2420 1 2 MANITOBA CLEAN ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION 3 4 VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT 5 Volume 10 6 7 Including List of Participants 8 9 10 11 Hearing 12 13 Wuskwatim Generation and Transmission Project 14 15 Presiding: 16 Gerard Lecuyer, Chair 17 Kathi Kinew 18 Harvey Nepinak 19 Robert Mayer 20 Terry Sargeant 21 22 Thursday, March 18, 2004 23 Radisson Hotel 24 288 Portage Avenue 25 Winnipeg, Manitoba 2421 1 2 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 3 4 Clean Environment Commission: 5 Gerard Lecuyer Chairman 6 Terry Sargeant Member 7 Harvey Nepinak Member 8 Kathi Avery Kinew Member 9 Doug Abra Counsel to Commission 10 Rory Grewar Staff 11 CEC Advisors: 12 Mel Falk 13 Dave Farlinger 14 Jack Scriven 15 Jim Sandison 16 Jean McClellan 17 Brent McLean 18 Kyla Gibson 19 20 Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation: 21 Chief Jerry Primrose 22 Elvis Thomas 23 Campbell MacInnes 24 Valerie Matthews Lemieux 25 2422 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 2423 1 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 2 3 Community Association of South Indian Lake: 4 Leslie Dysart 5 Merrell-Ann Phare 6 7 CAC/MSOS: 8 Byron Williams 9 10 Canadian Nature Federation/Manitoba Wildlands: 11 Eamon Murphy 12 Gaile Whelan Enns 13 Brian Hart 14 15 Time to Respect Earth's Ecosystems/Resource Conservation Man: 16 Peter Miller 17 Ralph Torrie 18 19 Trapline 18: 20 Greg McIvor 21 22 Displaced Residents of South Indian Lake: 23 Dennis Troniak 24 Joshua Flett 25 Frank Moore 2424 1 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 2 3 Justice Seekers of Nelson House: 4 Carol Kobliski 5 Kate Kempton 6 7 Environment Approvals (Manitoba Justice): 8 Stu Pierce 9 10 Presenters: 11 Billy Moore - Private 12 Bill Turner - MIPUG 13 Caroline Bruyere - Private 14 Grand Chief Margaret Swan - Southern Chiefs 15 Gordon Wapaskokimaw 16 Jim Nichols - Private 17 Drin Bayne - Private 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2425 1 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 2 3 Number Page 4 CNF 1006: Potential Impacts of 5 Wuskwatim Hydro Project on Boreal 6 Biodiversity, Dr. Erin Bayne 2514 7 CNF 1007: Estimates and Population 8 Consequences of Tetraonid Mortality 9 Caused by Collisions with High 10 Tension Power Lines in Norway 2515 11 CNF 1008: Cowbirds Breeding in the 12 Central Appalachians: Spatial and 13 Temporal Patterns and Habitat 14 Selection 2515 15 CNF 1009: Protecting Birds From 16 Powerlines. A practical guide 17 on the risks to birds from 18 electricity transmission 19 facilities and how to minimize 20 any such adverse effects 2515 21 CNF 1010: Changes in Wildlife 22 Communities Near Edges 2516 23 24 25 2426 1 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 2 NUMBER PAGE 3 4 CNF 1011: Defining Forest Fragmentation 5 By Corridor Width: The Influence 6 of Narrow Forest Dividing Corridors on 7 Forest-Nesting Birds in Southern 8 New Jersey 2516 9 MH/NCN-1012: Letter, March 20, 2001 from 10 Law Society of Manitoba 2518 11 MH/NCN-1013: State of 12 Minnesota in Court of Appeal, 13 Pimicikamak Cree Nation versus 14 Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, 15 number A030836 2519 16 MH/NCN-1014: Nisichawayasihk 17 Cree Nation versus Nisichawayasihk 18 Cree Nation Appeal Committee, Federal 19 Court of Canada Trial Division, 20 Toronto, Ontario, April 16, 2003 2519 21 MH/NCN-1015: Federal Court of Appeal Certificate 22 of Judgment, Jerry Primrose et al 23 versus Jimmy D. Spence et al, 24 February 2, 2004 2520 25 2427 1 INDEX OF EXHIBITS 2 NUMBER PAGE 3 4 MH/NCN-1016: Nisichawayasihk 5 Cree Nation Laws Election Code, 1998, 6 E.1, August 9, 2002 2520 7 MH/NCN-1017: Correspondence 8 from Douglas Bedford of Manitoba Hydro 9 regarding Wuskwatim Generation and 10 Transmission Projects and 11 documentation, March 18, 2004 2521 12 MH/NCN-1018: Manitoba Industrial and 13 Agricultural reference case activity 14 levels, updated format, 15 provided by Mr. Fleming 2522 16 MH/NCN-1019: Answer to Undertaking MH-16 2524 17 MH/NCN-1020: Wuskwatim Transmission 18 Project EIS supplemental filing 19 and IR responses which address 20 alternative routes, attached 21 proposed mapping and preliminary 22 cost estimates, map 2, other proposed 23 alternate routes 2550 24 25 2428 1 INDEX OF UNDERTAKINGS 2 3 UNDERTAKING NO. PAGE 4 5 CNF 42: Have Dr. Bayne provide a brief 6 description of rough model re potential for the loss 7 of habitat in the range of 8,000 birds 2506 8 9 CNF-43: Have Dr. Bayne provide list of 10 species that respond negatively to edges 2511 11 12 44: Find reference to discussion had 13 with NCN re how traditional knowledge is 14 incorporated 2636 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2429 1 THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 2004 2 Upon commencing at 10:08 a.m. 3 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, you don't 5 have to be awake as long as your ears are open. It's 6 five after 10:00. The rivers are not yet flowing, 7 the grass is not yet growing but the sun is out and 8 there's hope and we're going to proceed. We call Mr. 9 Dan Soprovich. 10 MR. GREWAR: Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I should 11 have let you know earlier. Mr. Soprovich is not 12 available today and so we are going to proceed with 13 three other presenters who are a part of the Canadian 14 Nature Federation, Manitoba Wildlands presentation. 15 Jim Nichols by telephone, Robert Hornung by telephone 16 and Dr. Erin Bayne and that should likely consume 17 most of the morning. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Now I know why you were on the 19 phone. 20 MR. GREWAR: That's right. I'll just place 21 the call to Mr. Nichols. 22 Good morning, sir, can you hear us? 23 MR. NICHOLS: Yes, I can. 24 MR. GREWAR: I'm going to turn you over to the 25 chairman of the Clean Environment Commission, Gerard 2430 1 Lecuyer, Mr. Lecuyer. 2 MR. NICHOLS: Okay, Mr. Lecuyer, thank you. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Nichols, good morning. 4 MR. NICHOLS: Good morning. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: First, we'll let you introduce 6 yourself. Tell us who you are, where you're from and 7 then Mr. Grewar will proceed to swear you in. 8 MR. NICHOLS: Thank you. And I'll keep my 9 remarks brief because I know you have a tight 10 schedule. My name is Jim Nichols. I am a farmer 11 from Lake Benton, Minnesota. Lake Benton was the 12 largest wind farm in the world. We have over 500 13 wind turbines here now. I'm also a County 14 Commissioner from Lincoln County. And previously 15 served 16 years as a State Senator and State 16 Secretary of Agriculture. 17 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Nichols, are you aware that 18 it is an offence in Manitoba, our province, to 19 knowingly mislead this Commission? 20 MR. NICHOLS: Yes, I am. 21 MR. GREWAR: Do you promise to tell only the 22 truth in proceedings before this Commission? 23 MR. NICHOLS: Yes, I do. 24 MR. GREWAR: Thank you, sir. 25 2431 1 (JIM NICHOLS: SWORN) 2 3 THE CHAIRMAN: You may proceed, Mr. Nichols. 4 MR. NICHOLS: Thank you. I appreciate this 5 opportunity to address your group, Mr. Chair. As 6 part of the Minnesota law, I served as State 7 Secretary of Agriculture eight years as a member of 8 the Environmental Quality Board in Minnesota which I 9 think is a Board somewhat similar to yours. So I do 10 have a feeling for what your job involves and it's 11 certainly not an easy job. 12 I am calling to speak on behalf of wind energy 13 in Minnesota and urge you to consider more wind 14 resources in Canada. I know that you have some 15 excellent wind resources there, especially in the 16 wintertime. And the cold, dense air of the winter is 17 when we get our greatest production in Minnesota. 18 It takes about a 30 miles an hour wind to put 19 a turbine at full production in the summer months but 20 20 miles an hour will bring a turbine to full 21 production, approximately 20 miles an hour, in the 22 winter months because of the denseness of the cold 23 air. 24 It was a problem that we had in Vietnam. Hard 25 to fly the helicopters, the air was so hot, there was 2432 1 nothing to grab onto. So wind turbines respond very 2 well to cold, dense air. And your wind, winter wind 3 resource I know is quite excellent up there, plus the 4 leaves all fall off the trees. 5 We have been very successful here in southwest 6 Minnesota and I previously worked on legislation to 7 require the Excel Energy, our largest utility in 8 Minnesota to buy. It will be 1,100 megawatts, by the 9 year 2010, of wind energy. We currently have 10 approximately 425 megawatts on line. And as you 11 know, a standard nuclear plant is 500 megawatts. 12 We're getting close to the size of one nuclear plant. 13 We have over 500 wind turbines. 14 Our original turbines were smaller. Now 15 almost all of our wind turbines are in the size of 16 1.5 megawatts per turbine. So it takes fewer 17 turbines. 18 It's been undoubtedly the best thing that has 19 ever happened to my county. I have lived and farmed 20 here my entire life and it provided income for the 21 farmers for their wind resource, jobs. We're always 22 struggling here. Our young people leave us and go to 23 the big cities. And we need to provide jobs for them 24 and these are jobs that are attractive to our 25 graduates because all the turbines are computerized 2433 1 but it's a combination of computer and mechanical 2 skills. And the turbine companies provide on-the-job 3 training. 4 The best part is the low price of wind energy. 5 We want to provide low cost wind energy to the 6 consumers and all of our power moves to Minneapolis 7 and St. Paul. And now that wind energy cost is about 8 3 cents per kilowatt hour, a little more, a little 9 less, depending on the size of the project. The 10 bigger projects can build turbines a little bit 11 cheaper. And we have a mix of corporate owned wind 12 turbines. The largest owner here is General Electric 13 and Florida Power and Light. But we are now building 14 smaller farmer owned wind projects. So that is 15 working well for us. 16 We expect to further develop our resource and 17 of course we are adjacent to South Dakota and North 18 Dakota. And North Dakota has the best wind resource 19 in America. One-third of all the electricity 20 consumed in the United States could come from North 21 Dakota if the wind resource was fully developed 22 there. So it is a tremendous resource, and again, a 23 low cost wind resource. 24 One of the things that I would urge you to 25 consider is a mixture, a combination of wind energy 2434 1 and hydro power energy. The one problem with wind, 2 as you well know, is that it doesn't blow all of the 3 time and you need to firm up the power. 4 There is no battery for wind generators. I'm 5 always asked this question. Our turbines now, our 6 big turbines, one turbine produces enough power for 7 500 homes. So I wouldn't even know what size battery 8 that would take, but it's simply not an option. The 9 best battery that we have seen for the best backup 10 for wind, or vice versa, is water power because you 11 can store the water behind the dams and release it 12 when you need the power. So we believe here and we 13 wish we had more water resources in Minnesota. We 14 simply do not. 15 The combination of wind and water would be an 16 excellent mix. And it also allows you then to you 17 don't have to build as many dams because you don't 18 have to run the water as much. You use it when the 19 wind isn't blowing. 20 So that's one of the things we've looked at 21 here. And I've worked with a little bit with the 22 State of South Dakota on that because they do have 23 some big existing dams out on the Missouri River. 24 So that's one of the things I guess I'd like 25 to say is that better development, more development 2435 1 of your wind resource would certainly be a great 2 thing for you I think as it has been for us in that 3 then you would have less need for more of the huge 4 dams. 5 That's basically my testimony, Mr. Chairman. 6 I'd be glad to answer questions but I know you're on 7 a tight schedule. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Nichols. I will 9 look at my colleagues here and the people in the room 10 to see if there are questions. Yes, Mr. Sargeant 11 will ask you questions. 12 MR. NICHOLS: Yes, sir. 13 MR. SARGEANT: Mr. Nichols, I'm one of the 14 panelists. My name is Terry Sergeant. Just a couple 15 of questions. How much land is the 500 or do the 500 16 turbines occupy? 17 MR. NICHOLS: They work very well with our 18 farmland. I grow corn and soybeans and we have a lot 19 of cattle here. Of course the average -- the 20 diameter of the average turbine is 12 feet in 21 diameter so the footprint of it, with the concrete, 22 is less than 20 feet in diameter. So it's a very 23 tiny footprint. Then you have the road that leads to 24 the turbines. But we have found that the roads are 25 helpful to us. As farmers, we can put the wagons on 2436 1 the road while we combine and fill them right there 2 on the wind turbine road. We don't even lift the 3 planters up when we plant across the road. 4 So the land taken out of production, if you -- 5 it's less than a half an acre. If you were a farmer 6 farming 300 acres and you had four wind turbines, it 7 would take probably 200 acres -- up to two acres, I'm 8 sorry, two acres out of production out of 300. It's 9 absolutely nothing. We say it's like farming around 10 a rock pile. We've got a lot of rock piles here. It 11 really has had absolutely no disruption. We do not 12 have to fence around the turbines out in the cattle 13 pastures because there's nothing that the cattle can 14 do to the transformer or the turbine itself, the 15 tower. 16 I would certainly urge you to use the tubular 17 towers. We did a lot of work on this and moved quite 18 slowly before we built. We spent about a year 19 studying this before the first turbines were built 20 and one of the best decisions we made in the local 21 community is that we would only allow the tubular 22 towers. They are much more attractive aesthetically. 23 More importantly there's no place for the birds to 24 nest. We had no bird kill. 25 He have had a long study on bird kill here. A 2437 1 one-year study, no birds were killed. They did find 2 two bats. We feel bad that we lost those two bats 3 but we'll get by. 4 So the tubular towers as opposed to the 5 lattice towers, which look like a radio tower, they 6 simply don't cause any problems aesthetically or for 7 agriculture. And they have proven to be low cost in 8 the long term because, and I climb these towers and 9 work on them, work on the wind turbines. It's nice 10 on a cold winter day to be climbing inside up the 11 tower inside the tower. 12 They have put a lot of the lattice towers in 13 Iowa and I've talked to those technicians. It's very 14 cold on a winter day because you're climbing 200 feet 15 in the air and the wind is going to hit you pretty 16 hard. And there's no additional maintenance. We 17 think those towers will stand for at least 50 years, 18 the towers and the concrete. Perhaps after 25 years, 19 we'd have to replace the blades and the generator and 20 the gear box. 21 It is very low cost energy and it will 22 continue to get cheaper which is I think the best 23 part of wind energy. I think everyone has to look at 24 that as they are building future resources. They are 25 going to have to compete with wind because it's 2438 1 cheap. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Nichols, are you still 3 there? 4 MR. NICHOLS: Yes, I am. 5 MR. SARGEANT: Now, the 500 wind turbines that 6 you mentioned, are they all in one area or are they 7 scattered around on different farms? 8 MR. NICHOLS: The beauty of it is they are 9 scattered out. The average farm in Minnesota is a 10 little over half a section in size. We started off 11 here of course, as I think you did in Canada, square 12 miles. And we had four farms per square mile. Now 13 we have two, maybe one farmer per square mile which 14 is unfortunate. And so the average farmer would have 15 three or four turbines on his farm. Not a lot. They 16 are not real dense and we like that. 17 I believe that no more than eight turbines per 18 section is appropriate, first of all, because you're 19 going to have some wind or rain loss, production loss 20 if another turbine is out in front of it especially. 21 The winds are going to come from the northwest. The 22 best winds are your winter winds, and in Canada too. 23 You don't want to crowd them together too 24 much. I have seen those crowded wind farms out in 25 California. Frankly, they are ugly. Here in 2439 1 Minnesota, we think they are beautiful. I mean 2 everybody who lives here we actually think they are 3 beautiful not just because they come from us but 4 because they are aesthetically pleasing. I like to 5 get up each morning and look out my window and see 6 the wind turbines and see which direction the wind is 7 blowing from and how much they are producing. You 8 feel good if the winds are blowing and your turbines 9 are producing power. You feel like you're 10 contributing to society. So they are spread out, 11 those 500 over a distance of more than 50 miles. 12 MR. SARGEANT: Who owns these towers? 13 MR. NICHOLS: Well, they were originally built 14 by Enron. You've probably heard of Enron and their 15 bankruptcy. 16 MR. SARGEANT: We have. 17 MR. NICHOLS: That was a problem. But General 18 Electric bought them out in the bankruptcy court. So 19 right here in my home county, 143 of the big towers 20 were owned by Enron and now owned by General 21 Electric. 