 2 environmental impact or some -- 3 MR. DAVIES: In this case, yes, it was. 4 MR. ABRA: Yes, okay. Now what about 5 fish habitat? Who is the fish expert? 6 MR. DAVIES: That would be myself. 7 MR. ABRA: I'm sorry, I knew that. It's 8 been a couple of weeks. Firstly the habitat and then 9 the population, and we'll be getting into the 10 population later of course, but the general 11 assessment has been for the environmental impact 12 assessment is that it's actually going to improve the 13 fish population with respect to certain fish? 14 MR. DAVIES: That's correct. In terms of 15 fish populations, again, we looked at the need for 16 the cumulative effects assessment to have either a 17 spatial or a temporal overlap. In the case of fish 18 again, because there is no transport of fish, no fish 19 movements upstream of Early Morning Rapids, there is 20 no potential for the project to have an effect say in 21 Rat Lake. So Rat Lake would not be included in the 22 cumulative effects assessment. Because there is not 23 a large migration of fish moving down from Wuskwatim 24 Lake into downstream areas. 25 Again, we felt based on fish tags that we 3686 1 wouldn't see any significant or measurable effect -- 2 measurable is probably a better word -- any 3 measurable effect downstream of Birchtree Lake. And 4 because there was no measurable effect and no 5 perceived effect whatsoever, we didn't look at 6 cumulative effects on fish populations past that 7 geographic point. 8 MR. ABRA: Okay. Mr. Osler? 9 MR. OSLER: Just to focus a little bit of 10 what Mr. Davies could talk about, he's dealt with the 11 area. You might want to, Stewart, just explain why 12 we don't see, when we look at these future projects, 13 I'm thinking of Conawapa and Gull and Notigi, and 14 I'll put in front of you an answer we gave around 15 2103L I think which you explained why there wasn't an 16 effect from Notigi, for example, inside the area you 17 just talked about. So we'd just complete the 18 analysis of the cumulative effects for the fish and 19 other aquatic biota. 20 MR. DAVIES: When we looked at Notigi in 21 terms of the aquatic environment, we didn't feel that 22 there would be any -- there wouldn't be any overlap 23 with the Wuskwatim project for a few reasons. First 24 of all, most of the construction for Notigi will be 25 conducted in the dry. So there won't be a lot of 3687 1 water work being done. So the potential for effects 2 to occur would be very small. 3 When work is done in the water, there 4 will be some increases in total suspended solids. 5 But because of the two large lakes between Notigi 6 and Wuskwatim Lakes, namely Wapisu and Threepoint, 7 any effects from things like total suspended solids 8 would settle out before they got to Wuskwatim so we 9 wouldn't see an overlap of the effects of Wuskwatim 10 and the effects of Notigi. So Notigi for that reason 11 was not considered in the aquatic assessment. 12 MR. ABRA: Let me ask the question, with 13 respect to the specific, and I'll be giving to you 14 some in a few moments, but dealing with the fish, 15 mercury, caribou, migratory birds, were the spatial 16 boundaries with respect to any of those different for 17 the purposes of the cumulative assessments as opposed 18 to the environmental impact study that was done for 19 Wuskwatim itself? 20 MR. DAVIES: There was fairly close 21 overlap for the main reason that we expanded the 22 boundaries of the Wuskwatim environmental studies to 23 include all of the areas where there would be 24 potential effects of the project. And once you're 25 outside of those bounds, you are outside any 3688 1 potential effect. 2 We did, however, take a look at projects 3 that were outside the area and the potential effect 4 of those projects with -- perhaps a better example 5 would be we did take a look at Inco for example. We 6 had meetings with people from Inco. We took a look 7 at some of the previous studies. There was a study 8 done in 1981 by Selany (ph) and Company that looked 9 at the effects of Inco operation on the environment. 10 And we did find that based on the 1981 study that the 11 Wuskwatim area was in the secondary depositional zone 12 of Inco. So the levels that were coming from Inco 13 were relatively small as compared to areas closer by. 14 We also took a look at are the effects 15 from Inco going to increase or decrease in the 16 future? The answer to that was they would be 17 expected to decrease. We also found out that they 18 may be bringing ore from Voisey Bay to be smelted at 19 the -- at Inco. And we looked at the potential 20 effects of that, whether that would cause the 21 emissions to increase or decrease. 22 So while the spatial boundaries of the 23 project in terms of the environmental assessment were 24 bound by the maximum extent that we felt that effects 25 could occur on the biota, the cumulative effects 3689 1 assessment did consider projects that were outside of 2 that area where those effects from those industries 3 could be transported into the Wuskwatim area. 4 MR. ABRA: Okay. Mr. Osler? 5 MR. OSLER: Just so that it's understood, 6 we should not interpret that the boundary areas for 7 terrestrial birds or caribou, for example, would be 8 remotely the same for what we've just described for 9 the aquatic. I don't think we put on the record in 10 this hearing what type of study boundaries the people 11 studying caribou looked at or what type of boundaries 12 the people studying birds looked at but they 13 certainly were a lot broader than the aquatic 14 boundary area we just talked about. 15 MR. ABRA: No, I understand that. 16 MR. OSLER: So when they took cumulative 17 effects when they say talking about caribou, they 18 certainly had to look at the effects of not just the 19 road and the generation but also the transmission 20 developments. 21 MR. ABRA: And I understand your point. 22 What I'm asking is for the purposes of any of those 23 terrestrial aspects that I have referred to, did the 24 CEA consider it a broader area geographically than 25 the EIS? 3690 1 MR. DAVIES: I think the answer to that 2 is yes, it did consider a broader area because it 3 looked at projects and activities that were outside 4 of the environmental assessment area. Again, things 5 like Rattan Mine were considered, the Inco was 6 considered, forestry, some of which may occur outside 7 of the area was also considered, climate change was 8 considered. All of those aspects were outside of the 9 immediate area that was looked at in the 10 environmental assessment. 11 MR. ABRA: Okay. What about the 12 temporal, the time element? With respect to the 13 temporal effects, did the cumulative effects 14 assessment consider time parameters any different 15 from the environmental impact statement? 16 MR. OSLER: Generally, no. The 17 parameters for each environmental area in terms of 18 time looked at the nature of the effects this project 19 was creating and the time period over which they 20 would tend to extend or could be talked about 21 intelligently and the cumulative considerations in 22 general didn't tend to modify that. I don't know 23 whether my colleagues would have any specific 24 examples that might deviate from that general point. 25 MR. REMPEL: With respect to erosion, for 3691 1 example, we did look 100 years into the future with 2 and without the project and we felt consistent with 3 the quote at the start of this paragraph you gave us, 4 Mr. Abra, the CEA is an environmental assessment as 5 it always should have been, an environmental impact 6 assessment done well. We felt we were doing it well 7 and the CEA therefore was covered by doing the EIA 8 over this longer time period. 9 MR. ABRA: Okay. Mr. Davies, I am not 10 trying to put words in your mouth but did I 11 understand you to say in your answer with respect to 12 the geographic area and the time space, that in 13 essence, because you did a much more thorough or 14 larger area, we will deal with the geographic area to 15 begin with, that because you covered a much broader 16 area than you might have done for the purposes of a 17 normal environmental impact statement, for want of a 18 better expression, that effectively you were doing a 19 cumulative effects assessment by taking that broader 20 area and it wasn't as necessary to do a more thorough 21 cumulative effects assessment? And I don't say that 22 in a critical sense but that's what I understood you 23 to be saying. 24 MR. DAVIES: I don't think that's 25 correct. We defined the project area for each 3692 1 parameter based on the maximum extent of the area 2 where we felt the muskrat or caribou would be 3 affected within that area. We didn't look at that in 4 terms of cumulative effects assessment. The area for 5 cumulative effects assessment was broader than the 6 assessment area for the project because we did look 7 at projects outside of the Wuskwatim area that could 8 transport effects into the project area. 9 MR. ABRA: All right, all right. Mr. 10 Hicks, for the purpose of the transmission lines, did 11 the cumulative effects assessment that you did differ 12 at all geographically or temporally from the 13 environmental impact statement that you've already 14 given evidence with respect to? 15 MR. HICKS: I would say generally no. On 16 the understanding that when we began this project, we 17 had a sense of what the impacts associated with the 18 transmission lines might be. And we identified a 19 study area which was intended to cover off any 20 possible locations for those transmission facilities. 21 The instruction to our team then was to 22 characterize that area in respect of any 23 environmental sensitivities which would of course 24 extend to projects that might be affecting the area. 25 So in the sense that cumulative effects assessment is 3693 1 an integral part of the assessment process, I would 2 say no, no difference. 3 MR. ABRA: Okay. 4 MR. OSLER: Just I'm thinking of one 5 thing. If you go through the detail, particularly 6 the terrestrial areas, you would find that in, say, 7 transmission, I think there's an ecological analysis 8 in one of the appendices, the area that the analysis 9 addresses goes through several layers and is quite 10 extensive. So I mean you'd have to explore with Mr. 11 Hicks the nature of some of the analyses that's being 12 done to appreciate just how broad the area was that 13 effectively was defined to be included in the studies 14 that were carried out. 15 MR. ABRA: We'll be getting to that. 16 MR. OSLER: Okay. 17 MR. ABRA: The Canadian Environmental 18 Assessment Agency's cumulative effects assessment in 19 the practitioner's guide has five steps that are to 20 be followed with respect to the cumulative effects 21 assessments. The first is the scoping which you've 22 made reference to. Second is analysis, third is 23 mitigation, fourth is significance and five is 24 follow-up. 25 Now, firstly with respect to a general 3694 1 question, were those five steps followed in the 2 cumulative effects assessment that you did? 3 MR. OSLER: In a general sense, well, in 4 a very specific sense, all of these steps were part 5 of the environmental assessment process that we did. 6 And the cumulative effects assessment was rooted in 7 the same framework. So that in our mind, we didn't 8 do it as a separate exercise necessarily in all 9 instances, although in some instances the scoping 10 issues relating to cumulative effects were clear and 11 distinct such as again dealing with the regional, the 12 system water regime change issues. There was a very 13 separate scoping assessment issue addressed there. 14 But in many -- and dealing with future projects that 15 were identified to be in the range of what we were 16 dealing with, we certainly addressed that separately 17 from the normal part of the EIS. 18 But the scoping, we've just gone through 19 discussing geographic and temporal elements of 20 scoping together and you can see how similar the 21 framework was and how it was designed to be useful 22 for the cumulative effects as well as the initial 23 analysis. 24 MR. ABRA: As far as the scoping is 25 concerned, in addition to the spatial and temporal 3695 1 boundaries, you're supposed to take a look at, 2 according to the practitioner's guide, the regional 3 issues of concern? 4 MR. OSLER: Right. 5 MR. ABRA: Was that done? 6 MR. OSLER: That's essentially 7 identifying what VECs and other issues of that 8 nature, yes, it was done. 9 MR. ABRA: You'll have to select 10 appropriate regional VECs. Are you satisfied you did 11 that? 12 MR. OSLER: Yes. 13 MR. ABRA: Now, you are supposed to 14 identify other actions that may affect those same 15 VECs that you have identified? 16 MR. OSLER: Right. And I take when they 17 say actions, I'm thinking of projects and actions and 18 that's the whole issue of what's in scope and out of 19 scope of the cumulative effects. So we did take into 20 account the relevant -- 21 MR. ABRA: When you say actions, you're 22 talking about other projects? 23 MR. OSLER: Yes. That's what I think 24 they are getting at and that's certainly what we 25 addressed. 3696 1 MR. ABRA: When we're talking about other 2 projects, we're talking about Churchill River 3 Diversion along with any other dams that have been 4 built or may be built in the future? 5 MR. OSLER: Right. And "actions" is 6 perhaps a broader word than just using the word 7 "projects". I believe the technical terms do include 8 projects and activities as Mr. Rempel is pointing out 9 from the document that you gave us. 10 MR. ABRA: Okay. And you're supposed to 11 identify -- 12 MR. OSLER: Sorry, just to be very clear. 13 In the thing you handed out, the very first 14 paragraph, it defines actions includes projects and 15 activities. Thank you. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: At this point, maybe we 17 can have a little nature call break. We will 18 reconvene in ten minutes time. 19 20 (PROCEEDINGS RECESSED AT 11:20 A.M. and 21 RECONVENED AT 11:35 A.M.) 22 23 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Grewar. 25 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman, just while 3697 1 we're waiting, we can perhaps enter the document that 2 Mr. Abra has been referring to. It is a one-page 3 excerpt 2.0 assessment fundamentals. And I'm looking 4 for the source. I'm sorry, I wasn't following to get 5 the source. Sorry, Canadian Environmental Assessment 6 Agency's Assessment Guide 2.0 Assessment Fundamentals 7 would be entered as CEC 1004. 8 9 (EXHIBIT CEC-1004: Excerpt from 10 CEAA Assessment Guide 2.0 Assessment 11 Fundamentals) 12 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Abra. 14 MR. ABRA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 15 Members of the Panel, there's two requests that I 16 have of you by way, and I don't expect them to be 17 dealt with now obviously, but by way of undertaking. 18 The first is that I recognize that different spatial 19 boundaries were used for different parts of the 20 project, not just with respect to the generation 21 project and the transmission line project but 22 according to what we've heard and know from your 23 filings, that there were also different geographic 24 areas that were used for different VECs and for 25 different components and so on. 3698 1 Can you get for us or give to us a map 2 that shows the maximum boundary that covers all 3 aspects of the project? Do you follow what I mean? 4 MR. REMPEL: Do you mean a map that's an 5 envelope of the largest, widest coverage? 6 MR. ABRA: In essence, one that covers 7 all of the areas with respect to the different VECs 8 or the different aspects of the project that 9 encompasses all of it; in other words, how far north 10 did you go, how far south, east and west? I mean we 11 know, I'm not being facetious, but we know you didn't 12 go as far as the Northwest Territories north. You 13 didn't come as far as Winnipeg south, I don't think. 14 You didn't go as far as Calgary west and you didn't 15 go as far as Halifax east. 16 So if you can give us a map that shows 17 the areas that would cover all of the geographic 18 areas? It doesn't have to be broken down into 19 different ones, but just -- 20 MR. REMPEL: The broadest envelope of 21 what was covered? 22 MR. ABRA: Exactly. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Is that the region? 24 MR. OSLER: Yes, in terms of -- I agree 25 with the Chairman. In terms of the generation, you 3699 1 can look at figure 9.2-2 in the socioeconomic and 2 that gives you the local region, the project region, 3 the northern region of Manitoba, all of which were 4 part of that assessment. 5 MR. ABRA: Is that the extent of it? 6 MR. OSLER: Well, in some cases, people 7 looked at effects in air emissions implicitly outside 8 of even Manitoba, just to be candid. So as asked, 9 the question is not that easy to address. 10 I think in the case of the transmission, 11 there is a defined study region, there's a map in the 12 document. But it doesn't help you deal with how 13 these things vary by each component of the 14 environment. I am not sure how helpful it is to you. 15 That's all I'm saying. 16 MR. ABRA: Okay. 17 MR. OSLER: Just in terms of the 18 generation, this page that I didn't bother to 19 reference before but page 2-3 of the volume 1 of the 20 generation EIS, there is a summary of the study area 21 and temporal boundaries and it does, at a very high 22 level, talk about how these boundaries vary between 23 some of the environmental components. 24 MR. ABRA: Those are the temporal 25 boundaries? 3700 1 MR. OSLER: Spatial. 2 MR. ABRA: You said temporal. 3 MR. OSLER: The heading says both and it 4 does address temporal boundaries as well. But it 5 would be -- if you were looking at the very topics 6 you looked at earlier, birds or whatever, it would 7 probably be more useful to talk about what the 8 boundaries are for any one particular vector you're 9 interested in and get a clear idea of that. 10 MR. ABRA: Okay. The other is that the 11 there's a diagram that the members of the Commission 12 are familiar with that is used for the purposes of 13 instructions by the Canadian Environmental Assessment 14 Agency in discussions of threshold. And attached to 15 it are the various components that I have mentioned 16 to you already. 17 And what we're asking you to do, and as I 18 say, it may take some time, I don't know, but by way 19 of undertaking, in dealing with the issue of 20 threshold, if you could plot on the second page for 21 the respective environmental components that we've 22 talked about, fill in the blanks so to speak. Is 23 that possible? 24 MR. OSLER: Well in this one, could we 25 maybe look at it over lunch and get back to you? 3701 1 MR. ABRA: By all means. 2 MR. OSLER: As to its feasibility and how 3 we would deal with it, if that's okay with you? 4 MR. ABRA: Yeah. 5 MR. OSLER: Thank you. 6 7 (UNDERTAKING MH-56: Plot on the second page, of 8 diagram used for the purposes of instructions by the 9 Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency in 10 discussions of threshold, for the respective 11 environmental components that were talked about, fill 12 in the blanks) 13 14 MR. ABRA: Now, in doing a cumulative 15 effects assessment, you are to consider both direct 16 and indirect effects; am I correct? 17 MR. OSLER: In general, we are to 18 consider direct and indirect effects in doing the 19 assessment including the cumulative assessment, yes. 20 MR. ABRA: Okay. Now, obviously you 21 can't do it but is it your position that in doing 22 your cumulative effects assessment, you considered 23 both the direct and the indirect effects of the 24 Wuskwatim firstly generation project and then also 25 the transmission project? 3702 1 MR. OSLER: Yes. 2 MR. ABRA: Can you give us some examples 3 of what you did? By way of example, and you don't 4 have to use this example but just to make sure that 5 my question is understood, dealing with the issue of 6 caribou, for example, and whether it be the 7 generation project or the transmission line project, 8 if the habitat of the caribou is affected at all by 9 the project or the movement of the caribou is 10 affected at all by the project, what impact does that 11 have upon, for example, the hunting of the caribou? 12 That's what I understand to be an indirect effect. 13 That a direct effect leads to a further effect which 14 is the indirect effect? 15 MR. OSLER: There is a particular 16 response to the CEC, one of the questions, where we I 17 think traced through the example of direct and 18 indirect effects which I could get for you. But 19 essentially, the example you gave is one way of 20 looking at it although you've got to be really 21 careful with practitioners as to what they call 22 direct versus indirect. But you look at a chain of 23 effects and there's a diagram in the 9.1 I believe in 24 the socioeconomics. Because we are dealing with 25 people, we're at the end of a long chain of effects. 3703 1 So the diagram shows that people could be affected 2 directly by employment. They could be affected 3 indirectly by effects on the aquatic or the 4 terrestrial environment that affect the resource use, 5 that affect what people can harvest for domestic 6 purposes or for other purposes which could affect 7 their way of life or could affect their income or 8 could affect all sorts of other things. Heritage 9 resources, physically -- physical change in the 10 environment can affect, destroy or otherwise affect 11 the heritage resource in the sense that it erodes it, 12 destroys it, floods it or it can enhance it by 13 getting perhaps access to people to see it more. 14 The diagram in the background volume is 15 8.4 but I think it's in the main volume number 1 of 16 the EIS, it's diagram 9.1. It's the first diagram in 17 that section of the socioeconomic. 18 So that's one way of, at a very high 19 level, describing that you've got to look through a 20 lot of chains here. Not just a direct effect of the 21 project on say water level, but how does that water 22 level change erosion? How does that erosion change 23 sediment? How does the effect of flooding or other 24 things in eroding areas affect mercury? How does the 25 mercury get into the biota? How does that affect 3704 1 people's ability to fish? Is that offset by building 2 a road that gives them better access or all of these 3 things. So yes, I don't know whether I need to keep 4 going. 5 But the assessment process, whether 6 you're doing cumulative or just the initial 7 assessment inevitably involves direct or indirect 8 linkages. And that's why we often think about 9 starting with the project of direct impact area, the 10 way Mr. Davies used that language in the first day 11 you were crossing him. And then we start thinking 12 about how does that start to indirectly affect all 13 sorts of things, physical environment, aquatic, 14 terrestrial, ultimately people. 15 MR. ABRA: So when you were doing the 16 environmental impact statement then, as you say, you 17 attempted to follow the chain with respect to all of 18 the different effects that you identified to see 19 where they would end up in essence? 20 MR. OSLER: Right. We call them effects 21 pathways effectively. 22 MR. ABRA: You did that of course with 23 the Environmental Impact Statement. When you were 24 doing that, did you consider that to be part of the 25 cumulative effects assessment as well or did you do 3705 1 any further assessment as far as cumulative effects 2 were concerned, direct and indirect effects? 3 MR. OSLER: Well, to the extent that we 4 were looking at in our general approach, cumulative 5 effects is adding on the element of looking at some 6 specific future projects just so we understand each 7 other. So if we were looking at -- 8 MR. ABRA: It's not just the future 9 projects, Mr. Osler, it's the effects of the future 10 projects and how they may tie into Wuskwatim. 11 MR. OSLER: Yes. And what we are looking 12 for are the pathways that those future projects might 13 have and seeing whether they overlap with the 14 pathways you and I have just discussed with 15 Wuskwatim. 16 MR. ABRA: The pathways of the effects? 17 MR. OSLER: Of the effects, direct and 18 indirect. 19 MR. ABRA: Okay. 20 MR. OSLER: So to be very specific in Mr. 21 Davies' example he gave you earlier, we fully 22 considered the area that would be an effect pathway 23 and the aquatic component and he gave you the area 24 from Early Morning down to Opegano and perhaps 25 Birchtree Lake. 3706 1 We then considered carefully the 2 potential for overlapping effects pathways from other 3 future projects, Notigi, Conawapa, Gull, Bipole, 4 projects that we have scoped in using acceptable 5 ground rules for projects that are reasonably 6 foreseeable, reasonably likely. The issue then 7 became would these other projects which are well 8 outside this area that I just described as the 9 aquatic area of effect from Wuskwatim, would these 10 have an overlapping effect within that area? Would 11 Notigi have? Would Conawapa have? Would Gull have? 12 Would Bipole have? And our conclusion was no, there 13 would not be such an overlapping effect. But to do 14 that, we had to implicitly consider the pathways from 15 each one of these other projects and whether they 16 would extend directly and indirectly into the area 17 we're talking about for the sake of aquatic analysis. 18 And Mr. Davies walked through an example 19 with you for Notigi which would be one of the more 20 intuitively -- well, maybe it could have an effect 21 that's upstream. And if it came into play, maybe it 22 would have some effects that floated downstream to 23 the point where they overlap with Wuskwatim. 24 And he carefully considered that and came 25 to the conclusion that there was no cumulative effect 3707 1 from Notigi when considering Wuskwatim. 2 MR. ABRA: Is it your position, just for 3 the benefit of the Commission, that in each of the 4 environmental effects that you identified, and 5 whether they be direct or indirect when you followed 6 the pathways, you attempted to identify not only all 7 of the direct effects but all of the indirect effects 8 with respect to all of the aspects that you 9 identified? 10 MR. OSLER: When looking at it from the 11 point of view of the VECs, yes. We didn't look at 12 everything under the sun, we were focused on certain 13 environmental components. 14 MR. ABRA: Right, I understand that. 15 MR. OSLER: With that constraint, yes. 16 MR. ABRA: Okay. And you followed the 17 pathways to the end of the earth? 18 MR. OSLER: Where they go. Where they 19 take you. 20 MR. ABRA: Before you fall off the edge 21 of the earth. 22 You're familiar with the term from the 23 practitioner's guide of the VEC point of view? 24 MR. OSLER: Yes. 25 MR. ABRA: Now, if you want to give me 3708 1 your understanding of it, fine. My understanding is 2 it applies in particular to mobile VEC such as 3 mammals, fish and birds. And when you are doing your 4 environmental assessment, and in particular your 5 cumulative effects assessment, that you are to 6 attempt, as best as possible, to do it from the 7 perspective of that mammal, fish or bird. So for a 8 moment, you have to make yourself into a mallard duck 9 and you have to make yourself into a walleye fish and 10 you have to make yourself into a caribou. And how is 11 the transmission line and the generation station in 12 particular going to impact upon the mobility of those 13 three, i.e. birds, mammals and fish? Firstly, is my 14 interpretation correct? 15 MR. OSLER: Well, it's in section 3.3.2 16 of the Practitioner's Guide and I had never really 17 thought about it necessarily being mobile but maybe 18 you've got a good point. The point is that if I have 19 identified, as a VEC, a fish or a caribou or 20 something else, then my perspective is to assess the 21 effect of the project, direct, indirect, et cetera, 22 on that VEC. So I've got to look at it from the 23 point of view of the health and welfare of that VEC 24 which I take to be "its viewpoint" as distinct from 25 other valued approach I might take if I was looking 3709 1 at it from another angle. 2 So I've always taken it to mean that you 3 have got to focus -- if you've identified a VEC 4 through whatever process you've used, then you have 5 got to look at it seriously from the point of view of 6 the effect of the well-being of that VEC. 7 MR. ABRA: Right. Did you do that? 8 MR. OSLER: Yes. To the best of my 9 knowledge, that's the perspective we took. 10 MR. ABRA: Okay. What about in 11 particular with respect to the mobile VECs that are 12 referred to, that being fish, mammals and birds? 13 MR. OSLER: Maybe I'll let Mr. Davies 14 because in the generation area, he dealt with the 15 biophysical studies and that's what you're focusing 16 on. Maybe he can give you some examples. 17 MR. DAVIES: There was quite a large 18 amount of effort expended on looking at movements of 19 various animals in the area. In terms of fish 20 populations, there were I think approximately 1,200 21 fish tags put on to look at movements both upstream 22 and downstream of the generating station. There was 23 also about 40 radio tags that were put on fish and 24 they were monitored over several years taking a look 25 at where the fish are moving at certain times of the 3710 1 year, whether they would be spawning, whether they 2 are going upstream or downstream. 3 A lot of effort was expended and that's 4 why we are able to say that we know that there are 5 very limited, if any, fish movements upstream of 6 Early Morning Rapids and we were able to put more 7 specific boundaries on fish. 8 In regards to caribou, we had said 9 previously that there is about 200 caribou in the 10 area, the majority being south of the project and a 11 smaller number being north of the project but 12 relatively few actually in the project area. Of 13 those 200, there were 24 tags put on, radio collars, 14 which is more than 10 per cent of total population. 15 All of the tags were monitored and we're getting a 16 very good idea of movements in the area and also 17 movements just slightly outside the area. 18 In addition to that, expert trackers from 19 Nelson House were hired to assist us in taking a look 20 at movements both in spring and summertime which is a 21 very difficult thing to do but they were able to do 22 that to see whether they were moving into the 23 generating station area or outside. 24 We also did another thing in regards to 25 movements for caribou and that's called a break 3711 1 thread or a break string. And basically, there was a 2 string that was strung for 10 or 20 miles along the 3 side of an existing corridor to see whether or not 4 the caribou were crossing, and if so, where they were 5 crossing, again to get a better idea of movements. 6 So, yes, there was a significant amount 7 of effort put into that. 8 MR. ABRA: Mr. Hicks, the transmission 9 line. 10 MR. HICKS: In the case of fish, very 11 little on the basis that the work that was done by 12 our aquatic specialists concluded that the effects on 13 stream crossings associated with the transmission 14 lines were entirely mitigable. 15 MR. ABRA: Were what, sorry? 16 MR. HICKS: Were entirely mitigable or 17 avoidable as the case may be. In the case of 18 birds -- I'm sorry? 19 MR. ABRA: I'm sorry, I'm just wondering 20 what the first word was. 21 MR. HICKS: Mitigable. 22 MR. ABRA: I see, okay. I'm sorry, I 23 didn't understand that. I do now. That could be 24 mitigated? 25 MR. HICKS: Yes. 3712 1 MR. ABRA: Thank you. I'm sorry. 2 MR. HICKS: Have I carried it one too 3 far? 4 MR. ABRA: It's me, I'm sorry. I'm only 5 a lawyer. 6 MR. HICKS: Able to be mitigated or 7 unable to be mitigated as the case may be. 8 For birds, the migratory birds I believe 9 was your particular question. During the 10 construction period, of course we're talking about 11 winter when migratory birds are essentially 12 unaffected. For the permanent establishment of the 13 line and its ongoing operation, we are unable to make 14 very specific predictions about individual birds or 15 bird populations but there is a good deal of 16 literature which was reviewed by our specialists. 17 And in addition, there was a good deal of work done 18 on the habitat that would be removed or potentially 19 affected based in part on the literature work that 20 might alter or change the behaviour of birds in the 21 vicinity of the transmission line. So that was all 22 brought into play. 23 In the case of mammals and caribou in 24 particular, same sort of routine. Very difficult to, 25 over the area that we're talking about with the 3713 1 transmission lines, to make individual 2 population-based estimates as to effects on caribou. 3 But what we could do and did was look at habitat as a 4 surrogate and made some very conservative assumptions 5 about what the implications for habitat might be. 6 For example for caribou, we took the 27 7 square kilometres of right of way footprint that 8 would be affected. We assumed, for the moment, that 9 that's all caribou habitat that would be gone. We've 10 also assumed that for a distance of about 100 metres 11 on either side of the right of way, that there would 12 be some reduced use of that habitat by caribou 13 because of, again, based on the literature review and 14 indications that caribou will tend to be less active 15 in an area immediately adjacent to one of the 16 corridors. So we assumed that 25 per cent of that 17 habitat in that 100 metre band would be gone. And 18 then we compared that altered habitat or loss of 19 habitat to the habitat in the particular eco 20 districts and comforted ourselves that the 21 percentages of habitat that were being affected using 22 those very conservative assumptions were very low. 23 Now, there is no scientific threshold 24 that says precisely this amount of habitat is what 25 would constitute a problem for caribou but we were 3714 1 working with a rule of thumb that something less than 2 one per cent has been used in the literature and in 3 best practices for cumulative effects assessment. 4 And in all cases, we were below that ratio. 5 MR. DAVIES: I just had a note passed on 6 to me that I think I had said 10 to 20 miles of break 7 string. It was actually 50 kilometres, so quite a 8 long string. And NCN trackers and residents again 9 were hired to monitor that area and there were three 10 surveys done. And one of the things that we did find 11 that crossed was a Manitoba Hydro employee. 