22 The other big investor is Florida Power and 23 Light, a big utility. And PacifiCorp Power Marketing 24 out in Oregon. Those are the three big corporations. 25 One of the problems that we have is there's a 2440 1 federal tax credit for wind energy but it is a 2 corporate tax credit. And it doesn't allow ordinary 3 people to use that tax credit. Because of that, our 4 turbines are all mostly corporate owned. Now we're 5 trying to change that law because we'd like to see 6 much more local ownership. And as you look at that 7 in Canada, local ownership is best of course. 8 But you need a combination of both because the 9 big corporations, they had the resources to do the 10 research and development to develop the very large, 11 very efficient wind turbines. And it's now become a 12 mature industry. 13 Ten years ago, we built our first turbines ten 14 years ago. None have ever failed. People say are 15 they reliable? And I say, well, we started building 16 ten years ago and every one is still running. None 17 have failed. But originally they were smaller and 18 they couldn't produce energy. The very large wind 19 turbines are going to be able to produce it on a big 20 wind farm for less than three cents per kilowatt hour 21 so it's cheap energy. 22 MR. SARGEANT: Your climate in Minnesota is 23 similar to ours in Manitoba although not quite as 24 severe. We heard evidence earlier this week that 25 wind turbines become increasingly difficult to 2441 1 operate when it gets below 30 below Celsius which is 2 probably much the same in Fahrenheit, so minus 25, 3 30? 4 MR. NICHOLS: Well, as I said, I have another 5 part-time job. I work on wind turbines. And I was 6 in charge. I was a regional manager for a big wind 7 turbine company. I was in charge of 300 wind 8 turbines here in the entire mid-west. And so I climb 9 towers and work on them. Today is a typical example. 10 I called them up on my computer when I got up this 11 morning and they are all running. And that's pretty 12 much how it is every day. 13 You're going to have -- they are all computer 14 controlled so if the computer senses anything wrong, 15 it's called a fault and the computer stops the 16 turbine. They are very very safe and then it 17 requires a human being to start the turbine back up. 18 Job security is the way we look at it. We don't want 19 the computer to replace us entirely but they are 20 extremely reliable. And no, I can tell you as a 21 person, that's what I do is work on wind turbines 22 every day. They run in the winter, they run in the 23 summer. 24 Once the turbine is running, it heats up the 25 oil in the gear box and the oil is heated anyhow. 2442 1 They all come with a cold weather package so the oil 2 is never allowed to get very cold. But in the winter 3 time, they run almost continuously. In fact, we have 4 no days, winter or summer, where the turbines don't 5 produce some power. We record that with the 6 computer. So they produce power every day, 365 days 7 out of the year. And they simply run. You cannot 8 imagine how reliable they are. They just run. I 9 cannot emphasize that enough. 10 They are extremely reliable. They don't break 11 down and I am not going to tell you that they never 12 break down. I have been in on gear box replacement 13 and generator replacements. You know, it's no 14 different than your car. And think of it as your 15 car. Sure it's cold but your car starts and runs 16 pretty much all winter long. Wind turbines are 17 exactly the same. 18 MR. SARGEANT: Well, not always does my car 19 start in Manitoba on cold winter mornings. 20 Mr. Nichols, one last question, I think it's 21 my last question. What part of Minnesota are you in? 22 MR. NICHOLS: We are in the south western 23 corner. And it doesn't appear like it's high ground 24 because it's flat but the glacier ended here from 25 Canada 12,000 years ago. So the land is a little bit 2443 1 higher here. Because of that, we've got a good 2 resource. But we have learned that wind resource is 3 quite good even if you are not on top of the ridge. 4 The new turbines, the long blades, and that's 5 what you would build in Canada, the blades are more 6 than 100 feet long and a blade is nothing more than a 7 long pry bar. You've got a lot of leverage there. 8 Obviously you've got a long pry bar, you've got a lot 9 of leverage. So the long-bladed turbines reach full 10 production at a much lower wind speed. 11 As I said, in the wintertime, the new 12 generation of turbines could probably hit maximum 13 production at 20 miles an hour of wind. So 14 production is very efficient even at the lower wind 15 speeds. 16 MR. SARGEANT: Thank you. That's all my 17 questions. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Nichols, you referred to 19 the larger turbines producing about 1.5 megawatts? 20 MR. NICHOLS: Yes. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Is this an average? 22 MR. NICHOLS: That is peak production. The 23 standard turbine now in the U.S. and in Canada is the 24 1.5 megawatt which lights up 500 homes. To put that 25 in perspective, 1.5 is 1,500,000 watts or it would 2444 1 light up, at any instant, 15,000 100-watt light 2 bulbs. So that is instantaneous production. 3 Average, we're running about 40 per cent on 4 average. In the wintertime, our production is -- 5 last month -- in December was an excellent month. We 6 had some turbines that averaged almost 60 per cent 7 which means they are producing 60 per cent of full 8 power or on average are producing more than a 9 megawatt or about a megawatt for 1.5 turbine. 10 But it will vary. You will always be 11 producing some power. Sometimes you'll light up 12 15,000 light bulbs and sometimes you'll be lighting 13 up 10,000 light bulbs. 14 But when you put 500 turbines out there, it's 15 much easier to manage. The variation is much less. 16 You can tell pretty reliably during the day how much 17 you are going to produce. 18 If you were trying to back up a single wind 19 turbine, that's tough to do. But when you get 500, 20 as we have now, they always produce a lot of power. 21 You just kind of count on that. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you for that. What's the 23 cost of one of these larger newer turbines that you 24 just referred to? 25 MR. NICHOLS: 1.5 million. The cost is pretty 2445 1 much $1.00 per watt. So 1.5 megawatt turbines would 2 cost $1.5 million. And to put that in perspective, 3 our contract price right now, as I said, is a little 4 over three cents. If you own that turbine yourself, 5 you should see income from that turbine of 6 approximately $30,000 per year until it's paid for, 7 15 years. And then after that, it will be over 8 $100,000 per year. It's a good investment for 9 anyone. 10 And the power is cheap. Our turbines now, 1.5 11 megawatt turbine over a one-year period will produce 12 over 5 million kilowatt hours. And that's a very 13 standard number. 14 Production year to year almost never varies. 15 You can very accurately predict what your turbine 16 will produce and you need that for financing 17 purposes. I can't tell you each day how much you 18 will produce but over one year, it's a very constant 19 number and it would be in Canada, too. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: You have referred to one 21 problem with turbines as being they don't function 22 all the time. I gather that there are situations 23 where it may be because of winds being too heavy. 24 They may have to be stopped or other problems. Would 25 you talk about that? Or what percentage of the time 2446 1 do you experience problems? 2 MR. NICHOLS: We almost never stop them, 3 maybe twice in a year for the winds being too high. 4 Sixty miles an hour is where they shut down but that 5 just isn't a problem. And they are running almost 6 all the time. Rarely if ever do you not see a 7 turbine producing some power but it won't be at full 8 production. That is the difference. 9 You in Canada, I'm sure you are a winter 10 peaking province which means you're going to use most 11 of your energy in the wintertime. And that works 12 well with wind turbines because the summer months, 13 the winds go down pretty dramatically. July is our 14 worst month for production. Now in the summer 15 peaking state, and we are in Minnesota, summer 16 peaking, people in the Twin Cities have their 17 air-conditioners on. That causes some problems for 18 us. I think in Canada, you have less demand for air 19 conditioning. You don't need as much production in 20 the summer but you need a lot more heat in the 21 winter. So one of your advantages, and correct me if 22 I'm wrong, but I think you would be a winter peaking 23 province. And the turbines produce -- 24 THE CHAIRMAN: That's true. 25 MR. NICHOLS: -- in the winter time and often 2447 1 at full production. The cold dense air, it's the 2 denseness of the air that spins the blades. Cold 3 dense air, they really turn out. It's amazing how 4 they turn out. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 6 MR. NICHOLS: Thank you. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Just other questions from the 8 audience here? Mr. Byron Williams. 9 MR. WILLIAMS: Good morning, Mr. Nichols. My 10 name is Byron Williams. I'm a lawyer, I have to 11 confess, but I am a farmer's son. I represent the 12 Consumers Association and the Manitoba Society of 13 Seniors. And I just had a few questions for you. I 14 believe I heard you mention a federal tax credit. 15 And I wonder, just very generally, if you could 16 outline for me what actions the state or the Federal 17 Government have taken to encourage the wind industry 18 in your state? 19 MR. NICHOLS: Well, the best thing we did, and 20 there's some things in your life that you'd be glad 21 you worked on and I spent 16 years in politics as I 22 said. So I look back on a few of them. But it was a 23 great career for me and I would like to have retired 24 without ever having lost any elections. And mostly I 25 worked on renewable energy in Minnesota. If you come 2448 1 to Minnesota and put gas in your car, you're going to 2 burn ethanol. That's the law. I did a lot of work 3 on that as Secretary of Agriculture and organized and 4 built three large farmer-owned ethanol plants. 5 And also in '94 when we passed our law in 6 Minnesota, if you live and are served by Excel Energy 7 which is two and a half million customers in the 8 Metropolitan area, Twin Cities, you're going to use 9 wind energy. That's the law. 10 So I really encourage you to do that as a 11 state and as a province. I have often argued that 12 the best decisions we've ever made as a state 13 legislature was our movement toward renewable energy 14 because it has stabilized our power costs. And I use 15 California as an example. They are so heavily 16 dependent, 90 per cent dependent upon natural gas so 17 they have no stability in their electrical costs. 18 And also now when I go to a gas station, I want to 19 buy ethanol, 85 per cent ethanol because it's 20 20 cents cheaper than gasoline. 21 So we have lower cost energy now because we 22 are using our own wind resources and our own 23 corn-based resources, ethanol. The best decision I 24 think we ever made. 25 MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Nichols, I want to go back 2449 1 to that legislative decision in a second. Just 2 before we go there, you also mentioned a federal tax 3 credit. And could you just provide a couple details 4 in terms of what that's related to in terms of the 5 wind production and is it aimed at giving a greater 6 capital cost allowance or what actually is involved 7 with the federal tax credit? 8 MR. NICHOLS: It is a tax credit per kilowatt 9 hour. It started at 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour and 10 it has a 2 per cent inflation clause in it so it's 11 more than that now. And it's simply a credit against 12 income taxes paid, federal income taxes. 13 Unfortunately it is basically a corporate tax credit. 14 So a large corporation would get refund of taxes paid 15 based on the amount of energy that the turbines that 16 they own produce. 17 That has certainly spurred the corporate 18 interest here in the United States. And that is why 19 virtually all of our turbines are corporate owned. 20 And I am not saying that's a bad thing but we'd like 21 to see that as a tax credit for ordinary income. And 22 ordinary people would own a turbine. 23 So that tax credit has reduced the cost of 24 wind energy well and we expect eventually that tax 25 credit will end. It needs to go on for a few more 2450 1 years at least. 2 And in the beginning, the turbines were too 3 small and not efficient enough. The large turbines, 4 they get larger, could produce more and more energy. 5 MR. WILLIAMS: In terms of your industry, do 6 you have any opinion on how long that tax credit 7 should continue? 8 MR. NICHOLS: Well, I would like to see it go 9 for about another ten years. Our congress, they got 10 a lot of problems out there, but the tax credit did 11 expire. I think it will be reinstated and it will be 12 retroactive. We need to produce low cost energy. 13 For example, on my farm here in Lincoln 14 County, I pay 7.2 cents per kilowatt hour for my 15 electricity that I consume on my farm and in my 16 house. We are now producing it in Lincoln County for 17 about 3.3 cents. You can see our production cost is 18 about half of what we're now paying to buy energy. 19 Our energy comes for REA co-ops from North 20 Dakota, from lignite. And we need to be in that 21 range. A pretty good rule of thumb in the electrical 22 industry is about half your cost is to generate the 23 power and half your cost is to distribute it. 24 And again, our customers in Minneapolis and 25 St. Paul, Excel Energy, their cost is 6.6 cents, 2451 1 about 6.6. For electricity, we need to produce it 2 3.3 cents to be competitive. And that's pretty much 3 where we are. 4 MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Nichols, just go back one 5 last question on this point. You spoke of in 1994, 6 the legislation requiring Excel Energy to achieve a 7 certain amount of renewable energy and I guess by 8 somewhere towards the end of this decade about 1,100 9 megawatts. I guess my question is why did you have 10 to require Excel Energy to do so? Was it because 11 they were caught in the wrong mind-set or is it their 12 economics at the time suggested that wind was not 13 where they wanted to be? 14 MR. NICHOLS: At the time, wind was not where 15 it needed to be price wise. The first turbines that 16 were built here ten years ago were 330 kW turbines 17 and 30,000 watts. Now they are five times larger, 18 1.5 megawatts. And the original contract price was 19 4.9 cents per kilowatt hour. As I said, we want to 20 be down closer to that 3 cent range, about 3.3 cents. 21 Technology wasn't there. 22 There were no large wind farms in the world. 23 That is why Lake Benton, my home, was the largest 24 wind farm in the world because we had several hundred 25 megawatts right here around Lake Benton. 2452 1 MR. WILLIAMS: Would it be your view now that 2 the need for that legislative requirement is passed 3 given the changed economics of wind energy? Is it 4 still a requirement to mandate Excel Energy to 5 purchase this, a certain percentage of renewable 6 energy or would market forces just encourage it to do 7 so? 8 MR. NICHOLS: I am going to lobby you for the 9 mandate because market forces will move much more 10 slowly. Because I did a lot of work on getting this 11 law passed in Minnesota, I was just invited in 12 Colorado to testify before their legislature out 13 there, the House and Senate, and they are trying to 14 pass the mandate in Colorado. New Mexico just did 15 that. 16 But in Colorado, Excel Energy is a combination 17 of the big utilities in Colorado and Minnesota. 18 Excel is a big utility in Colorado. Excel Energy is 19 supporting and testified in favour of the renewable 20 portfolio standard in Colorado. That's how far it 21 has come. Excel Energy doesn't oppose it anymore. 22 But I think you do need -- it's very hard to 23 get financing for wind turbines. The major cost is 24 borrowed money. To get the financing in place, you 25 need to have a secure market. That's why I would 2453 1 encourage you to consider the mandate. It certainly 2 won't hurt you. It's low cost energy but it will 3 allow you to build big wind farms that can be 4 financed. 5 MR. WILLIAMS: Just so I'm clear, is it your 6 view that removing the requirement now would be 7 detrimental to the wind industry or is the market 8 sufficiently mature in your state that Excel would 9 just continue with its practices regardless of this 10 legislative mandate? 11 MR. NICHOLS: Well, as an example here, we 12 just received a 60 megawatt contract with Excel and 13 that will be a locally owned, locally farmer-owned 14 project which is what we want. Without that mandate 15 in place, I don't think we would have got that 60 16 megawatt contract. 17 The industry will continue to move forward but 18 at a much slower rate if you do not have the 19 renewable portfolios. It will take you 50 years to 20 get to that 40 per cent reliance on wind energy 21 without the mandate. You'd probably get there in 20 22 with it. That's the difference. 23 MR. WILLIAMS: Just I want to move on very 24 quickly to the 3.3 cents per kilowatt hour. Given 25 your comments of a few minutes ago, that cost is the 2454 1 generation cost? 2 MR. NICHOLS: Yes. That's what we get paid. 3 Our farmer-owned project, our contract is for 3.3 4 cents and that's locked in for 20 years. So it's 5 cheap energy now but 20 years from now, very cheap. 6 The real beauty of wind is the price doesn't go up 7 for the next 20 years. 8 MR. WILLIAMS: So if I were trying to get a 9 picture of the costs that are not included in kind of 10 the costs of wind energy just from that 3.3 cent 11 figure, the shaping and firming costs would be one 12 cost that a utility would incur because wind doesn't 13 blow all the time. Is that right? 14 MR. NICHOLS: It has to be firmed up, that's 15 correct. 16 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. So those costs aren't in 17 that 3.3 cents? 18 MR. NICHOLS: No. 19 MR. WILLIAMS: And another cost, and I guess 20 it depends on the size, but another cost would be 21 transmitting that power to the network or wherever 22 you're going to use it. Would that cost be included 23 in the 3.3 cents? 24 MR. NICHOLS: Originally it was because we 25 didn't have to build new powerlines. Now we have to 2455 1 build some new power lines. But I want to go back to 2 your other, about the firming power. Having just 3 returned from Colorado, Excel Energy, the utility 4 that buys the power and distributes to their 5 consumers, they testified at the legislature that the 6 wind farm in Colorado that was just built was going 7 to save their consumers $4 million over the next 20 8 years. You would have to buy less natural gas. 9 So actually, the big utilities now like Excel 10 like wind energy because it's much cheaper to buy 11 power from a wind turbine than it is from a natural 12 gas turbine. That was their testimony and is a 13 matter of record. 14 So when you talk about the cost, the big 15 consumer, Excel Energy, the big utility has testified 16 it's going to save them money. And I would think 17 they would know a lot more than I do. 18 MR. WILLIAMS: Now, just the last thing I want 19 to touch on is I think the term of art that I think 20 Manitoba Hydro uses to discuss the capacity and how 21 frequently generation can be produced in a year's 22 capacity factor. And I think you spoke of a 40 per 23 cent, in the sense that you are operating about 40 24 per cent of the time? 25 MR. NICHOLS: Yes, you can expect 40 per cent 2456 1 of your power now will come from wind turbine, the 2 new wind turbines, the 1.5 megawatts. 3 MR. WILLIAMS: Do you have any opinion or 4 sense of wind power sounds, in the Minnesota context, 5 economic or may be economic at the 40 per cent 6 capacity factor, what if it was at 25 per cent? Is 7 the case still as good? It's certainly not as good. 8 Is it still doable? 9 MR. NICHOLS: Projected to be 28 per cent, 10 wind resource turned out to be much better than we 11 assumed. When you get over 30 per cent, it's 12 economical. If your capacity factor is less than 30 13 per cent, I don't think that it is, I have not ran 14 all the numbers on that, but our turbines here are 15 producing at a profit and they are the smaller 16 turbines, they are the 750s. So we have only 17 recently approached that 40 per cent capacity factor 18 and just, in the last year, a lot of the big turbines 19 have been built here. 20 MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Nichols, on behalf of my 21 clients, I want to thank you for taking the time to 22 speak with us. It's been very illuminating. Thank 23 you. 24 MR. NICHOLS: Thank you. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Gaile Whelan Enns. Oh, I'm 2457 1 sorry, Mr. Bedford. I was looking at you, I didn't 2 see any signal. 3 MR. BEDFORD: There's your signal. 4 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Mr. Chair, I have no problem 5 about the sequence in questions at all but I wanted 6 to just check scheduling and ask you whether I should 7 phone the next two presenters and give them some kind 8 of sense. There's one person sort of staring at his 9 phone right now expecting a call. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: No problem doing that, yes. 11 MS. WHELAN ENNS: I'll go and do that then. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bedford. 13 MR. BEDFORD: Good morning, Mr. Nichols. My 14 name is Doug Bedford and I'm one of the counsel at 15 this hearing for Manitoba Hydro which is one of the 16 two proponents of the Wuskwatim dam project. 17 I have to tell you, Mr. Nichols, that 18 listening to what you've had to say that a good deal 19 of it runs somewhat contrary to a number of 20 statements and some of the written evidence that's 21 been filed in this proceeding to date. 22 Have you, Mr. Nichols, had an opportunity to 23 read the evidence and testimony that's been given 24 before this Commission on the subject of wind power? 25 MR. NICHOLS: No, I have not. I can only 2458 1 relate to you what my personal experiences are as one 2 that works on wind turbines and what our costs of 3 production have been here in Minnesota. 4 MR. BEDFORD: I always find it unfair in life 5 if I have to pose questions to someone who hasn't had 6 an opportunity to read evidence and material that 7 contradicts statements that he's given. What I would 8 really like to do is have sent to you that evidence 9 and information that runs contrary to your opinion so 10 that you'd have a reasonable opportunity to read it 11 and then come back on the phone. And the Commission 12 doesn't finish sitting today. We have several more 13 weeks of listening and evidence to put in. But come 14 back at a time that's convenient to you and to us 15 after you've read the material and then I would have 16 a number of questions that I'd like to put to you. 17 But with the Commission's permission, if we're 18 going to do that, there are a few additional 19 questions I could put to you this morning. But I 20 would like the opportunity to speak to you again 21 later on this subject. I'm looking to the Commission 22 to confirm that if I ask a few more questions now, we 23 can have Mr. Nichols come back in the future? 24 THE CHAIRMAN: If that is okay with Mr. 25 Nichols, we'll make every attempt to make that 2459 1 possible. 2 MR. NICHOLS: Yes. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. 4 MR. NICHOLS: Do you have a question? Can I 5 answer a question? 6 MR. BEDFORD: It's coming. 7 MR. NICHOLS: Okay. 8 MR. BEDFORD: I guess for starters, Mr. 9 Nichols, I can tell you that I often have occasion to 10 drive through your state. Regrettably I haven't 11 driven quite close enough to where you live to see 12 all the turbines scattered over the Minnesota 13 countryside but I am curious. What do you do for 14 transmission lines for all these wind tower turbines? 15 MR. NICHOLS: Well first of all, I encourage 16 you to come and see us because I'll give you a tour. 17 They are beautiful. They are just beautiful. 18 MR. BEDFORD: I accept the invitation. 19 MR. NICHOLS: We were lucky when we first 20 started. All of our production now moves out on an 21 existing transmission line that once served a nuclear 22 plant in South Dakota that is now closed. That plant 23 was connected, the nuclear plant to a coal plant in 24 Granite Falls, Minnesota and that's now closed. So 25 there was existing transmission line here and that 2460 1 helped us enormously. 2 But our Public Utilities Commission has 3 approved a very large new line from Sioux Falls into 4 Minnesota that will correct with an existing line up 5 to the Twin Cities. And then some smaller lines will 6 be built to that big new line. That will be a 345 kV 7 line. So we did need additional transmission and 8 that's one of the challenges that we face. In fact, 9 we're working on a very large project to build a big 10 line to Los Angeles, California. 11 But the beauty of it is, and I have been to 12 Chicago and California on this issue, our delivered 13 cost of power because we can produce it so cheaply in 14 the midwest from wind is far cheaper than they are 15 now paying in the large cities. That includes the 16 cost of the transmission. 17 When you figure the cost of transmission 18 amortized over 20 years, it adds about 8/10 of a cent 19 to the bill. And we have to firm our power up. In 20 this case, we're using coal and lignite which are a 21 little more expensive. Wind is the cheapest energy 22 you can build here in the United States. We can 23 deliver the cost 1,000 miles away, delivered to a 24 large city for 4.3 cents and this would be Los 25 Angeles being over 14 (not audible). That's why they 2461 1 are very interested in our power because it's cheap. 2 MR. BEDFORD: You've probably heard, Mr. 3 Nichols, that we had two of your fellow citizens, 4 Senators Anderson and Kubly speaking to us a couple 5 of days ago. Regrettably they had to leave before I 6 got to talk to them. But one of the questions I had 7 intended to put to them, because I'm curious about 8 it, is what the present generating capacity in the 9 State of Minnesota is and I understand when I ask a 10 question like that, where we're primarily looking at 11 the generating present capacity of Excel Energy. 12 I've tried to abstract the answer to my 13 question from some of the written evidence that's 14 filed and I'm calculating at the moment that it's in 15 the range of a present generating capacity of 7,000 16 megawatts. But can you assist me? Is that accurate 17 or too low or too high? 18 MR. NICHOLS: That's fairly accurate. At our 19 peak production, we would need 9,000 megawatts. 20 There would be in addition to that, there had been 21 some new -- in addition to that 7,000 megawatts, 22 there had been some new natural gas combustion 23 turbines because we do have a need for peaking power 24 in the summer. That's our peak month, July and 25 August. 2462 1 MR. BEDFORD: We in fact did hear about the 2 kind of new generation that Minnesota is building in 3 addition to wind that you've talked about and there 4 was some comment a couple of days ago that there is a 5 new 365 megawatt gas-fired generation station that's 6 just been announced that will be constructed at 7 Mankato, Minnesota. Are you familiar with that? 8 MR. NICHOLS: I am familiar with that. And 9 there has been a new gas combustion turbine built 10 near Jackson, Minnesota as well. So there's been 11 this need for these natural gas combustion turbines. 12 MR. BEDFORD: I am assuming given what is 13 clearly on your part a keen interest in developing 14 something like a wind resource which we all 15 understand from a common sense point of view is clean 16 and renewable and we all believe that the wind will 17 always blow. I'm a little surprised that you are 18 building more gas-fired generation. But having said 19 that, I assume you would prefer, if possible, that 20 rather than Minnesotans building gas-fired 21 generators, that Minnesotans take advantage of our 22 water resources in Manitoba and have us build more 23 Hydro dams? 24 MR. NICHOLS: Well, I am aware that I think 25 Excel Energy now buys 500 megawatts of water power 2463 1 from Canada. And obviously they -- the U.S. needs 2 firm power. I don't know what your sale price is on 3 that and you probably won't tell me that. 4 My goal is to provide cheap energy and that's 5 what I find most attractive about wind is it gets 6 cheaper every year and it's clean. But it does need 7 to be firmed up. In the real world, that's what we 8 have to deal with. 9 We in the United States are working -- one of 10 the projects I'm working on is to firm it up with 11 coal and lignite. Natural gas is just simply too 12 expensive I believe for energy production, for 13 electrical production and it's also driving up the 14 cost of heating our homes. We need to move away from 15 natural gas in the United States. But I don't know 16 what your cost of power is and I had been told that 17 there are some environmental problems with that, too. 18 But I'm not going to get into that because I've never 19 been to see your dam. 20 MR. BEDFORD: Well, let me extend an 21 invitation on behalf of Manitoba Hydro that after I 22 come and do the tour of your wind farm, we'd be 23 delighted to have you come to Manitoba and I'm sure I 24 can look after arranging a tour of some of Manitoba 25 Hydro's power dams for you. 2464 1 You are right. I am not allowed to reveal to 2 you the price that we charge Excel Energy for the 3 power. If I did that, I know I'd be looking for a 4 job tomorrow morning. 5 Returning to the 7,000 megawatt existing 6 capacity in your state, Mr. Nichols, we did hear from 7 Senator Anderson that approximately 95 per cent of 8 that generating capacity is presently nuclear and 9 coal and gas-fired generation. I'm sure you are 10 aware of that. 11 MR. NICHOLS: Yes. 12 MR. BEDFORD: I would assume then that your 13 intent at least, if not the intent of all 14 Minnesotans, is that as you develop wind power, and I 15 know you mentioned a goal of by 2010 I think you said 16 moving up to 1,100 megawatts of capacity, your goal 17 surely is to substitute this new wind capacity for 18 existing nuclear and coal-fired so that you can 19 retire the nuclear and retire the aging coal-fired 20 generation? 21 MR. NICHOLS: Well, our demand is increasing 22 in Minnesota. So by law, as you probably know, and I 23 worked on that, the law says that Excel will use 24 1,100 megawatts of wind by 2010. So that's the law. 25 We know that's going to happen. And a lot of that is 2465 1 new demand. We do have some coal plants in 2 Minneapolis and St. Paul that are slated to close now 3 as you probably know. They are very old. One of 4 them was built shortly after the turn of the century. 5 And Excel has really been -- I can't say enough good 6 about Excel as a utility. They've been a very good 7 utility for us in Minnesota. They've always provided 8 cheap power and they've always looked for two 9 renewable energies. And then we don't appreciate 10 enough that we have very cheap power here in 11 Minnesota thanks to Excel Energy. 12 But we did have two old coal plants. They've 13 been targeted to close. That's a very positive step 14 in the right direction because one of the failures of 15 our 1977 Clean Air Act in the United States is that 16 they grandfathered in old and polluting plants, the 17 idea being that they were going to come off line 18 eventually. And those plants have continued to run 19 and we need to address that because we do have some 20 severe pollution problems. 21 MR. BEDFORD: One of the documents that this 22 Commission has before it is a draft report dated May 23 28, 2003 prepared by the Midcontinent Area Power Pool 24 which we all call MAPP. I'm sure you're familiar 25 with -- 2466 1 MR. NICHOLS: I'm familiar, yeah. 2 MR. BEDFORD: Excel Energy, you and I know and 3 others here are learning, is a member of the MAPP 4 Council. MAPP, in this 2003 draft report, Mr. 5 Nichols, predicts that Excel, by the year 2011, is 6 going to be faced in the summer with having to import 7 just over 2,000 megawatts of energy. Can we put some 8 confidence in these kind of reports prepared by MAPP? 9 MR. NICHOLS: Obviously MAPP is very respected 10 in our own -- our own Department of Commerce in 11 Minnesota has projected for Excel large increases in 12 demand. They have ratcheted that back a little bit 13 is my understanding now. But clearly in the range of 14 more than 1,000 megawatts. I don't know if they are 15 projecting 2,000 megawatts or not now because I know 16 they backed off a little bit. 17 Obviously that's one of the things that we 18 targeted with our goal, actually the law, of 1,100 19 megawatts of wind by 2010. Looking more at filling 20 the new demand rather than forcing plants off line. 21 MR. BEDFORD: I know Senator Nichols, but I 22 cannot recall off the top of my head, but I have read 23 that this legislation in Minnesota which obligates 24 Excel to buy, by 2010, the 1,000 or the 1,100 25 megawatts of wind generation, is subject to Excel 2467 1 being able to be satisfied that reliability concerns 2 will not be jeopardized and that the price will be 3 affordable presumably to Excel and through it to 4 Minnesota customers. Is my memory correct on that 5 subject? 6 MR. NICHOLS: Yes. 7 MR. BEDFORD: I'm sorry, I didn't hear. 8 MR. NICHOLS: Yes, that's correct. 9 MR. BEDFORD: I must say, I'm quite certain 10 that it was no coincidence that you made several 11 passing references to how well windmills work in cold 12 weather in Minnesota. I am sorry, I said windmills, 13 wind turbines would have been a better expression. 14 Have you, per chance, kept records of how many minus 15 30 degrees Centigrade, which would be I think roughly 16 minus 25 degree Fahrenheit, days you've had this last 17 winter in Minnesota where you've observed these wind 18 turbines working? 19 MR. NICHOLS: We had three weeks of very cold 20 weather, below zero every night for three straight 21 weeks. It really doesn't affect the production. The 22 turbines just run. First of all, when it's cold, 23 they tend to run better because the dense air 24 produces more. And once they are up and running, 25 they are warm. And even when they are not running, 2468 1 we heat the oil. So they are heated if they wouldn't 2 be running and then they are almost always running. 3 And when they are running, they are warm. So cold 4 air, it just isn't a problem. Believe me, I work on 5 wind turbines. 6 MR. BEDFORD: I think -- 7 MR. NICHOLS: It's not a problem. 8 MR. BEDFORD: I think, Mr. Nichols, if you are 9 agreeable, when you come to Manitoba for your visit 10 to our hydro dams, I'm going to do my best to arrange 11 for that visit in January when we experience minus 30 12 degree weather and I am going to ask you the same 13 question that I've just put to you. 14 MR. NICHOLS: We had in Grand Forks, North 15 Dakota, I know it was 44 degrees below zero in 16 February and it was approaching 40 degrees below zero 17 here on my thermometer that same night. So I've 18 lived here my whole life. And when the wind blows 19 here, wind chill is a problem for us. Twenty and 30 20 degrees below, I am a farmer, I'm used to that, 21 that's not going to affect your wind turbines. They 22 will produce. 