12 MR. ABRA: The temporal boundaries that 13 you used for the purposes of your cumulative effects 14 assessment in particular, I believe that you used the 15 figure of 10 years for the future; am I correct? 16 MR. OSLER: Okay. In terms of scoping 17 projects or actions that would be considered -- 18 MR. ABRA: That's what I meant, with 19 respect to scoping, I'm sorry. 20 MR. OSLER: With respect to specifically 21 hydroelectric generation activities, Manitoba Hydro 22 activities, I think that's the one place we focused 23 on that particular point. And we said projects in 24 the next five to 10 years, they would start 25 construction effectively within that time period. 3715 1 It wasn't that we only considered in 2 principle effects within that time period, we were 3 looking at a way to assess whether that project or 4 activity should be considered for the purposes of 5 cumulative effects assessment. 6 MR. ABRA: What made you decide on the 7 figure 10 years? 8 MR. OSLER: We were grappling with the 9 problem of the requirement which is that you will 10 look at projects that will occur. And we took these 11 criteria that we would not just limit ourselves to 12 projects that were already licensed or in the 13 licensing pathway, already applied for but not yet 14 granted, we would look at projects that were 15 reasonably likely. But we're certainly not going to 16 look at projects that are hypothetical. 17 So based on that, we looked at the range 18 of projects that Manitoba Hydro had listed as 19 potential projects in the future, particularly with 20 generation. And there are a cluster of projects 21 that, if they occur, have a reasonable likelihood of 22 occurring within the five to 10 year time horizon and 23 therefore would clearly have a potential to be 24 relevant when we are talking to the Commission and to 25 others. Others didn't come even close to that in 3716 1 terms of generation. They were well down the road. 2 We also looked at examples. And I think 3 there's a response to PCN round 2, I think it's 4 number 4, where we gave the rationale and gave some 5 examples including review of the project in Quebec. 6 And I can't spell it for you but it's in that answer, 7 a hydro project which was approved by DFO and others 8 within the last few years. And it was about a 500 9 megawatt project, the generation project. And they 10 had sort of used a boundary of 10 years just for 11 looking at effects, period, without getting into 12 projects being eligible. 13 And I looked at another project, which I 14 should know by heart but for some reason it escapes 15 my mind. In B.C. in the Kootenays where they didn't 16 even get into the type of considerations we're 17 talking about here. 18 So overall, looking at the practice 19 elsewhere, looking at what seem to be the range of 20 issues here, we came to the conclusion as reported. 21 MR. ABRA: I think for the record, Mr. 22 Osler, what you're referring to is 23 PCN/MH/NCN-2-EIS-4J? 24 MR. OSLER: That would sound right, yes. 25 MR. ABRA: And "K"? 3717 1 MR. OSLER: And "K", yes. That's exactly 2 what I was thinking. Thank you. 3 MR. ABRA: You'll probably want to give 4 this some consideration just the same as the chart 5 that I gave to you earlier related to thresholds. 6 But you're familiar with the Canadian Environmental 7 Assessment Agency's what are referred to as the key 8 criteria for an acceptable cumulative assessment 9 process. They are at page 64 of the Practitioner's 10 Guide, Mr. Osler, for your information. I can have 11 it copied if you wish. 12 MR. OSLER: Can you tell me which section 13 it is of the Guide? 14 MR. ABRA: 5.2. 15 MR. OSLER: Thank you. 16 MR. ABRA: Now, I won't read them all for 17 the record. I can have them copied I guess to be 18 marked as an exhibit. But what we're asking you to 19 do is to describe for us how the cumulative effects 20 assessment that Manitoba Hydro and NCN did for the 21 purposes of the Wuskwatim project comply with those 22 eight key criteria? 23 MR. OSLER: Right. I'd be happy to do 24 that. 25 MR. ABRA: Can I get that by way of 3718 1 undertaking then? 2 MR. OSLER: I will give you an 3 undertaking. We'll probably give it to you after 4 lunch. 5 MR. ABRA: Thank you. 6 7 (UNDERTAKING MH-57: Describe how the cumulative 8 effects assessment that Manitoba Hydro and NCN did 9 for the purposes of the Wuskwatim project comply with 10 the eight key criteria, re page 64 of Practitioner's 11 Guide, Section 5.2) 12 13 MR. ABRA: The last question that I have 14 related to cumulative effects relates to Dr. Peter 15 Duinker. And who is he? 16 MR. OSLER: Mr. Davies can describe him 17 better than I can because he's worked with him more. 18 MR. DAVIES: It's actually Dr. Peter 19 Duinker. 20 MR. ABRA: That's what I said, didn't I? 21 MR. DAVIES: When we were referring to 22 VECs or valued ecosystem components, that phrase was 23 actually coined in a document written by Beamans and 24 Duinker which is the same Duinker. It was one of the 25 first documents that was written in regards to modern 3719 1 environmental impact assessments. 2 MR. ABRA: It's my information, and I 3 don't need to know his CV or whatever, it's my 4 information that he was retained by Manitoba Hydro 5 and NCN for the purposes of input with respect to 6 your cumulative effects assessment; am I correct? 7 MR. DAVIES: That's correct. Dr. Duinker 8 is an expert in cumulative effects assessment. He 9 was retained to provide assistance to us. 10 MR. ABRA: Was it done by way of 11 training? When you say assistance, what do you mean, 12 Mr. Davies? 13 MR. DAVIES: We held two workshops -- 14 MR. ABRA: Sorry, is it Dr. Davies or Mr. 15 Davies? 16 MR. DAVIES: Mr. Davies. We held two 17 workshops and Dr. Duinker attended both and provided 18 us with input and information. 19 MR. ABRA: Okay. Now, did you provide to 20 him a copy of the completed EIS for the Wuskwatim 21 generation and transmission projects for his review 22 and comment? 23 MR. DAVIES: Yes, we did. 24 MR. ABRA: Did he give any advice in that 25 regard or did he suggest any changes? And if he did, 3720 1 were those changes made or what was his reaction to 2 the EIS, if I can use that expression? 3 MR. DAVIES: Actually, we had input from 4 Dr. Duinker from the two workshops and intermittently 5 throughout the process, Dr. Duinker reviewed the EISs 6 after they had been filed. 7 MR. ABRA: I'm sorry? 8 MR. DAVIES: Dr. Duinker reviewed the 9 final EISs after they were filed. 10 MR. ABRA: After they were filed? 11 MR. DAVIES: That's correct. 12 MR. ABRA: Okay. And was he satisfied 13 with it? 14 MR. DAVIES: I think overall, he felt 15 that the process that was used was correct. 16 MR. ABRA: Okay. Did he give any 17 concurrence in writing at all? 18 MR. DAVIES: I don't have that, no. 19 MR. ABRA: He didn't or you don't have 20 it? 21 MR. DAVIES: He didn't give it to us. 22 MR. ABRA: Okay. Was he asked? 23 MR. DAVIES: Not that I am aware of 24 anyways. 25 MR. ABRA: I see. And other than Dr. 3721 1 Duinker, did Manitoba Hydro and NCN seek any other 2 third party advice or have anyone else review the 3 Environmental Impact Statement prior to its filing 4 for the purposes of the Wuskwatim projects? 5 MR. OSLER: The review process was 6 internal to Manitoba Hydro and NCN. It did not have 7 any other external review group going over it. And 8 even Dr. Duinker reviewed it after it was filed. 9 MR. ABRA: After it was filed? 10 MR. OSLER: Yes. My colleague is 11 reminding me that the technical advisory committee 12 reviewed our work. And I guess the point is this. 13 We worked on this for several years and we reviewed 14 our initial findings with the world starting in the 15 fall of 2002. We certainly went over the initial 16 findings with the TAC as well as with the public 17 north and south. We held the open house in Winnipeg 18 and the ENGO forum with the ENGOs in Winnipeg. 19 There was not a major change between our 20 initial findings that we discussed with people and 21 the final EIS. So my colleagues are correctly 22 wanting me to point that out. 23 But when I'm asked the question did 24 somebody review the documents called EIS which is the 25 way in which I was answering it, it was reviewed 3722 1 extensively by NCN and Manitoba Hydro but it wasn't 2 reviewed by third parties until it was filed on the 3 very simple understanding that it was going to get 4 one heck of a lot of review after it was filed. 5 MR. ABRA: And Dr. Duinker, as you say, 6 did review it after it was filed. He didn't give you 7 any response in writing but he did, to the best of 8 your knowledge, indicate an acceptance of the format 9 -- not the format that was used but the methodology 10 that was used and the conclusions that you came to 11 and so forth? 12 MR. DAVIES: That's correct. 13 MR. ABRA: Your answer was what? 14 MR. DAVIES: That's correct. There was 15 other individuals and organizations that did provide 16 input and review to the EIS, not necessarily 17 receiving the actual document itself. But, for 18 example, in regards to mercury, the calculations and 19 the methodology that was used to calculate the 20 predicted increases in mercury were discussed with 21 Dr. Bodley at the Freshwater Institute who was one of 22 the world experts on mercury. We did review water 23 quality information with Dwight Williamson who is one 24 of the experts on water quality for Manitoba 25 Conservation. We did talk to a number of research 3723 1 scientists at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans 2 and Manitoba Conservation and also external experts 3 like Dr. Duinker to provide input into the overall 4 EIS and to provide critique where it was required. 5 MR. ABRA: Okay. Mr. Chair, I had 6 predicted that I thought the cumulative effects 7 assessment would take two hours. I'm seven minutes 8 out, I'm sorry. That completes my questions on that 9 particular area of the EIS. Does the Panel have any 10 questions or should I move on to another area? 11 THE CHAIRMAN: I would like to ask a 12 question. Some of my colleagues may also wish. 13 We have heard from the questioning that's 14 been going on with Mr. Abra this morning that you 15 described the Wuskwatim area as a disrupted, 16 environmentally disrupted area where there have been, 17 as a result of the CRD, significant adverse effects 18 which are, in some instances or in most instances, 19 ongoing. And some of these effects are ongoing into 20 the area where the proposed project is to occur. 21 Beyond the -- even though we say in talking about 22 fish that might be affected is in the upper stream 23 area goes only to -- you are only taking measurements 24 up to Early Morning Rapids. Of course some of the 25 other effects are beyond that because some of the, 3724 1 for instance, sediments can start from above that and 2 carry on all the way through. But we'll talk about 3 those later on as individually. 4 But from what I understand is that you're 5 saying the cumulative effects of the project itself 6 are insignificant. And I guess part of one of the 7 undertakings, some of the information Mr. Abra is 8 looking for is whether these insignificant effects 9 combined with the more significant adverse effects 10 which are ongoing from the CRD take us beyond the 11 threshold, and we will await for your response to 12 that, but I cannot help but view that the possibility 13 of the project occurring and producing insignificant 14 effects based on the fact that the adverse effects 15 are already there. 16 So the project can occur or take 17 advantage of the adverse effects that are in place, 18 to put it that way. Basically, the basis on which 19 this project can occur is because it itself produces, 20 according to your evaluation, insignificant effects. 21 But it takes advantage of the existing detrimental or 22 some have gone as far as saying devastation that is 23 already in place because of CRD. 24 Now that leads me to the question of 25 saying that being the case, has Hydro looked at, 3725 1 before putting in place or starting with such a 2 project, at the possible remedial measures that could 3 be undertaken to minimize or to mitigate the existing 4 adverse effects being caused by CRD? 5 MR. ADAMS: The short answer is yes. The 6 long answer I can go on all afternoon, but that's a 7 process that's going forward with or without 8 Wuskwatim. And partly in response to a question Ms. 9 Avery Kinew asked Thursday, we will be in a position 10 to give you a much more fulsome answer sometime in 11 the next few days. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: I know that one of the 13 mitigation measures is compensation as a result of 14 the Northern Flood Agreement and all that. Basically 15 what I was trying to arrive at, we heard some of the 16 elders say, you know, there's no shore line to this 17 lake because it's forested area which was flooded. 18 Before undertaking the building of 19 Wuskwatim, which will take some time before you get 20 to that point because there is all these preparations 21 to occur in the initial stages such as building 22 roads, transmission, and so forth, and there's going 23 to be some forestry clearing in the areas to be 24 flooded around Wuskwatim Lake, I am right in saying 25 these things so far I presume, and the immediate area 3726 1 of the Forebay which is going to be flooded and 2 perhaps around some of the areas of the lake, has it 3 been looked at to see whether instead of allowing, 4 for instance, the same amount of water and that may 5 not be possible due to the licence requirements 6 anyways, but I'm asking the question, is it possible 7 that Notigi could be used to control the flow and 8 allow, in the interval, water to lower in the CRD 9 area in order to do some forestry clearing around 10 some of the more impacted areas of the CRD area? 11 Because that was not cleared initially as what you 12 propose to undertake in regards to Wuskwatim. 13 So what I'm saying is can you not use the 14 Notigi controls to lower the flow in the CRD area, 15 Southern Indian Lake specifically, in order to carry 16 on some of these mitigation measures or remedial 17 measures to clear some of the forestry which 18 prevents, as some have said, from there being any 19 shoreline around that lake? 20 MR. ADAMS: We have an extensive remedial 21 program already in place. We certainly haven't 22 contemplated closing off or drastically reducing the 23 CRD to allow us to get access to an area that's 24 currently under water. I would imagine that such an 25 action would be considered to be a fundamental change 3727 1 under the operations of the CRD and we'd have to go 2 through a process like this to do it. We'd also go 3 broke in the process. 4 And so we do have an extensive remedial 5 management program in place, which I said earlier 6 we'll share to you once we've managed to get all the 7 I's dotted and the T's crossed. But we certainly 8 haven't taken it to the extent of reducing the flow 9 through Notigi to the extent that we would need to to 10 make any measurable effect on lake levels and things 11 like that. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: We'll look at what is 13 going to be the details of that response. But my 14 reason for asking obviously is because there's a door 15 of opportunity that will close once the Wuskwatim dam 16 is erected. Before that, there's the possibility of 17 reducing the flow. But what I hear in your answer is 18 that is impossible saying you cannot go back and 19 remediate in terms of Southern Indian Lake 20 shorelines? 21 MR. ADAMS: Okay. Now you've got me a 22 little confused. If we -- anything we do at Notigi 23 won't have an effect on Southern Indian Lake. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm talking about using 25 Notigi as a control measure in order to lower the 3728 1 water level temporarily in the Southern Indian Lake 2 in order to undertake -- to remediate some of the 3 adverse effects. 4 MR. ADAMS: You would have to use Missi 5 to lower Southern Indian Lake. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, both. You would 7 have to prevent the regular and especially the 8 additional flow that you are allowed to get yearly 9 from Notigi and as well open up Missi to allow more 10 flow on that one. 11 MR. ADAMS: Okay. The short answer is we 12 have a licence to operate Southern Indian Lake 13 between certain ranges and we are not allowed to go 14 outside that licence. We have certainly not explored 15 and nor are we likely to explore the possibility of 16 lowering Southern Indian Lake to a level where it 17 makes it impossible for us to divert water down the 18 Churchill River, even if it's environmentally 19 acceptable which I very much doubt. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: What would be the 21 disadvantages of doing that? 22 MR. ADAMS: Well, firstly, we'd run out 23 of water at the Lower Nelson generating stations 24 which is horrendously expensive. Which defeats the 25 whole purpose of Churchill River Diversion in the 3729 1 first place. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm not talking about 3 doing that on a permanent basis. What I'm saying is 4 until you start with the construction of the dam. 5 MR. ADAMS: It's unrelated to the 6 construction of the dam. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: It's very much related 8 because once you've got the dam, then you've got the 9 backup of flow, the backup of water. 10 MR. ADAMS: The backup of water doesn't 11 affect Southern Indian Lake. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Well then you could carry 13 on doing it afterwards as well. 14 MR. ADAMS: Which would be horrendously 15 expensive. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Ah. 17 MR. ADAMS: It may also be 18 environmentally unacceptable and it's also outside 19 the terms and conditions of the existing licence. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: That would have to be 21 shown. I mean environmentally not acceptable, the 22 conditions that are there is what we are told are 23 environmentally unacceptable. We've heard about from 24 the elders in The Pas the other night still decrying 25 the situation that exists because of CRD and that's 3730 1 what I'm trying to find out. What particular steps 2 has Manitoba Hydro undertaken or will undertake to 3 remedy a situation which we hear everyone coming 4 forward, even some of the members of NCN, Nelson 5 Lake -- Nelson House decrying as a situation because 6 of the destruction of fish habitat, the destruction 7 of trapping habitat, problems with the trees that 8 prevents even a shoreline from existing creating 9 dangerous conditions. And I'm trying to find out as 10 we propose to carry on for another project, whether 11 we can, in the interval, do something to take away 12 the problem which seems to be the greatest concern we 13 hear from the people living in the area, the 14 Aboriginal people living in the area. 15 MR. ADAMS: I think I responded twice, 16 Mr. Chairman, that we are preparing such an 17 explanation. But it isn't quite ready but I'm hoping 18 that by Thursday, we'll be in a position to explain. 19 But we do have a very extensive remedial 20 measures program all over the province and it has 21 been ongoing for several years and we expect it to 22 continue for a long long time. I don't see it in any 23 way related to the Wuskwatim -- the timing of the 24 Wuskwatim project. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, we'll wait that 3731 1 explanation. But how it's related is from what I 2 have stated a while ago. In terms of -- it's related 3 with Wuskwatim in the fact that there is a baseline 4 in Wuskwatim which is the conditions which have been 5 imposed there by CRD. The adverse conditions which 6 are as a result of CRD. That's how it's related. 7 And I think when we talk about looking at cumulative 8 environmental impacts based on past, present and 9 future, it's hard not to say that what exists there 10 comes from -- nobody has denied that. So I'm safe to 11 say that the baseline conditions are as a result of 12 CRD. That's why I'm asking those questions. 13 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Mr. Chair, one 14 difficulty I'm having is that on South Indian Lake 15 itself, Southern Indian Lake, Wuskwatim, as it's been 16 demonstrated, will have not one iota of an additional 17 impact. So for looking at cumulative effects on 18 Southern Indian Lake, Wuskwatim won't be adding to 19 it. And as Mr. Adams indicated, we do have a 20 remedial program and measures we could do to deal 21 with the impacts on the existing system on Southern 22 Indian Lake can happen with or without Wuskwatim and 23 we already are entered into those. 24 We have, for example, in addition to that 25 a monitoring program that is under way with community 3732 1 members and entities at Southern Indian Lake to 2 monitor and address the issues. We have a debris 3 management program. So we have a number of ongoing 4 efforts and they are there regardless of Wuskwatim. 5 And Wuskwatim in no way increases the impacts at 6 South Indian. So we have trouble seeing why we would 7 look at anything different at Southern Indian Lake at 8 this time. 9 The other aspect, and if you wanted we 10 can have some of the experts speak briefly to this, 11 but lowering in a major way the South Indian Lake 12 levels now, in effect we've been establishing a new 13 baseline on the lake. We're establishing a new 14 normal. It's been like that for 18 years. For us 15 now to go do something significantly different and 16 have significantly lower levels than we've had in the 17 past in and of themselves would create a new 18 environmental impact and be disruptive. And my 19 understanding is that, for instance, even DFO, 20 Department of Fisheries and Oceans, would, for 21 example, would probably have serious concerns about 22 the new environmental impacts that we are creating 23 which would be worse than it would be incremental to 24 what we have know. 25 So anyways, we will be providing, as Mr. 3733 1 Adams indicated, an undertaking to give a 2 comprehensive indication of the kind of programs we 3 have in place in addition to the agreements. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: I have agreed to wait for 5 that but you're making -- I think you're making two 6 misrepresentations of what I've said and what you've 7 stated. First of all, you're saying that 8 constructing Wuskwatim will not impact on Southern 9 Indian Lake. I didn't try to say that. I said there 10 is a scenario an existing of an adverse situation 11 which is as a result of Southern Indian Lake. So 12 therefore, since this project will benefit as a 13 result of this existing adverse situation, is there a 14 possibility that some of that benefit could be paid 15 back towards the South Indian Lake region or area or 16 environment while we are awaiting the construction or 17 that we proceed to have a new dam built at Wuskwatim. 18 That's what I was asking. 19 The other misinterpretation that I don't 20 want to leave on the record is that you're saying, 21 you're making the assumption that I'm saying lower 22 the level of Southern Indian Lake on a permanent 23 basis. That was not the intent because you're saying 24 we would leave new water levels which require new 25 licensing and so forth and so forth. I was trying to 3734 1 find out whether there was -- that was a possible 2 scenario, an action that could be carried out 3 temporarily to correct some of the current existing 4 adverse effects. That's what I was trying to say. 5 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Mr. Chair, I understand 6 your first point. And the second point, I was not 7 trying to suggest or infer that you had suggested a 8 permanent reduction. But even a temporary reduction 9 if it's -- depending on when it's done and how long 10 it is itself, even a temporary lowering can have an 11 environmental impact. But we'll provide the 12 undertaking that we had referred to earlier. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Questions? 14 Mr. Mayer? 15 MR. MAYER: Just somewhat of a follow-up 16 on what the Chair was discussing. In order to lower 17 the level of South Indian Lake, even temporarily, I 18 expect or am I correct in assuming you would have to 19 significantly increase, in fact almost restore to 20 normal, or no, to pre CRD conditions the flow through 21 Missi Falls? 22 MR. CORMIE: The discharge out of Missi 23 Falls has -- the discharge capability at Missi Falls 24 is dependent upon the level of Southern Indian Lake. 25 To pass the flows out of Southern Indian Lake today 3735 1 that occurred naturally may not be possible because 2 the structures cannot pass those flows at lower 3 levels. There are physical limits. We have changed 4 the nature of the outlet. And so to return Southern 5 Indian Lake to an elevation of 832 and still pass the 6 inflows, it may not be physically possible. 7 We haven't designed the project to 8 operate at those levels and still maintain those 9 natural levels with natural discharges. The project 10 probably is not capable of doing that. 11 MR. MAYER: So then you're telling me 12 that in order to, even on a temporary basis, to get 13 Southern Indian Lake down to, I understand the level 14 was, it was a three metre increase from natural 15 levels, you'd probably have to blow up Missi Falls. 16 MR. CORMIE: I can't say that for sure, 17 Mr. Mayer, because I don't have the hydraulics of the 18 structures here so I am guessing that's a situation 19 that the structures don't have the discharge 20 capability necessary to return Southern Indian Lake 21 without altering -- 22 MR. MAYER: The structure. 23 MR. CORMIE: The structure, yes. 24 MR. MAYER: Assume maximum outflow 25 through Missi Falls, what, if any, effect would that 3736 1 have on the remedial measures you've already taken at 2 the Town of Churchill to your weir for example? 3 MR. CORMIE: Well, we would have higher 4 flows down the Churchill River. There would be 5 higher levels. The weir would continue to operate. 6 The water supply would be -- would still be possible. 7 There's no risk to that because the -- under flood 8 conditions, we pass very high flows down the lower 9 Churchill and so the structures have been designed 10 for that situation. 11 MR. MAYER: Thank you very much. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: I have to go back to this 13 because I don't want for one moment to leave on the 14 record the fact that, I was not asking you to comment 15 on the scenario based on going to the conditions 16 existing prior to CRD. I was looking at the 17 possibility of modifying those conditions, reducing 18 the level to try and do some mitigation work on the 19 shore line, basically allowing some flow but to a 20 lower extent. 21 MR. CORMIE: Mr. Chairman, Southern 22 Indian Lake is rarely at the full supply level. Half 23 the year, it's, you know, it's drawn down two or 24 three feet. So as part of our remedial measure 25 program, we take advantage of the times when it's at 3737 1 lower levels and we're trying to optimize that debris 2 management program given the water conditions that 3 occur throughout the year and from year to year. And 4 for example, last year, water conditions were lower 5 because we were in drought conditions. And in those 6 circumstances, if there is opportunities to 7 accelerate or change the program, we take advantage 8 of those. 9 But to design something in advance, we 10 haven't yet considered that. But the remedial 11 program is an ongoing one taking advice from our 12 environmental advisors on whether clearing is a good 13 thing by itself or whether it creates more problems. 14 Clearing shore lands of debris increases erosion 15 rates and sometimes it's best to leave the debris 16 there in order to stabilize the bank. 17 And so this is an area of active study 18 and development and it's complicated and we're trying 19 to come up with a program that will deal with this 20 issue and, in the long term, result in the best 21 environment given the situation that we have a 22 project there. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. This being 24 12:30, we'll break for lunch and we'll reconvene at 25 1:30. 3738 1 (PROCEEDINGS RECESSED AT 12:30 P.M. 2 AND RECONVENED AT 1:30 P.M.) 3 4 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, ladies and 6 gentlemen. We are ready to proceed where we left 7 off this morning with the questioning on the EIS. 8 Mr. Abra. 9 MR. ABRA: Are there any more 10 questions on cumulative effects from the members 11 of the Commission before I move to another area? 12 THE CHAIRMAN: It is your intent to go 13 to the specific area now? 14 MR. ABRA: Yes, it is, yes, thank you. 15 Mr. Osler. 16 MR. OSLER: Before lunch I had agreed 17 to go away and consider the feasibility of dealing 18 with a couple of questions that I had undertaken 19 to address. One was on key criteria and the other 20 one -- I don't think that you have given it an 21 exhibit number? 22 MR. GREWAR: That is what I was about 23 to do, Mr. Chairman, it is with regards to the 24 cumulative effect intensity of development graph 25 and the associated thresholds, I would like to 3739 1 assign an exhibit number to this document as 2 CEC-1005. 3 4 (EXHIBIT CEC-1005: Cumulative Effect 5 Intensity of Development Graph and the 6 Associated Thresholds) 7 8 MR. OSLER: So, if it would be useful 9 I could try and respond to those now and then we 10 could proceed? 11 MR. ABRA: Are you ready to respond to 12 them now? 13 MR. OSLER: Yes. 14 MR. ABRA: Sure. 15 MR. OSLER: I will start with the key 16 criteria one first, which was the second of the 17 two undertakings. In section 5.2 of the 18 practitioner's guide there are a series of 19 criteria listed; eight in total. You asked me to 20 go over them and just comment quickly on whether 21 we had addressed them. The first criteria is the 22 study area is large enough to allow the assessment 23 of VECs that may be affected by the action being 24 assessed. This may result in an area that is 25 considerably larger than the action's footprint. 3740 1 Each VEC may have a different study area. 2 We I think have already discussed in 3 detail how we addressed that criteria. How we had 4 different effectively study areas for different 5 VECs as required and that these were considerably 6 larger than the footprint of the project. And as 7 we discussed earlier the word action in here means 8 includes the project that we are assessing. So in 9 the transmission and generation studies we have 10 met that criteria. 11 The second criteria, other actions 12 that have occurred, exist or may yet occur that 13 may also affect those same VECs are identified. 14 Future actions that are approved within the study 15 area must be considered. Officially announced and 16 reasonably foreseeable actions should be 17 considered if they may affect those VECs and there 18 is enough information about them to assess their 19 effects. Some of these actions may be outside the 20 study area if their influence extends for 21 considerable distances and length of time. 22 As I think we have discussed at some 23 length, we have looked at other actions that have 24 occurred, exist or may yet occur as required under 25 this criteria. We have done that in the context 3741 1 of the VECs that would be directly affected 2 through an effects pathway through either one of 3 these projects. With respect to future actions we 4 have used the standard of reasonably likely to 5 occur as distinct from the standards that are 6 listed here, so we have gone beyond the criteria 7 here. We have gone beyond requiring them to be 8 either approved or officially announced. We have 9 looked at reasonably foreseeable, I guess would be 10 the approach that we have used, particularly with 11 respect to hydroelectric development. 12 As you have heard us discuss some of 13 these actions that we have concluded in the 14 thought process were outside of the study area. 15 Conawapa and Notigi, for example, are outside of 16 the study area. So we have met this criteria 17 number two in doing the assessments for both 18 projects. 19 Number 3 says, the incremental 20 additive effects of the proposed action on the 21 VECs are assessed. And we discussed, Mr. Abra, 22 how we were trying to get at the overall net 23 effect at the end of these projects, their net 24 additive incremental effect. If the nature of the 25 effects interaction is more complex, eg. 3742 1 synergistic, then the effect is assessed on that 2 basis, or why that is not reasonable or possible 3 is explained. And I take it that they mean why 4 that type of assessment is not reasonable or 5 possible would have to be explained. 6 Where effects are more complex and 7 have possible degrees of interaction we have 8 looked at them, and I guess one of the examples 9 that we thought about discussing this was if we 10 developed the access road there are all sorts of 11 possible interactive effects, ranging from effects 12 on habitats to effects of people coming in and 13 harvesting, and we addressed that through access 14 management. So to the extent that we have had to 15 come up with methods that are mitigative in order 16 to address the overall control of effects, we have 17 done so. So in general under item 3 we believe we 18 have addressed them for both projects. 19 Item 4, the total effect of the 20 proposed action and other actions on the VECs are 21 assessed. Now in each case we are looking at 22 different VECs, you do this VEC by VEC, and we 23 believe that we have been attempting to do that 24 and meet that criteria as required. 25 Number 5, these total effects are 3743 1 compared to thresholds or policies, if available, 2 and the implications to the VECs are assessed. I 3 will discuss, in dealing with the second 4 undertaking, the whole issue of threshold in more 5 detail as to why we didn't find it to be available 6 in most instances. So I will address that, if you 7 like, more usefully in the second answer. 8 The point is that we have done it 9 where we think it is available, and where it is 10 available we have addressed the implications, so 11 we have met the criteria. 