23 MR. BEDFORD: I should have clarified that we 24 use this expression "wind chill" in Manitoba, too. 25 But when I said minus 30, that's without the 2469 1 additional factor of the wind chill. 2 MR. NICHOLS: I know. I understand that. 3 We're like you. It's cold here. I'd rather come 4 there and see your dams in the summer. Is that all 5 your questions? 6 MR. BEDFORD: No, no, I have a few more. 7 Let's talk about the reverse. Often when I'm 8 watching my television in the evenings, we do have 9 access to Minneapolis, St. Paul channels and you have 10 a very, to my mind, sophisticated warning system for 11 things like tornadoes and high winds and storms. You 12 mentioned that the turbines work best in I think you 13 said 30 mile an hour winds. What happens to those 14 turbines, and I know it's not an everyday experience 15 in your state, but when you have severe weather 16 conditions with 100 mile an hour winds or, God 17 forbid, a tornado? 18 MR. NICHOLS: I am glad you asked that because 19 two years ago, we had a tornado here in my farm. Did 20 absolutely nothing to the wind turbines. When the 21 wind picks up, when the wind is strong, the blades 22 are vertical to the wind. They don't catch a lot of 23 wind. The pitch is a variable pitch. The pitch goes 24 vertical instead of horizontal to the wind. So wind 25 is not a problem. 2470 1 But anyhow, 145 miles an hour on my farm with 2 the wind turbines, now we know exactly what it was, 3 nothing. When the wind hits 60 miles an hour, the 4 turbines shut down. The tornado was gone in a few 5 minutes and the computer turned them on and they 6 started up again. We did have one problem. One 7 section of the transmission line was torn down, so 8 those turbines on that section couldn't run until we 9 got the line rebuilt which didn't take very long. 10 But I am amazed because I once worried they 11 are up there 200 feet in the air and the blades stick 12 up another 100 feet so you are 300 feet in the air 13 and you've got 145 miles an hour wind. They are so 14 tough. You can't knock them down. And I climb them 15 when I work on them and I've been up there in very 16 high winds. You just can't knock them down. They've 17 survived 180 mile an hour winds in Texas. We are 18 just amazed. And we used to worry about that. Never 19 seen a blade tore off. Never seen one knocked down. 20 I don't think it can be done. Maybe 200 mile an hour 21 winds. But 145 mile an hour did nothing. And it's 22 amazing. They are tough. 23 MR. BEDFORD: My concern wasn't windmills 24 falling over on the prairies of Minnesota, it was 25 something that we had been told earlier that these 2471 1 turbines come with sophisticated equipment that 2 automatically shuts them down in certain weather 3 conditions. And I think I did hear you say that when 4 the winds get extraordinarily high, there's an 5 automatic mechanism that shuts the equipment down 6 temporarily? 7 MR. NICHOLS: And it was very temporary. The 8 tornado was gone through in five minutes. They were 9 probably off line for five minutes. 10 MR. BEDFORD: Similarly, our understanding 11 from manufacturers of this kind of equipment is that 12 all wind turbines have a low temperature cut-off; is 13 that correct? 14 MR. NICHOLS: There is none, believe me. 15 There is no low temperature cut-off, absolutely not, 16 absolutely not. They never shut down. The only time 17 they would ever shut down is if the winds were more 18 than 60 miles an hour and that may happen four times 19 in a year I'm guessing. It just doesn't happen. Our 20 winds tend to be in that 20 to 30 mile an hour range, 21 and 10 miles an hour as well. 22 The problem is when you don't have enough 23 wind, a hot summer day. Our problem is July. The 24 winds are too light and there's no air density and we 25 just don't have as much production as we need in 2472 1 July. That's our problem. 2 MR. BEDFORD: Thank you. I'm glad you said 3 that because that was going to be my next question, 4 my curiosity about what does happen in the summer. 5 And I gather from reading MAPP reports and charts and 6 charts of numbers, the importation of electrical 7 energy in Minnesota rises significantly in the summer 8 and falls in the winter. I'm sure you can 9 corroborate that? 10 MR. NICHOLS: Yes. And I want to be very 11 truthful about wind. It doesn't blow all the time. 12 There is one and only one problem with wind turbines, 13 wind doesn't blow all the time. You're going to have 14 some wind all the time but you're not going to have 15 maximum production and we have to deal with that. 16 MR. BEDFORD: You mentioned a number of dollar 17 figures. And just so when we look at the transcript 18 subsequently, no one clarified, but my experience 19 when Americans talk about money, they always talk in 20 terms of U.S. dollars. It was U.S. dollars, Mr. 21 Nichols? 22 MR. NICHOLS: Yes. They are going to 23 disconnect me in two minutes. 24 MR. BEDFORD: Yes. Given that warning, we'll 25 talk to you again, but that will be the balance of my 2473 1 questions for today. 2 MR. NICHOLS: Thank you very much for the 3 opportunity to answer questions. 4 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Mr. Nichols. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: Speak. 6 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Are you still there, Mr. 7 Nichols? 8 MR. NICHOLS: Yes, I am, but I think I'm about 9 to be cut off. 10 MS. WHELAN ENNS: What I'm going to do, it's 11 Gaile Whelan Enns here, is sort of speak quickly 12 through three questions which we will then try to 13 come back to with you if I could. I understand that 14 Manitoba Hydro has invited you to Northern Manitoba. 15 I think that's a good idea. 16 MR. NICHOLS: Okay. 17 MS. WHELAN ENNS: And I would suggest perhaps 18 that in that kind of a visit, you have a good look at 19 a lake that's become a reservoir, perhaps South 20 Indian Lake. 21 The second question for us to come back to, 22 talking quickly, the effects then of wind turbines on 23 wildlife would be something I'd like to ask you where 24 we could come back to it. 25 And on the economics, I think perhaps to have 2474 1 an answer to the question in terms of county tax 2 revenues, what we would think of as municipal tax 3 revenues from the corporate wind farms and corporate 4 wind companies? 5 MR. NICHOLS: To answer that very quickly. We 6 collected last year $520,000 in Lincoln County for 7 our school district, township and county from the 8 wind turbines. It's about 20 per cent of our 9 revenue. It's fantastic. We love it. 10 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Thank you. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Nichols, for 12 your time and for your offer for additional time 13 sometime down the road. We appreciate your 14 contribution. 15 MR. NICHOLS: Thank you. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. 17 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman, the Canadian Nature 18 Federation has two more calls slated for this morning 19 although one of them was scheduled for 10:30 and that 20 has passed. The proposal is now to go directly to 21 Dr. Erin Bayne who will be coming in by telephone 22 from Alberta. And with your permission, I'll place 23 that call now. 24 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 25 MR. GREWAR: Dr. Bayne, can you hear me? 2475 1 DR. BAYNE: Yes, I can. 2 MR. GREWAR: Dr. Bayne, I'm going to turn you 3 over to our Chairman, Mr. Gerard Lecuyer. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: Good morning, Dr. Bayne. You 5 are connected to the room where we are presently 6 holding hearings on proposed projects of transmission 7 and generation project known as Wuskwatim. 8 I will let Mr. Grewar swear you in and then I 9 will give you the opportunity to introduce yourself 10 and say who you are, where you're from, et cetera. 11 And then you can go on to speak to us. 12 DR. BAYNE: All right. 13 MR. GREWAR: Dr. Bayne, are you aware that it 14 is an offence in Manitoba to knowingly mislead this 15 Commission? 16 DR. BAYNE: Yes. 17 MR. GREWAR: Do you promise to tell only the 18 truth in proceedings before this Commission? 19 DR. BAYNE: Yes. 20 MR. GREWAR: Thank you, Dr. Bayne. 21 22 (DR. ERIN BAYNE: SWORN) 23 24 THE CHAIRMAN: You may proceed, Dr. Bayne. 25 DR. BAYNE: Okay. My name is Erin Bayne and 2476 1 I'm an assistant professor of Landscape Ecology in 2 the Department of Biological Sciences at the 3 University of Alberta. And I've studied the effects 4 of human land use practices on boreal forest 5 biodiversity for about the past 12 years. And my 6 focus of my research is on the effects of habitat 7 loss, fragmentation, with a real focus on how human 8 activities alter interactions between different 9 species. 10 And I was asked on behalf of Manitoba 11 Wildlands to give my assessment of the environmental 12 impact statement, environmental impact statement for 13 this hydro project. 14 Now I want to stress from the outset that I am 15 here as an impartial scientific observer and I'm not 16 for or against this project. I am simply going to 17 kind of -- what I'm going to try and do is provide 18 some insights into issues that I felt were not well 19 addressed in the EIS. Again, at the outset as well, 20 I will stress that I have only read those sections of 21 the EIS that pertain to my area of expertise which is 22 mostly in biodiversity issues. 23 Now, the focus of what I'm going to talk about 24 is how human activity in the boreal forest may be 25 affecting biodiversity and why I think just some of 2477 1 the issues that I think need to be made to raise to 2 this Commission when making their decision. 3 Biodiversity is defined as the full spectrum 4 of plant and animal life across ecosystems and it 5 includes things like genetic diversity, species 6 diversity, landscape diversity and ecosystem 7 diversity. And in the scientific literature 8 currently I'd say over the last ten years, there's 9 been a growing concern that human activities are 10 threatening biodiversity in many parts of the world. 11 MR. ABRA: Dr. Bayne, my name is Doug Abra. 12 I'm the lawyer for the Clean Environment Commission. 13 I'm sorry to interrupt you, sir, but I wonder if you 14 could slow down. We have a Court Reporter here who's 15 taking down your evidence and we're all having 16 trouble keeping up with you, sir. 17 DR. BAYNE: Okay, certainly. The three 18 greatest threats to biodiversity that exists 19 currently in the scientific literature are probably 20 in the following order, which are habitat loss, 21 habitat fragmentation and the effects of invasive 22 species. 23 Now in 1992, Canada signed what was called the 24 Rio Convention Act on biodiversity. Now this is not 25 a legally binding agreement but what it did is it set 2478 1 Canada to basically develop a set of targets so that 2 the maintenance of biological diversity became a key 3 element in terms of environmental impact assessments 4 in an overall assessment of what we were doing out in 5 the landscape. And they've got this definition of 6 biodiversity but it's very unclear as to what it 7 means. And it makes processes such as what we're 8 seeing here quite challenging. 9 Now, the reality is that we can't measure 10 biodiversity on the landscape today so we can't say 11 how our activities affect biodiversity per se. And 12 instead, we focus often on individual species. And I 13 think that was very clear in this environmental 14 impact assessment. There was some very good 15 assessments of what might happen to particular 16 species, particularly through things like the Habitat 17 Suitability Model. 18 But those models often rely on things like 19 presence/absence of a species. And the question is 20 often, you know, as this development goes through, 21 will that affect whether or not the species is here 22 after that development. 23 And the reality is very few individual 24 developments will ever cause a species to go 25 extinction or disappear from the landscape. What it 2479 1 does is it causes a slow change to the ecosystem with 2 the addition of each little human activity. And 3 that's particularly been demonstrated in Alberta. 4 And what I'd like to do I guess over the next 5 probably 10 to 15 minutes is give you a few examples 6 of how small incremental changes through, you know, 7 various developments in Alberta have resulted in some 8 changes in that ecosystem. 9 Now, I'm going to talk about three specific 10 areas of research in Alberta that we believe are 11 starting to be -- three groups of organisms, excuse 12 me, that are being affected by human activity. And 13 these are boreal caribou, boreal forest birds and the 14 invasion by non-native species. And my focus is 15 going to be on how these groups are being affected by 16 linear features such as the power line that's being 17 proposed for this project. 18 And I'm not really going to focus on the 19 effects of any one power line because in their own 20 context, the single power line may have relatively 21 little effect. It's more the effect of a power line 22 in terms of its cumulative effect with other human 23 land uses both in the past, the ones occurring today 24 and what might be predicted to happen in the future. 25 Now, a major area of research in boreal 2480 1 Alberta has been to understand the decline of the 2 woodland caribou. Now woodland Caribou in Alberta 3 and actually across much of the boreal forest of 4 Canada are non-migratory species that exist in 5 scattered herds at low densities. And they tend to 6 live in peatland environments, much like the habitat 7 that this project is proposed to go through. 8 Now the idea of living in a peatland and why 9 caribou live in peatland is because it's thought to 10 represent a spatial separation strategy for avoiding 11 areas where predators such as wolves are common. 12 Wolves, in most parts of the boreal, tend to live in 13 upland environments whereas caribou live in peatland. 14 Now, the caribou, as many of you will know, is 15 a threatened species in Canada and its decline across 16 its range tend to be the most severe in areas of high 17 linear feature density. There's been several recent 18 papers published in journals like Journal of Wildlife 19 Management that demonstrate this to be true. So in 20 other words, it seems like as linear feature density 21 goes up in the landscape, the decline in caribou 22 populations becomes more severe. 23 Now, this has led to a lot of research in 24 Alberta trying to understand this relationship in 25 terms of why linear features are affecting caribou. 2481 1 And the general take home from work with 2 radio-collared caribou both using what are called GPS 3 collars and VHF collars which give you a different 4 detail level of information, is that caribou avoid 5 linear features to some extent. Now this is not 6 absolute. Caribou will often be found on a road or 7 often be found on a power line. But relative to what 8 you would expect if they were using those things in 9 proportion to their abundance on the landscape, this 10 is not true. 11 Caribou in particular avoid roads by up to 12 about 500 metres, pipelines by about up to 250 to 300 13 metres. And when you say the word pipeline, this is 14 traditionally in Alberta, pipelines are a much more 15 dominant element than say power lines but they are 16 usually of about a similar width. And they also even 17 will avoid narrow features such as seismic lines in 18 Alberta which are around 10 metres wide. 19 Now, this kind of avoidance we don't know 20 exactly why it happens but there's been two proposed 21 reasons for it and the first is that caribou are 22 simply avoiding these areas because they are 23 sensitive to the human disturbances in terms of 24 vehicle traffic, quad traffic, snowmobile traffic 25 that may happen on these. That is one possible 2482 1 explanation. There has been research to suggest that 2 this is true but it doesn't fully explain the 3 patterns that are observed. 4 So another explanation and one that currently 5 is the working model for caribou management in 6 Alberta is that caribou are avoiding these linear 7 features because these are places where predator 8 activity and predator abundance are increasing. 9 The data to demonstrate that this is true has 10 been collected by a man named Adam James here at the 11 University of Alberta and it's published again in the 12 Journal of Wildlife Management. And he was able to 13 demonstrate with radio-collared wolves that wolves 14 are using linear features to move from upland 15 environments into peatland where they are then 16 potentially able to capture caribou and kill them. 17 And what he found is that radio-collared 18 wolves in general are closer to linear features than 19 you would expect by random chance. Now this is again 20 in Alberta and again, the research I'm talking about 21 is in Alberta, but generally it seems like wolves 22 tend to use linear features that are created by human 23 activity to move throughout the landscape. 24 The other thing that's been shown is that 25 wolves are able to travel much faster on these linear 2483 1 features and as a consequence, have a greater chance 2 of running into a caribou or some other ungulate. 3 Now, on its own, I mean a change in the 4 predator/prey relationship between wolf and caribou 5 may not be the only factor that is driving this 6 decline of caribou. And an alternative explanation 7 is that there has also been a new predator added to 8 boreal environments and that is the coyote. 9 The coyote, up until about 30 years ago, was 10 absent from much of the boreal forest and is 11 increasing and expanding its range throughout. And 12 we have been able to demonstrate here in Alberta that 13 coyotes are about three times more abundant in areas 14 with higher densities of linear features and 15 cutblocks. Areas where the overall human footprint 16 or cumulative effects is greatest. 17 Now coyotes, much like wolves, tend to use 18 linear features to move throughout the landscape. On 19 their own, they probably would have relatively little 20 impact on something like caribou but you put them in 21 addition to things like wolves and that may be 22 sufficient to be what's causing the declines in 23 caribou that we've seen. 24 Increasingly -- a trend that is increasing in 25 the boreal that is suggestive of human impacts having 2484 1 a slow degradative effect on boreal forest system is 2 increase in the number of deer. And we have seen 3 this in Alberta that where we have a lot of areas of 4 human disturbance, high linear feature densities, 5 deer are about four times more abundant than you 6 would find in more pristine areas. 7 Now obviously for many people, an increase in 8 deer is a positive thing and that is a valid point of 9 view. But increased deer means increased prey 10 availability for predators like wolves, like coyotes. 11 And what this can do is it increases the number of 12 predators out in the landscape which, in turn, leads 13 to increased predation risk for native species like 14 moose and caribou. 15 So that simply, you know, saying yes, we have 16 more deer because, and this is a positive thing, you 17 need to take a look at what the trophic effects might 18 be by adding that new prey item to the system. 19 Now, as I was reading this EIS, one of the 20 things that I think was well done is the idea of 21 trying to limit human access. In Alberta, this is a 22 huge issue in that all of the activity from the 23 energy sector has made it at a very acceptable 24 landscape which allows people to go into fairly 25 remote areas to hunt, fish. And this can have 2485 1 obviously negative population consequences for 2 species that are hunted or fished. 3 But in some circumstances, I mean there are 4 cases, for example, with woodland caribou where it's 5 a protected species that despite the fact that it's 6 protected, there are still a number of human caused 7 mortalities of this animal usually due to poaching 8 and/or due to, you know, road mortality. And what we 9 found is that human-caused mortalities of caribou in 10 Alberta are about 200 metres closer to linear 11 features than you would expect by random chance. 12 So again, suggesting that as more linear 13 features go out in the landscape, there's a greater 14 risk to the caribou also from human activities. 15 Now I'd like to switch gears a little bit. 16 The caribou is I think a very, you know, it's a very 17 compelling story that the more linear features and 18 the more human activity we put out in the landscape, 19 the greater risk that species will be at. But it is 20 one species and, you know, we really are more 21 interested in the overall state of the ecosystem. 22 And one of the groups of organisms of 23 particular interest I think in the boreal right now 24 that people are quite concerned about are breeding 25 forest birds. The reason for this is that the boreal 2486 1 forest of Western Canada has the highest diversity of 2 breeding birds in North America, over 300 species. 3 Approximately 40 per cent of those are short-distance 4 migrants, 40 per cent are long-distance migrants and 5 20 per cent are resident species. 6 Now what that means is a short-distance 7 migrant is a bird that comes to the boreal forest, 8 breed and then will leave and go to Texas or Mexico. 9 Forty per cent or long-distance migrants meaning they 10 will go to places like Central America or even South 11 America to spend the winter. 12 Now, those migrant species all come under what 13 is called the Migratory Birds Act which means that 14 they have legally mandated federal protection. They 15 are not an endangered species legislation by any 16 stretch of the imagination but what it does have as a 17 regulatory body is that the government is required to 18 understand these patterns to protect these species 19 through international agreements. 20 Now many of these species have fairly large 21 ranges and do occur in the United States as well. 22 But 21 of them breed only in the boreal forest of 23 Western Canada and the majority of those are found 24 that ranges overlap the proposed study area for this 25 hydro project. That means we have an extremely high 2487 1 level of international responsibility for these. 2 Now of these 21, a number of them are what I 3 have referred to earlier as long-distance migrants. 4 Now, long-distance migrants are a group of birds that 5 are right now of particular concern because across 6 North America, we have seen declines in their 7 numbers. Those declines are not well-understood. We 8 don't know the exact mechanisms but there are 9 definite international implications in terms of how 10 we go out managing this. We simply -- you know, 11 Canada, Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service 12 will have to have agreements in place with other 13 government agencies in other countries to maintain 14 these populations. 15 Now, because of the Migratory Bird Act, 16 there's been a number of legal challenges recently 17 put out particularly against the forestry sector in 18 trying to enforce the Migratory Bird Act which says 19 that you will not disturb a nesting bird willingly or 20 knowingly. Now forestry, by definition when it 21 happens in the summertime, cuts over a land base 22 where birds are nesting. So there's been a number of 23 legal challenges under this Act and that Act is going 24 to be in the area of great debate over the next 25 little while. 2488 1 Now, the major issues for the decline of 2 neotropical migrants are thought to be mainly habitat 3 loss and habitat fragmentation. I think it's really 4 important at the outset to say that in this EIS, it 5 was recognized that removal of the native vegetation 6 will result in the loss of habitat for some forest 7 specialists. And that is just a reality. Any linear 8 feature that becomes a permanent conversion on the 9 landscape basically results in a loss of habitat. 10 To give you an idea of the magnitude of the 11 effect, however, I have done some analysis using -- 12 now, this is again very -- a cursory analysis and I 13 must -- you know, it would need a lot more work to be 14 an absolute number, but based on the habitats that 15 were described in the EIS, I've gone through a 16 database that I have that talks about the birds that 17 would be there. And approximately 8,000 territories 18 would be lost due to this power line. 19 Now, in the same light though, some species, 20 as was recognized in the report, will benefit from 21 new habitat created by the power line. And I think 22 that's often put into those environmental impact 23 statements and it's a valid point. However, I think 24 it's also important to note that these are often 25 generalist species of low conservation concern. Are 2489 1 often very common in other environments, particularly 2 in human disturbed landscapes farther south. 3 So in terms of saying biodiversity has gone 4 up, that is true, but it's what is appropriate 5 biodiversity. I think it's a bigger issue. 6 Now, one of the areas that I've found the 7 Environmental Impact Statement is weakest on in this 8 regard was the concept edge effects. Now the effects 9 of a power line can reach substantially beyond the 10 edge of a linear corridor itself. And I think this 11 is really important that this be recognized. 12 Now the edge, to give you a definition, is a 13 place where plant communities such as the power line 14 meet or where successional stages or vegetative 15 conditions within the plant communities come 16 together. And the edge effect is what happens when 17 you have a change in normal ecological processes at 18 this edge interface. 19 Now, birds can respond to edge effects in a 20 variety of different ways. And the literature that 21 was reviewed in the Environmental Impact Assessment 22 was very old in this regard and I believe it needs to 23 be re-evaluated using some of the much more recent 24 literature that summarizes the issue I think much 25 more effectively. 2490 1 But as a general -- my general assessment of 2 edge effects in the literature today would be that 3 birds definitely react to the altered vegetation 4 structure at some distance from the power line. And 5 what this is going to be caused by is changes in the 6 vegetation and microclimate that occur due to the 7 opening up of the landscape. 8 Now again, as I said before, some species 9 respond to this positively, some species respond 10 negatively. What it is is a change and whether it's 11 good or bad depends on your perspective. But most of 12 the species that respond positively are generally 13 species of low conservation concern. 14 Now, edge effects occur for many reasons but 15 the two major ones are that as you open up the 16 landscape, you get increased wind speed in the 17 landscape which can result in greater blow down of 18 trees, resulting in an increased opening of the 19 canopy and that can reduce the suitability of that 20 habitat for certain species. You also can have an 21 increased rate of evapotranspiration changing the 22 moisture gradient which can change the food supply 23 for the birds. 24 And so overall, like I said, it's sort of a 25 back and forth. Some species will do well, some will 2491 1 do poor. But one of the things that was not put out 2 in this report is about how far this edge effect 3 might be. And right now, the current wisdom in the 4 literature that it is typically about three to five 5 times the height of the canopies. You have a 20 6 metre canopy, you might expect an edge effect of 7 about 60 metres. That gives you an idea of the scale 8 at which this might affect birds. 9 Now, simply changing the habitat is not the 10 only thing that will happen with an increase in 11 linear feature density on the landscape. As with 12 caribou, when you saw these changes of predator/prey 13 relationships, you know, wolves using linear features 14 to catch caribou, the same principle holds for forest 15 birds in that many predator species will often move 16 on linear features particularly on the edge. And 17 what this has been shown to do is it can result in 18 reduced nesting success for birds that do choose to 19 put their nests near edges. Now what this means is 20 that yes, the birds are there but they are not 21 reproductively successful meaning that, you know, 22 over time, this could result in declines in 23 populations in these areas. 24 Now, these effects tend to be most focused and 25 there is a lot of debate in the literature as to the 2492 1 generality of this relationship but I think much of 2 that has to do with it depends on where in the 3 landscape you are. If you are close to the southern 4 edge of the boreal forest where the power line may 5 come out and meet up with more towns or more 6 agricultural landscapes, those sorts of places, that 7 is where you're going to see an increase in the 8 number of generalist predators from that landscape 9 and invasive species. 10 One example is a species called the 11 brown-headed cowbird which I have recently 12 demonstrated is moving and increasing its range in 13 the boreal forest the further north you go. And it 14 seems to use linear features throughout the 15 landscape, often using things like power poles as 16 observational perches. 17 Now, the reason the brown-headed cowbird is a 18 negative species in this regard, it is what's called 19 an obligate brood parasite. What that means is it 20 lays its eggs in the nest of other species. And this 21 comes as a reproductive cost to those other species 22 resulting in again reduced reproductive success for 23 those forest birds that live in that environment. 24 Now, this is an area of which I am a little 25 bit less familiar but I think it was important 2493 1 because I didn't see it put in the Environmental 2 Impact Statement. It's just the idea of collisions 3 between power lines and migrating birds. They are 4 undoubtedly going to occur and as more lines get put 5 out on the landscape, the more likely this is to 6 happen. 7 Now in the literature right now, I went 8 through and did a literature search the other day, 9 and on average, people estimate that tens of 10 thousands to hundreds of thousands up to 174 million 11 birds annually are killed by collisions with power 12 lines. This comes from the California Power 13 Authority and a report published by them. 14 Put that in context, I guess what that might 15 mean in Norway, of the power line corridors there, 16 there's about 100,000 grouse are estimated to be 17 killed annually by collisions. And about 650,000 18 grouse are hunted every year. So about, you know, 10 19 to 15 per cent of the annual allowable harvest gets 20 lost to collisions with power lines. 21 Another thing that was put into the EIS and a 22 valid point is that many birds of prey, owls, some of 23 your larger raptors, will use towers for perching. 24 And it is a valid point and they will use them for 25 perching and in fact building nests, so a positive 2494 1 effect. However, there are often times when 2 electrocution of these birds can happen. And because 3 of their small population sizes, even small numbers 4 of birds lost to this type of disturbance can have 5 quite a large population effect. 6 Finally, I'd like to talk a little bit on 7 non-native species. Linear features, and we have 8 demonstrated this on various types of linear features 9 in Alberta, are becoming point sources for the 10 establishment of non-native plants and insects. Now 11 the mechanisms for this are not totally understood 12 but the disturbance created by creating the linear 13 disturbance in the first place is thought to play a 14 role. But also these linear features particularly 15 often are travelled by human equipment that bring new 16 dirt, new seeds, new eggs from particular insects 17 into the environment and these can allow them to find 18 a place to basically set up shop and then, as a 19 result, will become places where these species will 20 spread from. 21 So I guess to summarize what I would like to 22 just point out is that this power line on its own may 23 have, you know, relatively little impact relative to 24 what's going on in the surrounding landscape but it 25 is one more piece in an overall growing cumulative 2495 1 effect that could be having a considerable change in 2 the boreal condition. 3 The magnitude of the loss, the habitat loss 4 from this power line per se will depend on how wide 5 the edge effect is thought to be. And I cannot 6 answer exactly how wide that is and it's going to 7 depend on the species that you talked about. But I 8 think in terms of the precautionary principles with 9 caribou, for example, you might want to start 10 thinking that in fact the area lost is something more 11 like 250 metres plus on either side of that line. 12 One of the things that is a definite reality I 13 think is that adding more linear features to the 14 landscape will change normal predator/prey 15 relationships and this will particularly increase as 16 more and more powerlines or any linear feature goes 17 out on the landscape. 18 What I would argue that the Commission needs 19 to look at is to try and put this power line in the 20 context of your overall plan for that landscape. 21 What will that future look like without this power 22 line? Is it part of a larger plan? 23 And in Alberta, what we've been doing to deal 24 with these issues to try to give us an idea of how 25 many can we put out there before the system is going 2496 1 to be hugely affected is to use modelling software to 2 allow us to predict what the future might hold based 3 on our best scientific knowledge. 4 And I think what you have to recognize is that 5 this power line is just one more piece in the 6 cumulative effects world that's going on out there 7 and the question is do you think it's going to push 8 the system past some threshold. 9 With that, I'll close and happily answer any 10 questions. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bayne. Yes, 12 there are some questions. Mr. Mayer will ask. 13 MR. MAYER: Mr. Bayne, my name is Bob Mayer. 14 I'm one of the Commissioners. I live in Thompson, 15 Manitoba, approximately 60 kilometres due east of the 16 plan site of the Wuskwatim project and one of the 17 terminating ends of one of the power lines we're 18 talking about. 19 Firstly, I should tell you that I have seen 20 the caribou cross the road and two sets of power 21 lines to get just a little south of Ponton. I've 22 seen, or not seen, we were kept away, 300 caribou 23 amassed on our golf course in Thompson, Manitoba a 24 couple of years ago and appeared to have not a great 25 deal of trouble crossing the power lines or the 2497 1 roads. But I understand your point about that, that 2 there may have been a lot more there than actually 3 crossed the roads. 4 I am assuming, sir, that, I guess I should 5 mention the osprey nesting on top of the power polls 6 too along highway number 6. But that aside. I'm 7 taking it, sir, that you've read the material that 8 was relevant especially to the transmission lines. 