12 Number 6, th analysis of these effects 13 use quantitative techniques, if available, based 14 on best available data. This should be enhanced 15 by qualitative discussion based on best 16 professional judgment. Our understanding and view 17 is that in dealing with both of the EISs we have 18 met that criteria. 19 Number 7, mitigation, monitoring and 20 effects management are recommended, eg., as part 21 of an environmental protection plan. These 22 measures may be required at a regional scale 23 possibly requiring the involvement of other 24 stakeholders to address broader concerns regarding 25 effects on VECs. Generally speaking we have 3744 1 certainly addressed and discussed with you 2 mitigation monitoring and effects management. In 3 the context of the access management issues 4 whether they be for the road or transmission lines 5 we have discussed how others would be involved, 6 and we have said in principle if we are dealing 7 with downstream effects, concerns, that we 8 expanded the monitoring beyond the area where we 9 thought the effects would in fact occur in order 10 to provide a baseline for the interested parties 11 downstream to assess ongoing changes to the 12 environment in their area with respect to water 13 quality. 14 Number 8 finally, the significant of 15 residual effects are clearly stated and defended. 16 That of course is the same as stated in the 17 guidelines and was indeed addressed for each one 18 of the separate environments in each of the 19 studies. 20 So in general, the eight criteria we 21 believe have been addressed. And that would be 22 our response to that particular undertaking. 23 With respect to the other undertaking 24 which is now exhibit CEC-1005, our understanding 25 of the diagram that is at the front of this 3745 1 exhibit is not much different than the concept 2 that I tried to describe with my hand in the air a 3 long time ago today. The concept that when 4 available, when it is feasible, that there would 5 be something called a threshold, if we are looking 6 at a particular environmental VEC. It might be 7 water quality, it might be mercury, but it would 8 be different for each one of the ones that you 9 might think of. To qualify for the use of the 10 word as it is used sitting in this diagram, we 11 have interpreted it to be a threshold that can be 12 used to go and assess the state of the environment 13 today, independent of the project. And you could 14 therefore determine whether the environment today 15 in this particular vector was acceptable or 16 unacceptable, or in a range of uncertainty, close 17 to the line. And the concept, I take it, in the 18 diagram of a threshold buffer is trying to deal 19 with the uncertainty. 20 In looking at information there would 21 be a natural degree of variability and results 22 from year to year looking at most environmental 23 issues, so it is not always clear as you might 24 assume whether you are inside or outside, 25 acceptable versus non-acceptable, so there could 3746 1 quite easily be an area where you are hovering 2 near the threshold. I have taken that to be what 3 the concept is. 4 Looking at the table you asked us to 5 consider, I think the first point I would make is 6 that, and it has been clear throughout all of our 7 questioning, answers to questions, is that our 8 approach throughout the EISs dealt with cumulative 9 effects as an integral part of the overall 10 assessment not as a separate add on. So my 11 answers will look at the issue of effects 12 assessment without trying to separate out 13 cumulative effects or not. The issue is looking 14 at the environment as it exists or looking at the 15 environment after we have done an assessment of 16 the effects with or without all of the cumulative, 17 is there a threshold that we can describe to you 18 for each one of these environmental components 19 that you have listed in the table. 20 Generally speaking the table has 21 listed five items that are what I would call water 22 related, total suspended solids, fish population, 23 fish habitat, mercury levels in fish and mercury 24 levels in humans. And another five components 25 that are terrestrial based, caribou population, 3747 1 caribou habitat, migratory bird populations and 2 migratory bird habitat and protected areas. 3 We have discussed with you a concept 4 of a threshold in the way in which you have used 5 the language I believe here with respect to 6 mercury levels in fish and mercury levels in 7 humans, and we put on the record the criteria 8 standards or the thresholds that were used in our 9 analysis, and I recorded for you the comments back 10 from Health Canada during the supplementary 11 filings in August and October to clarify 12 acceptable levels of mercury in humans in terms of 13 a threshold, humans of different ages and 14 humans -- how it could vary among different humans 15 at different stages. So you have that as a matter 16 of the record. 17 The present status of the environment 18 and the status of the environment after it is 19 affected by this project has been addressed and we 20 have discussed it. So I don't think that there is 21 any usefulness in us trying to reiterate all of 22 that today. 23 The only other area where you might 24 think we have had a threshold in the sense of the 25 way the diagram is written you might think would 3748 1 be total suspended solids, but in effect the way 2 that we have used the guideline, Mr. Rempel walks 3 me through it, it is more a guideline of change 4 against the existing baseline. So in that sense 5 it is not really a threshold that evaluates the 6 environment today, it is more a threshold that 7 evaluates the change to that environment and 8 whether they are acceptable or not. So I don't 9 think that we can fill in that concept even there. 10 But you can explore that further with Mr. Rempel 11 if you like. 12 In the sense that I have just used the 13 word threshold, we have not used it in the other 14 analysis. There is not sort of a standard number 15 that would assess the existing environment in a 16 way in which we have approached it. We have, of 17 course, in each case looked at thresholds in the 18 sense of sustainable yield or sustainable 19 populations, when you are dealing with particular 20 species to the extent that that is something that 21 can be analyzed. 22 We have looked at habitat and how any 23 changes to the habitat would affect the species in 24 any significant way, and in order to do that we 25 have had to create regions in which to assess the 3749 1 degree to which change is occurring in a 2 meaningful way in that region. With respect to 3 protected areas, that is a very specific matter 4 where you either are dealing with protected areas 5 or you are not, or you are trying to guess where 6 protected areas might emerge in the future. It is 7 not something that we have gotten into trying to 8 do separately. Where there are protected areas 9 identified we have addressed them, and where they 10 haven't been identified or talked about as 11 potential areas we haven't gotten into them. 12 There are thresholds in another sense that 13 regulators bring forward that have been noted. 14 Certainly in dealing with fish there is no net 15 loss, that is certainly when dealing with DFO a 16 particular approach that is the subject of an 17 entire document in terms of approach to dealing 18 with that. You could probably find other 19 particular regulatory thresholds that have to be 20 observed or addressed with respect to migratory 21 birds or things like that, but those are different 22 issues. 23 I would just note that in general we 24 don't think it is feasible or useful, we can be 25 usefully helpful to you in trying to fill out 3750 1 this, we would be better off trying to describe to 2 you component by component that you are interested 3 in how we came to assessments as to the state of 4 the environment today, if that is what you are 5 interested in, and the extent to which this 6 project is changing it in any meaningful way and 7 why we come to a conclusion that the net result of 8 the project, taking into account all of the things 9 that we are talking about, past, present and 10 future projects, is not creating a significant 11 adverse change for the purposes of regulatory 12 review. 13 In closing I just say that in the 14 practitioner's guide section 3.5.3 which addresses 15 using thresholds, it talks about how these may be 16 expressed in terms of goals or targets or 17 standards and guidelines, carrying capacity or 18 limits of acceptable change, and each one of them 19 can be quite different. Now I will quote, 20 "Making useful conclusions about 21 cumulative effects requires some limit 22 of change to which incremental effects 23 of an action may be compared. 24 Theoretically if the combined effects 25 of all actions within a region do not 3751 1 exceed a certain limit or threshold, 2 the cumulative effects of an action 3 are considered acceptable. In 4 practice, however, the assessment of 5 cumulative effects is often hindered 6 by a lack of such thresholds," 7 Which is what I was trying to get at. 8 "This is particularly true for 9 terrestrial components of ecosystems. 10 Namely the type of things at the 11 bottom half of this table. 12 Contaminants affecting human health 13 and constituents in air and water are 14 usually regulated, therefore 15 thresholds useful for assessment 16 purposes are defined by regulation or 17 available in guidelines, eg., Health 18 Canada's drinking water quality 19 guidelines. Consideration of human 20 health is often implicit in some 21 assessments of biophysical components 22 such as air quality." 23 And I would say that when we were dealing with 24 mercury in fish, you get a good case where health 25 of humans has lead to pretty clear thresholds and 3752 1 guidelines by regulators and others. So it is a 2 very key matter of how we go about trying to 3 assess significance. Where we can use it, where 4 it is available, we have used thresholds that 5 would allow one to assess the state of the 6 environment today and how it might be different 7 after the project. Where it is not, we have gone 8 to using the other approaches that are recommended 9 in the guide, including qualitative assessments 10 and professional judgment. And I think in order 11 to explore any one issue I would invite you to 12 pursue, which I believe you probably will do, 13 sediment or caribou or migratory birds to see how 14 it has been done in practice. 15 MR. ABRA: I would like to go briefly 16 to climate change. The Canadian Environmental 17 Assessment Agency periodically puts out circulars 18 entitled General Guidance for Practitioners. Are 19 you familiar with what I'm talking about? 20 MR. OSLER: Yes. 21 MR. ABRA: Those are in addition to 22 the guide book itself. In November of 2003 there 23 was one put out entitled, Incorporating Climate 24 Change Considerations in Environmental Assessment. 25 Are you familiar with that particular document? 3753 1 MR. OSLER: I have it in front of me. 2 I have not gone through it in as much detail as I 3 have gone through a lot of other things. 4 MR. ABRA: Were the effects of the 5 Wuskwatim generation and transmission projects 6 assessed with the use of the guidelines suggested 7 in that document? 8 MR. OSLER: Well, the guideline in 9 this document is November '03, and the assessment 10 was done in April. So I would pass over to others 11 to deal with the details of the climate, but in 12 general when I looked at the review of it and 13 discussed it, it seemed to me that we have been 14 following the approaches that were laid out here. 15 I leave it to you to pursue your particular line 16 of questions -- 17 MR. ABRA: That is what I want to 18 know. Granted it was published subsequent to your 19 EIS. But if you are familiar with the document, I 20 gather from what you are saying is that you have 21 done a retroactive assessment, if I can use that, 22 based upon the content of that document, am I 23 correct? 24 MR. OSLER: I have personally, but I'm 25 not sure that those that did the area assessment 3754 1 for climate change have. So that is what I'm 2 testing. 3 MR. REMPEL: I think we can say to the 4 best of our knowledge that we had incorporated the 5 essence of what the guide proposed. 6 MR. ABRA: Now, dealing with the EIS 7 and what the guideline has to say, what were the 8 results of the evaluation then, Mr. Rempel? 9 MR. REMPEL: Of the climate change of 10 the EIA? 11 MR. ABRA: Yes. 12 MR. REMPEL: I guess we concluded 13 given the displacement of greenhouse gases 14 produced from fossil fuels, that there was a net 15 benefit of this project in terms of global 16 reduction of greenhouse gases. And I think there 17 has been quite a lot of testimony to that effect. 18 And we did, in the case of the transmission lines, 19 take consideration of the loss of carbon stock and 20 we erred on the side of caution by assuming that 21 the entire right-of-way would be cleared and all 22 of the biomass would be lost, when in fact that is 23 erring on the side of caution, that will not 24 happen. So even allowing for that, we thought 25 that on balance there was a definite conclusion 3755 1 supported by we felt the Pembina Institute report, 2 which was part of the EIS, that there was a net 3 benefit in terms of greenhouse gas reductions. 4 MR. ABRA: For the reasons that you 5 have given? 6 MR. REMPEL: Yes. 7 MR. OSLER: For the record, for the 8 broad word climate change, George has addressed 9 air emissions and that type of thing. I'm not 10 sure whether you are thinking also of the other 11 concept of climate changes which is the changes 12 that might affect the project in terms of water 13 regime and those types of changes. 14 MR. ABRA: No, it was really the 15 greenhouse gases that I was interested in. We 16 will be getting to the others in due course. 17 Now I don't think it is news to any of 18 us, but those that are experts may disagree with 19 me, that there seems to be an evolving scientific 20 consensus that the climate is changing and that 21 may accelerate in the future, is there any 22 disagreement in that regard? 23 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: No. 24 MR. ABRA: And that is hopefully going 25 to create an environmental premium for low 3756 1 greenhouse gas power. Is Hydro in its future 2 planning considering this prospect of 3 environmental change or climate change in the 4 future in its long range planning, Mr. Wojczynski? 5 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Yes. And I mean I 6 could elaborate slightly on my no. You were 7 talking about a merging consensus, and there are 8 still some scientists, either in the field or 9 outside of the field, who don't agree with the 10 concept but the vast majority do. And there 11 are -- there is vast uncertainty as to how fast, 12 how much these specific impacts, but the vast 13 majority of scientists in the area agree with that 14 general direction. But that is not to say that 15 every single scientist does. There is a body of 16 opinion that doesn't agree with it, but they are 17 in the minority. So a slight qualification of my 18 no. 19 And your question as to whether we 20 consider the impacts of climate change on our 21 plans; we do in many different ways. As we talked 22 about during the NFAAT, we certainly think about 23 it in terms of what we can do in our company in 24 our actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in 25 the future as part of a voluntary commitment. I 3757 1 don't think that you were referring to that. If I 2 understood you correctly, you were referring more 3 to the impacts. Given that there will be climate 4 change in the future, are we planning around that 5 to assess our, make sure our plans are robust with 6 those and take those into account. If that was 7 your question, then the answer to that is yes. 8 MR. ABRA: In particular, with respect 9 to your hydrologic experience and so forth for 10 your future planning and not just with Wuskwatim, 11 but with any future projects that you may be 12 considering. I guess the issue becomes, if there 13 is going to be a more significant change in 14 climate in the future than what there has been in 15 the past, then can you look to past experience to 16 the same degree as you might have in past projects 17 for future planning? 18 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: You can never use the 19 past as being a 100 percent indicator of the 20 future. And the fact that we are looking at the 21 likelihood of climate change affecting 22 precipitation, affecting evaporation, affecting 23 wind, affecting temperature, means that there is a 24 greater amount of uncertainty using historical 25 records than there otherwise would be. 3758 1 However, the best evidence that we 2 have right now is that while there is a pretty 3 strong indication that temperatures will increase 4 in the future, particularly in the winter, on the 5 other hand when you are looking at precipitation 6 and you look at runoff, the micromodels rather 7 than the global models, the models that are more 8 focused on the precipitation kind of issues in 9 regions, we could have less or greater 10 precipitation and we could have less or greater 11 inflows. So, we think that using the historical 12 record is a reasonable indicator, recognizing that 13 there is uncertainty in either direction, but we 14 explicitly think about that when we look at flood 15 capability and we look at dependable energy for 16 our system as well. So we do consider the 17 uncertainty as well. 18 MR. ABRA: So for future planning it 19 is obviously a significant issue that you are 20 looking at as far as the impact of climate change, 21 excuse me, the impact that climate change may 22 have. 23 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: We do consider that, 24 yes. 25 MR. ABRA: Okay. That ends my 3759 1 questions on climate change, Mr. Chairman. Is 2 there any from the panel before I move on? 3 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: While you are looking 4 through your paper, I might add that we are quite 5 involved at Manitoba Hydro in research. We have 6 funded over half a million dollars and committed 7 over half a million in research on the impacts of 8 climate change. I am going to boast to say that I 9 was recently appointed as a director of something 10 called the Arctic Net, which is a climate change 11 consortium sponsoring and guiding research into 12 climate change impacts on the Arctic and the 13 Hudson's Bay. And we are sponsoring research 14 chairs. And so as a company we are quite active 15 in the area, including trying to get a better 16 handle on what the flow impacts will be down the 17 road. 18 MR. ABRA: Okay. Thank you. I would 19 like to go to the aquatic biological effects. 20 Dealing firstly with fish productivity as far as 21 the generation project is concerned, page 26 of 22 the presentation that you made on the first day of 23 these hearings, which seems like a long time ago, 24 you state in it that there will be long term 25 increases in walleye, northern pike, lake ciscos 3760 1 and lake white fish in Wuskwatim Lake from the 2 Wuskwatim generation project. How did you make 3 this determination? It is under the bullet long 4 term increases in pickerel, jack fish and lake 5 Cisco, and lake white fish production. 6 MR. DAVIES: What we did is -- 7 MR. ABRA: Which I will call walleye 8 and northern pike, if you don't mind. 9 MR. DAVIES: Was the question related 10 to walleye and white fish? 11 MR. ABRA: All four of them. 12 MR. DAVIES: First of all, we looked 13 at the potential linkages between the project and 14 biological components. We looked at the effects 15 of the project on aquatic habitat, phytoplankton, 16 which is the algae in the water, zooplankton, 17 which are the little bugs that sort of float 18 around in the water, the aquatic plants that are 19 in the water, benthic invertebrates, again the 20 bugs that live on the bottom of the substrate and 21 the forage fish which are the little fish that 22 bigger fish eat. We then looked at how the 23 changes in each one of these components would 24 affect the various fish species. And when we did 25 that, first of all, we felt there would be a short 3761 1 term decrease in spawning habitat, and that was 2 due to erosion, and sediment deposition along the 3 shoreline, particularly during the first five 4 years of the project when there is erosion it 5 could settle on some of the spawning habitat and 6 there would be a reduction. Again, short term for 7 the first five years. We felt there would be a 8 short term initial increase and a longer term 9 increase in spawning habitat due to the water 10 level stabilization. Right now we have about a 11 four and a half foot water level change in 12 Wuskwatim Lake. When it is stabilized at 234, we 13 will have more productive spawning habitat because 14 of that stabilization. The eggs won't become 15 exposed when the water is drawn down and you 16 actually have a larger sized lake. 17 We looked at the over-wintering 18 potential. We felt there would be a small but 19 positive increase in over-wintering potential 20 because of the increased depth of the lake. We 21 looked at the increase in phytoplankton. We 22 didn't feel there would be a major increase in 23 phytoplankton, but there might be some small 24 increases in the back bays where there would be 25 increased nutrients and that would be positive for 3762 1 fish species. We felt there would be particularly 2 a short term increase in zooplankton, again it 3 would be very small, but it would be positive in 4 terms of providing a food source for fish. 5 MR. ABRA: Sorry, Mr. Davies? 6 MR. DAVIES: Zooplankton, those are 7 the little bugs that float around in the water. 8 MR. ABRA: Thank you. 9 MR. DAVIES: One of the larger 10 increases would be the aquatic plants. In a lot 11 of hydroelectric reservoirs you see very few 12 aquatic plants for two reasons. Some of them have 13 higher turbidity and the light can't reach the 14 bottom as easy as it can in a clear lake. But 15 more frequently because of the water level draw 16 downs, the plants that are growing in areas that 17 do get sunlight often dry up and die. In a lot of 18 lakes where you see a significant amount of draw 19 down there is very few aquatic plants. Because of 20 the stabilization of the water levels in Wuskwatim 21 Lake, we felt there would be increased plant 22 production and the plants are very useful for fish 23 in terms of providing surface areas for 24 invertebrates to grow, which they feed on, and it 25 also provides areas for the smaller fish to hide 3763 1 and get away from predators. 2 We felt there would be a short term 3 decrease in some of the benthos along the 4 shoreline, again because of the sediment 5 deposition from erosion, but we felt overall there 6 would be a very large, significant increase in 7 benthic invertebrates in the long term because of 8 the stabilization of water levels. There is about 9 somewhere in the neighborhood of 1500, 10 1475 hectares of shoreline zone that would be 11 considered intermittently exposed right now. 12 Because of the 4.5 feet the water levels go up and 13 down, and it exposes a fairly large area of 14 shoreline. When the water levels are stabilized 15 there will be an increase of about 1500 hectares 16 of shoreline which will be representative of 17 productive capacity of 750 hectares, about half of 18 that amount as compared to today. 19 MR. ABRA: So, in essence, do I 20 understand it to be your position that the 21 stabilization of Wuskwatim Lake is going to be 22 what assists the fish productivity? 23 MR. DAVIES: That's correct. One of 24 the major affects of hydroelectric development is 25 the water levels fluctuations. 3764 1 MR. ABRA: The fluctuations at present 2 I assume are the result of CRD, is that correct? 3 MR. DAVIES: That's correct. We are 4 seeing a negative impact because of the water 5 level fluctuations from CRD. The construction of 6 the generating station will stabilize those 7 impacts and result in a positive effect on some of 8 the parameters. Again, we are looking at the area 9 that is upstream of the generating station, and we 10 are saying that the area upstream will be 11 positively impacted for a number of reasons. 12 There is more detail that we can go into. 13 If you look at the area downstream, it 14 is much smaller, but there will be a negative 15 effect on fish populations in that reach because 16 of the increased water level fluctuations 17 immediately downstream of the generating station. 18 When we take a look at the larger positive effect 19 upstream of the generating station, a smaller 20 negative effect downstream, the overall net effect 21 is positive. 22 MR. ABRA: So, in essence you are 23 balancing the good against the bad, and the good 24 comes out on top. Is that effectively what you 25 are saying? 3765 1 MR. DAVIES: That's correct. And we 2 like to make sure that people understand that 3 ultimately the number of fish that will be in the 4 lake will to a large extent depend on the number 5 that are taken out by harvesters. We do expect 6 that there will be an increased commercial fishery 7 and probably an increased domestic fishery that 8 will be removing fish from that population. So 9 while the lake may be more productive for fish 10 populations, there may in fact be less fish 11 because of the increased harvesting. 12 MR. ABRA: The improvement that you 13 are talking about with respect to the fish 14 productivity, in essence if the fluctuating water 15 level at present in Wuskwatim Lake is as a result 16 of CRD, which you said that it is, then the steps 17 that you are taking now effectively are offsetting 18 the adverse effects from CRD, is that basically 19 your point? 20 MR. DAVIES: To a large extent the 21 stabilization of water levels does -- the largest 22 effect is from CRD. It would also stabilize some 23 of the natural effects, but basically yes, that's 24 correct. 25 MR. ABRA: Okay. 3766 1 MR. DAVIES: One thing I should have 2 mentioned also when I talked about the negative 3 effects on fish populations downstream and the 4 negative effects on fish habitat downstream, 5 despite the fact that there are positive effects 6 upstream, the negative effects will be compensated 7 for under the no net loss policy with the 8 Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and there is a 9 habitat compensation plan that has been put 10 together and submitted to DFO for their 11 consideration. 12 MR. ABRA: Yes, I'm aware of it, and 13 we will be getting to that. Are you aware of any 14 other documented examples in boreal forest in 15 particular where fish productivity has increased 16 as a result of hydroelectric developments or -- 17 sorry, go ahead and answer that part first. 18 MR. DAVIES: One of the most recent 19 examples is Churchill weir. The Churchill weir 20 was specifically constructed to provide increased 21 fish habitat, and it was for a recreational area 22 but also to provide fish habitat in deeper waters 23 upstream of the weir. And we are seeing the types 24 of things that we expected to see. The aquatic 25 plants are becoming more abundant in some areas 3767 1 where we expected them to be. We are seeing 2 increased benthic production because of the deeper 3 and more stable water levels, and the fish 4 populations we expect will be starting to respond 5 to that also. 6 MR. ABRA: So the stabilization of the 7 Churchill River as a result of the weir, it is 8 anticipated -- the stabilization of the water 9 level of the Churchill River, will have it is 10 hoped a positive effect on fish population or has 11 it been demonstrated already? 12 MR. DAVIES: We are collecting the 13 information now and it is still a bit early to 14 demonstrate fish populations because it takes a 15 bit longer to collect that type of information, 16 they don't respond as quickly as some of the lower 17 trophic levels like benthic invertebrates. But 18 again the project was specifically built to 19 increase fish production, and we are seeing the 20 components that support fish populations 21 increasing as expected. 22 MR. ABRA: Okay. Going to the 23 transmission project next. Are there potential 24 adverse effects of the transmission project on 25 fish habitat? 3768 1 MR. HICKS: In our opinion, no. The 2 EIS describes potential effects on the aquatic 3 habitat and on the fisheries in association with 4 the stream crossings as negligible. 5 MR. ABRA: So it is anticipated that 6 stream crossings won't be adversely affected at 7 all, Mr. Hicks? 8 MR. HICKS: Following mitigation, yes. 9 MR. ABRA: What about ice bridges? 10 MR. HICKS: Ice bridges and winter 11 construction are considered to be the least 12 intrusive means of crossing streams. We view 13 winter construction as one of the strongest 14 mitigating factors in relation to the aquatic 15 habitat. 16 MR. ABRA: If you haven't identified 17 any adverse effects, you are not proposing any 18 mitigation then? 19 MR. HICKS: Again I'm not suggesting 20 there were no adverse effects, and we have never 21 done that with respect to the transmission line. 22 What we have concluded is no significant adverse 23 effects. There are about 46 stream crossings 24 associated with the entire length of the 25 transmission line, and all of those have been 3769 1 reviewed at the level of initially alternative 2 route analysis. And following that, from an 3 assessment perspective. Many have been visited on 4 site, particularly those where there was 5 considered to be sensitivity in respect of the 6 condition of the crossing or the susceptibility of 7 the crossing to erosion or to rutting, also with 8 respect to the quality of the fisheries habitat 9 associated with that particular stream or water 10 course at the point of crossing. 11 MR. ABRA: What are some of the 12 adverse effects that you maybe have identified? I 13 don't need a whole list, but give me the top 14 three. 15 MR. HICKS: Rutting and erosion are 16 two. Bear with me for a moment. 17 MR. ABRA: Rutting as a result of 18 vehicles being driven into the stream beds and -- 19 MR. HICKS: If we were constructing in 20 the summertime, that would be a very significant 21 concern. It is much less so in the winter time. 22 It nonetheless requires some attention. There are 23 a number of protocols, construction standards that 24 will be identified, have been identified at this 25 stage in general terms in chapter 3, the project 3770 1 description, but will be specified on a site 2 specific basis in the environmental protection 3 plans for each segment of the transmission 4 project. 5 MR. ABRA: Each of the adverse effects 6 that may be identified? 7 MR. HICKS: Mitigating factors, or 8 mitigating measures that we believe will avoid any 9 significant adverse effect. 10 MR. ABRA: Okay. So what mitigation 11 then would you use for, as you say, the rutting 12 and the -- 13 MR. HICKS: Again, in the case of 14 rutting, the most significant mitigating effect is 15 use of winter construction. In the case of 16 erosion, it is to use selective clearing in or 17 around the banks of a water course, so that to the 18 extent that clearing of the transmission line 19 right-of-way might expose that right-of-way to 20 more run-off, or to more rapid run-off and the 21 project of erosion, by making sure that you set 22 your towers well back from the banks of the stream 23 crossing, by making sure that you go with very 24 selective clearing in the vicinity of the 25 crossing, you minimize that effect. 3771 1 MR. ABRA: Okay. 2 MR. MAYER: Would you riprap the banks 3 on stream crossings and -- 4 MR. HICKS: Again, if we were talking 5 about a summer construction circumstance, 6 Commissioner Mayer, and if we were talking highly 7 susceptible banks, in all likelihood we would. 8 But in this particular case, with winter 9 construction and with the particular crossings 10 that have been identified and examined, no, there 11 is no expectation. 12 MR. MAYER: Thank you. 13 MR. ABRA: Is there an expectation 14 that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will 15 issue a letter of advice for the Wuskwatim 16 transmission project, and if so, what are the 17 likely terms and conditions in it? 18 MR. HICKS: As I understand it, the 19 Department of Fisheries and Oceans have screened 20 out the transmission project. 21 MR. ABRA: Have they? 22 MR. HICKS: Yes, which would mean to 23 me that they are satisfied that normal -- 24 MR. ABRA: They are not intending to 25 take it any further, as far as you are aware? 3772 1 MR. HICKS: They would not be carrying 2 it into a comprehensive study report, no. 3 MR. ABRA: They still are for the 4 generation project? 5 MR. HICKS: For the generation 6 project, yes. 7 MR. ABRA: Do they not still issue a 8 letter of advice, even if they -- have they issued 9 one saying that they have, as you say, written it 10 out or whatever? 11 MR. HICKS: Not as far as I am aware. 12 We do expect that we will get a letter of advice 13 or a letter of approval from the Coast Guard 14 element of the DFO with respect to the crossings. 15 We are in the process now of identifying to the 16 Coast Guard those crossings where we feel there is 17 some level of navigability, and advising them as 18 to where the structure locations will be, what the 19 clearance from the normal and flood water levels 20 to the base of the conductors would be, so that we 21 can assure them that there is no risk of 22 interference with navigation. 23 MR. ABRA: Would there be terms and 24 conditions being put in such a letter of advice 25 from the Coast Guard? 3773 1 MR. HICKS: Sorry. 2 MR. ABRA: Would there be any terms 3 and conditions being put in such a letter of 4 advice from the Coast Guard? 5 THE WITNESS: In my experience the 6 terms and conditions would be the expectation of 7 compliance with the drawings that we will file. 8 So the drawings will stipulate the setback of the 9 structures and the clearance between the water 10 levels and the conductors, and that provided that 11 we complied with that, that would be the extent of 12 the condition. Again, that is Coast Guard. 13 MR. ABRA: All right. I see that 14 Ms. Hicks passed you a note. Was there something 15 else that you wanted -- 16 MR. HICKS: What has been happening is 17 that we have been in touch with DFO with respect 18 to the Coast Guard and the navigable rivers and 19 streams crossing since about the time of the 20 supplementary filing in August of last year, so we 21 have had a number of conversations and meetings 22 with Kelly Cochrane, who is the responsible 23 person, and have been exchanging back and forth 24 with her and with the department the content that 25 we will need to provide in respect to the 3774 1 Navigable Streams Act. 2 MR. MAYER: In the interim, I have 3 been told that part of your licence at Kelsey, for 4 example, requires you to move vessels, be they 5 yachts, canoes, or motor boats, around your 6 generating station at Kelsey. Firstly, was my 7 information correct? And if it was, would you 8 expect a similar requirement around Wuskwatim? 9 MR. HICKS: I will ask for help on 10 that one, but I do know that in the case of 11 Wuskwatim there is a portage route identified. 12 MR. MAYER: I can tell you at Kelsey 13 they have a really nice piece of equipment to move 14 those big American boats around it. 15 MR. ADAMS: I have to take this under 16 advisement, but I don't think that we have a 17 requirement to do it at Kelsey. Certainly, if 18 someone shows up in a boat and is looking for 19 assistance to get from upstream to downstream, or 20 downstream to upstream, we normally give it to 21 them. I don't know about those great big 22 cruisers. 23 MR. MAYER: Quite frankly, Mr. Adams, 24 I think I saw the piece of equipment that is 25 actually used to move the American boats, fairly 3775 1 good sized ones, around Kelsey. And I was 2 informed, when I had the opportunity to stop there 3 on a canoe trip down the Grass River, that in fact 4 the people on site thought it was a requirement. 5 We, of course, weren't going from upstream to 6 downstream, we came underneath it, but we did 7 enjoy their hospitality, for which I would like to 8 thank them again. 9 MR. ADAMS: I will take it under 10 advisement. It would be unusual for the Coast 11 Guard to put that in a Navigable Waters Act 12 licence, particularly at Kelsey where 40 years ago 13 it was not navigable. 14 MR. REMPEL: Mr. Mayer, I would like 15 to add that the Wuskwatim Falls and Taskinigup 16 Falls right now are not passable by normal boats, 17 but, as Mr. Hicks said, there is provision for a 18 boat launch both upstream and downstream in the 19 project description. 20 MR. MAYER: I'm aware of that, but I'm 21 aware also that prior to the Churchill River 22 Diversion that was a very nice canoe route, with 23 well established portages which were destroyed as 24 a result of the Churchill River Diversion. I'm 25 glad to hear that somebody is talking about 3776 1 putting new ones in. 2 MR. ABRA: Dealing with the issue of 3 fish habitat compensation, you are familiar with 4 the Department of Fisheries and Oceans fish 5 habitat management policy? 6 MR. DAVIES: Yes, I am. 7 MR. ABRA: What is it, Mr. Davies? 8 MR. DAVIES: There is a number of 9 different policies. This relates mostly to 10 section 35.1 and 35.2 that you can't have a 11 harmful alteration to or destruction of fish 12 habitat. If you do, you are required to 13 compensate for that fish habitat under what they 14 call the no net loss policy. 15 MR. ABRA: What is the no net loss 16 policy? What does that mean? 17 MR. DAVIES: Basically, if you remove 18 X hectares of fish habitat that you are required 19 to replace at minimum of that amount, and 20 generally you are required to provide more than 21 that to err on the safe side. 22 MR. ABRA: Now, you have already 23 indicated what harmful alteration, disruption and 24 destruction of fish habitat is. That is commonly 25 referred to, I understand, as the HADD process? 3777 1 MR. DAVIES: That's correct. 2 MR. ABRA: What is the nature and the 3 extent of the HADD process for the Wuskwatim 4 Generation Station? 5 MR. DAVIES: We took a look at all of 6 the areas that would be negatively affected by the 7 project and quantified the habitat in those areas, 8 which included things like the footprint of the 9 generating station itself, areas that would be 10 affected by water level fluctuations downstream, 11 all of the structures and all of the areas that 12 would be affected. We met with the Department of 13 Fisheries and Oceans and discussed it with them in 14 terms of the types of habitat that they would like 15 to see replaced at what is being lost. One of the 16 things that we requested is if DFO would consider 17 looking at habitat replacement, in addition to 18 some on site replacement, some habitat replacement 19 in the areas of Footprint Lake and Threepoint Lake 20 and other areas closer to the community of Nelson 21 House to provide increased benefits to the 22 community, rather than put them in areas 23 downstream of the generating station that aren't 24 being used by, or harvested by anyone today. So, 25 we did put together a plan, and as I said, we met 3778 1 with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans 2 several times. The plan looks at a combination of 3 things, one of which is potentially stabilizing an 4 area that is currently eroding in the lake that is 5 very important for fish on the other side -- it 6 keeps sediments from them -- also rehabilitating 7 some areas that are currently eroding and covered 8 with debris where production is very limited. I'm 9 trying to think of some of the other things in the 10 plan. There is three things that will actually 11 take place in Wuskwatim Lake, as I said, some 12 stabilization of shoreline areas. The main thing 13 is keeping one of the islands together that is 14 currently eroding, to protect fish habitat on the 15 other side, it provides a very large replacement 16 area. One other small thing is, when they show 17 the project description, there is an area that is 18 going to be excavated for a channel, in order to 19 provide increased flow into the immediate forebay. 20 At the bottom of the channel, they are going to 21 leave small rubble and cobble to increase, sort of 22 faster moving habitat for fish, that was something 23 that appeared to be acceptable to DFO. 24 MR. ABRA: When you identify, as you 25 say, a HADD, so to speak, you do attempt to take 3779 1 mitigation measures -- sorry, go ahead. 2 MR. HICKS: That's correct. 3 MR. ABRA: And the ones that you have 4 identified now, for example, you said with respect 5 to the island you are attempting to take steps to 6 keep the island together and prevent it from 7 eroding significantly? 8 MR. DAVIES: The island is already 9 eroding, and it will erode with or without the 10 project. So one of the things that can be done to 11 compensate for some of the habitat that is going 12 to be lost is to ensure that the island is 13 maintained, and protect the fish habitat on the 14 other side of that island, which is very 15 productive. It is actually a peninsula. 16 MR. ABRA: Now, is it contemplated 17 that after mitigation of the adverse effects that 18 have been -- the adverse effects that have been 19 anticipated, and the mitigation steps that you 20 intend upon following, is it anticipated that 21 there will be any residual environmental effects 22 as far as HADD is concerned -- in other words, any 23 residual HADD? 24 MR. DAVIES: Right now we are looking 25 at a situation that is a bit different, because we 3780 1 actually have an increase in fish habitat because 2 of the stabilization of water level. So without 3 the fish habitat compensation plan, you will have 4 a positive residual effect. With the fish habitat 5 compensation plan, you will have a much larger 6 positive residual effect. And DFO is quite 7 strict, I guess is the word, to make sure that the 8 amount of compensation that you are providing is 9 equal to or greater than the amount being 10 affected. 11 MR. ABRA: When do you anticipate that 12 DFO will provide its authorization with respect to 13 HADD? 14 MR. DAVIES: They are looking at it 15 right now, and we would hope that within the next 16 few weeks to a month that we would get some 17 feedback from them in terms of the HADD. 18 MR. ABRA: Okay. 19 MR. DAVIES: I should state that they 20 won't make a formal authorization until after the 21 CSR. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: You made reference to 23 the positive effect in the EIS in regards to fish 24 in Wuskwatim Lake. Is it proposed that there will 25 be -- and also in reference to the fact that there 3781 1 is some compensation for the net fish loss 2 required by Environment Canada. Is it projected, 3 or is it proposed that there will be ongoing 4 monitoring, or annual monitoring to determine how, 5 in quantitive terms, how this improvement will 6 occur? 7 MR. DAVIES: There is a monitoring 8 program that will be attached to the HADD to make 9 sure that the amount of production and 10 improvements that are made by the offsetting 11 mitigation will be monitored, yes. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Will there also be 13 similar monitoring upstream and downstream of the 14 project? 15 MR. DAVIES: There is a 21-year 16 monitoring program in total that looks at the 17 effects of the project on the environment, now six 18 years during the construction and 15 years 19 afterwards. There will be a separate monitoring 20 program, there is a separate monitoring program 21 that will be attached, however, to the HADD, 22 because that will be specifically looking at the 23 improvements being made by that HADD. So there 24 will be in fact two monitoring programs. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Is Hydro proposing to 3782 1 improve fish habitat -- or in terms of hatchery, 2 for instance, of fish in that area? 3 MR. DAVIES: The Department of 4 Fisheries and Oceans normally likes to provide 5 offsets in terms of a like for like. So if you 6 are impacting a lake area, they prefer that the 7 mitigation that you are providing, or the 8 compensation you are providing is to create 9 habitat in a similar environment, particularly 10 close to the site that is being affected. In the 11 no net loss policy actually one of the last 12 choices, if you run out of choices of things to 13 do, is a fish hatchery, so that is very low on 14 DFO's list. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have data to 16 show that there might be negative impacts on the 17 Churchill River as a result of the controls or of 18 the added flow program for -- that you obtain 19 annually for additional flow to the Wuskwatim Lake 20 area -- would that consequently reduce, by 21 reducing the flow to the Churchill, have a 22 negative impact on the other side, on the 23 Churchill? And do you replace there? 24 MR. DAVIES: I guess this may be 25 somewhat out of scope in terms of Wuskwatim, but 3783 1 if you are reducing the flows down the Churchill 2 River, you are obviously exposing additional fish 3 habitat, yes. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Do you do some 5 mitigating or additional replacement of fish in 6 that system? 7 MR. DAVIES: The weir was one of the 8 pieces of mitigation that was put in place to 9 mitigate fish habitat for the community. Again, 10 it was a recreational area, but also an area where 11 the people could go and fish. So the weir 12 increased water levels. And we watered, I think 13 it was about a 10 or 12 kilometer reach of the 14 river close to the community, to provide fish 15 habitat and a place to recreate by fishing. In 16 addition to the weir there was also work that was 17 done on, it was called Goose Creek, it was an area 18 that was a dry channel, and improvements were made 19 in that to also provide an offset for some of the 20 sort of riffle and fast moving habitat that was 21 lost when the weir was put in place. So there is 22 two things that were done for Churchill. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: So that would impact 24 also some further upstream lakes on the Churchill? 25 MR. DAVIES: It went about 12 3784 1 kilometres upstream. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Only 12 kilometres. 3 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Just for the record, 4 I want to make sure that we have a full mutual 5 understanding. When Mr. Davies was saying it is 6 somewhat out of scope perhaps, this issue, what we 7 are thinking of here is that we don't expect any 8 change in the flows on the Churchill because of 9 Wuskwatim. So I think that is understood, but I 10 just wanted to make sure that was understood. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm again referring to, 12 I am making the same scenario as this morning, the 13 added benefit of the additional flow and having an 14 impact elsewhere, so a benefit that needs to be, 15 if it has an impact elsewhere, then I see it as 16 part of a cumulative impact, therefore I'm asking, 17 is there remediation done somewhere else where the 18 negative impact is felt? Even though this doesn't 19 change anything, the project will have the benefit 20 of that additional flow. And I'm saying, if that 21 has an impact, is it now, currently for instance, 22 being remedied? And what I'm told is, to a 23 certain extent, yes, with the Churchill River weir 24 at Churchill and further upstream. 25 MR. DAVIES: Actually in addition to 3785 1 the weir there were a few other smaller things 2 that were done, and one actually was stocking. 3 There is a very large quarry there, and part of 4 the quarry was used to build the weir, and that 5 was stocked with, I believe with trout, again a 6 different type of fishery for the community. 7 MR. ABRA: I would like to go to the 8 issue of fish passage for a moment. Page 29 of 9 the EIS presentation that you made some weeks ago, 10 the comment was made, "most fish that move 11 downstream will go through the turbines." You 12 have seen fit to put a positive spin on it where 13 you have said 80 to 90 percent of fish are 14 expected to survive. I would like to turn that 15 around and say that 10 to 20 percent will die. 16 Under what conditions do you 17 anticipate that the mortality rate will be closer 18 to 20 percent, and under what conditions will it 19 be closer to 10 percent? 20 MR. DAVIES: When we put the 10 to 21 20 percent range in, it was because there was a 22 limited amount of information on the specific type 23 of turbine that was going to be used at Wuskwatim, 24 and also there is a limited amount of information 25 on cold water fish species like white fish and 3786 1 pickerel. So what we did -- 2 MR. ABRA: As far as the impact of 3 turbines is concerned, do you mean? 4 MR. DAVIES: As far as the impact of 5 the specific type of turbine that would be used at 6 Wuskwatim, which is a fixed blade turbine, it will 7 be four to six blades. The fixed blade turbines 8 would cause lower fish mortalities than the types 9 of turbines that we looked at to get the 20 to 10 10 percent. The estimates are to some extent 11 based on two reports, one by Matusek and one by 12 Navarro. They looked at fish movements through a 13 number of generating stations in Minnesota. The 14 turbines that they looked at were Francis 15 turbines and Kaplan turbines, mostly Francis but 16 we also looked at Kaplan and other areas, both of 17 which cause higher mortality rates than the fixed 18 blade turbines. The Francis will have somewhat 19 higher than 20 sometimes, but for walleye they are 20 somewhere in the 18, 19 percent range. Kaplans 21 will have lower mortalities than that. And the 22 fixed blade will have much lower than the Kaplans. 23 And the reason that the fixed blade have lower 24 than the Kaplans is the fixed blades are bolted 25 directly to the hub. The Kaplan turbines have a 3787 1 space between the blade and the hub which allows 2 for another area that the fish can be damaged on. 3 So it is talked about a lot, the precautionary 4 principle, but we did basically take what we felt 5 would be close to a worst case scenario to provide 6 an estimate of the 10 to 20 percent, because we 7 didn't have a lot of information specifically on 8 that turbine type and specifically on the fish 9 species that are present in the Wuskwatim area. 10 MR. ABRA: How confident are you in 11 the estimate? 12 MR. DAVIES: We are quite confident 13 that the estimate will actually be lower than the 14 20 percent. 15 MR. ABRA: And there is no -- when you 16 used the figures 10 to 20 percent, you are not 17 talking about different conditions as they exist 18 in the river, or in the dam, or whatever, it is a 19 range that you are using for purposes of your 20 estimate? 21 MR. DAVIES: It is a range that we are 22 using for the purpose of the estimate, but it 23 should be understood that different sized fish do 24 have different mortalities when they go through, 25 different species have different mortalities. 3788 1 MR. ABRA: The bigger the fish, the 2 higher the mortality rate? 3 MR. DAVIES: Actually, in some cases 4 the bigger the fish, the lower the instantaneous 5 mortality, but the higher the long-term mortality, 6 because they are more apt to be damaged by the 7 blades. Smaller fish seem to have a higher 8 mortality, a higher instantaneous mortality, but 9 they survive better once they are through. 10 MR. ABRA: Mr. Wojczynski, sorry, I 11 didn't mean to cut you off. 12 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: You didn't cut me 13 off, but Mr. Abra and Mr. Chairman, if it was 14 deemed useful at all, we do have some overheads 15 that could depict the different kinds of turbines. 16 It doesn't sound like that is necessary, but if it 17 was something that was deemed useful, we could put 18 on the overhead projector a picture or diagram of 19 the different kinds of turbines, and that would 20 give some idea of why there is a range of effects 21 of different kinds of turbines, but only if that 22 was judged useful. 23 MR. ABRA: I don't know that it is 24 necessary. You will recall that during the NFAAT 25 stage, we asked a question that related to why you 3789 1 were using a fixed blade as opposed to the Kaplan, 2 because it was our information that the fixed 3 blade may cause more erosion downstream. But you 4 did indicate that the reason for the selection was 5 fish mortality, but you weren't too sure why -- I 6 shouldn't say you weren't too sure why, but we 7 agreed that we would put it off until the EIS 8 questioning. I think that Mr. Davies has answered 9 the question. It was for that reason, I gather, 10 amongst others, that the fixed blade turbine was 11 chosen, as far as fish mortality is concerned? Am 12 I correct? 13 MR. DAVIES: Yes. 14 MR. ABRA: Are there any other steps 15 that can be taken in an attempt to predict and 16 mitigate the fish mortality as it relates to the 17 turbines, going through the turbines in 18 particular? 19 MR. DAVIES: We actually expect that 20 the number of fish that will be going downstream 21 will decrease once the generating station is in 22 place, for a couple of reasons. Right now fish 23 that move over Wuskwatim Falls are basically 24 trapped between Wuskwatim Falls and Taskinigup 25 Falls, they go either downstream or they live in 3790 1 an area that may not be completely, may not be 2 able to provide all of their life history 3 requirements. It is a relatively small area and 4 it is between two sets of falls. When the 5 generating station is constructed, water levels 6 will be increased, Wuskwatim Falls will no longer 7 exist, and fish that come downstream between 8 Wuskwatim Falls and Taskinigup Falls will be able 9 to swim back into the lake if they want to. 10 Generally, the area in front of generating 11 stations is also less, the fish habitat is less, 12 of lesser quality than you would find in other 13 parts of the lake. So the fish don't as 14 frequently use those areas as they do other parts. 15 So we would expect that the number of fish moving 16 downstream would be decreased, but of those fish 17 that do move downstream, the majority would go 18 through the turbines and we would have that type 19 of mortality. 20 There have been some thoughts given, 21 and there has been some reviews conducted in terms 22 of what types of mitigation could you use to keep 23 fish from going through the turbines. And in our 24 opinion, most of those have not been practical, 25 either biologically or economically. 3791 1 MR. ABRA: For example, telling them 2 not to go through the turbine doesn't really help? 3 MR. DAVIES: That does almost nothing 4 to them. 5 MR. ABRA: They don't listen to you 6 just like they don't listen to me. 7 When we are talking in terms of 8 percentages, from a practical point of view, or 9 from a numeric point of view, how many fish are we 10 talking about that you anticipate will be killed 11 going through the turbine? 12 MR. DAVIES: We did two types of 13 tagging studies. The first was a floy tagging 14 study. We tagged 1,259 fish, and of those 1,259 15 fish, only one actually went downstream. That 16 doesn't actually give you a good understanding of 17 the number of fish that are moving downstream for 18 a number of reasons; one, because of recapture 19 rate, it would definitely underestimate the number 20 of fish moving downstream. You get a better idea 21 of fish, of the number moving downstream from the 22 radio tags that were put on. And I believe that 23 20 percent of the white fish that were radio 24 tagged moved downstream. I have the actual 25 numbers here. There were 19 radio tags put on 3792 1 white fish, and three of those went over; of the 2 14 walleye, none of the radio tags went 3 downstream; and of the 8 tullibee or cisco that 4 were tagged, only one of them went over Taskinigup 5 Falls. The fish species that appear to be most 6 susceptible is white fish. One of the thoughts 7 is, because white fish is a much more sensitive 8 fish, it is not as hardy as walleye, there may 9 have been some drift that occurred when the tags 10 were put on. But, again, based on the relatively 11 small number of fish, 19, we did see about 12 20 percent of those move downstream. 13 MR. ABRA: That was the next question 14 I was about to ask you, actually, was there any 15 species that seemed to be more vulnerable? And 16 you say that, based upon your studies to date, it 17 may be the white fish? 18 MR. DAVIES: That's correct. 19 MR. ABRA: And I think you have 20 answered this already, but what sizes are we 21 talking about? Your previous answer was that it 22 appears that the larger fish, although they may be 23 able to survive, are often more vulnerable as far 24 as injury is concerned, which ultimately leads to 25 them dying, whereas if the smaller ones make it 3793 1 through, they seem to be less vulnerable for the 2 future -- 3 MR. DAVIES: Right now, under natural 4 conditions -- the first thing to recognize is 5 there is not a migration that is occurring in from 6 Wuskwatim Lake, and that is very important. If 7 fish go downstream, they can't get back upstream. 8 There is no upstream fish passage that currently 9 exists there. So we are not looking at a fish 10 migration, and the area upstream is actually 11 harvest and the area downstream isn't, so there 12 really isn't, in our opinion, a need or a want to 13 have a lot of the fish moving downstream. 14 When the generating station is built, 15 two things will happen; you will get, I believe, a 16 reduced number of fish going downstream through 17 the turbines; and you will see, in terms of 18 different sized fish, the larval fish that are 19 currently drifting down, just after eggs hatch and 20 the fish are very, very small, they are like 21 plankton, they float on the water, they can't 22 swim, so the current basically washes them 23 downstream. Right now those fish are being washed 24 downstream. When the generating station is put in 25 place, those fish will not be going through the 3794 1 turbines or being washed downstream, the majority 2 of those will stay within Wuskwatim Lake. 3 MR. ABRA: Is there any likelihood of 4 fish passage in the spillway? And if so, will 5 that have any effect upon the mortality? 6 MR. DAVIES: The spillway will be very 7 rarely used, so there won't be a large number of 8 fish that will be going down the spillway. 9 MR. ABRA: Presumably when and if it 10 is used, there will be some fish going down? 11 MR. DAVIES: There will be some fish 12 going down. I believe that it was designed, and I 13 may be corrected on this, but I think it was 14 designed to not be as harmful to fish that would 15 be going down the spillway. 16 MR. ABRA: Okay. What is the status 17 of the final aquatic effects monitoring program? 18 It is in draft now, I know. 19 MR. DAVIES: We met with DFO several 20 times over the last few years and discussed the 21 monitoring program with them. I think the 22 monitoring program in total is about 150 pages, it 23 is very, very detailed. That has been provided to 24 DFO. They distributed it to the scientists, and 25 we have met with those scientists before devising 3795 1 the program. They are reviewing it, and again, we 2 are hoping to have input shortly. 3 MR. ABRA: Is it anticipated that 4 there will be any changes from the draft that has 5 been prepared, subject to comments that may be 6 made by DFO? 7 MR. DAVIES: We are hoping it will be 8 similar, because it is quite extensive, but I 9 would be surprised if the number of research 10 scientists that are looking at it won't have some 11 input or comments on it. I expect that they will. 12 MR. ABRA: Is there any way that you 13 can tell us now which provisions may be 14 implemented and which ones may not be? 15 MR. DAVIES: It will depend on the 16 review and approval by DFO. Again, the monitoring 17 program that is being submitted is very extensive, 18 and I would expect that a large portion of it 19 would be accepted. 20 MR. ABRA: Now, when is the program 21 scheduled to begin and how long is it intended to 22 last? 23 MR. DAVIES: The program actually 24 would start before construction would start to 25 strengthen some of the baseline areas where there 3796 1 would be slightly different monitoring. So the 2 program would start in 2004, it would continue 3 throughout the entire construction period. And 4 there is a very specific -- different types of 5 monitoring that would be conducted during the 6 construction period to make sure that we are 7 picking up things like total suspended solids when 8 they are working instream. And the operational 9 phase of the monitoring program would start 10 immediately following construction, when it first 11 starts to operate. That would go for seven years, 12 and then it would be looked at after seven years, 13 and it would continue for -- the total program is 14 21 years in length. 15 MR. ABRA: 21 years? 16 MR. DAVIES: 21 years in length. 17 MR. ABRA: So, notwithstanding that it 18 is going to be examined after 7, you still 19 anticipate carrying it on for a least another 14, 20 in some form? 21 MR. DAVIES: Right now the proposal is 22 to conduct monitoring every three years until we 23 hit that 21 years. 24 MR. ABRA: Okay. Will the monitoring 25 program become a specific environmental protection 3797 1 plan on its own, or will it be integrated into 2 another plan at all. 3 MR. DAVIES: Normally, what has 4 happened is -- I think what would be expected to 5 happen is that the monitoring program will be 6 finalized by the Department of Fisheries and 7 Oceans, and it will become an appendix or an 8 attachment to an environmental protection plan. 9 MR. ABRA: So that would be available 10 to the public then for review? 11 MR. DAVIES: The document will be 12 available to the public for review. 13 MR. ABRA: The present fish monitoring 14 plan, of course, or the aquatic effects monitoring 15 program, as it is called, deals specifically with 16 the generation project. Will there be a similar 17 plan put in place for the transmission project at 18 all? 19 MR. HICKS: Could you repeat the 20 question? 21 MR. ABRA: Is there going to be any 22 kind of a fish monitoring program put in place 23 with respect to the transmission project? 24 MR. HICKS: I would say no. What 25 there will be is a compliance monitoring program 3798 1 with respect to the stream crossings, to ensure 2 that the mitigating measures that have been 3 identified or will be identified and specified in 4 the environmental protection plans are complied 5 with by the contractors. 6 MR. ABRA: Okay. 7 MS. AVERY KINEW: Compliance 8 monitoring, who does the report go to? 9 MR. HICKS: It would normally go to 10 the Manitoba Conservation. In recent projects, 11 DFO have been much more aggressive in their review 12 and inspection of our stream crossing, so I would 13 expect in all likelihood it would also go to DFO 14 as well. 15 MS. AVERY KINEW: Is this made 16 available to the public on any kind of registry? 17 MR. HICKS: Not so far as I'm aware. 18 MS. AVERY KINEW: I was just wondering 19 if there were any recommendations, if there were a 20 licence granted and recommendations, how would 21 people be able to assess whether they are being 22 followed? 23 MR. HICKS: I'm afraid I can't answer 24 that. That would be a question for the regulatory 25 authorities, I think. 3799 1 MS. AVERY KINEW: Do you make anything 2 available through Manitoba Hydro's annual report 3 or -- 4 MR. HICKS: No, I think that would be 5 far too specific for the annual report. We would 6 have no difficulty with Manitoba Conservation or 7 DFO releasing the results. That is not an issue. 8 It is just a question of the process. 9 MS. AVERY KINEW: Thank you. 10 MR. ABRA: That completes my questions 11 on fish, Mr. Chairman. If the panel has any 12 others -- I can move on to my next area, but 13 looking at the time, I am wondering if you want to 14 take the afternoon recess -- whichever you prefer, 15 I can move on if you wish? 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Maybe cover one more 17 area. 18 MR. ABRA: Terrestrial effects -- the 19 boreal or quarry areas, I will refer to them as 20 quarry areas if it is okay, because I prefer that 21 term -- can you explain to us, please, after the 22 access road to the Wuskwatim project is built, 23 what steps will be taken to rehabilitate the 24 quarry areas, either along the road or wherever 25 the quarry areas are going to be? 3800 1 MR. DAVIES: Manitoba has -- Manitoba 2 Hydro has specific standards for rehabilitating 3 quarry areas, and I believe that their past 4 activities actually have taken them to the point 5 where they no longer require a permit or 6 application because they had done such a good job 7 in other areas. One example is in Churchill. 8 They rehabilitated the areas that were used to 9 build the Churchill weir, and they actually went 10 out and rehabilitated some of the other areas that 11 other contractors had used because they had been 12 requested by the Town of Churchill. 13 MR. ABRA: So you are not getting a 14 permit. Are you saying then that because of the 15 experience that Hydro has had in the past in 16 rehabilitating quarries for the purposes of road 17 building, or whatever, that you are intending upon 18 using the same procedures in this regard? 19 MR. DAVIES: First of all, I would 20 like to turn it over to Manitoba Hydro to find out 21 if they do need a permit. I know that they do 22 have their own set of standards to do that, and 23 those standards are quite high, but perhaps 24 Manitoba Hydro could clarify that. 25 MR. ADAMS: To operate any quarry in 3801 1 this Province you have to get a permit, and we are 2 no different from anybody else. 3 MR. ABRA: That is what I thought. As 4 chairman of the Mining Board, we used to give them 5 out. 6 MR. ADAMS: Typically, a permit will 7 come with rehabilitation requirements. To be 8 perfectly honest, it is a long time since I have 9 looked at one personally. But as Mr. Davies says, 10 we do have -- Manitoba Hydro is opening and 11 closing quarries on a continuing basis, so we have 12 standard procedures. 13 MR. ABRA: You have standard 14 rehabilitation procedures that you follow? 15 MR. ADAMS: Yes. 16 MR. ABRA: And it is anticipated then 17 that the same procedures will be followed in this 18 case? 19 MR. ADAMS: Yes. The only caveat that 20 I put on that is that it may be appropriate to 21 keep one or more of the quarries open for 22 maintenance material or road bed material and so 23 forth. But that would all be covered by permit. 24 MR. ABRA: To give us a very brief 25 idea on the process that is used for 3802 1 rehabilitation, is it generally done by 2 revegetating the holes, or do you actually fill 3 the holes right in with other material? 4 MR. ADAMS: You don't normally fill 5 the hole in, but what you tend to do is knock down 6 the side so it is smooth slopes, and where 7 feasible, try to use the soil that came off in the 8 first place to put back on, and encourage new 9 vegetation to grow. 10 MR. ABRA: Okay. Now, in the issue of 11 protected areas, what protected areas exist or are 12 proposed in the vicinity of the Wuskwatim Lake, 13 the access roads, and the transmission corridors? 14 MR. HICKS: The principal one affected 15 by the transmission corridors is the Tom Lamb 16 wildlife management area, which extends roughly 17 from Cormorant into The Pas, along the south side 18 of Clearwater Lake and Cormorant Lake. 19 There is a second ASI under 20 consideration for the Partridge Crop Hill area, 21 which is to the west of the transmission lines, 22 and is one of the areas which we were counselled 23 by NCN members to avoid because of concern about 24 caribou habitat. 25 MR. ABRA: What about access road? 3803 1 MR. DAVIES: There is no protected 2 areas that the access road crosses. 3 MR. ABRA: In the vicinity of 4 Wuskwatim Lake at all? 5 MR. DAVIES: The Partridge Crop Hill 6 ASI is located south of Wuskwatim and is not 7 affected by the project. 8 MR. ABRA: Not affected by the 9 project? 10 MR. DAVIES: Not affected by the GS 11 project, and I believe it is not affected by the 12 transmission either. 13 MR. ABRA: The protected areas that 14 you referred to, Mr. Davies, or Mr. Hicks, are 15 they listed as VECs as far as the project is 16 concerned? 17 MR. DAVIES: They are not listed as a 18 VEC for the generation component. 19 MR. HICKS: As I explained earlier, 20 Mr. Abra, we did not explicitly use a VEC based 21 approach for the transmission project, although 22 for all intents and purposes, they would be 23 considered to be an important and valued 24 component. 