9 Have you had an opportunity to review the maps? 10 DR. BAYNE: I have looked at them to some 11 degree but I would have to say, you know, I don't 12 know the system well enough to have made a decision 13 as to, you know, the choice of where the line went 14 was a good choice or not. 15 MR. MAYER: I think the Commission or at least 16 I, as a member of this Commission, have some concern 17 about the way the line is planned. And I think my 18 concerns have been heightened by your comments on 19 where the problems may well lie. For example, sir, 20 if you look at the -- if you look at the map, you 21 will see that the line that is planned or the two 22 lines actually that are planned from Wuskwatim to 23 Herblet Lake Station appear to pass through virgin 24 boreal forest. If you move that line over, not a 25 whole lot of kilometres, and move straight east from 2498 1 the Wuskwatim project, you will run into Provincial 2 Trunk Highway number 6 which runs from Thompson, 3 Manitoba, actually runs from north of that, all the 4 way to Winnipeg. But along Provincial Trunk Highway 5 number 6 and leading all the way down Provincial 6 Trunk Highway number 6 down Provincial Road 391 up 7 392 into Snow Lake which is where the area of the 8 Herblet Lake Station is, there is a road and very 9 closely adjacent to the road is at least one set of 10 power lines. 11 Having already established that linear 12 barrier, sir, would it, in your opinion, be more 13 prudent to build the additional lines within close 14 proximity to the already existing linear barriers? 15 DR. BAYNE: The response to that question 16 is -- I mean I will have to be somewhat cagey on this 17 one, but what I will say is that it will depend on 18 the species of particular concern. If by using 19 caribou as an example, I would probably recommend 20 that that would be a better choice than running it 21 into a relatively pristine peatland environment. 22 However, there are concerns that the more -- 23 the more of a series of linear features you put in 24 one place, the more impermeable barrier it comes for 25 other species. And I would throw as an example 2499 1 forest songbirds for example. They will cross linear 2 features a certain width to get to the other side 3 when, you know, in dispersing during their, you know, 4 for when juvenile disperse throughout the landscape. 5 However, the wider and wider they get, the less 6 likely it is they will be to cross that. 7 You know, caribou -- I want to go back to what 8 you said earlier about the caribou because I think 9 this is very important. I am not trying to say that 10 caribou will not be found in disturbed human 11 environments. They are regularly found in Alberta on 12 well pads, you know, on a road. They do not 13 completely avoid these features. And I think that's 14 very important to know. But on average, and I think 15 this was very relevant, is that they spend less time 16 near those than you would expect given what's out 17 there on the landscapes. 18 So that, from a scientific perspective, 19 indicates that they avoid these features to an extent 20 and that there is a reason for that and we're really 21 working on that hard right now to figure out what 22 that is. 23 MR. MAYER: I wonder, sir, you've mentioned 24 the songbirds. I think our corridors are already 25 wider than the width that is mentioned in your paper. 2500 1 But I would ask you to comment on the effect that 2 would have on human access. If you've already got a 3 corridor there, one more isn't going to extensively 4 or even marginally increase human access to virgin 5 area. So how big is the issue of human access? 6 DR. BAYNE: Well, if I was going to have to 7 rank it, I would say human access is probably going 8 to be particularly for your large mammals, fur bears, 9 animals such as those is going to be one of your 10 largest concerns. So in that respect, you know, with 11 that group of organisms, I would be, you know, 12 definitely recommending that putting them together is 13 probably a better strategy. 14 MR. MAYER: Thank you, sir. 15 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman, if I might just 16 interrupt. We did have, and I haven't heard Dr. 17 Bayne indicate where he would like these entered or 18 if he'd like these entered. We have been provided 19 with some additional background documentation and I'm 20 just wondering if Dr. Bayne could give us some 21 indication of where this fits in and whether or not, 22 for example, the Commission will be accepting it as 23 supporting documentation. We haven't distributed 24 them just yet but we have them here. 25 DR. BAYNE: Well, what I provided were a 2501 1 series of scientific publications that basically 2 provide the, you know, the graphical and statistical 3 documentation of the patterns that I described. And 4 what I was hoping by providing those was to give just 5 some more insight into, you know, issues of linear 6 features and edges that I didn't feel were addressed 7 in the EIS. 8 So each one of them represents -- you know, 9 some are my work, some are people I work with, some 10 are others just, you know, other scientific experts 11 in the field. 12 MR. GREWAR: Okay, Mr. Chairman. I can 13 distribute them and then perhaps some consideration 14 can be given as to whether they will be accepted as 15 exhibits or not. In the interim, perhaps you can 16 continue with any questions for Dr. Bayne. It will 17 take me a few minutes to get them distributed. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Mayer. 19 MR. MAYER: Dr. Bayne, these documents have 20 come as a bit of a surprise to us. We found out 21 about them, the Commission, this morning and I think 22 I see the proponents shaking their heads at this 23 point because I'm not sure they were aware of them at 24 this point. 25 Dr. Bayne, when were you retained by Canadian 2502 1 Nature Federation or requested to give evidence in 2 this matter? 3 DR. BAYNE: I was -- I wouldn't be able to say 4 exactly to the day but within about the last two 5 weeks. 6 MR. MAYER: The last two weeks. Were you 7 asked to provide a report on your findings and on 8 what you expected to say? 9 DR. BAYNE: I was asked to provide an overview 10 of a talk and that I provided to them ahead of time. 11 MR. MAYER: So you had to put this together I 12 take it in the last couple of weeks then; am I 13 correct? 14 DR. BAYNE: Yes. 15 MR. MAYER: Doctor, and I realize this is -- 16 and certainly no fault of yours if that's the amount 17 of time you had, we have a little concern about 18 procedural fairness in that the possibility of the 19 proponent and in fact our Commission advisors not 20 having the opportunity to review these matters and 21 making it somewhat difficult to question you on what 22 material may be contained in them and which of those 23 materials that you are relying on. However, I thank 24 you for clarifying the amount of time you had to 25 become involved in this, sir. 2503 1 DR. BAYNE: Certainly. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, there are other questions. 3 Just bear with us. Mr. Harvey Nepinak. 4 MR. NEPINAK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. 5 Bayne, I am a member of the Panel and I'm also a 6 First Nations individual. I come from and live in a 7 First Nations community, north central Manitoba known 8 as the Interlake area. 9 I am interested in knowing, you know, your 10 work that you say you've done, your research in 11 Alberta. My first question is have you, in doing 12 this research, have you had the opportunity to work 13 with First Nations and elders? And my second one is 14 your familiarity of what we use here is traditional 15 knowledge, I wonder if you can expand a bit on that 16 to the Panel? 17 DR. BAYNE: I would argue that much of the 18 research that I have described has probably not gone 19 on with the collaboration of the First Nations to any 20 great extent. Some of the work that I did when I 21 worked during my masters in Ph.D. I worked with the 22 Canadian Wildlife Service and I worked with a group 23 called the Manitoba -- sorry, I did work with the 24 Manitoba Model Forest but I was mainly focused with 25 the Prince Albert model forest. And it did have 2504 1 partnerships with First Nations people and we did 2 work together in assessment of, you know, much of 3 what we learned about forest songbird communities in 4 terms of habitat association. It did not directly 5 pertain to the work that I have described today which 6 mainly has an Alberta focus and no, has not relied on 7 traditional knowledge to any great extent. 8 MR. NEPINAK: But you are aware that one of 9 the proponents of this project is a First Nations? 10 DR. BAYNE: Yes, I am. 11 MR. NEPINAK: I don't have any more questions. 12 Thank you. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Nepinak. Mr. 14 Bayne, I noticed that the documents that are being 15 distributed are all dated March 15th, Monday of this 16 week. I gather that's the date on which, well 17 perhaps not all of them, but most of them are dated 18 either March 15th or March 14th. That's the date 19 that they were compiled, the date they were sent? 20 I'm not sure which. 21 DR. BAYNE: That is the date they were sent, 22 yes. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: And these are documents that 24 you are sending as additional reference materials and 25 upon which you have drawn or which bear some relation 2505 1 to the presentation that you made? 2 DR. BAYNE: Correct. 3 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Other questions? 4 Yes. Just bear with us for a moment. Some are 5 coming to the mike. Mr. Byron Williams. 6 MR. WILLIAMS: Dr. Bayne, I am a lawyer. I 7 work for the Consumers Association, the Manitoba 8 Society of Seniors. And I just have a couple of 9 questions for you. And I guess the first one is you 10 have provided a lot of information and I'm looking 11 over towards the Chair for guidance, but if I have a 12 chat with my clients and they say that they'd like a 13 chance to absorb your information and talk to you at 14 a later date, is it possible that you would be 15 available later on in the hearing to speak with my 16 clients? 17 DR. BAYNE: Yes. 18 MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. On that, in terms of 19 your specific study or the specific paper you have 20 presented today, my real focus is, or not focus, but 21 just in terms of habitat loss. And you make 22 reference to, I think you made reference to kind of a 23 rough model and you referenced the potential for the 24 loss of habitat in the range of 8,000 birds. And I 25 wonder, again I don't need an explanation of the 2506 1 model today, but I wonder if you could undertake for 2 my clients to provide in writing a brief description 3 of that model and of the assumptions you used in 4 inputting into that model and from your perspective 5 some of the strengths and weaknesses of the model. 6 It doesn't have to be long but it would help my 7 clients in terms of assessing kind of the 8,000 8 figure. Would that be possible, sir? 9 DR. BAYNE: It is possible. I want to stress, 10 however, that is data that comes from, you know, 11 my -- this is data that I have and it is data from 12 environments similar to what might be there but I 13 don't know exactly what habitat types this was and 14 those are very important assumptions that go into the 15 model. 16 I can provide a very short, you know, one-page 17 description of the type of data that, you know, we 18 have as biologists and where we're coming from in 19 terms of numbers. But it will not be perfectly 20 accurate for your situation simply because there is a 21 lot of variability in how birds respond from habitat 22 types. 23 24 (UNDERTAKING CNF 42: Have Dr. Bayne provide a brief 25 description of rough model re potential for the loss 2507 1 of habitat in the range of 8,000 birds) 2 3 MR. WILLIAMS: Dr. Bayne, on behalf of my 4 clients, we do thank you. We think your information 5 is important not just for this hearing but for future 6 issues which may arise. 7 Mr. Chairman, before I sit down, I have talked 8 with my colleague, Ms. Paulette Smith, and she has 9 indicated that she may want, after consulting with 10 the clients, an opportunity to talk with Dr. Bayne at 11 a future period in time. So from our perspective, 12 we're making that request to the Panel to -- you 13 know, we don't have instructions from our clients on 14 that point but if they do wish to pursue some of his 15 evidence further, we'll make that request to the 16 Panel that we could stand down now and reserve the 17 right to resume with Dr. Bayne at some future date. 18 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Bedford. 20 MR. BEDFORD: Good morning, Dr. Bayne. My 21 name is Doug Bedford and I am one of the counsel for 22 Manitoba Hydro. Given the hour on the clock, I sense 23 that some of the species, Dr. Bayne, in this room are 24 getting a little anxious about their own food supply. 25 2508 1 So I, too, am going to ask that you be brought back. 2 I also recognize that some people in this room 3 have learned that if you give me as much as 404 pages 4 the day before, I can get it read and ask questions. 5 But when I'm handed something like 100 pages after 6 oral testimony, I'm just not that quick. 7 Before I let you go, however, I am quite keen 8 to know, Dr. Bayne, precisely what portions of the 9 Environmental Impact Statement you have read and 10 particularly whether you read any of the 11 interrogatory or information responses to the 12 Canadian Nature Federation, Manitoba Wildlands? 13 DR. BAYNE: Okay. The latter part of your 14 question, no, I did not. Simply I did not have time. 15 And I don't remember actually seeing that to be 16 honest. But the EIS I was provided with. I read the 17 first two chapters and I believe chapter 6 was also 18 one that highlighted most of the wildlife issues. 19 You know, and I also did chapter 3, 4 and 5 but 20 perhaps not in as much detail as I would have liked. 21 MR. BEDFORD: We wonder whether you have read 22 volume 4 of the transmission line EIS? 23 DR. BAYNE: I am just going to check here on 24 my computer if you give me a second? 25 MR. BEDFORD: Of course. 2509 1 DR. BAYNE: You are referring to chapter 4, 2 the description of the existing environment? Is that 3 the chapter you are referring to? 4 THE CHAIRMAN: There's just some consultation 5 going on. 6 MR. BEDFORD: There are, Dr. Bayne, two sets 7 of volumes. 8 DR. BAYNE: Let me tell you what I have, okay. 9 MR. BEDFORD: Please do. 10 DR. BAYNE: I cannot pronounce this. I'm not 11 from Manitoba. Wuskwatim Transmission Project, 12 Environmental Impact Assessment Volume 1 April 2003, 13 that is what I read, the majority. I read many of 14 the chapters from that EIS statement. 15 MR. BEDFORD: Okay. There is an EIS 16 Generation and Transmission Line. Did you read that? 17 DR. BAYNE: Again, without being -- like I 18 said, what I just described, I read the chapters from 19 that document and that was the majority. 20 MR. BEDFORD: And my recollection is you've 21 just said a volume from the EIS Transmission Line? 22 DR. BAYNE: Yeah. 23 MR. BEDFORD: Not the EIS Generation Station? 24 DR. BAYNE: Right. No, I have not read 25 anything from the EIS Generation Station. Everything 2510 1 was on the Transmission Line. 2 MR. BEDFORD: Okay. And someone has also just 3 asked me to clarify with you. In your discussion of 4 edge effects, which species were you referring to? 5 DR. BAYNE: In terms of the birds or -- 6 MR. BEDFORD: Well, I think that's the 7 question. Which species of birds? 8 DR. BAYNE: Well, I would argue that with 9 caribou, you are seeing a -- they have a zone of 10 avoidance of linear features. That is the working 11 model in Alberta right now, that they will avoid 12 roads by up to 500 metres, pipelines and larger 13 linear features by up to about 250 metres and seismic 14 lines by about up to 100 metres. So that is the 15 assessment for caribou. 16 For wolves, coyotes and deer for example, 17 there is probably -- they like the linear features. 18 They prefer them it seems. Though exactly whether 19 that translates into how far into the forest they 20 move off of those, we do not know. 21 With forest songbirds, I am referring to edge 22 effects. There are several species that are shown to 23 have a negative response to forest edges and that is 24 replete throughout the literature. There are many 25 examples that you could draw upon. 2511 1 The specific species in your study area, there 2 is very little data to say that your study area is 3 like one versus another and I won't be able to assess 4 that per se. All I can give you is a general 5 perception of, you know, the large body of literature 6 on this. There are certain species and I could 7 provide a list if necessary of ones that definitely 8 respond negatively to edges. 9 MR. BEDFORD: That's helpful. 10 11 (UNDERTAKING CNF-43: Have Dr. Bayne provide list of 12 species that respond negatively to edges) 13 14 MR. BEDFORD: I am also requested to clarify 15 with you I believe you made a comment that whoever 16 wrote the EIS was not familiar with recent 17 literature? 18 DR. BAYNE: I don't think I would say not 19 familiar but I would say they drew on old examples 20 that, you know, there is a more -- there is much more 21 information available than some of the documentation 22 they provided. 23 MR. BEDFORD: Can you be a little more 24 precise, and it will help me and it will help the 25 people with whom I must review this, which newer 2512 1 studies and information are you relying upon when you 2 make the observation that whoever wrote the EIS was 3 relying on older studies? 