25 MR. ABRA: Is it predicted that there 3804 1 will be any effects on any of these three areas 2 that have been identified by either the 3 transmission lines or -- you have already said 4 with respect to the generation project, Mr. 5 Davies, that it is not anticipated there will be 6 any impact. What about the transmission lines? 7 MR. HICKS: Yes, in the case of the 8 transmission line we will be crossing through the 9 Tom Lamb wildlife management area for a total 10 length of, I believe it is about 29 miles -- or is 11 it kilometres -- approximately a third of which is 12 directly adjacent to the rail line, but all of 13 which is in a corridor that is generally occupied 14 currently by rail and road facilities. The option 15 would have been to have moved west and north of 16 Cormorant Lake, which would have involved a 17 significant length penalty, and corresponding cost 18 and environmental implications. It was also an 19 option that, although we discussed it with the 20 people of Cormorant, their view was that that was 21 a portion of their resource management area that 22 was essentially undeveloped and they preferred to 23 leave it in that state. 24 MR. ABRA: I think that was your 25 evidence last time we were here was that you did 3805 1 take consideration of the concerns of the 2 Cormorant community as far as the transmission 3 line was concerned. 4 MR. DAVIES: I just wanted to make 5 clear that the Partridge Crop Hill, it is to the 6 south of the Wuskwatim Lake, but it is close to 7 the shoreline of Wuskwatim Lake, it won't be 8 affected by the project but it does abut the lake 9 itself. 10 MR. ABRA: When you say close to the 11 shoreline, how close is close? 12 MR. DAVIES: I'm not sure of the 13 actual distance, but it won't be affected by the 14 project. 15 MR. ABRA: So it is far enough away 16 that it won't be affected by -- 17 MR. DAVIES: I believe that is right, 18 yes. 19 MR. ABRA: Do the projects preclude 20 the establishment of future protected areas at all 21 in the vicinities where the generation project 22 will of course be built and the transmission lines 23 will be? 24 MR. HICKS: In our view, no. We 25 obviously can't know where protected areas might 3806 1 be located. We did go to the extent of speaking 2 with the regional Manitoba Conservation staff to 3 establish whether there were any particular 4 enduring features that had been identified in the 5 vicinity of the transmission projects. We 6 identified two. One is reasonably close to the 7 transmission line, it is a double occurrence 8 feature, the second a much larger feature of that 9 same character is Partridge Crop Hill. Again, we 10 don't see any reason why -- 11 MR. ABRA: Sorry, what was that 12 expression, Mr. Hicks? 13 MR. HICKS: Did I say mitigative -- 14 double occurrence feature. 15 MR. ABRA: Double occurrence feature? 16 MR. HICKS: It is a feature that 17 occurs -- a single occurrence feature would be 18 seen as that much more unique and that much 19 greater concern. A double occurrence feature is 20 still clearly of concern. In this particular 21 case, I believe the area that we are talking about 22 is about 510 hectares, and we are just brushing 23 the extreme northern tip of it. The similar area 24 is the Partridge Crop Hill, which is I believe in 25 the order of 1,500 hectares and which already is 3807 1 an ASI. We are not at this stage able to confirm 2 whether the second feature really is of any 3 significant sensitivity or consequence on the 4 ground. It has been identified based on surficial 5 geology mapping and hasn't really been confirmed 6 by us with respect to corresponding vegetative 7 cover. 8 MR. ABRA: Dealing next with protected 9 species, what protected species exist in the 10 vicinity of the Wuskwatim Lake, the access road, 11 and the transmission corridors? And is it 12 anticipated that other species that are in that 13 area may become designated as protected species in 14 the future? 15 MR. DAVIES: In terms of the 16 generating station, there is a few different 17 species that are identified under different acts 18 and different programs. Caribou is considered, 19 Woodland caribou is considered a threatened 20 species under SARA. 21 MR. ABRA: When you say SARA, you are 22 talking about the Species At Risk Act? 23 MR. DAVIES: Yes. I believe there is 24 no plants in the area that are listed under the 25 Species At Risk Act, but there are three plants 3808 1 that are listed under Manitoba Conservation Data 2 Centre as rare. The rare, however, has a 3 different designation than it does under either 4 the Species At Risk Act or COSEWIC, which is the 5 committee on wildlife -- the Committee on the 6 Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 7 MR. ABRA: In Canada. 8 MR. DAVIES: Wolverine is also listed 9 as something that may be of concern. There is 10 other animals such as Peregrine Falcons that may 11 migrate or travel through the study area but 12 haven't been recorded in the study area. 13 MR. ABRA: The wolverine is also a 14 protected species under the Species At Risk Act, 15 is it not? 16 MR. HICKS: It is identified as a 17 species of special concern, I believe. 18 MR. ABRA: Okay. 19 MR. DAVIES: It should be noted that 20 while it is identified as a species of special 21 concern, it is still an animal that is regularly 22 trapped in the areas, it is still commercially 23 harvested. 24 MR. ABRA: ARE there any others, other 25 than the caribou and the wolverine? 3809 1 MR. DAVIES: On the fish side, the 2 shortjaw cisco, Coregonus Zenithicos -- don't ask 3 me to spell that. 4 MR. ABRA: We refer to it as the 5 shortjaw cisco. 6 MR. DAVIES: Only as compared to the 7 long jawed cisco -- but, again, they weren't found 8 in the area that would be affected by the project 9 and we did definitely look at that. 10 MR. ABRA: Were the protected species 11 all listed as VECs? 12 MR. DAVIES: The only animal that 13 wasn't listed as a VEC I believe was wolverine. 14 MR. ABRA: For the reason you have 15 given -- that it is still trapped? 16 MR. DAVIES: It is still commercially 17 trapped, and while they live in the area, their 18 range is so large that it would be very, very 19 difficult to study them and really get information 20 on them as a VEC because of their wide range, and 21 as I said, they are trapped commercially. 22 MR. ABRA: You mentioned them a few 23 moments ago, Mr. Davies, rare plants, page 38 of 24 your EIS presentation on the opening day states 25 that a rare plant survey will occur along 3810 1 rights-of-way? 2 MR. DAVIES: Yes. 3 MR. ABRA: We are wondering why such a 4 survey was not done initially and was not included 5 as part of the EIS for the transmission project 6 when it was first done? 7 MR. HICKS: Mr. Abra, I think the 8 reference was made by myself in relation to the 9 transmission project, if I'm not mistaken. 10 MR. ABRA: Yes, sorry, it is entitled 11 "Transmission Effects on Forest and Plants will Be 12 Small." 13 MR. HICKS: Yes. What we have done 14 there, our rare and endangered species 15 specialists, or botanists, our botanists have 16 looked at the literature records and the herbarium 17 records for rare and endangered plants in this 18 areas and has done field work, both along the 19 alternative routes and the preferred route, and 20 has I believe identified six vascular plants that 21 are variously characterized as rare or unusual in 22 this area. She will be doing additional work 23 pre-construction, has done some this past summer 24 which was not reported in the EIS, and we will be 25 doing more in each successive spring and summer 3811 1 seasons, and fall seasons, to build up that data 2 base. 3 The idea is, though, that for the most 4 part with winter construction, rare and endangered 5 plant species will not be affected. The risks 6 will be associated with the actual transmission 7 towers themselves, the foundations, and in the 8 event that there was an issue there, we would look 9 at adjustment of the tower location to accommodate 10 that. 11 MR. ABRA: To accommodate the rare 12 plants? 13 MR. SARGEANT: What is a vascular 14 plant? 15 MR. HICKS: That is a difficult 16 question for an engineer, but as I understand it, 17 vascular refers to the circulation system, so 18 unlike a cellular, there is some sort of vein and 19 circulatory system. 20 MR. SARGEANT: Will the fact that 21 these areas are clear cut, is that going to 22 threaten any of these endangered plants? 23 MR. HICKS: We don't believe so. Many 24 of these plants are associated with wetlands and 25 are not all that much at risk from the 3812 1 transmission line. 2 MR. SARGEANT: Thank you. 3 MR. MAYER: I'm assuming, sir, that 4 some of these plants -- let me give you an 5 example. When our Rotary Club had a camp out at 6 Moak Lake, somebody actually discovered there what 7 I think was an orchid that bloomed once every 7 8 years, it was the only one there, and we fenced it 9 to protect it. I'm assuming that when we are 10 talking about rare species, you will almost have 11 to have your botanist or whatever it is walking 12 ahead of your clearing crews to make sure that you 13 don't in fact run into really rare species like 14 that? 15 MR. HICKS: That is virtually the 16 case. We are currently, or are still completing 17 wildlife and rare and endangered surveys on 18 another project where the botanist had done four 19 surveys during the course of the growing season in 20 order to catch the plants at those points in time 21 when they are identifiable. It is quite a complex 22 procedure and does require a lot of expertise and 23 a lot of attention. 24 MR. MAYER: So I take it that you 25 couldn't possibly complete that until you had 3813 1 finalized your actual route and started clearing? 2 MR. HICKS: There will be ongoing work 3 in that area, yes. As I said, there was some 4 further work done by our botanist on the Birchtree 5 to Wuskwatim segment this summer, because of the 6 likelihood that, given licencing, it would proceed 7 very quickly. But we will be continuing to do 8 survey work on the remaining segments over the 9 course of the next several years. 10 MR. MAYER: Speaking of that 11 particular portion, I noticed on the aerial 12 photograph of the segment of the transmission 13 line, the first segment leaving Birchtree Station 14 where it crossed Manasan River, it showed some 15 kind of protected or archaeologically significant 16 site. Were you able to identify what that was? 17 MR. HICKS: It was a lithic quarry 18 which was historically used by the Aboriginal 19 people for mining of stone. I'm not quite sure 20 what the particular use was, whether it was for 21 hammers or arrowheads, I don't have that detail. 22 But the detail is available in the archeological 23 report which is appended to the EIS as volume 10. 24 MR. MAYER: Thank you. 25 MR. DAVIES: Just to add a bit on the 3814 1 generating station side here, there were fairly 2 extensive surveys conducted since 2000, and there 3 were three Provincially rare species that were 4 found, church grass, pygmy water lily, which were 5 found in areas that would not be affected by the 6 project, and the dwarf blueberry which was found 7 in an area that could be affected by the project. 8 The dwarf blueberry is considered probably more 9 abundant than is currently known and would be 10 protected if required. 11 MR. ABRA: Moving to Woodland caribou, 12 now, you have already given some evidence in this 13 regard, I think you said your evidence was that 14 there were approximately 200 Woodland caribou that 15 have been identified as being in the area of the 16 generation station. So obviously there are 17 Woodland caribou that use the areas of the lake, 18 Wuskwatim Lake, the access road, and the 19 transmission corridors? 20 MR. DAVIES: The number of caribou in 21 the area is actually very low. There is 200 22 caribou in total, but approximately 50 caribou are 23 in the Harding Lake area which is north of the 24 project area, and about 150 are in Partridge Crop 25 Hill area, which is south of Wuskwatim Lake. 3815 1 During the winter time there is very few, if any, 2 caribou in the project area at all. In the 3 summertime, when they spread out and become sort 4 of loners, it is estimated that there is probably 5 somewhere between 4 and 16 animals that may be 6 found within that area, and some move through to 7 go through that Harding Lake area. But there is 8 very few caribou actually in the project area 9 itself, mostly are either north or south. 10 MR. ABRA: On our reading of the 11 Environmental Impact Statement for the 12 transmission project, it didn't appear as if the 13 Woodland caribou had been considered to be a VEC. 14 Are we correct, and if so, what is the reason that 15 it wasn't? 16 MR. HICKS: Again, I would go back to 17 my earlier testimony to the effect that we did not 18 do a VEC based approached explicitly for the 19 transmission, but certainly caribou were given a 20 great deal of attention, both by our biologists 21 and at the insistence of the NCN members and other 22 communities that we dealt with along the way. So 23 for all intents and purposes, they were treated as 24 a VEC. 25 MR. ABRA: Have you been able to 3816 1 identify where the calving areas are of the 2 Woodland caribou in relation to the Wuskwatim 3 projects, that being the transmission lines and 4 the generation project? 5 MR. HICKS: In the case of the 6 transmission line projects, other than calving 7 areas that were, or a calving area that was 8 identified in the course of the generation work, 9 no, we have not explicitly identified calving 10 areas, other than to know there are areas of 11 overwintering habitat, critical habitat, that have 12 been identified to us by the communities. And to 13 the extent that we have been able to do field work 14 and look for signs of caribou along the routes, we 15 have a good deal of survey information available 16 to us as well. But specifically, no. 17 MR. ABRA: Okay. 18 MR. DAVIES: In the case of the 19 generating station, the majority of calving occurs 20 in bog areas or islands, and the majority of that 21 occurs south of Partridge Crop Hill. There were 22 two areas that were identified as potential 23 calving sites, one which was avoided by the access 24 road, the road was routed around it to avoid it. 25 The other site is close to the generating station, 3817 1 and that is where the expert trackers from NCN had 2 picked up one cow and her calf two years in a row. 3 It doesn't necessarily mean that the calving was 4 occurring at that site, but the cow and her calf 5 were in that area when they looked at it. So the 6 calving may have occurred at some area removed 7 from that, but that is where they were located. 8 MR. ABRA: Okay. Is it predicted or 9 anticipated that there will be any adverse effects 10 of either project on the Woodland caribou? 11 MR. HICKS: In the case of the 12 transmission, no. We have looked both at the 13 construction and the operating phases of the 14 project, looked at the loss of habitat, adjusted 15 the loss or alteration of habitat associated with 16 the actual footprint of the project, to the 17 right-of-way of the lines, as I mentioned this 18 morning, by a further assumption with respect to 19 reduction of habitat use in a 100 metre band on 20 either side of the right-of-way. We have added 21 all that up, related it to our estimates of what 22 the caribou density in the study area might be, 23 and concluded that there is no significant adverse 24 effect. 25 MR. ABRA: Is it fair to say that 3818 1 because of the planning that you have done, there 2 won't be any adverse effect as a result of which 3 you don't have to mitigate, or is it vice versa, 4 that you are mitigating what will be adverse 5 effects? 6 MR. HICKS: Could you repeat that for 7 me, please? 8 MR. ABRA: Well, I had understood you 9 to say that with respect to the placement of the 10 transmission line, you have done your best to 11 deal, to plan the lines in such a way that you are 12 not going to be having -- or you are minimizing 13 any adverse effects there may be or attempting to 14 eliminate them totally. 15 What I'm asking is, just to reiterate, 16 whether the transmission line has been designed in 17 a manner so that there won't be any adverse 18 effects to begin with, so there is nothing to 19 mitigate, or is it a case of identifying some 20 adverse effects but that you are going to be 21 mitigating them? 22 MR. HICKS: It is a bit of both. The 23 ongoing mitigation effort with respect to caribou 24 would be principally the intent of developing 25 access management plans where that has been 3819 1 identified as an issue by the community. 2 Certainly in the sense of NCN, that identification 3 has been made and we have begun work in that 4 direction now. 5 Mr. Chairman, if I might be permitted, 6 I misspoke earlier, I referred to volume 10 of the 7 submission with respect to the archeological 8 resource, it was in fact volume 8. 9 MR. ABRA: We will forgive you. 10 The generation project, is it 11 anticipated that there will be any adverse effects 12 on the caribou with respect to it, Mr. Davies? 13 MR. DAVIES: We don't anticipate that 14 there will be any significant adverse effects on 15 Woodland caribou in the area. There are potential 16 effects that were identified in the environmental 17 impact statement, and where those effects occurred 18 mitigation was proposed. In regards to some of 19 the habitat losses, there will be mitigation 20 provided for that by replanting some of the areas 21 that will be lost or rehabilitating areas. In 22 terms of increased access and the concern about 23 increased harvesting, two things will happen. One 24 is there is an access management plan that will be 25 put in place and there is also a caribou awareness 3820 1 plan that will be implemented by NCN. 2 Some of the effects, the same as 3 Mr. Hicks, were avoided by project planning. The 4 one calving site was not affected by the access 5 road as the road was routed around it. So by a 6 combination of project planning and mitigation we 7 don't feel there will be a significant effect on 8 Woodland caribou in the area. 9 MR. ABRA: Will there be any residual 10 effects at all that you have been able to 11 identify? 12 MR. DAVIES: There will be a small 13 loss of habitat and also a small loss of habitat 14 effectiveness. Some of the areas that will be 15 cleared by the road will not be rehabilitated. I 16 believe we will have a 640 hectare loss of habitat 17 in total, some of which is caribou habitat, some 18 of which isn't. And there will also be a loss of 19 habitat effectiveness which is the areas next to 20 the road. Those areas will not be used as 21 extensively by caribou when the road is in place 22 as it currently is now. There is some minor 23 residual effects, but the effects are not 24 significant. 25 MR. ABRA: The wolverine, were you 3821 1 able to determine any adverse effects of either of 2 the projects on the wolverine? 3 MR. HICKS: No, sir, the wolverine is 4 a very wide ranging animal and for that reason 5 alone and the fact that it continues to be trapped 6 or shows in the trapping records of this and other 7 trapline areas, that we are not persuaded there is 8 a risk of residual effect here. 9 MR. ABRA: Okay. Mr. Davies. 10 MR. DAVIES: It is the same for the 11 generation component. We didn't find any linkages 12 or any potential for significant effects on 13 wolverine. They do have very large home ranges. 14 MR. ABRA: Sorry, home ranges? 15 MR. DAVIES: Areas that they normally 16 live in. 17 MR. ABRA: Home, home on the range? 18 MR. DAVIES: Home on the range, that's 19 right. 20 MR. ABRA: Now dealing with fur 21 bearing animals, page 44, of the EIS presentation 22 you made on day 1, you state that the effects of 23 fur bearers will vary between species and projects 24 with the overall effect being not significant. 25 MR. DAVIES: That's correct. 3822 1 MR. ABRA: Now, firstly which fur 2 bearers have you identified that may be impacted 3 by one or both of the projects? 4 MR. DAVIES: I guess starting with -- 5 the two species that would be affected most are 6 probably the aquatic fur bearers, muskrat and 7 beaver. And they would be affected both in 8 positive ways and negative ways. When we are 9 looking at shoreline stabilization, we expect that 10 the conditions around Wuskwatim Lake will 11 eventually over a very long period of time turn 12 back to conditions that were more similar to 13 pre-CRD times. And at that point we will see more 14 peat along the shore and less cat tails. Cat 15 tails are one of the foods for muskrat. So we 16 expect there will be a decrease in muskrat food. 17 Right now the water level fluctuations do impact 18 muskrat and we do see much lower populations of 19 muskrat around Wuskwatim Lake because of the water 20 level fluctuations than we do off system. So with 21 the stabilized water level we expect that will be 22 a strong positive. So the negatives are expected 23 to balance off the positives, and we don't expect 24 to see any significant changes in muskrat. 25 For beaver it is somewhat similar to 3823 1 that. Although the food source doesn't change 2 that much, the water levels fluctuations will be 3 stabilized and again that is one of the major 4 effects on beaver in aquatic areas. 5 We also looked at other animals. 6 Moose were looked at, and it was looked at mostly 7 in regards to habitat losses, the amount of 8 habitat that would be affected or lost as a result 9 of the project is relatively small as compared to 10 the total amount of habitat that moose currently 11 use which is very extensive in the area. 12 MR. ABRA: There have been a couple of 13 instances today where we talked about negative 14 environmental effects and positive environmental 15 effects. And a couple of you have taken the 16 position that if you have a positive effect and a 17 negative effect, they basically balance each 18 other, that it is appropriate to decide that there 19 is no environmental effect. Is it appropriate as 20 far as determination of environmental effects is 21 concerned to do that balancing act? 22 MR. DAVIES: It depends on the 23 parameter that you are looking at. If you have a 24 very strong negative effect and a very small 25 positive effect, you will end up obviously with a 3824 1 negative effect. And we did take that into 2 consideration where you have a number of moderate 3 negative effects and a number of small positive 4 effects, you will end up with an overall negative 5 effect. It is only reasonable to assume that when 6 using professional judgment or in some cases 7 quantifying the level of impact, you feel that the 8 negative impacts are approximately equal to the 9 positive impacts that would be caused by the 10 project. I think in the case of muskrat and 11 beaver, the positive impacts caused by water level 12 stabilization are probably greater than the 13 negative impacts, but they would at least in our 14 opinion balance each other off. 15 MR. ABRA: Any fur bearers affected by 16 the transmission project, Mr. Hicks? 17 MR. HICKS: Yes, there is quite an 18 extensive listing of trapping records along the 19 traplines that are affected by the line which 20 identifies the various species that have been 21 harvested in the past. Each of the species has 22 been looked at in the technical volume on 23 wildlife, volume 4, in relation to the literature, 24 in relation to field survey work and in relation 25 to conversations and discussions with trappers in 3825 1 the area. Effects varies from species to species. 2 They are not consistently negative or positive. I 3 don't believe that we have suggested at any time 4 that there is a balancing of those effects. We 5 have suggested there are some positive and some 6 negative. 7 MR. ABRA: Are there any fur bearing 8 animals that it is anticipated after mitigation 9 there will be any residual environmental effects? 10 MR. HICKS: There is some evidence in 11 the literature that Martin are reluctant to cross 12 wide rights-of-way. So there is some concern that 13 the 110 metre, 108 metre cleared right-of-way 14 associated with the line from Wuskwatim to Herblet 15 Lake might be at the upper edge of the Martin's 16 willingness to cross. Whether or not that 17 constitutes a negative impact on the population, 18 it certainly would have, if true, an implication 19 for the behaviour of the Martin, but whether or 20 not that is a negative impact, it is not clear to 21 me. 22 MR. SARGEANT: Mr. Hicks, is it the 23 intention that there be some short brush grow up 24 in the right-of-way? 25 MR. HICKS: The initial clearing is to 3826 1 the level of about four to six inches, and from 2 then on the notion is that the only concern that 3 Hydro has is there be no interference with the 4 conductors, and to a degree because of the 5 requirement for occasional maintenance, that there 6 be some opportunity to get a helicopter in and do 7 your patrols. But regrowth is commonly allowed 8 and can be several metres high. 9 MR. SARGEANT: Will this affect the 10 Martin? 11 MR. HICKS: Again, some animals, like 12 snowshoe hare, might like that kind of habitat. 13 MR. SARGEANT: But you are suggesting 14 that there is some evidence in the literature that 15 the Martin don't like to cross wide clear cuts. 16 MR. HICKS: That is why I'm reluctant 17 to say specifically it is a negative effect or for 18 that matter it is all that precise. We just don't 19 know. 20 MR. ABRA: Going back for a moment, I 21 was asking you a few moments ago, or asking Mr. 22 Davies that was answering the question, when you 23 are doing this balancing exercise between positive 24 and negative environmental effects, if you 25 identify negative environmental effect, but you 3827 1 also recognize there is a positive environmental 2 effect on a certain animal or fish species or 3 whatever, in order to as best as possible to 4 overcome the negative environmental effect, do you 5 still take steps to mitigate before you do this 6 balancing or do you just take the position, well, 7 it is outweighed by this positive effect, 8 therefore, it is not an adverse effect? 9 MR. DAVIES: Again, it depends on the 10 component and the level of effect that you are 11 looking at. If it is a very minor effect 12 mitigation often isn't provided because of the 13 minor nature of the effect. 14 MR. ABRA: Could you give me an 15 example, Mr. Davies? 16 MR. DAVIES: The effect of vehicle 17 collisions with insects is not generally 18 mitigated. 19 MR. ABRA: It is not minor for some of 20 us, but -- 21 MR. DAVIES: That wouldn't be 22 mitigated. 23 MR. ABRA: Car wash does a good job. 24 MR. DAVIES: An example on the other 25 end is the mitigation that will be provided for 3828 1 fish habitat that is negatively affected 2 downstream of the generating station as compared 3 to the fact that we do expect to see a positive 4 impact upstream of the generating station. 5 MR. ABRA: What I'm asking you, 6 though, is you talked earlier about the muskrat 7 and the beaver, or the mink and the beaver, I'm 8 sorry. If you identify an adverse effect but you 9 have also identified a positive effect, do you 10 still take steps to minimize the adverse effect or 11 to mitigate it, before you balance the positive 12 effect? 13 MR. DAVIES: If there is an 14 opportunity to enhance the resource, it is often 15 done, yes. 16 MR. ABRA: All right. 17 MR. HICKS: Mr. Abra, could I speak to 18 that? I think there were a couple of 19 interrogatories that dealt with this question of 20 balancing effects as well. If there is any 21 confusion, it would always be our position that if 22 there is an adverse effect, we would seek to 23 mitigate it as best we could. The balancing in 24 the case of transmission lines comes into play 25 when you look at route selection. So you may be 3829 1 balancing one effect against another at that stage 2 in order to minimize. 3 MR. ABRA: But otherwise any adverse 4 effect that may be identified, you do your best to 5 mitigate or minimize? 6 MR. HICKS: Yes. 7 MR. ABRA: That completes the 8 terrestrial effects, Mr. Chairman. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: We will take a 15 10 minute break and be back at 20 to. 11 12 (PROCEEDINGS RECESSED AT 3:25 P.M. 13 AND RECONVENED AT 3:45 P.M.) 14 15 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, 17 we are about ready to continue. 18 All right, folks, we will continue, 19 Mr. Rempel. 20 MR. REMPEL: Mr. Chair, we have a 21 couple of clarifications to make. Mr. Davies and 22 Mr. Hicks each have a comment to make. 23 MR. DAVIES: I just had two items. 24 One, when I was referring to the site 25 rehabilitation for the quarry and burrow areas, 3830 1 what I meant to say -- not what I meant to say, I 2 was wrong -- the Manitoba Hydro is not required to 3 pay an environmental rehabilitation fee for those 4 areas, which others are, and the reason for that 5 is they meet or exceed the standards that are set. 6 The other item that I wanted to raise 7 was the Partridge Crop Hill. There were questions 8 about its location in relation to Wuskwatim. And 9 I would like to read a paragraph from the EIS that 10 makes it clear where exactly it is. 11 "Partridge Crop Hill is identified as 12 an area of cultural importance to 13 NCN." 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Just a second, please. 15 Could we have silence, please? 16 MR. ABRA: Could we have quiet, 17 please? 18 MR. DAVIES: "In addition, an ASI has 19 been identified around and including 20 Partridge Crop Hill and extending 21 northward to the Burntwood River and 22 east to Wuskwatim Lake." 23 It is shown in figure 9-1 of the EIS. 24 "Development of the project would not 25 directly impact this AIS, i.e. 3831 1 construction of permanent facilities 2 and flooding associated with the 3 project are well away from this area. 4 The project would affect the existing 5 water regime and rates of erosion on 6 segments of Wuskwatim Lake and the 7 Burntwood River which form boundaries 8 for the ASI, however, these waters are 9 presently regulated for hydro-electric 10 generation, i.e. CRD." 11 THE CHAIRMAN: This was figure number? 12 MR. DAVIES: Figure 9-1 of volume 7 13 for the generation component. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: I didn't see it 15 anywhere in the EIS report. 16 MR. DAVIES: It is in volume 7. 17 MR. HICKS: Point of clarification 18 with respect to the rare plant surveys, I spoke to 19 our project botanist, Jackie Krindle, at the 20 break. She advises that in the case of the 21 Wuskwatim to Birchtree segment, that she has now 22 conducted surveys in the July and August period, 23 and intends to complete that with a third survey 24 this June. With a shorter growing season in the 25 north, the three surveys are adequate. By the 3832 1 time we would be completing the environmental 2 protection plans for the other segments, she would 3 have done the same three surveys on those as well. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Abra? 5 MR. ABRA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 6 would like to turn to the water effects and, in 7 particular, erosion and sedimentation. 8 Dealing firstly with Wuskwatim Lake 9 and the anticipated shoreline erosion, what 10 measures are proposed to mitigate adverse effects 11 of Wuskwatim Generation Project on shoreline 12 erosion on the lake? 13 MR. REMPEL: The main mitigation 14 measures in that regard are the mode of operation 15 of the station; in other words, the station water 16 level, the reservoir water level will be kept 17 fairly stable, constant, and as a result you will 18 not have the fluctuation of water levels. That 19 will stabilize a water regime. But there are no 20 mitigation measures anticipated with respect to 21 shoreline protection. Where there is debris in 22 place that is not causing a nuisance with regard 23 to shoreline access, resource use, or navigation 24 impediments, the debris will assist in mitigating 25 the erosional, but there are not measures proposed 3833 1 to rock riprap the shoreline, for example, if 2 that's the question you had in mind. 3 MR. ABRA: You do have mitigation 4 steps for the adverse effects for the proposed 5 forebay, do you not, or do you? 6 MR. REMPEL: Well, the mitigation 7 effects for the forebay consist of placing the 8 surplus material on east side of the immediate 9 forebay, in a low lying area, to prevent 10 additional flooding. And by the same token, when 11 that is done, the face of the shoreline and the 12 face of the extra material that will be stored 13 there will be lined with rock to prevent erosion 14 of this newly placed material. 15 MR. MAYER: I thought you were also 16 going to cut that immediate forebay, clear it? 17 MR. REMPEL: The immediate forebay, 18 that area that will be flooded will be cleared, 19 stumps will be left in place, it will not be 20 grubbed, but, yes, I should have clarified that, 21 yes, it will be cleared. 22 MR. ABRA: What is the current 23 volumetric rate of shoreline erosion on Wuskwatim 24 Lake, Mr. Rempel? 25 MR. REMPEL: It varies with the type 3834 1 of shoreline. We indicated in our documents that 2 those shorelines that are -- just give me a 3 moment, I will look at that. 4 MR. ABRA: It varies, as you have 5 said, with respect to the nature of the shoreline, 6 does it not? For example, rock, there would not 7 be any significant erosion at all? 8 MR. REMPEL: Yes. 9 MR. ABRA: Clay more and -- 10 MR. REMPEL: Just to illustrate, right 11 now we believe that those shorelines in the 12 eastern side that are exposed to fairly high 13 energy wave environments, and that are susceptible 14 to erosion -- in other words they have low 15 exposure to bedrock, they are clay silt 16 shorelines -- are presently eroding about 1 metre 17 per year, in other words they are receding about 1 18 metre per year. 19 Those that are in a moderate zone of 20 wave energy are probably about two-thirds that 21 level. And those rates we think are approximately 22 close to what they were prior to the CRD. 23 MR. ABRA: Do I understand you to be 24 saying that the stabilizing of the level of 25 Wuskwatim Lake will cause less erosion? 3835 1 MR. REMPEL: No, we don't say that at 2 all. In fact, we say initially the rates of 3 erosion will actually increase because the water 4 level will be held higher. 5 MR. ABRA: At one level? 6 MR. REMPEL: Yes, that will result in 7 some silt clay shorelines being exposed more often 8 to high wave energy, for example. 