4 DR. BAYNE: Well, I mean there is a great 5 number of studies, for example, on -- there are 6 several reviews in -- I mean I would have to sit down 7 and put them together because this is a very -- you 8 know, this is not a single paper that talks about 9 this. This is a large body of literature that is 10 being, you know, is being summarized by my own 11 experience. But there are several what are called 12 review papers that discuss the issue of edge effects 13 and what we know and what we don't know. Those in 14 particular focus on -- many of them focus on nest 15 predation. I can definitely provide those 16 references. But off the top of my head, I don't. 17 MR. BEDFORD: I think we've sorted out that 18 one of the things unfortunately that was not provided 19 to you was Volume 4 of the Transmission EIS. There 20 is a detailed list of literature that was reviewed 21 that's provided there. But in fairness to you, you 22 never got the volume so you can't tell me whether or 23 not the new literature that you envision is in fact 24 included in that list of material that was read? 25 DR. BAYNE: That is correct. 2513 1 MR. BEDFORD: Thank you. Mr. Chair, I'm 2 worried about my food supply so I'm done for the 3 moment but we definitely would like Dr. Bayne to 4 rejoin us at a convenient time to him and to us and 5 to you. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Bedford. 7 And, Mr. Bayne, you have agreed, if I heard you 8 correctly, when it's convenient to you and we'll try 9 to establish that through connection, you are agreed 10 that we could get hold of you by telephone at some 11 future date as I understand? 12 DR. BAYNE: Yes, that would be fine. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: It would not likely be before 14 somewhere in mid-April. 15 DR. BAYNE: Fine. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Ms. Gaile Whelan 17 Enns wants a word. 18 MS. WHELAN ENNS: Dr. Bayne, I just wanted to 19 thank you thoroughly and confirm that we, in asking 20 you for your volunteer services to assist these 21 hearings, did not include or any expectation in 22 respect to generation station materials. For the 23 next time when you are available to the Commission, I 24 would ask you to take a look specifically in relation 25 to the four woodland caribou herds affected by the 2514 1 project regions or the project's region and the 2 calving site in respect to the generation station. 3 Otherwise we appreciate the time you've taken 4 from your teaching schedule including your late, and 5 surprising to us but we're grateful, presentation 6 material and we look forward to hearing from you in 7 April. 8 DR. BAYNE: Thank you. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you again, Dr. Bayne. 10 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman, if I might just 11 delay lunch for a few moments to enter these 12 exhibits, then I'll read the titles and assign a 13 number. The first would be CNF 1006 and it is Dr. 14 Bayne's presentation document, Potential Impacts of 15 Wuskwatim Hydro Project on boreal biodiversity, CNF 16 1006. 17 18 (EXHIBIT CNF 1006: Potential Impacts of 19 Wuskwatim Hydro Project on Boreal 20 Biodiversity, Dr. Erin Bayne) 21 22 MR. GREWAR: CNF 1007 would be Estimates and 23 population consequences of Tetraonid Mortality caused 24 by collisions with high tension power lines in 25 Norway, CNF 1007. 2515 1 2 (EXHIBIT CNF 1007: Estimates and Population 3 Consequences of Tetraonid Mortality Caused by 4 Collisions with High Tension Power Lines in 5 Norway) 6 7 MR. GREWAR: CNF 1008 would be Cowbirds 8 Breeding in the Central Appalachians: Spatial and 9 Temporal Patterns and Habitat Selection, CNF 1008. 10 11 (EXHIBIT CNF 1008: Cowbirds Breeding in the 12 Central Appalachians: Spatial and Temporal 13 Patterns and Habitat Selection) 14 15 MR. GREWAR: CNF 1009, Protecting Birds From 16 Powerlines. A practical guide on the risks to birds 17 from electricity transmission facilities and how to 18 minimize any such adverse effects, CNF 1009. 19 20 (EXHIBIT CNF 1009: Protecting Birds From 21 Powerlines. A practical guide on the risks 22 to birds from electricity transmission 23 facilities and how to minimize any such 24 adverse effects) 25 2516 1 MR. GREWAR: CNF 1010, Changes in Wildlife 2 Communities Near Edges, CNF 1010. 3 4 (EXHIBIT CNF 1010: Changes in Wildlife 5 Communities Near Edges) 6 7 MR. GREWAR: And finally, Defining Forest 8 Fragmentation by Corridor Width: The Influence of 9 Narrow Forest Dividing Corridors on Forest-Nesting 10 Birds in Southern New Jersey, CNF 1011. 11 12 (EXHIBIT CNF 1011: Defining Forest 13 Fragmentation By Corridor Width: The Influence 14 of Narrow Forest Dividing Corridors on 15 Forest-Nesting Birds in Southern New Jersey) 16 MR. GREWAR: These are all obviously different 17 publications by different authors and from different 18 sources but they will be listed in their entirety in 19 the transcript and in the exhibit list. Thank you. 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Matthews Lemieux? 21 MS. MATTHEWS LEMIEUX: I have some documents 22 that I will tender at this time. I indicated that I 23 would provide you with a copy of the Law Society's 24 letter dismissing the complaint of Mr. Monias and I 25 have that available. In addition, we also have a 2517 1 copy of the Custom Election Code that Mr. Nepinak 2 asked about yesterday in terms of the provisions that 3 my client operates under in terms of their election. 4 So we have that. 5 In addition, we have the decisions of the 6 Federal Court in relation to the NCN elections. 7 Those are all judicial decisions. And I also 8 indicated the other day when Mr. Rudnicki was here 9 that I would provide a copy of the parties who are on 10 the Style of Cause in the Minnesota Court of Appeal 11 and I have that Style of Cause as well. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Now, we shall let 13 Mr. Bedford go to his food and if there are others 14 who are likewise inclined, they can also go. We'll 15 reconvene at one o'clock. 16 17 (PROCEEDINGS RECESSED AT 12:07 P.M. 18 AND RECONVENED AT 1:00 P.M.) 19 20 21 THE CHAIRMAN: It is getting time for 22 us to get back on the road here. All right. I 23 have a feeling that we need a second floor in the 24 front here. 25 We are ready to begin, and I will ask 2518 1 Mr. Grewar, first of all, to file certain 2 exhibits. 3 MR. GREWAR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 4 I have quite a number of exhibits actually to 5 assign numbers to. To begin with, some items that 6 were mentioned by Valerie Matthews Lemieux on 7 behalf of NCN just before the break, and I would 8 like to assign exhibit numbers to them and provide 9 a brief description. 10 The first item would be exhibited as 11 number MH/NCN 1012. It is correspondence dated 12 March 20, 2001, from Richard C.M. Porter, who is 13 with the Law Society of Manitoba, to Valerie 14 Matthews Lemieux, regarding a complaint of Tommy 15 Monias of Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation. That would 16 be exhibit 1012. Exhibit. 17 18 (EXHIBIT MH/NCN-1012: Letter, March 19 20, 2001 from Law Society of Manitoba) 20 21 MR. GREWAR: MH/NCN 1013 is State of 22 Minnesota in the Court of Appeal, Pimicikamak Cree 23 Nation versus Minnesota Public Utilities 24 Commission as respondents, and that is the case 25 number A030836, that is exhibit 1013. 2519 1 2 (EXHIBIT MH/NCN-1013: State of 3 Minnesota in Court of Appeal, 4 Pimicikamak Cree Nation versus 5 Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, 6 number A030836) 7 8 MR. GREWAR: Exhibit MH/NCN 1014 is 9 case name, Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation versus 10 Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation Appeal Committee, 11 Federal Court of Canada Trial Division, Toronto, 12 Ontario, April 16, 2003. That is exhibit 1014. 13 14 (EXHIBIT MH/NCN-1014: Nisichawayasihk 15 Cree Nation versus Nisichawayasihk 16 Cree Nation Appeal Committee, Federal 17 Court of Canada Trial Division, 18 Toronto, Ontario, April 16, 2003) 19 20 MR. GREWAR: Exhibit MH/NCN-1015 is 21 Federal Court of Appeal Certificate of Judgment, 22 Jerry Primrose et al versus Jimmy D. Spence et al, 23 and that is dated February 2, 2004, exhibit 1015. 24 25 2520 1 (EXHIBIT MH/NCN-1015 is Federal Court 2 of Appeal Certificate of Judgment, 3 Jerry Primrose et al versus Jimmy D. 4 Spence et al, February 2, 2004) 5 6 MR. GREWAR: Exhibit MH/NCN-1016 is 7 the Election Code table of contents -- it is the 8 entire code, my apologies -- the Nisichawayasihk 9 Cree Nation Laws Election Code, 1998, E.1, dated 10 August 9, 2002. That is 1016. 11 12 (EXHIBIT MH/NCN-1016: Nisichawayasihk 13 Cree Nation Laws Election Code, 1998, 14 E.1, August 9, 2002) 15 16 MR. GREWAR: Exhibit MH/NCN-1017 is 17 correspondence received from Douglas Bedford of 18 Manitoba Hydro regarding Wuskwatim Generation and 19 Transmission Projects and some documentation. I 20 will just read the introduction. It is to the 21 Commission, Secretary of the Commission, March 18, 22 2004, and it indicates. 23 "I confirm that the proponents do wish 24 the following documents included in 25 the exhibit list of the present 2521 1 hearing. I am informed that notice of 2 the location of the documents and 3 their relevance to the present 4 hearings was provided to all parties 5 prior to March 1, 2004. I also 6 confirm that I am advised that all of 7 the documents were provided to the 8 Federal Department of Fisheries and 9 Oceans for filing in the relevant 10 Federal registry." 11 I will list as a part of that exhibit the items, 12 there are seven documents that will be included 13 and now added as exhibit list. That would be 14 exhibit 1017. 15 16 (EXHIBIT MH/NCN-1017: Correspondence 17 from Douglas Bedford of Manitoba Hydro 18 regarding Wuskwatim Generation and 19 Transmission Projects and 20 documentation, March 18, 2004) 21 22 MR. GREWAR: Then the final one is 23 MH/NCN-1018, and this is exhibit 3-1 Manitoba 24 Industrial and Agricultural reference case 25 activity levels. You recall this is the document 2522 1 that Alex Fleming had agreed to provide to the 2 Commission in an updated format, and he has now 3 done so and that will be exhibit 1018. 4 5 (EXHIBIT MH/NCN-1018: Manitoba 6 Industrial and Agricultural reference 7 case activity levels, updated format, 8 provided by Mr. Fleming) 9 10 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman, just to let 11 you know, the descriptions in the actual exhibit 12 list and in the transcript are more detailed. I 13 just provide a brief introduction or description 14 so that they can be identified for the purpose of 15 assigning a number, just so everyone is aware of 16 that. 17 Mr. Chairman, the presentation of the 18 Canadian Nature Federation is in a sense suspended 19 temporarily. The final individual that is to be 20 reached by telephone, Mr. Robert Hornung, is not 21 available until 3:00 o'clock and after. So what 22 we are going to do, I believe with you permission, 23 is proceed with cross-examination, and then 24 Mr. Hornung will be heard after the break. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 2523 1 Mr. Bedford. 2 MR. BEDFORD: Mr. Chair, we have one 3 more undertaking to answer, and Ms. Lynn Wray is 4 with me, it is an undertaking that she was 5 familiar with during the questioning of the NFAAT 6 panel, and I will turn the microphone over to her 7 so we can enter the answer to the particular 8 undertaking. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Wray. 10 MS. WRAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 11 This is undertaking Manitoba Hydro 16, in which we 12 were asked by Mr. Abra to provide financial 13 projections showing the impact of Wuskwatim 14 advancement assuming two times DSM and 15 250 megawatts of wind generation. I do have 16 copies here, and we can make more if required, and 17 they contain the full financial statements and 18 also a couple of summary graphs which show that 19 even with two times DSM and 250 megawatts of wind 20 generation, there is very little change on the 21 impacts to the up-front debt ratio or to the 22 potential cumulative customer rate savings. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 24 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman, if I might, 25 just assign an exhibit to undertaking MH-16 as 2524 1 just filed as MH/NCN 1019. 2 3 (EXHIBIT MH/NCN-1019: Answer to 4 Undertaking MH-16) 5 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Wray. 7 MS. WRAY: Mr. Chairman, I forgot to 8 mention that we still have one other undertaking 9 outstanding which relates to financial projections 10 if Wuskwatim were to be advanced under 11 circumstances of both a drought, low export prices 12 and higher capital costs. We are still working on 13 that. There has been some ill staff, which has 14 held things up a little bit, but I am still 15 hopeful we can get that to you by the end of this 16 week. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We begin 18 now with the EIS, and I am told that we are going 19 on a trip, so let's see the scenery. 20 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman, there is 21 one additional witness for Manitoba Hydro, he will 22 be assisting in this presentation, and he has not 23 yet been sworn in. I wonder if he could just 24 identify himself and I will do the honours. 25 MR. MCMAHON: Blair McMahon of TetrES 2525 1 Consultants. 2 MR. GREWAR: Mr. McMahon, are you 3 aware that it is an offence in Manitoba to 4 knowingly mislead this Commission? 5 MR. MCMAHON: I do. 6 MR. GREWAR: Do you promise to tell 7 only the truth in these proceedings before this 8 Commission? 9 MR. MCMAHON: I do. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Thomas. 11 MR. THOMAS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 12 The people that are sitting here 13 constitute our EIS panel. I would just like to 14 make some very brief introductions. Over here to 15 my right I have Cam MacInnes, he is with Unis. To 16 my left, or more to my rear we have Mr. Ken Adams, 17 who is the vice-president for power supply with 18 Manitoba Hydro. And then we have Cam Osler over 19 here, he works with InterGroup Consultants. We 20 have George Rempel working with TetrES, Stuart 21 Davies working with North/South. We have Mr. Dave 22 Hicks who works with ND Lea. And we have Ron 23 Mazur, he is manager for transmissions. And we 24 have Mr. Ed Wojczynski with us as well, who is in 25 charge of power planning. And that constitutes 2526 1 our EIS panel. 2 We have a person from our group here 3 who will be coordinating the questions, and all of 4 the questions should be directed to Mr. George 5 Rempel, who will then determine who would be the 6 best person to answer the particular question 7 being put forward. Thank you. 8 MR. REMPEL: Thank you, Mr. Thomas. 9 As he explained, I will be the coordinator of the 10 questions. The EIS covers a broad range of topics 11 and I will attempt to direct the question to the 12 right responder. 13 Before I do that, I would like to make 14 a proposal how we could use the next time, the 15 available hour before the CNF panel witness takes 16 the stand by phone at 2:00 o'clock. We would like 17 to use this time to respond to two matters that 18 were -- at 3:00 o'clock, okay. We would like to 19 respond to several matters that were raised by the 20 Commission with regard to transmission lines. 21 Firstly, Mr. Mayer has expressed 22 interest in an alternative route. This option was 23 considered by the transmission line team. We have 24 some information that we would like to present. 25 Secondly, there is also interest 2527 1 expressed in some video of the transmission line 2 route. We have a short presentation showing some 3 representative land forms and some photos of those 4 land forms. And if time permits, we also have a 5 short video, some video clips of various sections 6 of the route. 7 With your permission we would like to 8 present that material first before the questioning 9 proper begins. So we seek your advice or your 10 direction on that. 11 THE CHAIRMAN: That was my assumption 12 and that is why I indicated that we were going on 13 a trip. 14 MR. REMPEL: Okay. I will then turn 15 it over to Mr. Dave Hicks, he is the lead for the 16 transmission line studies and he will take us 17 through the presentation. 18 MR. HICKS: Dave Hicks for the record. 19 With your permission, Mr. Chairman, we would like 20 to make one or two introductory remarks with 21 respect to the alternative concept that was 22 identified by Commissioner Mayer in questioning of 23 Mr. Mazur to my left earlier this week. Ron and I 24 have done some work in the interim to look at the 25 alternative concept identified by Mr. Mayer and 2528 1 are comfortable that we can make a useful 2 presentation to the Commission in that regard. 