9 MR. ABRA: Right. 10 MR. REMPEL: As a result, we expect 11 for the first five years erosion rates will 12 increase. Then we expect them to gradually reduce 13 over the next 20 years, and after 25 years to be 14 approximately back to where they are now. 15 MR. ABRA: On what basis do you make 16 that projection? 17 MR. REMPEL: We make the projection on 18 the basis of forecasting when the erosion rates 19 will create new down shore cutting and flatter 20 slopes. In other words, instead of the waves 21 pounding on a toe of a bank, a steep embankment, a 22 fairly steep enbankment, they will now be 23 proceeding across a shallow beach and the wave 24 energy will be diminished, and as a result, less 25 erosion. 3836 1 MR. ABRA: Now, for the purposes of 2 your assessment and your projections, you do have 3 certain sites in the lake that you have used; am I 4 correct? 5 MR. REMPEL: We have -- 6 MR. ABRA: That you have been 7 monitoring for some years? 8 MR. REMPEL: Yes, there are 15 sites 9 that Manitoba Hydro has operated for 10 to 12 10 years. Each of those sites have three transects 11 or three profiles that have been monitored to 12 determine the rate of shoreline recession, and 13 that was a valuable data resource for our 14 projections. 15 MR. ABRA: Your projections were based 16 on the data that came from each of those sites? 17 MR. REMPEL: That was a very big 18 contribution to the assessments, yes. 19 MR. ABRA: How confident are you about 20 your projections then with respect to the future 21 erosion of the shore of the lake based on the data 22 that you have collected to date? 23 MR. REMPEL: We are quite confident 24 because of a number of factors. We do have the 25 data, which is not insignificant to have 10 to 12 3837 1 years of data at 15 sites across lake and various 2 types of shoreline classifications, various 3 exposures to wave energy. Plus we have the 4 experience of observing the lake at the forecast 5 forebay level. The year 2000, we had the forebay 6 at roughly 234 for much of the open water season. 7 So, we were able to not only observe the forebay 8 at that level, but also to confirm some of the 9 data in terms of where that water level would 10 contact the shoreline, and confirm where there was 11 rock exposure, which of course is a help with 12 respect to erosion, and where the water level 13 would in fact contact silt and clay. 14 We did have the benefit of good aerial 15 photography. We had a number of years to conduct 16 low level video from helicopters. We had a number 17 of seasons of observations from the water in terms 18 of looking at shoreline processes. 19 There was also a good data in terms of 20 wind data. Much of the erosion on the shoreline 21 is actually subject to -- or a function of wave 22 energy, which means that you should understand the 23 direction of the wind, the velocities, frequencies 24 of exposure of shoreline to high wave action, we 25 had all those. 3838 1 Plus, we had a very experienced team 2 of people. We actually had a collective group 3 which consists of people from my firm, water 4 resource engineers from TetrES Consultants, J.D. 5 Mollard, these are the erosion specialists out of 6 Regina, Acres Manitoba, Northwest Hydraulics, and 7 of course Manitoba Hydro and engineers, 8 specialists with advisers from NCN. All of these 9 people did participate in peer review of the 10 projections. There was a great deal of discussion 11 in terms of the strength of the assumptions and 12 the conclusions that were drawn. 13 So, in total, I think we feel our 14 estimates are -- we have a high degree of 15 confidence and we believe we are on the 16 conservative side. 17 For example, where we had a shoreline 18 that had a level of bedrock exposure that was say, 19 234.5, I think we called that low exposure of 20 bedrock. We did not foresee in the future, we did 21 not allow for the likely fact that the bedrock 22 will probably increase as you go away from the 23 water line. We assume that that would not -- it 24 was horizontal in effect. So we could have been, 25 we think, a bit more aggressive in some of the 3839 1 assumptions and perhaps been maybe more accurate, 2 but we felt we wanted to err on the conservative 3 side. So those projections that we have made we 4 think are probably on the high side in terms of 5 shoreline recession and volume of sediment 6 mobilized as a result of erosion. 7 MR. ABRA: Knowing as you do that 8 there will be erosion for at least the first five 9 years, and as you say it is anticipated or 10 projected that it will then begin to reduce over 11 the next, I think you said 20 years to about 25 12 years, why are no steps being taken to mitigate 13 that erosion in an attempt to reduce it? 14 MR. REMPEL: It is very difficult to 15 do. It is a very big body of water. I think it 16 is 80 -- in the high 80s, 87 square kilometres I 17 think it is of surface water, many miles of 18 shoreline. It would be very difficult to try to 19 mitigate that wave energy on such a large body of 20 water, fairly high lengths of exposure to wind 21 action. And even if somebody was willing to pay 22 the money to try to do it, it would be very 23 difficult to do without having environmental 24 effects on its own. So, it would not be an easy 25 proposition to attempt to do it, other than in 3840 1 selective areas where there is pressing issues. 2 For example, if there was a heritage site or if 3 there is a particular shoreline that, for whatever 4 reason, needs to be protected for other reasons, 5 perhaps riprapping might be appropriate. More 6 likely there would be attempts to use debris to do 7 what is often called bio-remediation; in other 8 words, dissipate the energy in other ways, more 9 friendly ways to the environment. 10 MR. ABRA: Okay. Now, erosion leads 11 to sedimentation, does it not? 12 MR. REMPEL: Yes, it does. 13 MR. ABRA: In volume 4 of your EIS, 14 the generation EIS, section 6.0, it is indicated 15 that bank top line shoreline recession in erodible 16 shorelines is returning to pre-CRD rates. 17 Firstly, what is bank top shoreline recession? 18 MR. REMPEL: Could you give me that 19 page number again? 20 MR. ABRA: Section 6.0, volume 4. 21 MR. REMPEL: Yes. What is -- your 22 question was, what is top of bank shoreline 23 recession? 24 MR. ABRA: Yes? 25 MR. REMPEL: Many of these banks have 3841 1 some measure of erosion, and there is a bank left, 2 in other words, a toe of the bank is eroding and 3 some semblance of a vertical shoreline, and the 4 top of it is usually not impacted by erosion 5 itself. In other words, it is sitting there as a 6 measurable front of the shoreline. So, when we 7 talk about top of bank recession, we are looking 8 at the ability to look at, say, air photos from 9 the past and see where that top of bank was say 10 five years ago, and then determine how it has 11 receded under present conditions. So, it is 12 really the top of the bank that is facing the 13 shoreline, facing the water. 14 MR. ABRA: Okay. 15 MR. REMPEL: The intact shoreline 16 still. 17 MR. ABRA: All right. Now, as you get 18 the erosion on the lake, or on any lake, is it 19 fair to say that the shoreline gets longer, in 20 other words -- well, the lake gets bigger but the 21 shoreline gets longer? 22 MR. REMPEL: Yes, it would be 23 increased. 24 MR. ABRA: Now, would you agree that 25 the length of the shoreline that is eroding is a 3842 1 much larger factor in the volume of sedimentation 2 that is going to result than the actual recession 3 of the shoreline? In other words, as it gets 4 bigger the shoreline gets longer. And it is the 5 size of the shoreline that has more of an impact 6 on the sedimentation than the actual recession of 7 the shoreline? 8 MR. REMPEL: When we were looking at 9 the volume of sediment that would be introduced 10 into the lake, we took both factors into 11 consideration. In other words, we had the length 12 of the erodible shoreline, plus the recession that 13 we anticipated, and we converted that into a 14 volume of soil that would be introduced into the 15 water. So, both are considered. 16 MR. ABRA: Both are considered as far 17 as the sediment is concerned? 18 MR. REMPEL: Yes. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: On that very point, can 20 I -- 21 MR. ABRA: Certainly. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: I guess that's where 23 you derive the figures for the total suspended 24 sediments in the lake, from the amount taken away 25 from the shore? 3843 1 MR. REMPEL: We estimate the amount 2 that would be taken away from the shoreline, as 3 you mentioned, and then we would estimate the fate 4 of that mobilized sediment in terms of near shore 5 deposition, deep water deposition, and transport 6 out of the lake down the river. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: So, you indicate on 8 your figures 5.7-2 and 5.7-3 the deposition 9 amounts. And you show for the first five years an 10 increased deposition of 115,800 tonnes. Half of 11 that approximately will be distributed along the 12 shore and half of that in the deeper water; is 13 that correct? Did I read it correctly? 14 MR. REMPEL: I would like to clarify 15 that figure. It is a complicated figure, but 16 here's what it is supposed to indicate: Firstly, 17 the water in the Burntwood River entering 18 Wuskwatim Lake in the upper left-hand corner, it 19 shows that the total suspended solids is about 20 11.8 milligrams per litre. So that is the amount 21 of sediment in the water column of the river 22 coming in. That would translate over the course 23 of a year -- I will just wait a second. 24 We have a figure that we could put up 25 on the screen, but if you would like, I can 3844 1 attempt to take you through it first. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. We can see what 3 is coming in and what is going out and the balance 4 is staying there? 5 MR. REMPEL: There is 315,000 coming 6 in, and the figure also shows a slightly decreased 7 amount of sediment in the water column, about 9.7 8 milligrams per litre. 9 Mr. Chair, what it indicates then, if 10 you look at what is coming in and what is going 11 out, the difference is about 50,000 tonnes per 12 year. In other words, 315,000 tonnes minus the 13 258,000. That's our estimate of what is happening 14 now, that there is 57,000 tonnes per year being 15 deposited in the lake, in terms of a difference in 16 those two, in and out. But then we also have to 17 estimate what is being currently introduced into 18 the lake from the existing erosion. We estimate 19 that to be 45,600 tonnes per year from the current 20 erodible shorelines. We estimate of that 45,600 21 tonnes per year, about half is being deposited in 22 the near shore and half in the deep water. 23 That gives us the 22,800 that you see 24 in the blue section of the figure. So, currently 25 we say there is 36 -- sorry, 57,000 plus 22,000 3845 1 tonnes per year being deposited in the deep water 2 right now, or in the lake. 3 Now, we say in the first five years we 4 are going to introduce another 72,000 tonnes per 5 year from the accelerated erosion, and we 6 distribute that 72,000 tonnes equally in near 7 shore and deep shore erosion. And that cumulative 8 total that you refer to, 115,000, is the sediment 9 that is currently being trapped, if you like, in 10 the reservoir, the existing shoreline erosion that 11 is going into the deep water, and then the 12 expected five-year increased erosion rates that 13 will also be deposited into the deep water, making 14 a total of 115,000 tonnes per year in the first 15 five years. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: That's the figure I 17 gave you -- 18 MR. REMPEL: Yes. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: -- to begin with. 20 MR. REMPEL: But it is actually 21 derived from those various sources. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Correct. Then what you 23 show as occurring for years five to 25 will be a 24 figure of 84,000 tonnes per year, using current 25 and what is additional with the project? 3846 1 MR. REMPEL: What number are you 2 referring to? Are you still referring to the 3 staple figure? 4 THE CHAIRMAN: No -- the same figure 5 we agree. I said, years five to 25, which is 6 right across the page, that will change to 84,000 7 tonnes per year? 8 MR. REMPEL: No, 8,400. Instead of 9 having 72,000 tonnes per year being introduced and 10 then split 50-50, we will have 8,400 tonnes per 11 year. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: My figure shows 84,000. 13 MR. REMPEL: Now, I see what you mean. 14 I think I was looking at a different number, 15 84,000. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: What I have done 17 here -- 18 MR. REMPEL: 84,000 just happens to 19 add up -- 20 THE CHAIRMAN: I try to portray here 21 Lake Wuskwatim in that dish. 22 MR. REMPEL: 84,000 is the cumulative 23 total of the current sediment trap; 22,000 current 24 erosion; and 4,200 from the new erosion. You're 25 right, if you are comparing the 84,000 to 115,000, 3847 1 that's correct. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, that's correct. 3 This is being deposited here in Wuskwatim Lake, 4 which is right here. 5 MR. REMPEL: Yes. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: That's been happening 7 and the water is where it is. Over the next few 8 years, I will deposit a little more -- oops, it is 9 spilling over the sides. But, of course, you 10 can't do that, because you are limited to a 11 certain level. So it won't -- you are limited to 12 234 metres; right? So, you're not allowed to, as 13 there is more deposit in the bottom, you're not 14 allowed to raise the level of the lake. 15 Therefore, as a result you have got a more shallow 16 lake as the years go by; correct? 17 MR. REMPEL: Marginally, that is 18 correct. We have estimated that it would increase 19 for the first five years, I believe it is two to 20 six millimetres per year. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: You are showing an 22 increase of -- yes, around three millimetres. I 23 saw that a while ago. 24 MR. REMPEL: It is in the same figure 25 you -- 3848 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, I am sorry. 2 MR. REMPEL: Three millimetres per 3 year for that particular scenario that you just 4 referred to. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Two millimetres for the 6 current, and adding to that you show a total of 7 six millimetres. 8 MR. REMPEL: For the first five years. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: That's correct. 10 MR. REMPEL: Yes. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: And continued increment 12 of 3 millimetres. But over time, in the shallow 13 areas of the lake, isn't that going to have -- 14 well, first of all, an effect in terms of the 15 available water supply in your basin? 16 MR. REMPEL: Well, let's just take the 17 first figure you mentioned, 6 millimetres per 18 year. If that estimate, which we believe to be 19 conservative, were to apply, that's on the 20 shorelines, the near shore. The deep shore is 21 actually 2 millimetres per year. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: That's right. 23 MR. REMPEL: You take that times five 24 years, that's 10 millimetres, that's roughly a 25 little less than half an inch. Another way to 3849 1 look at it is 10 millimetres in a depth of water 2 that on average, in a deep water portion of the 3 lake, is 7,000 metres -- like 7 metres would be 4 equivalent to 7,000 millimetres. So, we are 5 looking at in five years, 10 millimetres of 6 sitting, if you like, compared to 7,000 7 millimetres of a water column. So it is not very 8 large in terms of -- 9 THE CHAIRMAN: No, what I was getting 10 to is because you make reference to the effect 11 that has -- you indicate it has, later on in the 12 next chapter I believe, you describe the effect on 13 fish habitat. I was wondering if when you say -- 14 you made reference earlier about the positive 15 impacts on fish at Wuskwatim Lake, if they are not 16 perhaps overestimated, considering that this will 17 have an impact on the fish habitat -- 18 MR. REMPEL: Firstly -- 19 THE CHAIRMAN: -- in terms of spawning 20 areas and so forth? 21 MR. REMPEL: What we did, from the 22 physical environment, we estimated the mass of 23 sediment that would be introduced into the lake. 24 And in those areas of erodible shorelines, we then 25 estimated how much deposition would occur, pretty 3850 1 much in the near shore area along those erodible 2 shorelines, and then we would provide that 3 information to Mr. Davies, who would then look at 4 the effects on spawning habitat and ultimately the 5 fish productivity, and I will let Mr. Davies 6 respond to that. 7 MR. DAVIES: We did take erosion and 8 sediment deposition into account in a few ways. 9 First of all, as you said, in regards to effects 10 on spawning habitat, and we did also take it into 11 account in regards to the effects on benthic 12 invertebrates and the food that the fish rely on. 13 That's one of the reasons that we say the 14 short-term effects will be less positive than the 15 longer term effects. We still will see a positive 16 short-term effect because of the much larger area 17 that will be stabilized from the stabilization of 18 the water levels and a habitat that will be 19 created because of that, but the effect during the 20 first five years will be relatively small. 21 After the first five years, when 22 erosion decreases and we still have the stabilized 23 water levels, we expect that the positive effects 24 on fish will be somewhat larger than that. It 25 definitely was taken into account throughout the 3851 1 entire assessment. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: How do you measure the 3 suspended solids? 4 MR. REMPEL: The suspended solids are 5 measured in effect in a water column, a sample is 6 taken, and that part that doesn't pass through a 7 filter is considered suspended solids. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: What size is that 9 filter? 10 MR. REMPEL: I used to know that. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Like, is it 1 micron, 12 less than that? 13 MR. DAVIES: We currently send it to a 14 lab, Enviro-Test, and they do the analysis 15 following standard procedures. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: You don't know what 17 size -- 18 MR. REMPEL: I believe it is less than 19 a micron, but we can check into that. I think we 20 can get back to you before the day is out. 21 MR. DAVIES: Actually, it is about .45 22 microns in general. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, but it is less 24 than 1 micron? 25 MR. DAVIES: Yes. 3852 1 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. As the shoreline 2 erodes over the years, does that not -- is there 3 not a risk of additional shoreline being flooded? 4 Obviously, there must be. 5 MR. REMPEL: Of being flooded? 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, the water is 7 going -- as the shorelines are flooded, it erodes 8 away some of the material, the matter that is 9 there, that then becomes occupied by water? 10 MR. REMPEL: Yes. What happens is the 11 shoreline does recede, and typically what happens 12 with time, there is a beach formed, in effect, a 13 shallow beach which then ultimately acts as a 14 natural dissipator of the energy. But, yes, the 15 shoreline does widen. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: As far as your 17 assessments of concern, that will not 18 significantly increase flood at the shoreline? 19 MR. REMPEL: No, we took that into 20 account. I might add in terms of your question 21 about suspended solids, just to give you a 22 perspective, pre-CRD the Burntwood River varied in 23 suspended solids from about 5 to 44, based on data 24 collected by Manitoba Conservation, Manitoba 25 Environment at the time. It did go up to the 3853 1 several hundreds during the early parts of the CRD 2 diversion being in place. Gradually, it has come 3 down. So in 1999, for example, it ranged from 18 4 to 28; 2000, 5 to 31 milligrams per litre. By 5 comparison, you might be interested that the Red 6 and Assiniboine Rivers typically in summer might 7 go from say 50 to 200 or so. Right now the Red 8 probably is well over a thousand. So the 9 Burntwood River does not carry very high level of 10 suspended solids in its water column. It didn't 11 before and it doesn't now. 12 MR. MAYER: I was going to say, we 13 don't want it like that, we don't want it to look 14 like the Red and Assiniboine River. 15 MR. REMPEL: I can appreciate that. 16 By the way, Mr. Davies has one correction. 17 MR. DAVIES: I was just told that 18 Enviro-Test changed its methodology, and as of 19 2002 it is now 1.5 microns rather than .45. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: That's a big 21 difference, there is a lot of suspended particles 22 that are smaller than the 1 micron. I don't know, 23 can you surmise how much goes through -- half? 24 MR. DAVIES: The total dissolved 25 solids does pass through a 1.2 micronscreen, so 3854 1 the total dissolved solids would go through, but 2 the total suspended I believe would be retained. 3 MR. REMPEL: Just to put another 4 perspective on it, the test does capture a lot of 5 very fine material. Just as another example, 6 Manitoba Conservation, when it puts limits on the 7 suspended solids in treated wastewater and if you 8 have looked at treated wastewater -- 9 MR. MAYER: That's in the Red River. 10 MR. REMPEL: No, no, I am talking 11 about treated wastewater from a good wastewater 12 treatment plant, they allow 25 milligrams per 13 litre. If you were to put that in a pitcher it 14 would look very clear. So 25 milligrams per litre 15 is already giving you very clear water. We are 16 catching suspended solids down to much less than 17 that, several parts per million. It is actually 18 quite an accurate test. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: I would still like to 20 get confirmation of what kind of -- or were you 21 confirming that that was the type of measure, Mr. 22 Davies? 23 MR. DAVIES: Yes, I was. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. 25 Ms. Avery Kinew. 3855 1 MS. AVERY KINEW: Mr. Rempel, you were 2 talking about pre-CRD levels, does that mean you 3 were using information that was submitted to the 4 Lake Winnipeg/Churchill/Nelson River report, and 5 there was some baseline data collected from '71, I 6 think, to '74? 7 MR. REMPEL: No. I was referring to 8 reports, actually they are described in appendix 9 A.8-1 of volume 4 of the Generation Station EIS. 10 These were reports done by Williamson and Raleigh 11 in '93, 1993. They are both with the Provincial 12 Government, and they were really in effect looking 13 at post-CRD environmental effects. They wanted 14 to -- they did some monitoring along the Burntwood 15 River in terms of how much solids was in fact 16 mobilized from the diversion, and they followed 17 that up in 2003, and compared it to predicted 18 results from the CRD, the Lake Winnipeg/Nelson 19 River study board projections. 20 MS. AVERY KINEW: You mentioned 21 earlier about a 100 years of data, that was about 22 something else? 23 MR. REMPEL: There was some data 1967 24 to' 76, which would be the pre-CRD condition, and 25 then there was some data in '77 to '84. 3856 1 MS. AVERY KINEW: One of the 2 recommendations from that board was that the 3 government departments and agencies implement a 4 long-term coordinated ecological monitoring and 5 research program to allow impact evaluation. Did 6 you use any of that information, or did that 7 happen, do you know? 8 MR. REMPEL: This would be part of the 9 long-term monitoring program. Yes, we were aware 10 of many programs that were done for monitoring 11 different effects of the diversion, and we used 12 that information as it was relevant to this 13 project. 14 MS. AVERY KINEW: Is this something 15 that the people of Nisichawayasihk contributed 16 their traditional knowledge to, about erosion and 17 sedimentation? I remember in the early, in the 18 testimony that came before, sometimes there was a 19 difference of opinion between Western science and 20 traditional knowledge -- 21 MR. REMPEL: Yes -- 22 MS. AVERY KINEW: -- about debris, for 23 example? 24 MR. REMPEL: They certainly did 25 contribute. We heard, for example, some 3857 1 observations that there may in fact be some areas 2 of the lake where it is believed there is 3 siltation or sedimentation occurring that is 4 noticeable to the resource harvesters, and it is 5 possible that in certain areas, perhaps where a 6 creek enters the main body of the lake, that there 7 could be more localized and higher rates of 8 sedimentation than we are talking about. 9 In general, we think the data on the 10 lake, the deeper part of the lake is valid. A 11 core was taken in the lake itself. This core was 12 subjected to testing by DFO. It is an expensive 13 test, I think it is about $15,000 per test, but 14 they are able to date the layers of sedimentation 15 that occurred in the lake. And they were able to 16 give us advice in terms of what had happened in 17 the lake pre-CRD and then post-CRD. And the 18 deposition rates were about twice as high in the 19 23 years or so post CRD than prior to the CRD. 20 But our projected rates of deposition are 21 consistent, relatively consistent with what was 22 found in that core. 23 MS. AVERY KINEW: Is that referenced 24 in -- 25 MR. REMPEL: Yes. 3858 1 MS. AVERY KINEW: Was that discussed 2 with the traditional knowledge holders in NCN? 3 MR. REMPEL: First, I will give you 4 the reference. It is in section 8 of volume 4, 5 the physical environment of the generating 6 station, and it would be page 8.4. 7 MS. AVERY KINEW: Thank you. 8 MR. REMPEL: Yes, we did discuss 9 these -- 10 MS. AVERY KINEW: The core samples 11 were discussed? 12 MR. REMPEL: The core sediment data is 13 on that. 14 MS. AVERY KINEW: Were they discussed 15 with the elders in the resource -- 16 MR. REMPEL: Yes, we did discuss it, 17 there were workshops held. We had discussed the 18 issue of debris that you mentioned as well. And 19 while we didn't come to an agreement in terms of 20 the different interpretations of debris 21 management, for example, or the degree of -- the 22 issue that was associated with potential debris 23 mobilization with this proposed forebay elevation, 24 we did come to the agreement that it could be 25 mitigated. 3859 1 If the elders are right and more 2 debris is mobilized, there can be debris 3 management programs put in place. And if, on the 4 other hand, our estimates that there probably will 5 not be greater mobilization are correct, then 6 those mitigation efforts will not be necessary. 7 Both Manitoba Hydro and NCN agreed that they would 8 monitor the situation and they would collectively 9 agree on the appropriate mitigation measures. So 10 we didn't have to decide who was right, we 11 couldn't decide who was right. Instead we agreed 12 on an impact management strategy to deal with 13 either scenario. 14 MS. AVERY KINEW: Thank you, 15 Mr. Rempel. 16 MR. ABRA: Dealing next with the river 17 erosion, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 18 or the DFO, requires a sediment monitoring program 19 during construction, does it not? 20 MR. REMPEL: They have asked for a 21 sediment management plan. They have expressed, 22 right from the outset, when they reviewed the 23 draft of the EIS, they indicated they had concerns 24 about in river construction activities, and 25 indicated they would like to see a draft sediment 3860 1 management plan. Manitoba Hydro/NCN have met on a 2 number of occasions with DFO technical people, and 3 I believe in late February a draft sediment 4 management plan was filed with DFO. 5 MR. ABRA: Why do they want it? 6 MR. REMPEL: They wanted it because it 7 is evident that you cannot build the generating 8 station without significant activity, construction 9 activity in the river bed itself, it is 10 unavoidable. Therefore, there is concern that 11 those activities would disrupt the sediment and 12 cause unacceptable levels of sediment to be 13 discharged, mobilized into the river. 14 From the outset in the EIS, we stated 15 some of the measures that the construction and 16 design engineers had proposed to mitigate this, to 17 manage it. DFO wanted more specific advice on how 18 that would be done, and also some commitments as 19 to what would be done if the estimates were not 20 accurate; in other words, if more sediment was in 21 fact mobilized than we had indicated. 22 So, as a result, there was a great 23 deal of consideration given to ways to close off 24 the river in a more tranquil way, a less 25 disruptive way to the river, and considerable 3861 1 thought was given to the types of cofferdams and 2 how it would be constructed, the sequencing of the 3 cofferdams, and also the provision that in the 4 event that things work out to be different than 5 anticipated, there are other mitigation measures 6 that can be taken in consultation with the 7 regulators at that time. 8 For example, if when the river is 9 trained to go back, or trained to go into the 10 spillway, we know that the river will now 11 encounter a stream bed that has not previously had 12 that much flow go across it. We can't test the 13 river bed right now because it is under water, but 14 while the powerhouse and spillway are being built, 15 such testing will be done. If the sheer strength 16 of that river bed is low, in other words, if it is 17 more erodible than we anticipate, then a layer of 18 riprap will be put over that stream before the 19 river is diverted into the new spillway. 20 Those kind of measures, the potential 21 for a turbidity curtain, have been explained in 22 the sediment management plan, and we anticipate 23 discussions with DFO technical people shortly in 24 terms of their response to that plan. 25 MR. ABRA: There is concern that a 3862 1 significant amount of sediment will be released 2 into the Burntwood River during cofferdam 3 construction specifically. Am I correct? 4 MR. REMPEL: That was the concern of 5 DFO, and we believe that we now have plans, 6 Manitoba Hydro and NCN have plans that will keep 7 the suspended level increases to 25 milligrams per 8 litre or less, as an increment. 9 MR. ABRA: These are steps in 10 mitigation? 11 MR. REMPEL: I am sorry? 12 MR. ABRA: These are steps in 13 mitigation of that sediment? 14 MR. REMPEL: Yes, these are the result 15 of the steps taken to have a very good sequence of 16 cofferdam construction, the types of cofferdams 17 that would minimize mobilization of sediment, for 18 example, where there is fast flowing current -- 19 MR. ABRA: What are some of the steps 20 being taken, Mr. Rempel? 21 MR. REMPEL: For openers, all the kind 22 of easy things to do such as keeping a vegetation 23 strip between the work area and the river, 24 settling ponds where there is construction 25 activity before the drainage is allowed to go to 3863 1 the stream. But the more, the ones that are of 2 more concern, I think, or more interest to DFO are 3 the ones that occur in the river. In that sense, 4 some of the steps are to use a double cofferdam 5 that that would proceed first with one extension 6 into the river of rock only. That would be 7 followed -- because rock obviously would not 8 introduce as much sediment into the river as say a 9 clay advancement of embankment -- so, first one 10 finger is extended into the river. That quietens 11 down the river, deflects the water velocities. 12 Then another rock finger is extended somewhat 13 distant from it. In that interval or space 14 between them, that's where the impervious 15 material, the clays and the sands, et cetera, are 16 placed to get good seal so that construction can 17 take place in the dry. 18 So, those are some of the steps. 19 There are deflector groins, if you like, deflector 20 rock fingers to take the current out of the way. 21 There are steps taken to advance all of this 22 construction in very quiet areas first, so that 23 effectively as little disturbance as possible of 24 the river bed is accomplished. 25 MR. ABRA: Have you been able to 3864 1 project at all what the residual amount of 2 sediment released into the river will be after all 3 the steps of mitigation that you have taken, or 4 that you anticipate taking? 5 MR. REMPEL: Yes, we have indicated 6 that probably there will be two intervals of a 7 couple months where sediment releases will be 8 approximately -- increases in suspended solids 9 will be about 25 milligrams or less. We hope to 10 be less, obviously, with these measures that we 11 have committed to in a sediment management plan. 12 The rest of the time is actually substantially 13 less than that. 14 In the event that some of the tests 15 show that we have to take additional measures, 16 such as the cobbling or riprapping of the stream 17 bed, that will happen. If in the course of doing 18 some of this cofferdam construction, it appears it 19 is going to be difficult to keep within those 20 limits, there are other measures such as turbidity 21 curtains that can be put in place. These are 22 effectively floating curtains into the water that 23 are very good at trapping sediment from going from 24 one construction area into the water that is 25 passing downstream into the Burntwood River. 3865 1 MR. ABRA: In essence, that's a step 2 that is taken to remove the sediment from the 3 water; is that fair? 4 MR. REMPEL: To prevent it from being 5 transported downstream, yes. 6 MR. ABRA: It keeps it where it is, 7 and you are able to then take it out of the water? 8 MR. REMPEL: It will probably in many 9 cases not be necessary to take it out, but if it 10 is in the work area, then obviously it would be 11 taken out. 12 MR. ABRA: Okay. Are there other 13 sources of sediment release in the Burntwood River 14 other than the cofferdam during the construction 15 project? 16 MR. REMPEL: There certainly are 17 releases. There will be a wastewater facility 18 that will release some suspended solids, that will 19 be licensed and will have to conform to typical 20 Manitoba guidelines, regulations in that regard. 21 There will be some drainage into the 22 creeks that will ultimately find their way into 23 the Burntwood River, so there will be some 24 additional suspended solids. But with steps taken 25 to manage that drainage, that should be 3866 1 controllable to nominal levels. 2 MR. ABRA: Okay. In your EIS filing, 3 you have made the comment, 4 "River bank erosion during 5 construction will be mitigated to the 6 extent possible." 7 What do you mean by "to the extent possible"? 8 MR. REMPEL: This is river bank 9 erosion, and what happened with regard to the 10 river bank erosion was that the designers took 11 note of some of the potential for the spillway 12 discharge to impinge upon the bank of the river 13 and perhaps cause some localized bank erosion. So 14 mitigation has already taken place in that the 15 design has been modified to effectively put a 16 little swerve into the spillway so that the 17 spillway will now discharge more smoothly into the 18 main stem of the river and will not impinge on the 19 river bank as it once was proposed to do. 20 MR. ABRA: Thank you. 21 Have you been able to 22 project at all how long it will take for the rate 23 of erosion to return to first the near post CRD 24 conditions and then -- excuse me, to pre CRD 25 conditions? 3867 1 MR. REMPEL: It is our belief based on 2 studies of photography and judgments, that the 3 current rate of shoreline recession is close to 4 what was happening on Wuskwatim Lake prior to the 5 diversion. In other words, the pre CRD shorelines 6 in Wuskwatim were eroding in approximately the 7 same fashion as they are eroding now, but at a 8 different level. 9 It is our belief that after 25 years, 10 the erosion that will increase with this project 11 will be -- will return to what it is now, which is 12 approximately the same kind of recession that 13 occurred pre CRD. 14 MR. ABRA: Pre CRD? 15 MR. REMPEL: Yes. Just as an example, 16 in 100 years, in terms of the difference, we 17 project in the high energy shorelines that the 18 shoreline will recede about 106 metres with the 19 project, and would have receded about 100 metres 20 without the project in those high energy, highly 21 erodible shorelines. 22 MR. ABRA: Okay. You have a sediment 23 management plan. What is a sediment management 24 plan and why is one required? 25 MR. REMPEL: We have a sediment 3868 1 management plan to deal with the ineam 2 construction activities that could, if they were 3 not properly managed, introduce sediment plumes 4 that could be of concern with respect to covering 5 up fish habitat or migrating downstream in an 6 unacceptable fashion. 7 So, the sediment management plan that 8 is referred to is essentially the kind of -- a 9 plan to govern your construction activities in a 10 manner that will not create unacceptable sediment 11 releases into the stream. 12 MR. ABRA: Thank you. Now, you have a 13 draft of one available now; do you not? 14 MR. REMPEL: Yes. 15 MR. ABRA: When will the final one be 16 ready? 17 MR. REMPEL: I guess as soon as we 18 receive feedback from DFO, which is anticipated to 19 be within the next short while; probably several 20 weeks. That's our expectation. 21 I would guess that they will have 22 comments and they will probably have to have a 23 meeting with their technical people and introduce 24 another report. So, I would guess it is probably 25 a month or two away, but hopefully it would be 3869 1 finalized before -- well, I guess it would be 2 finalized, but certainly before the CSR, the 3 comprehensive study report by the DFO would be put 4 in place. 5 MR. ABRA: What are the geographic 6 boundaries of the sediment management plan, 7 Mr. Rempel? 8 MR. REMPEL: The sediment management 9 plan is really focused on the area of construction 10 because a sediment management plan is, as I 11 mentioned, designed to manage the construction 12 activities in an acceptable fashion. 13 So, the sediment management plan 14 covers the construction area. It does refer to 15 the quarry areas, for example. It does refer to 16 the access road. So, it goes well off the 17 generation site itself. 18 It does cover the construction work 19 area, the quarry -- I mentioned that. The 20 concrete crushing area. It covers all those 21 activities. 22 MR. ABRA: Okay. Now, the mitigation 23 measures that have been identified in the plan, 24 subject to comment from DFO, is it anticipated 25 that all of those mitigation measures will be 3870 1 implemented subject to the comments that they may 2 make in that regard? 3 MR. REMPEL: All of the measures will 4 be implemented, that's their contemplation. But, 5 there are a couple of measures that are subject to 6 additional testing, such as the riprapping of the 7 entrance way into the new spillway and the 8 turbidity curtain is a proposal to do additional 9 work in the event that it is determined that it is 10 necessary based on monitoring during construction. 11 MR. ABRA: That was the difficulty 12 that you said you're not sure how significant the 13 erosion may be in that area? 14 MR. REMPEL: That's correct. 15 MR. ABRA: You have to wait for the 16 construction to determine that? 17 MR. REMPEL: Yes. 18 MS. AVERY KINEW: Mr. Abra? 19 MR. ABRA: Yes. 20 MS. AVERY KINEW: Mr. Rempel, how long 21 is that sediment management plan going to exist 22 and is there annual monitoring or seasonal 23 monitoring? 24 MR. REMPEL: There will be monitoring 25 during construction. The cofferdams -- there are 3871 1 actually about five or six different cofferdams. 2 Firstly, when they are installed, there will be 3 extensive monitoring of sediments in the river 4 during that time. 5 Then there is a period of construction 6 where construction takes place in the dry, and 7 then when the cofferdams are removed, then again, 8 there is a period of potential sediment releases. 9 So, there is intensive monitoring 10 proposed during those two phases particularly, but 11 there will be construction monitoring on an 12 ongoing basis during the construction activity. 13 MS. AVERY KINEW: What about the 14 25-year period that it would take for the erosion 15 levels to reach pre CRD rates? 16 MR. REMPEL: Oh, that wouldn't be a 17 sediment management plan, but there are proposals 18 for monitoring that would see Manitoba Hydro and 19 NCN continue the monitoring of those sites that 20 exist. Plus, it is proposed to do additional work 21 on sediment trapping, sediment deposition to get 22 more data. It is recognized that it would be 23 useful to have more data in terms of the fate of 24 the sediment. 25 MS. AVERY KINEW: So, the plan that 3872 1 you put in for DFO is just for six years of 2 construction? 3 MR. REMPEL: No, they are not part of 4 the sediment management plan. They are proposed 5 monitoring activities described in the EIS under 6 physical environment. 7 MS. AVERY KINEW: I am just wondering 8 how long is the plan to DFO that you are 9 putting -- 10 MR. REMPEL: I am sorry, how long is 11 what? 12 MS. AVERY KINEW: How long a period 13 does the plan cover that you put into fisheries? 14 MR. REMPEL: The sediment management 15 plan? 16 MS. AVERY KINEW: Yes. 17 MR. REMPEL: The actual 18 construction-related activities would take place 19 for about six years, but as Mr. Davies has 20 explained, there is actually 21 years of 21 monitoring proposed on the aquatic side and when 22 that is being done, there is data being collected 23 on suspended solids. That is a -- 24 MS. AVERY KINEW: You put a draft plan 25 into DFO. I am just wondering how long is that 3873 1 plan? You put it in already. 2 MR. REMPEL: There is actually two 3 different plans. There is an aquatic monitoring 4 plan which, as Mr. Davies indicated, has several 5 milestone reviews, but 21 years of monitoring is 6 proposed. That is the aquatic monitoring plan. 7 Additional to that, there is a draft 8 sediment management plan that has been proposed 9 and that would outline the construction-related 10 monitoring. 11 MS. AVERY KINEW: So, about six years 12 then? 13 MR. REMPEL: About six years. 14 MR. ABRA: The sediment management 15 plan also talks about a drainage management plan, 16 the possibility that you may be producing one of 17 them. 18 Is it intended that you will or will 19 that be up to DFO? 20 MR. REMPEL: Where was it stated that 21 there would be drainage management plan? 22 MR. ABRA: Page 69. 23 MR. REMPEL: Oh, of the sediment 24 management plan? 25 MR. ABRA: Yes, I am sorry. 3874 1 MR. REMPEL: There will be a drainage 2 management plan. What that consists of is the 3 designers, in effect, deciding how they are going 4 to control the drainage on the site and the 5 contractors -- the main contractor will have a big 6 part to play in that. 7 In other words, when the selective -- 8 the successful contractor is selected, he will 9 govern his work activities the way he sees best, 10 and out of that will come his drainage management 11 plan and he will conform to conditions, 12 expectations in the environmental management plan. 13 But, the actual detailed drainage management plan 14 will probably be developed after the contractor 15 has been selected. 16 MR. ABRA: So, it won't be done in the 17 near future then? 18 MR. REMPEL: Conceptually, it has 19 already been done, but I don't think the plan is 20 to produce another one beyond the conceptual 21 drainage plan. I will just take a minute and 22 check. 23 MR. ABRA: Total suspended sediment -- 24 or "TSS" as it's often referred to -- what are the 25 current levels in the Burntwood River between 3875 1 Wuskwatim Lake and Opegano Lake? 2 MR. REMPEL: Perhaps I can -- I am 3 still on your first question, Mr. Abra. 4 MR. ABRA: Okay. 5 MR. REMPEL: You are on page 69 of the 6 sediment management plan? 7 MR. ABRA: Right, that is reference to 8 the drainage management plan. 9 MR. REMPEL: Certainly the intention 10 is to develop a drainage management plan. It is 11 not contemplated that there will be one submitted 12 as part of the sediment management plan unless DFO 13 were to ask for it. 14 But, indications are given here about 15 the measures that will be taken to control 16 drainage. Typically, the specifics of that kind 17 of plan are defined by the contractor when his 18 work operation in terms of sequence and just the 19 nature and spatial details are set. 20 But, commitments will be made in the 21 environmental protection plan to control sediment, 22 for example, by ditch armouring, buffer strips and 23 settling ponds. Those kinds of concepts will be 24 spelled out in the environmental protection plan. 25 But, the specific details of the drainage 3876 1 management plan will be subject to some tweaking, 2 if you like, by the contractor that is selected. 3 MR. ABRA: Okay, thank you. 4 MR. REMPEL: Now, I am going to have 5 to ask you repeat your question. I forgot your 6 second question. 7 MR. ABRA: Total suspended sediment, 8 TSS, in the Burntwood River between Wuskwatim Lake 9 and Opegano Lake, what are the levels? 10 MR. DAVIES: The current levels vary 11 from less than 5 milligrams per litre to 24 12 milligrams per litre in the Burntwood River. 13 MR. ABRA: I am sorry, what was the 14 second figure? 15 MR. DAVIES: 24 milligrams per litre. 16 MR. ABRA: Milligrams per litre? 17 MR. DAVIES: Yes. 18 MR. ABRA: What do you expect them to 19 be once the generation station has been completed, 20 Mr. Davies? 21 MR. DAVIES: As Mr. Rempel stated, the 22 objective is to -- during the construction period, 23 keep it at less than 25 milligrams per litre 24 increase. When the generating station is 25 operating, we expect that it will be less than 5 3877 1 to 24 milligrams per litre. Basically exactly the 2 same. We don't expect to see any measurable 3 increase in TSS levels downstream of the 4 generating station. 5 MR. ABRA: You don't expect them to be 6 appreciable? 7 MR. DAVIES: No. The main 8 contribution during the operation period will be 9 from the shoreline erosion, and because of the 10 amount of water and the fact that the majority of 11 the sediment will be deposited within the 12 Wuskwatim Lake itself, we don't expect that the 13 amount that will travel downstream will make a 14 measurable difference. If it does, it will be 15 very, very small. 16 MR. ABRA: So, how long will it take 17 then for the levels to return to pre Wuskwatim Dam 18 pre CRD conditions? Not very long, obviously. 19 MR. DAVIES: No. As I said, I don't 20 expect we will be able to measure an increase. 21 So, after the initial five years where we expect 22 more erosion than in the next 20 years, at least 23 after the first five years, you would wouldn't be 24 able to detect an increase. As I said, I don't 25 think we will be able to detect an increase even 3878 1 in the first or second year. 2 MR. ABRA: Okay, thank you. 3 MR. REMPEL: Mr. Abra, I would just 4 like to -- maybe I will just repeat some of the 5 data that I mentioned before. 6 Pre CRD -- now this is further 7 downstream at the Burntwood, but we don't think it 8 is very different than what you would see in the 9 rate you were talking about. The range was 5 to 10 44. Right now in 2000 was 5 to 31. So, we think 11 it has returned essentially to pre CRD, suspended 12 solid levels to date. This again is the 13 Williamson Rally information in appendix A, 8-1 of 14 the volume 4. 15 MR. ABRA: Okay, thank you. If I 16 might have a moment, Mr. Chairman. 17 Will the construction of the Wuskwatim 18 generation dam result in exceeding the Manitoba's 19 water quality standards, objectives and 20 guidelines? 21 MR. REMPEL: In the event that 22 construction activities cannot be managed to the 23 extent that we indicate, there may have to be 24 additional measures such as a turbidity curtain or 25 that rock riprapping that we talked about on the 3879 1 spillway entrance to be able to conform to the 2 Manitoba surface water quality guidelines. 3 For a stream that has a background 4 level of less than 250 milligrams per litre, they 5 would like the increment arising from some 6 construction activities to be less than 25 7 milligrams per litre. That is typically over a 8 very short interval, perhaps a day or so. They 9 would like the increment to be 5 milligrams per 10 litre or less, averaged over about a 30-day 11 period. 12 Those are actually quite tight 13 guidelines. It may be that we find as we do this 14 monitoring of the construction activities that 15 additional measures of the type that we talked 16 about are necessary to conform to those 17 guidelines. 18 Right now, we are hoping that those 19 measures we have already described will actually 20 be sufficient to meet those guidelines, but if 21 not, then additional steps will have to be taken. 22 MR. ABRA: Thank you. Once the 23 construction is finished and the dam has been 24 completed, it is not anticipated, I gather from 25 the previous answers that were given, that the 3880 1 guidelines will be exceeded at all? 2 MR. REMPEL: If you are speaking 3 particularly about suspended solids, no, we do 4 not. Right now, the Manitoba surface water 5 quality guidelines don't actually specify what a 6 river shall have in terms of a maximum amount of 7 suspended solids. Many rivers naturally exceed 8 the 25 milligrams per litre that they would like 9 to have as a water quality concentration in terms 10 of suspended solids. 11 But, when it rains, when there is 12 floods, et cetera, naturally many streams that 13 have no development on them at all exceed the 25. 14 So, in that sense, there will still be 15 some exceedances. But, I believe with very few, 16 maybe no exceptions, we don't anticipate 17 exceedances of guidelines. 18 I think we indicated that there may be 19 some metals that for a brief moment in terms of 20 dilution exceed the guidelines, Stuart? 21 MR. DAVIES: It is possible that 22 aluminium and iron may exceed the guidelines 23 during the first five years. Aluminium is already 24 very high in the system and in some cases already 25 exceeds the -- it is a natural occurring substance 3881 1 in that area. 2 MR. ABRA: Okay. That completes my 3 questions, Mr. Chairman, on the issue of erosion 4 and sedimentation. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Avery Kinew? 6 MS. AVERY KINEW: I was just 7 wondering, Mr. Rempel, you have experience from 12 8 years ago building Limestone. Have you used any 9 of these riprapping or whatever the name, or the 10 curtain -- the turbidity curtain, have you used 11 them before? 12 MR. REMPEL: I don't think turbidity 13 curtains were used in Limestone construction. I 14 do know that there has been very good experience 15 with turbidity curtains. I am not as familiar 16 with this device as the designers. Acres 17 Consulting devised the sediment management plan in 18 consultation with Manitoba Hydro and NCN. There 19 is excellent experience with their ability to 20 contain sediments. 21 So, I am not even sure if 12 years ago 22 that that particular technology was developed as 23 well as it is now, but now there are good 24 techniques to control the release of sediments 25 from construction activities. 3882 1 MS. AVERY KINEW: And the riprapping 2 on the bottom as opposed to the shoreline? 3 MR. REMPEL: Oh, that is proven 4 technology, yes. The cofferdam -- the advancement 5 of cofferdams and the ability to control their 6 advancement and use double walls and that kind of 7 technique, that's a proven technology. Manitoba 8 Hydro has a lot of experience in the past with 9 that. 10 MS. AVERY KINEW: Thank you. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Go ahead. 12 MR. ABRA: I would like to move to 13 socioeconomic effects, please. 14 What did you determine to be the top 15 three direct adverse effects of the generation 16 station and the transmission project on the 17 socioeconomic conditions? I am not asking for all 18 of them because I know there are many, so pick out 19 the top three. 20 MR. OSLER: The top three effects on 21 the socioeconomic conditions from the generation 22 station and the transmission combined. 23 MR. ABRA: No, you can deal with them 24 separately. We will make it six. 25 MR. OSLER: Well -- 3883 1 MR. ABRA: I expect some are 2 probably -- 3 MR. OSLER: I don't want to pretend 4 that I think that way, so -- but, I would think 5 that on the generation project the major 6 measurable effects relate to the direct effects 7 through the construction and economic effects 8 through ownership in terms of jobs and stuff 9 during the construction period and the training 10 and all that goes with it and in the longer run, 11 the ownership for NCN, if they take it up. 12 They are both significant, positive 13 effects according to the type of assessments that 14 we would do. 15 MR. ABRA: If I didn't make it clear, 16 I am sorry, Mr. Osler, I meant "adverse" effects. 17 I thought that's what I said, but -- 18 MR. OSLER: I may have missed it. 19 Okay, I will start again. 20 Looking at the generation project and 21 just going through the items that we effectively 22 do look at to do this type of assessment, on 23 resource use, we don't see a major negative 24 effect, they tend to be positive. 25 Looking at the economy, again the 3884 1 effects tend to be positive. 2 If you look at infrastructure and 3 services -- and I have discussed this with you 4 before -- we have a concern about in migration and 5 I have identified that with you. That would be 6 one of the major potential -- major issues for NCN 7 to address when dealing with the generation 8 project and people who have indicated through the 9 surveys and other things that they might like to 10 come back to Nelson House and what effects that 11 will have on the housing situation and other 12 issues in the community. 13 When we get to personal family 14 community life -- you're asking me to focus on 15 adverse. Probably, what I would focus on would be 16 the spiritual, psychological concerns that arise, 17 particularly with elders, for any type of change 18 to the environment that is related to Manitoba 19 Hydro and the water regime and the issues that 20 that presents to the leadership of NCN and other 21 communities, Manitoba Hydro and the regulators. 22 Now, in practical terms, there are 23 steps taken to try and mitigate that, but as I 24 think this commission has heard, it is certainly 25 an issue that is there. It is an accumulative 3885 1 issue arising from the history. 2 The loss of the falls themselves, I am 3 sure would be viewed as a matter of importance to 4 NCN, and the mitigation measures that are outlined 5 to have ceremonies are intended to address that. 6 So, on the generation project, without 7 trying to be exhaustive, those would be the 8 highlights that I would come to. 9 On the transmission project, from a 10 socioeconomic side, everything is much more muted 11 in terms of the level of economic activity, the 12 effects on resource use where they occur, and the 13 effects on culture, family, and personal life. 14 So, I am not sure that I would have an easy time 15 trying to figure out among all these items where 16 the effects tend to be much more muted, what would 17 rise to one's attention. Certainly access 18 management has been identified in the case of NCN 19 as an issue that they want the parties to address, 20 not only for the road, but for the transmission 21 line. 22 So, short-term attention will be 23 addressed to access management, issues as they 24 would pertain to the initial transmission line 25 route between Birch Tree and Wuskwatim. 3886 1 So, we will be dealing with access 2 management planning issues for both the road and 3 the initial transmission line. I presume 4 everybody will learn a great deal from developing 5 and dealing with that. I am positive NCN will 6 have the same approach with respect to the 7 transmission lines running south from Wuskwatim 8 towards Herblet. 9 I am not aware of it myself, but Dave 10 Hicks and others may be from the transmission side 11 as to whether steps have been taken to identify 12 that issue in the same way for other Aboriginal 13 communities, of Cormorant and The Pas, OCN. But 14 those would be the sort of active issues that 15 people identify and they want to pay attention to 16 in terms of potential for adverse effects. 17 MR. ABRA: As far as mitigation is 18 concerned, with respect to the loss of the falls 19 that you have described is there anything that can 20 be done to mitigate that? The dam is built, the 21 falls are no longer there. I assume that is a -- 22 that adverse effect is going to be effectively a 23 residual effect because there is really not much 24 that can be done to mitigate it; is that fair? 25 MR. OSLER: That's how it is 3887 1 identified. It is a residual effect. A basic, 2 physical, residual effect that you cannot 3 simultaneously build a facility and save the 4 falls. 5 But, beyond how or I might look at it, 6 this has great cultural importance to NCN and in 7 order to mitigate it, the elders have made very 8 clear that appropriate ceremonies will have to be 9 taken before anybody is allowed to do that and 10 taken in an appropriate way. 11 I think -- I forget, but one of the 12 translators that was in Thompson gave a 13 presentation to the commission at the end of the 14 session in Thompson, if I am not mistaken, and he 15 referred I think -- 16 MR. ABRA: To loss of the falls. 17 MR. OSLER: To loss of the falls and a 18 need for proper ceremonies. Those are definitely 19 identified in the first family section as a 20 mitigation measure. Those are very serious. 21 I think it has been said maybe once or 22 twice in the course of this proceeding that the 23 elders were concerned about water and its extent 24 to do things. I think Jimmy D. Spence talked 25 about it in The Pas. Therefore, the engineers and 3888 1 everybody looked at this and they talk about the 2 water will be contained inside Wuskwatim Lake and 3 there will not be damage to other areas that are 4 very important ceremonially to NCN in the general 5 area without me getting into much more specifics 6 of Wuskwatim Falls. 7 So, recommendations are in the 8 socioeconomic area to make sure that monitoring 9 under the heritage and culture area pays attention 10 to this matter and to the satisfaction of the 11 heritage elements and NCN, so that people just 12 don't assume something won't happen, but they 13 actually monitor it to make sure that water is not 14 invading some of the other heritage sites of 15 importance to NCN in that general area. 16 So, again, these are respectful ways 17 to try and address serious concerns that people 18 have, that may not be supported by traditional -- 19 not traditional -- by engineering work and other 20 information we have. Nonetheless, they call out 21 to be and will be addressed. 22 MR. ABRA: Right. Now, with respect 23 to the contemplated housing shortage, how do you 24 address that? Build more houses and if so, 25 financially how is that done? 3889 1 MR. OSLER: As I think the chief 2 explained in one of his presentations, they 3 already have a housing shortage and they already 4 have, by Winnipeg standards, serious overcrowding 5 in homes. 6 So, to build more houses, one needs 7 more money as the chief said and there is nothing 8 magical that would make that surface because 9 somebody starts building Wuskwatim. 10 In the longer run, the dividends from 11 this project could assist that and other issues 12 with NCN. But, in the short run of the 13 construction period, there is no dividends. There 14 is no income flowing from the project. 15 I think I gave a very wide range of 30 16 to 400 -- sorry? 35 to 400 possible in migration. 17 The only ways we can see addressing such a matter 18 is working closely with NCN's leadership and the 19 various people who are responsible in the 20 community for managing various portfolios and 21 elements of the communities, the wellness centre, 22 the housing and everything else. 23 To have planning, first of all, to 24 make sure that people think about coming back, 25 that NCN members are aware that they don't 3890 1 necessarily have to come back to the community in 2 order to get opportunities to have the jobs. That 3 if they do come back, they probably will face 4 significant housing issues because there is no 5 particular ability to suddenly start springing up 6 houses. So, in other words, if people act, they 7 act informed rather than in ignorance as to what 8 they need to do in order to get a job and what 9 would happen in the community if they come back. 10 On the other hand, we have to respect 11 that people may still view this as something they 12 want to do and NCN and its leadership and its 13 people in the community have to plan accordingly. 14 At that stage, as advisers, we work 15 with them to try and help them develop those 16 plans, but it is largely monitoring of what is 17 actually happening and in response mechanisms, in 18 terms of communication and discussion, to try and 19 deal with it. But, it will not be something that 20 anybody that I have heard from NCN thinks they can 21 solve by building a whole bunch of new houses. 22 They just don't have those types of resources. 23 They are already short. Seriously short. Like 24 all other First Nation communities. 25 It is actually an interesting problem. 3891 1 We spend a fair amount of time and will continue 2 spending a fair amount of time talking about how 3 to deal with it. It is classic adaptive 4 management of one type. 5 MR. ABRA: Are there any projections 6 at all as to how much money is required to address 7 the shortfall? 8 MR. OSLER: The current shortfall? 9 MR. ABRA: I guess really because it 10 is a socioeconomic impact, we are really talking 11 in terms of the dam. I mean, there is the present 12 shortfall, and presumably the shortfall will be 13 greater once the project will be under 14 construction. 15 MR. OSLER: If you were to address it 16 by the method of trying to building housing, 17 nobody has tried to come up with numbers for 18 that -- but it would be -- sorry? 19 MR. THOMAS: Just in terms of that 20 question, we figure that we are short about 400 21 homes. On average, we spend about $100,000 per 22 home, sometimes a little bit more. 23 So, if you are building ten homes, you 24 are looking at a million dollars. So, if you are 25 looking at 400 homes, you are looking at roughly 3892 1 $40 million that will be needed. 2 MR. ABRA: Mr. Thomas, when you say 3 that you are short 400, is that short 400 as a 4 result of the project or are you presently short 5 400? 6 MR. THOMAS: No, we are presently 7 short -- 8 MR. ABRA: 400? 9 MR. THOMAS: 400 or so. If there is 10 additional in migration happening, then the need 11 that is there will definitely increase and we can 12 just go by -- how much in migration occurs will 13 determine how much extra we would be looking at in 14 terms of millions of dollars for the needs that 15 are going to be there. 16 MR. ABRA: Okay. 17 MR. MAYER: Councillor Thomas, on that 18 issue, I have been, I guess, to just about every 19 remote community in northern Manitoba and nobody 20 seems to use apartment buildings as a method of 21 solving housing problems. Can you tell me why 22 that is? 23 MR. THOMAS: I am still trying to 24 figure out why we don't have sky scrapers in my 25 community as well. Our fiduciaries have not been 3893 1 very -- how can I say this -- they haven't jumped 2 up to the plate to offer the necessary resources 3 for us to be able to handle the situations. 4 As a First Nation though, we have 5 explored, as one of the many options that we 6 explore in terms of how can we handle the housing 7 needs that exist in our community and an apartment 8 block type of buildings have been considered and 9 are being considered in my First Nation. 10 MR. OSLER: Just to be clear, the 11 numbers that I was using to do with effects were 12 people, not families and not necessarily 400 13 houses. So, we had a minimum scenario of 14 estimated 15 to 30 individuals and some of those 15 with families, which would lead up to 35 to 100 16 people. We had a maximum scenario of 50 to 120 17 individuals and some of them with families for an 18 additional 120 to 420 persons. 19 MR. ABRA: This relates to the 20 project? 21 MR. OSLER: Yeah, because the number 22 400 is happening magically in two different 23 contexts, I wanted the record to be clear. The 24 400 houses thereabouts is an existing shortfall 25 and I am talking about people who could 3894 1 potentially move back and a lot of the energy and 2 focus will be to try and make sure they have 3 information and give opportunities to be employed 4 and trained on this project without having to move 5 back. Maybe they can use some of those apartments 6 in Thompson. 7 MR. ABRA: Okay. What about indirect 8 socioeconomic effects, Mr. Osler? Again, can you 9 give us the three examples of adverse indirect 10 effects that you have identified? 11 MR. OSLER: I am not sure the ones I 12 gave you weren't indirect, you know. I wasn't 13 necessarily focused on whether they were direct or 14 indirect. With socioeconomic, so often the 15 effects -- 16 MR. ABRA: I recognize that it is a 17 grey area of where one begins and the other leaves 18 off so to speak. 19 MR. OSLER: I am not sure whether I 20 would call -- in migration probably would be a 21 fairly indirect effect. It is somebody looking at 22 the opportunity of a job, so that would be a big 23 one. 24 MR. ABRA: Yeah. 25 MR. OSLER: This is getting easy. 3895 1 MR. ABRA: It is easy to state, it is 2 hard to mitigate. 3 MR. OSLER: The Taskinigup Falls, for 4 example, probably a direct one. The issue of 5 rising water levels and concerns about monitoring 6 it to make sure it doesn't invade other cultural 7 sites would be, I guess, direct. The loss of the 8 falls. 9 The wealth management issues -- I 10 guess a fairly important set of issues that I 11 haven't talked about that are important 12 planning-wise and they certainly would be 13 indirect. Everybody thinks you get a job and you 14 get training and it is an easy, good thing. 15 Actually, the perspective at NCN is that these are 16 things that need to be managed and there could be 17 adverse impacts from increased incomes, increased 18 training and increased jobs if people don't get 19 the support throughout the process and the 20 encouragement and -- support in the community and 21 the support at the job site with retention. 22 So, those are indirect issues that the 23 community is very concerned about, Manitoba Hydro 24 is very concerned about. Retention support, even 25 though it is a positive thing, is something -- 3896 1 jobs are a positive thing, and those are things 2 people are spending considerable energy as we get 3 closer to the project happening, thinking about. 4 The management of access to the 5 territory -- the access management plans is 6 certainly indirect issues that need to be managed 7 carefully and could, if not managed, potentially 8 have adverse effects. So, those are the ones I 9 probably would focus on. 10 MR. ABRA: Thank you. On the issue of 11 the construction itself, there has been, of 12 course, considerable debate over the last number 13 of weeks that we have been in these hearings, both 14 here in Winnipeg and up north, and considerable 15 comment made about the expectation that jobs will 16 be provided and so on. 17 What Manitoba Hydro and Manitoba 18 Government policies exist at present to ensure 19 that northern Manitoba and First Nations and other 20 Aboriginal companies in particular will receive 21 benefits from the Wuskwatim project? Are there 22 any? 23 MR. OSLER: When we say at present and 24 we say the Wuskwatim project, the Wuskwatim 25 project would be governed by a collective 3897 1 agreement, such as the Nelson agreement. That 2 agreement has to be renegotiated. 3 But, if you took it as the basis of 4 what the previous agreement would provide for, you 5 would see a northern hiring preference for 6 Aboriginals and then for northern residents. You 7 would see opportunities for northern businesses to 8 and Aboriginal businesses, in particular, to have 9 opportunities for contracting. I could leave it 10 to Hydro to elaborate in more detail, if you would 11 like. 12 I think where we have -- historically, 13 I am not sure how you would say what the Manitoba 14 Government or Canadian Government would 15 necessarily do when they get a project like this 16 because we had a massive training program once 17 before, but I am not sure you call it a for-sure 18 thing for training of new people to work on these 19 projects. 20 On transmission, it is not governed by 21 the collective agreement process. So, the 22 Manitoba Hydro and northern employment and 23 purchasing policies apply, as you have heard, and 24 they too give degrees of preference for hiring 25 with respect to Aboriginal employees and northern 3898 1 residents. There is a hierarchy of -- there is 2 also northern business and purchasing for policy 3 priorities and we could elaborate on those, if you 4 like. 5 What we have said in this EIS, is that 6 we assume that there will be some evolution of the 7 policies with respect to the generation project 8 and the collective agreement that would go a 9 little bit further than you have seen 10 historically. 11 Essentially, the biggest change that 12 we focused on would be the hiring preference. 13 Rather than being for northern residents who are 14 Aboriginal, it would be for a subset to start with 15 of Aboriginals who qualify as northern residents, 16 but also reside within the Burntwood Nelson River 17 region, the region that has been effected by the 18 CRD and LWR projects, so that the people in that 19 area, it is assumed -- and it is only an 20 assumption until there is a collective agreement 21 that effectively allows for that. These people 22 would have -- the Aboriginal people resident in 23 that area would have first preference for hiring 24 for the generation project. 25 MR. SARGEANT: I would like to ask a 3899 1 follow-up on that. I am not sure, Mr. Osler, if 2 you can answer this or Mr. Adams or Mr. Wojczynski 3 should. 4 In the past, we have heard over the 5 last few weeks, part of the problem with hiring 6 northerners and Aboriginals, more specifically, is 7 lack of experience. We have also heard about 8 having a certain percentage of people employed as 9 apprentices or trainees on the job site. 10 Will there be a requirement in the 11 tender documents so that the principal contractor, 12 in particular, is required to maintain a certain 13 percentage of apprentices or trainees? 14 MR. ADAMS: There will be two somewhat 15 separate, but with a direction to finish up at, 16 hopefully, the same end point. 17 Firstly, we have to negotiate with the 18 labour unions and I have forgotten which -- it was 19 the Operating Engineers' Union. I remember the 20 gentleman -- 21 MR. SARGEANT: Yes. 22 MR. ADAMS: He clearly had an 23 expectation that there would be an 24 apprenticeship/journeyman ratio. His expectations 25 may be a little bit different from ours, but that 3900 1 is part of the negotiation process. 2 So, with each of the unions, we have 3 to come to an understanding as to what is 4 appropriate and how the apprentices should be 5 spread throughout the training program. 6 Obviously, you don't want all first-year 7 apprentices, but the contractor would probably 8 like all last year apprentices and we don't 9 particularly want that. 10 Once we have that source of 11 understanding in place with the Allied Hydro 12 Council and the collective agreement signed, 13 sealed and delivered, then we will write into the 14 tender documents that the contractor will be 15 expected to maintain a range of 16 apprenticeship/journeyman ratios, probably 17 different for different trades and probably 18 somewhat flexible in terms of stages of the work. 19 But, coming back to basic principles, 20 our hope -- and it is not much more than hope at 21 the moment -- this will be the first of several 22 generating stations. It is in our long-term 23 interest to make sure that we have an adequate 24 supply of competent, skilled journeyman. The only 25 way we are going to do that is through a forced 3901 1 apprenticeship program. It is a long answer to a 2 very simple question, but it is a very complex -- 3 MR. SARGEANT: Basically, your answer 4 to my question is, yes, there will be some 5 requirement on the contractor in particular to 6 have a certain number of trainees and/or 7 apprentices? 8 MR. ADAMS: Or contractors, yes. 9 MR. SARGEANT: Yes. 10 MR. OSLER: Just to confirm in the EIS 11 assumptions that we assumed, among other things, 12 that the answer to your question would ultimately 13 be yes in the collective agreement in the process. 14 There were conditions like that before and we 15 assume there will be some reasonable assumptions 16 that would emerge and for our purposes, we tended 17 to presume about 20 percent. 18 There won't be -- we have assumed 19 there won't be -- when you get to this level, the 20 thing cuts off, that there will be provisions for 21 people to utilize these opportunities and that the 22 preference would go to the northern Aboriginal 23 groupings that I talked about. 24 So, if there are people there that 25 have got the training, they will really have a 3902 1 good opportunity to get a chance to get the hours 2 up on this job. 3 MR. SARGEANT: Is that 20 percent the 4 percentage who will be apprentices/trainees or the 5 percentage of the work force that will be 6 Aboriginal/northerners? 7 MR. OSLER: Generally, we have been 8 advised that the 20 to 25 percent range of a given 9 job or a given trade would probably be trainee or 10 apprentice. Given whatever the qualifications are 11 to be an apprentice on the site, certainly would 12 be a couple of years. In the case of carpenters 13 at minimum, two to three. In the case of some of 14 the other non-designated trade skills, the 15 trainees would not have to have that level, but 16 they would have to have some level to qualify just 17 to be on the job site. But, they wouldn't be 18 fully qualified to be a fully qualified person in 19 that type of work. They would be getting the 20 experience on the job site to become -- or move 21 towards becoming in some cases fully qualified. 22 Somebody mentioned rates, you know. 23 Hourly rates, we probably have to help get this 24 information out, but an hourly rate for someone 25 who is a second year apprentice or third year 3903 1 apprentice is not the same as someone who is fully 2 qualified. We need to make sure people understand 3 this, so they don't think if they go on a job site 4 and they are learning and getting experience that 5 they will be getting paid the same as if they were 6 fully qualified. It is a question again of 7 expectations and discussions in advance. 8 There are probably other measures, 9 Mr. Abra, I think your broader scope is a question 10 also brought in the government, certainly this 11 time around, Manitoba Hydro and Canada and 12 Manitoba are doing things they have never done 13 before in terms of pre-project training as a 14 package of items in terms of discussion to try and 15 assist people to get experience and training 16 before the job actually materializes for this 17 project. 18 So that's, in my opinion, something 19 that has evolved. Manitoba Hydro, as far as I 20 understand it, has not historically, prior to this 21 set of developments, had pre-project training for 22 construction work activities as part of its policy 23 framework. 24 MR. ABRA: That leads into the next 25 question then. Has there been any consideration 3904 1 given yet or any discussion, or is there a policy 2 in place, or whatever, as to how many retraining 3 opportunities will be provided to First Nations 4 employees or Aboriginal employees? So, for 5 example, if a person has been trained to do a job, 6 is hired to work, has some difficulty, and it is 7 recognized that more retraining is required, will 8 that person be given the opportunity to have some 9 retraining and then obtain another job and so on? 10 MR. OSLER: In what we call the 11 retention support activities that would occur 12 during the construction period to grapple with the 13 type of thing you are talking about, among other 14 things -- 15 MR. ABRA: What, I am sorry? 16 MR. OSLER: Retention support. 17 MR. ABRA: Yes, but what was -- 18 MR. OSLER: To grapple with the type 19 of problem you are talking about, somebody goes on 20 the job site, it turns out -- and I think some of 21 the union who have talked here have given examples 22 of this -- they have got some issues and they need 23 some more training in order to be staying on the 24 job site. 25 How will that be managed? In 3905 1 principle, the issue of retention support is fully 2 understood. The planning for it is at a very 3 early stage, and I haven't got any plans in my hip 4 pocket for it. This is the type of thing that NCN 5 and Manitoba Hydro are just starting to sit down 6 and talk about how that would be addressed in 7 practical terms -- in principle, yes, but in 8 practical terms, how, what mechanisms? They have 9 a joint committee approach to deal with employment 10 matters that would be part of the partnership 11 agreement and would involve other people in the 12 end, including the unions and contractors and 13 stuff. 14 One of the things that committee will 15 have to attach its attention to will be this type 16 of issue and the management and overseeing of it. 17 I presume there will be some contracting 18 opportunities for some people to address in 19 mechanical terms how to deal with that, and when 20 somebody should be taken off the site, and what 21 type of retraining they should get back at NCN or 22 elsewhere, if that is needed, and what other types 23 of supports they may need if they have issues that 24 are not necessarily related to training on the job 25 site, but just grappling with this quite a large 3906 1 level of change in terms of income and work 2 requirements, and being away and everything else. 3 All of these things require, and are recognized to 4 require support activities involving NCN and 5 Manitoba Hydro as well as other parties. But they 6 are at early stages and I can't tell you any more 7 than the principles at this stage. 8 MR. ABRA: Thank you. The 9 construction camp, has there been any 10 consideration to date, or any discussion, or in 11 fact are there any policies in place related to 12 the camp itself, and what if any special aspects 13 may be implemented to assist First Nations people 14 with their way of life and so forth, such as 15 spiritual facilities, discipline protocols, 16 orientation programs, that type of thing? 17 MR. OSLER: Again, yes, in principle, 18 the type of committee I was talking about really 19 relates to the construction site, the construction 20 area, the construction camp. 21 MR. ABRA: Right. 22 MR. OSLER: Among other things, it 23 would pay attention to the types of issues you are 24 talking about. The development of actual plans to 25 do that is not -- is at a very early stage. But, 3907 1 yes, it is understood that cross-cultural 2 training, cross-cultural perspectives are very 3 important, dealing with the needs of the 4 Aboriginal community is very important. 5 The ACE committee that I referred to 6 is one part of it, elder/councillor mechanism is 7 another element that is quite anticipated to be 8 part of it. Retention support that I talked about 9 earlier is part of it. The whole process, which I 10 didn't mention before, of even who is picked to go 11 into the training program, at least with respect 12 to NCN, tries to focus on people who want that 13 career and who have some interest in trying to do 14 it. So, the training itself, before they ever get 15 to the job site, hopefully has helped people 16 grapple with their expectations and their 17 requirements and what to expect. But, it is a big 18 difference working on some types of exercises 19 versus working on a big, intensive, integrated 20 construction site. 21 The first two years of infrastructure 22 development give opportunities for a lot of people 23 to be retained, if expectations meet, through 24 contracting with NCN businesses on road 25 construction and stuff like that. This is seen, 3908 1 and it may give an opportunity for people to get 2 some real experience before the whole intensive 3 complexity of generation site begins in the latter 4 four years. 5 MR. ADAMS: Mr. Abra, perhaps I can 6 add to that. Our plan is that in addition to the 7 pre-project training, the life skills and so forth 8 that we will give to the Aboriginal employees, we 9 will certainly ensure that all employees on site 10 are exposed to a level of cross-cultural training. 11 We will retain active retention services at the 12 site. Typically, we will put aside recreation or 13 multi purpose buildings for people to use as -- 14 for instance, a church or synagogue -- we can 15 certainly use that for Aboriginal religious 16 purposes. Probably the most important thing that 17 I think we will do on this one that we haven't 18 been able to do before is we will have the NCN 19 logo on the gate. So, it is pretty dammed obvious 20 to anybody who comes on the site that this one is 21 different and the expectations for behaviour are 22 going to be different. 23 MR. ABRA: Thank you. 24 MR. OSLER: I used the term ACE, and I 25 had a mental block, that's the Advisory Committee 3909 1 on Employment, I think it is referenced in the 2 partnership agreement. 3 Councillor Thomas has reminded me that 4 at least with respect to NCN training, the life 5 skills training element that they do with their 6 training program looks beyond just dealing with 7 the individual, it is also dealing with the family 8 and in fact the community. So that they are 9 trying to address the broader needs than just 10 focusing it on solely the individual, as probably 11 a prerequisite to getting the type of success 12 people are looking for in this type of program. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Nepinak. 14 MR. NEPINAK: Thank you. Thank you, 15 Mr. Chairman. A question to Councillor Thomas or 16 Mr. Adams. I think what keeps coming to my mind 17 is that when you, as you sit down and, you know, 18 with the government, say Manitoba and Canada, have 19 you considered these training, these positions, 20 20 to 25 percent as it is outlined here, be 21 mandatory? I think that term is already used 22 already in the north for First Nations and 23 Aboriginal people. Have you considered using that 24 term? 25 MR. THOMAS: We have definitely looked 3910 1 at it as a First Nation, in order to address the 2 imbalances that exist from a historical 3 perspective as it relates to Aboriginal people, 4 certainly we try and look at ways to force change 5 in the way that it should be. With regard to the 6 numbers, we do run into situations where we 7 encounter some kind of roadblocks. You are 8 probably familiar, as a former Chief, with the 9 kind of bureaucratic obstacles that we have to go 10 through, and policies and laws and everything 11 else, that always get in our way when we are 12 trying to achieve something for our people. We 13 certainly encounter that. We encounter human 14 rights legislation. We encounter government 15 bureaucracies that prevent us from being able to 16 move fast on these kind of situations that we 17 face. 18 The Government of Canada needs to 19 change policies, needs to change laws, so does the 20 Government of Manitoba, in order to be able to 21 accommodate the kind of realities that we have to 22 deal with. Certainly, as a First Nation we see a 23 lot of shortcomings in the existing structures 24 that are currently in place in society, and we 25 strive to make changes. I think this agreement 3911 1 that we are striving for right now reflects that 2 we are doing a decent job of that. 3 MR. NEPINAK: Thank you. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Adams. 5 MR. ADAMS: I will follow up a little 6 bit on the term "mandatory." We certainly 7 consider all possible options. One of the 8 difficulties that we find is that we are not in 9 the position to make anything mandatory. 10 Everything we do has to be negotiated. So, we 11 have expressed an intent that what will be 12 mandatory is the contractor first employs 13 qualified Aboriginals from the local area. 14 We still have to get the unions to 15 agree to that, and optimistically we will be able 16 to do that. Just the thought of us to decree that 17 anything be mandatory becomes very difficult for 18 us to make happen. We much prefer to negotiate it 19 with a voluntary partner so everybody is 20 comfortable going forward. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Nepinak? 22 MR. NEPINAK: Thank you. I think, you 23 know, I think job security, for example, is a term 24 now used for young people starting there, for 25 training for there. But, you know, no disrespect 3912 1 to the unions, but we hear about them every day 2 with Air Canada. Once you start, guess what 3 happens, you know, when you are half-way through. 4 I think that is the kind of concern that needs to 5 be -- more job security I guess. But I understand 6 what you're saying too, Mr. Adams. Thank you. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Avery Kinew. 8 MS. AVERY KINEW: Mr. Adams, we heard 9 the unions a couple weeks ago mention about 24 10 percent maybe is what they are expecting, but that 11 would seem to reflect more a provincial average of 12 the work force. The work force in the north would 13 be closer to 50 percent. Are you talking to the 14 unions about a higher level, a higher target 15 than -- 16 MR. ADAMS: What we are trying to talk 17 to the unions about it is not a target at all, but 18 a preference that doesn't come off. 19 And so for every job -- the way it 20 works is that the contractor says I need three 21 crane operators and sends in what he calls a job 22 order to the supplier of people. What we are 23 trying to negotiate is a mechanism where the 24 priority for every job is given to a qualified 25 Aboriginal person living in the immediate area of 3913 1 the Churchill River and Burntwood projects. 2 So, in that context, one could say the 3 target is 100 percent. Realistically, I would be 4 very happy if we could get 35 to 40 percent of the 5 skilled positions filled with Aboriginal people. 6 MS. AVERY KINEW: Mr. Adams, I heard 7 Mr. Thomas in earlier testimony talk about how job 8 descriptions were sometimes used to keep people 9 out. Is NCN having any input into writing job 10 descriptions, or does the union have any input, or 11 is it all done by Manitoba Hydro as part of -- 12 MR. ADAMS: We expect to have a 13 process on site where the job order goes out and, 14 of course, it will say we need somebody with these 15 qualifications. There will be a mechanism whereby 16 anybody -- everybody who is interested will get a 17 look at that job qualification, and if there is a 18 sense that it is a gilding the lily, so to speak, 19 then we will have a process where our resident 20 manager on site will be able to sit down with the 21 contractor and ultimately, using some sort of 22 sanction, make sure that that is an appropriate 23 job description. 24 MS. AVERY KINEW: So, the contractor 25 is the one that writes the job description when 3914 1 the job order goes out? 2 MR. ADAMS: Yes. 3 MS. AVERY KINEW: There is a hiring 4 agency? 5 MR. ADAMS: There is a referral 6 agency. The referral agency we expect to be the 7 Manitoba Advanced Education and Training. I don't 8 think they will be much of a position to evaluate 9 the job qualifications. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: The resident manager, 11 is that an employee of Hydro? 12 MR. ADAMS: Yes. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 14 MS. AVERY KINEW: It was just in the 15 newspaper that MKO is going to have a new -- I 16 don't know what they call it -- they are going to 17 handle their own AHRDS project, the Aboriginal 18 Human Resource Development, are they going to be 19 involved in the -- 20 MR. ADAMS: The MKO will not be 21 involved in the hiring program. MKO will be 22 involved the training program. 23 MS. AVERY KINEW: Yes. Is there any 24 kind -- I don't know if this is appropriate for 25 labour relations -- but what kind of appeal system 3915 1 is there? If you are told to go for retraining, 2 or you are told you are fired, or you are told 3 you're not hired and you have figure you have the 4 qualifications, is there any -- 5 MR. ADAMS: Within the Allied Hydro 6 Council there is a very extensive grievance 7 procedure. The one -- and that has worked 8 effectively for many, many years. Within that 9 grievance procedure, we will make sure that any 10 Aboriginal griever has access to a councillor of 11 his or her choice, which may be another Aboriginal 12 person. 13 MS. AVERY KINEW: So, there would be 14 another Aboriginal person involved? 15 MR. ADAMS: It is up to him or her. 16 MS. AVERY KINEW: Okay, if they 17 decide. I just wonder then, everybody on site 18 belongs to the union? 19 MR. ADAMS: Everybody on site will 20 belong to the union except those that are 21 traditionally out of scope, which is normally the 22 professionals, the superintendents, and the senior 23 contracting people, and Manitoba Hydro's own 24 staff, and in one or two cases, suppliers of 25 specialist services like the RCMP, or those sorts 3916 1 of people. But, I don't know, 90 percent of 2 employees of the contractors on site will be 3 covered by the collective agreement. 4 MS. AVERY KINEW: On March 17th, I 5 think it was Mr. Murphy of the Union of the 6 Operating Engineers stated that he thought there 7 was some involvement by Aboriginal people in 8 Manitoba Hydro's negotiation with the unions for 9 this collective agreement? 10 MR. ADAMS: We are working with NCN 11 and the four First Nations who are interested in 12 the Keeyask project to ensure that the positions 13 that we take forward to negotiation with the 14 Allied Hydro Council reflect the requirements of 15 all parties. Again, the first positions are 16 probably not going to be accepted overly 17 enthusiastically by the Allied Hydro Council, 18 there will be a negotiation process. We have a 19 mechanism to ensure that the First Nations 20 continue to stay involved throughout the whole 21 process. 22 MS. AVERY KINEW: Thank you. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Thomas? 24 MR. THOMAS: Just with regard to the 25 questions put forward by Commissioner Kathi Avery 3917 1 Kinew, NCN has had much input into the proposals 2 that include an improvement in what can be grieved 3 in relation to the job qualifications and 4 decisions at the hiring change. This is a change 5 from the way that the Limestone project was done, 6 and we think that it is a good change. We also 7 have -- and of course everything has to be 8 negotiated, and from what I am advised and from 9 the little I know about the privity issues with 10 regard to agreements amongst parties, we didn't 11 engage in any agreement with the unions, it is 12 something that was done between Hydro and the 13 unions, and as a result, we can only approach 14 Hydro to make sure that our concerns are being 15 expressed. We do that quite aggressively, as a 16 First Nation. The advisory committee on 17 employment also will look at the issue of job 18 qualifications. So, we do have the union 19 agreement, the grievance procedures that are in 20 there. 21 In addition, we do have, as much as it 22 can be an obstacle at times, we do have human 23 rights legislation as well to ensure that our 24 interests are being protected. 25 MS. AVERY KINEW: Right. I was just 3918 1 surprised, Mr. Thomas, when you said -- I 2 understand fully about bureaucratic obstacles -- 3 but the human rights legislation shouldn't be an 4 obstacle when it is written right in the highest 5 law of the land, the Constitution and Affirmative 6 Action is allowed. 7 MR. THOMAS: I agree, but everyone has 8 to be treated equally under the law and we have to 9 abide by that principle. We can work with 10 whatever the governments decide is acceptable to 11 vary from that edict. 12 MS. AVERY KINEW: Okay. Thank you. 13 MR. ABRA: Mr. Osler? 14 MR. OSLER: Just to complete a couple 15 of thoughts so that the record is clear, the 16 advisory committee on employment will deal with 17 all Aboriginal employees and other issues. It 18 won't just be NCN related, just keep that in mind. 19 There will be other Aboriginal employees 20 anticipated on the job site. 21 Given the preferences I described, 22 Aboriginal residents inside the Burntwood Nelson 23 region would all have the same preference, if our 24 assumption ends up being realized. So, people who 25 are getting training with respect to other 3919 1 projects at the moment, such as Gull, would have 2 the opportunity for employment and development on 3 this site as well as NCN. 4 The quid pro quo is essentially that 5 NCN people who get the training on this project 6 would also have opportunities in future Hydro 7 projects covered by a new Burntwood/Nelson 8 agreement to work on those ones, requiring the 9 same training, the same preference. 10 The training programs also, as you 11 know, but just for the sake of this part of the 12 record, cover off an allocation of funds for other 13 Aboriginals outside of the NCN. That's where MKO 14 and I believe MMF come to play in terms of their 15 role at the table in potentially dealing with some 16 of the training for people other than the NCN 17 portion. 18 I would like to give one other 19 perspective, just in terms of the challenge that 20 we are really facing, we focused on some elements 21 of it. But if you are looking at really trying to 22 develop people to have skills and careers, it is 23 important to realize that, just an example, a 24 carpenter working on this project, and this is an 25 example given in the NCN training plan which is 3920 1 attached to appendix to the information in NFAAT 2 round 1 to the CEC, but we think, we are told that 3 the estimated available hours for a journeyman 4 carpenter on the Wuskwatim project might be 4,500 5 hours for the top, most number of hours. To 6 become a qualified carpenter, you need a lot more 7 that 4,500 hours of training, or work experience, 8 you need 7,100 hours. So a person to become a 9 qualified carpenter would have had to have two 10 years experience, which is a good chunk of those 11 hours of experience, to even get on the Wuskwatim 12 job site. And then they will maybe have a chance 13 to get a large chunk or all of the balance of the 14 hours they need to become a qualified carpenter. 15 So people that want to become the 16 designated trade type of qualifications have a 17 long, hard journey in front of them to become 18 fully qualified. And they need the opportunity in 19 their neighbourhood, to have the opportunity to 20 get the hours to go forward. That's what these 21 projects start to put on the table. The challenge 22 is not one or two years, it is a long-term 23 challenge, and the supports that are needed to 24 have to be there throughout that period. 25 MR. SARGEANT: But if Hydro's dream 3921 1 unfolds as they wish, a person could conceivably 2 start off as a first or second-year apprentice at 3 Wuskwatim, and then move to either Keeyask or 4 Conawapa, whichever is next, and have his or her 5 journey certificate by the third dam and be 6 running a crew or two. 7 MR. OSLER: That's what I wanted to 8 make sure was on the table. If indeed the dream 9 unfolds, some of the thinking that has gone into 10 this, in terms of preferences for hiring and 11 everything else, are designed to keep those 12 opportunities open. So, the people of NCN are not 13 just locked into the opportunity for this project, 14 but have the other one, so the training doesn't go 15 out the door if they miss this window. 16 Secondly, our judgment professionally 17 is that preference in terms of hiring is probably 18 important for somebody up to about 24 months worth 19 of skill. Once you get beyond a certain level of 20 training and experience, you are going to get the 21 opportunity if you are interested, because of the 22 shortages in the work force, and you are 23 Aboriginal, but you will just have it because 24 there is a shortage of skilled people who want to 25 work in this area and you are available. 3922 1 So what we are really trying to do, 2 for those interested, is give them the opportunity 3 to get to that point where preference doesn't 4 matter. They have got a future, they have got a 5 career, they have got solidity from that. But to 6 get through that stage, from the earliest skills 7 training, support systems, work experience, get on 8 the job, you have to get two years of experience 9 before you will get on this site as a carpenter, 10 and then the rest of it, that's the challenge. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 12 Mr. Nepinak? 13 MR. NEPINAK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 14 I guess I just want to, for the record, I want to 15 be clear about the, you know, when I say about job 16 security and being an union member. I know what 17 membership is like. I was there for 15, 20 years 18 myself, but I don't disagree with the work that 19 has taken place by both Hydro and NCN. I think 20 that is all positive, the way you are looking at 21 it. But I find -- I still find, you know, the 22 words like "first preference" and "requirements" 23 to me are somewhat a bit weak because I think our 24 people face, say, in universities or in hospitals 25 sort of a -- you know, you hear a lot about 3923 1 drop-out rates and yet, you know, those are 2 excellent candidates. 3 But, I think what I would like to 4 see -- or hear from Hydro, in particular, and 5 unions, you know, if you work with unions, I think 6 flexibility has to be shown. You have to 7 understand that when you come off from a training 8 facility, you know, for the first time on to the 9 job site, a lot of us -- it takes five, ten, 15 10 years if you want to make a career out of it, it 11 takes time. That's what we face as First Nations 12 people. And I think -- I would like to hear from 13 Hydro, that's what I mean I guess by security or, 14 you know, being more -- to show more flexibility 15 to those people coming into the training programs 16 and into the job market at the project site. So, 17 that's basically I guess what I was trying to 18 clear the record here a bit, Mr. Chairman, thank 19 you. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: At this point we will 21 get ready to adjourn for today. I understand that 22 tomorrow there will be presentations, starting the 23 day with presentations. 24 But before I do that, I want to call 25 upon Mr. Miller on behalf of TREE to provide some 3924 1 information or clarification. 2 MR. MILLER: Hi, I am Peter Miller. I 3 understand that this morning Hydro was asking when 4 the stuff would be done, a question that I have 5 been asking myself too. 6 I am pleased to say three of the four 7 sets are in your in boxes provided that the email 8 jamb that seems to be in the MTS system is 9 cleared. 10 Two of them were distributed this 11 morning, the Consumers Association and Manitoba 12 Hydro response is complete, as well as the 13 incremental section. 14 I have the Canadian Nature Federation 15 complete set here and there are three responses to 16 the CEC set, which is the fourth, that may be 17 there now, I don't know, but can be deposited 18 tomorrow. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 20 Mr. Bedford, do you have any 21 questions? 22 MR. BEDFORD: No, I am very pleased to 23 hear what Mr. Miller has had to say on another 24 point. Ms. Phare has advised me today she is not 25 available Thursday, so I have arranged to have 3925 1 Mr. Cormie, not on Thursday, but next Tuesday when 2 Ms. Phare can be here. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: That's fine, 4 Mr. Miller. Thank you very much. 5 I will now call upon Mr. Grewar. 6 There are a number of documents that have to be 7 put on the record. 8 MR. GREWAR: Yes, Mr. Chairman. 9 Actually, if it is all right with the chair and 10 the panel, I would prefer to enter those exhibits 11 perhaps tomorrow. They are not really time 12 sensitive. They are actually the listing for the 13 interrogatories that we have received and some 14 other items that have been received in the past 15 week. Tomorrow would be fine. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you for that. I 17 have another question for you. 18 Can you provide for all of us an 19 update on the status of the responses by the 20 Nature Federation in terms of written documents? 21 MR. GREWAR: Written documentation in 22 preparation for tomorrow -- we have received a 23 number as of today. Mr. Hornung's slide 24 presentation document has been received. 25 In addition, we have received a draft 3926 1 of a presentation that Elizabeth May will be 2 presenting, along with two attachments. One of 3 the attachments is in production now so that we 4 can distribute to those that are here. Those are 5 the items that we have received. 6 Another submission from Mr. Gillmore, 7 I believe it is, was sent but there was a 8 technical malfunction and they were not able to 9 print it. They hope to have it with them first 10 thing in the morning. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Are there other 12 documents forthcoming? 13 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Soprovich had already 14 filed his document, we have distributed it, and 15 Mr. Mecredi, Ovide Mecredi is not submitting a 16 written document, as we understand it. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I don't 18 know who to ask this, there is one question in 19 regards to the EIS that I wanted to ask. I didn't 20 realize -- I must have been sleeping at the switch 21 when you moved to the economic issues. 22 It was in regards to the access road, 23 which is figure 3.6-1. It is relating to 24 questions in terms of placement of the access 25 road, and I am sure there are good explanations, 3927 1 it is just that I don't see them anywhere. 2 Specifically, in regards to the imprints on so 3 many streams that are crossed. You know, if you 4 look at that map it seems that it should have been 5 following a line pretty well straight south of, I 6 don't know, mile 23 or mile 24, but there probably 7 are reasons why this is not so. And I wonder if 8 we could ever see that particular map when we get 9 back to the EIS on the screen so that we could get 10 a sort of visual explanation of why it is where it 11 is? 12 MR. REMPEL: Was that figure 3-6-1? 13 THE CHAIRMAN: It is in document 3 14 figure 3.6-1, page 3-13. 15 MR. REMPEL: Okay. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. There being 17 no other issues at this point in time, we will 18 then adjourn to reconvene at 10:00 o'clock 19 tomorrow. 20 21 (ADJOURNED AT 6:01 P.M.) 22 23 24 25