3 In opening that presentation, though, 4 a couple of quick comments. First, I would want 5 to assure members of the Commission that the 6 present routing proposal was arrived at only after 7 a great deal of consultation and study with the 8 affected interest groups, and that the conclusion 9 of our environmental team, and the proponents 10 agreed with that conclusion, is that there are no 11 significant adverse affects with the proposal as 12 it is currently standing in front of you. 13 The second point that I would like to 14 make is that the matter of alternative routes, and 15 some of the issues that revolve around that 16 question, costs, the relative merits of combining 17 rights-of-way, or combining lines in a single 18 right-of-way, has been addressed quite extensively 19 in some of the interrogatories. And I have 20 prepared, and if the Commission wishes we can file 21 as an exhibit a list of perhaps 20 or 25 22 interrogatories that deal directly with this 23 matter. And I would like that to be on the 24 record, so that not just the Commission would know 25 where they can find additional information here, 2529 1 but also some of the audience could be assured 2 that we have in fact looked at much more than the 3 particular route that is currently in front of 4 you. 5 Thirdly, I would comment that in the 6 particular case of the construction power line, 7 which is the line that would run from the proposed 8 Birchtree Station south of Thompson into Wuskwatim 9 itself, to provide in the first instance 10 construction power to the generation site, that we 11 looked at a number of alternatives. And one 12 particular alternative that we looked at, at the 13 request of NCN, was a route C it was called, 14 alternative C, that would have gone south along 15 Highway 6 from Thompson, and then moved on into 16 Wuskwatim rather more directly. Not exactly what 17 Mr. Mayer I believe has identified, but something 18 along those lines. And that was considered in the 19 actual alternative routing in process for the 20 construction power line. 21 Now, with that, I could ask that we 22 get our first -- sorry, it should be the map 1 -- 23 bear with us for a moment. 24 As I said, we went back and Ron and I 25 reviewed the transcript of Mr. Mayer's comments, 2530 1 and we believe that this map properly identifies 2 the concept that was identified in the 3 transcript. Proceeding from the upper right 4 corner of the map, we have shown in red between 5 the proposed Thompson/Birchtree Station and the 6 proposed Wuskwatim Generating Station, the single 7 230-kilovolt line that would provide construction 8 power. These are shown schematically. We have 9 shown the two 230-kilowatt proposed lines which 10 would link Wuskwatim Generating Station with the 11 existing Herblet Lake Station, north of Snow Lake. 12 And we have shown in green the additional third 13 component or third segment, which is a 230 kV line 14 between Snow Lake and the existing Ralls Island 15 station in The Pas. 16 The lengths that are noted or 17 annotated on the drawing explain something of the 18 routing process. You will note, for example, that 19 in the section between Thompson and Wuskwatim, the 20 straight line length is 43 kilometres. The length 21 that we arrived at after routing was actually 45 22 kilometres. And that in some regards reflects the 23 changes that you make in the course of a routing 24 process. In this particular case some of that was 25 dealing with the crossing of the river and access 2531 1 into the generation site itself. 2 For the leg between Wuskwatim and 3 Herblet Lake, we are looking at a straight line 4 length of 121 kilometres, but by the time we had 5 routed that and dealt with concerns and issues 6 identified to us by the NCN members and by 7 residents of Snow Lake, that was up to 137 8 kilometres, and that is the proposal in front of 9 you. 10 And finally on the leg between Snow 11 Lake and The Pas, we moved from a straight line 12 schematic length of 146 kilometres, which by the 13 way you can see would have gone through Clear 14 Water Lake and Cormorant Lake, and that goes up to 15 165 kilometres with the routing process in place. 16 So the red lines plus the green lines 17 is currently what is in front of the Commission as 18 a proposed project on the transmission project 19 side. 20 The blue lines represent the concept 21 that was identified to Mr. Mazur in questioning by 22 Commissioner Mayer. The first is a leg that would 23 extend from Thompson to a point 31 kilometres 24 southwest of Thompson, where there is currently a 25 small station, the Pipe Lake Station, on the 2532 1 existing transmission line linking Thompson to 2 Ponton, linking Thompson/Mystery Lake Station to 3 Ponton. The reason we have chosen that is not 4 because it is the very shortest distance from 5 Wuskwatim, but because there is an existing 6 station there. We could have actually reduced the 7 length into Wuskwatim from what is now shown as 23 8 kilometres down to about 20 kilometres, but we 9 felt there was some merit, if we were going to use 10 this concept, we would like to take advantage of 11 the fact that there is an existing site there, and 12 possibly at some future date that might be of use 13 to the corporation. 14 So the leg from Thompson to Pipe Lake 15 then would be 31 kilometres long as the crow 16 flies. This is again the schematic distance. The 17 construction power line would go from there 18 directly into Wuskwatim, another 23 kilometres as 19 the crow flies. And then the two lines that would 20 feed the system from Wuskwatim would come back out 21 to the transmission line adjacent to Highway 6, go 22 down parallel to the transmission line and Highway 23 6 to Ponton, which is roughly the junction of 24 Number 6 Highway and Number 39. And then we would 25 go directly again as the crow flies 65 kilometres 2533 1 into Herblet Lake. 2 Now, again, I think in one of the 3 subsequent tables we referred to this as the 4 highway option. In point of fact, that leg would 5 not be along Highway 39, it would be along an 6 existing transmission line that extends from 7 Ponton into Herblet Lake, and there is a 8 substantial cost advantage there in relation to 9 length. But I think it would achieve the same 10 ends that I believe were at the root of 11 Mr. Mayer's comments about looking at this as an 12 alternative concept. 13 So with your permission then, what we 14 went ahead and did was had a look at that concept, 15 as best we could, both from a cost perspective and 16 in a very preliminary way from an environmental 17 perspective. And I remind you that to look at 18 concepts from an environmental perspective is very 19 difficult, because we don't have a clear route, we 20 haven't examined this route in any detail. There 21 would undoubtedly be areas that we wish to avoid. 22 And there may be areas where widening of the 23 right-of-way may not be simple. So we would have 24 to look at that in much greater detail, but we are 25 comfortable that this represents a reasonable sort 2534 1 of first cut at what might be the implications of 2 going to this option. 3 Before I get into the question of 4 costs, there were a couple of items in the 5 transcript that I would like to deal with. One 6 was the notion that we would be relying on, or 7 that we might be relying on helicopter 8 construction techniques. Helicopter construction 9 is not generally used in the transmission line 10 development process. The rights-of-way are sized, 11 and this is reflected in the EIS, they are sized 12 in such a width that helicopter access for 13 emergency maintenance is feasible. But during the 14 construction process, probably the only time that 15 you might see use of a helicopter, would be in 16 very difficult terrain conditions. If you were in 17 severe rock terrain, if there was not enough level 18 ground at the site of the tower to be able to 19 actually assemble the tower on site and then tip 20 it into place, it might be cost effective, and 21 occasionally is, to assemble the tower off site, 22 deliver it by helicopter to the foundation and 23 drop it into place, but that would be a rare 24 circumstance. For the most part, the construction 25 process involves access down the transmission 2535 1 line. And it is that requirement of access down 2 the transmission line right-of-way that really 3 leads to the point that is often confusing to 4 people that we deal with in this and other 5 projects, our argument and our firm belief that 6 there is truly no cost saving associated with 7 being adjacent to a roadway or highway. 8 Whatever else you might do, you still 9 have to have access down the right-of-way in order 10 to string out the conductors and lift them into 11 place and tension them. That cost really is the 12 determining factor in terms of the construction 13 costs of the line. 14 Obviously, in this case, if we were 15 marshalling materials from Thompson or from The 16 Pas, there would be an advantage in terms of 17 getting materials to the site, we concede that, 18 but we don't believe that the cost saving would be 19 at all significant. And furthermore, we would be 20 concerned that because of the length penalty that 21 is involved here, we would be incurring some 22 considerable risk, because this wants to be a 23 winter construction project, because winter 24 construction is what gives us a lot of the 25 assurance that we can do this without seriously 2536 1 affecting the environment. 2 So on that basis, again, I would 3 remind that in the view of Manitoba Hydro there is 4 no cost saving associated with construction 5 adjacent to a roadway. 6 MR. MAYER: I can't read the numbers. 7 Can you tell me about the extra length, please? 8 MR. HICKS: Yes, I can. I am coming 9 to that directly. Can I give you just a little 10 bit more information before I do? 11 We had to make some assumptions about 12 right-of-way widths here as well because that has 13 some implications, not so much for the costs as 14 for the environmental implications. In the 15 section south from Thompson to Pipe Lake Station, 16 we are assuming -- we have not confirmed this -- 17 that the existing transmission line probably 18 occupies a right-of-way of about 60 metres. If we 19 were to widen it, we would want to bring it to 20 that standard because that currently is the 21 standard that Manitoba Hydro is looking for. To 22 provide 50 metres separation between that line and 23 the new line, and a 30 metre separation from the 24 new line and the new edge of the right-of-way, we 25 would have to add 50 metres of right-of-way to 2537 1 achieve that format or that configuration. 2 In the section that would go from Pipe 3 Lake in to Wuskwatim, where there would now be 4 three lines, we would each separate it by 50 5 metres and then a 30 metre distance on either side 6 to achieve the necessary separation at the edge of 7 right-of-way. We would be looking at a 8 right-of-way width of 160 metres, which would be 9 entirely new. And in the remaining section, where 10 we would be paralleling existing lines between 11 Pipe Lake and Ponton, and Ponton and Herblet Lake, 12 we would be widening by 100 metres, which would be 13 the 50 metres separation from the existing line 14 plus the 30 metre new separation at the edge of 15 right-of-way. 16 We have also said, and this is why I 17 drew your attention earlier to the difference 18 between the straight line lengths in schematic and 19 the additional length that is required once you 20 have been through the routing process. We have 21 assumed that we would have to factor up the 22 straight line distances by, we have assumed by 23 10 percent. In my experience that figure can be 24 anywhere from 10, to 15, or even 20 percent, but 25 we have assumed 10 percent here. And that is more 2538 1 or less consistent with what we described to you 2 as our experience in the current proposal. 3 Now, again, a very serious caution 4 here that we really can't make a valid comparison 5 of these routes from an environmental perspective 6 to the present proposal because we haven't been 7 through a formal site selection and environmental 8 assessment process. Again, I would remind that is 9 a rigorous process. If we look at only the period 10 of time that has elapsed between our first going 11 out beyond NCN to deal with other communities with 12 respect to routing of these line segments, and the 13 filing of the application in August -- or rather 14 in April of 2003 -- we began the consultation 15 process, the round one, if you will, with the 16 other communities in about September of '01. So 17 we are looking at about a 20 month time lapse 18 between initiating the site selection process and 19 filing an EIS. There might be some economies 20 because of the work that has been done previously, 21 and if we were to do that again, but there would 22 undoubtedly be a significant time required in 23 order to provide an EIS for what would essentially 24 be a new project. 25 With that in mind, we went back 2539 1 through and we calculated the additional area of 2 right-of-way that would be cleared, or would 3 probably be cleared in order to accommodate the 4 widening of the rights-of-way to deal with the new 5 lines. You will remember that in our current 6 proposal we have estimated a total right-of-way 7 footprint of about 27 square kilometres. Is that 8 right? I apologized earlier that I am not 9 entirely conversant with the metric system despite 10 my age. 11 But the comparison here is that we 12 would add with this option, or the currently 13 proposed option in blue, about 7.2 square 14 kilometres, so roughly a quarter of the 27 that we 15 are currently looking at. And that would be an 16 area in which the existing tree cover would be 17 removed and would be permanently maintained in a 18 lower vegetative cover, and that would contribute 19 to some of the kinds of environmental issues that 20 have been identified in the EIS and were discussed 21 this morning for that matter. 22 There would be less edge conditions, 23 or less new edge conditions created by virtue of 24 working with existing rights-of-way and widening 25 them. Obviously, the new edge would be limited to 2540 1 the new side of the widened right-of-way versus 2 the two edges that are created in a new 3 right-of-way. We remind, however, that the 4 consequence of that edge condition really depends 5 on the density of the forest cover. It is most 6 serious if you are in mature forests, it is least 7 serious if you are in a fen or a bog or an 8 untreated area. 9 The fragmentation effects that might 10 be associated with this concept as opposed to the 11 proposed concept would also be different, but as 12 outlined in our submission, in particular in 13 appendix F of volume 1 which deals with the 14 terrestrial vegetation ecology, and volume 4 which 15 deals with the wildlife issues, it is our view 16 that the particular fragmentation effects would be 17 different for different species, and it would be 18 extremely difficult for me to give you a 19 definitive answer to the implications of this 20 proposal as opposes to the current proposal, other 21 than to remind you of the addition length. 22 Finally, there is a question of 23 access, which I think has been raised by any 24 number of people in our definition of the routes 25 that we are currently proposing, and which we 2541 1 intend to continue to deal with in the course of 2 the development of access management plans for 3 those segments where the communities are still of 4 the view that there is an access issue that needs 5 to be addressed. 6 Our point there is that the 45 7 kilometre distance proposed between Thompson and 8 Wuskwatim in the current proposal on a 60 metre 9 right-of-way would probably represent a more 10 difficult access opportunity than would the 23 11 kilometres by 160 metre wide right-of-way that 12 would be offered from Highway 6 into Wuskwatim in 13 this particular concept. 14 MR. MAYER: Now it is a matter of 15 cost -- and length. 16 MR. HICKS: Yes, and length. The top 17 part of the table, so-called base plan, is the 18 existing proposals, that is 45 kilometres between 19 Wuskwatim and Birchtree, and two lengths of 137 20 kilometres between Wuskwatim and Herblet Lake, for 21 a total of 319 kilometres. We have excluded the 22 Ralls Island to Herblet Lake section on the basis 23 that it is common. We have used unit costs of 24 $200,000, $200,317 more specifically, for the 25 lengths between Wuskwatim and Herblet Lake. Those 2542 1 are 2003 based dollars, overnight dollars I think 2 is the phrase that the NFAAT people have used. 3 There is no allowance for escalation, they are not 4 in-service dollars, those are 2003 dollars. We 5 have used a figure of $222,000 for the segment 6 between Wuskwatim and Birchtree, and the reason 7 for the difference being that the segment between 8 Wuskwatim and Birchtree, for control and 9 protection reasons, includes a fibre optic service 10 between Thompson and the generation site. So that 11 is the difference in the unit cost. 12 MR. MAYER: Fibre optic? 13 MR. HICKS: Fibre optic for 14 communication between Hydro system and the new 15 generation station. 16 MR. MAYER: You are burying line? 17 MR. HICKS: No, this would be strung 18 along the towers, and the hardware and the cable 19 would constitute the additional $20,000 per 20 kilometre. 21 THE CHAIRMAN: Would you go back to 22 you previous picture where you were actually 23 showing the lines, because the distance that you 24 show here and the distances that you show there 25 are different. You are showing Pipe Lake to 2543 1 Ponton at 110 kilometres, and now you are just 2 showing 121. 3 MR. HICKS: That is the 10 percent 4 factor, Mr. Chairman. 5 THE CHAIRMAN: That is the routing 6 differences? 7 MR. HICKS: The straight line distance 8 is the shorter distance. We added 10 percent to 9 that to account for what would be the additional 10 length you would incur in developing an actual 11 route for the line. 12 MR. MAYER: No, I was concerned when 13 you -- I hadn't heard about the fiber optics. I 14 knew you had a fiber optics line already up number 15 6. 16 MR. HICKS: Yes. Had we had more 17 time, Mr. Chairman, we could have identified the 18 actual length of these transmission lines that we 19 are paralleling. We are just working with the 20 10 percent as a rule of thumb. 21 MR. MAYER: I find that a little 22 surprising in light of the fact that you already 23 have power lines down number 6. 24 MR. HICKS: That is right. Certainly, 25 while those lines are not the straight line 2544 1 distance, if you will appreciate -- 2 MR. MAYER: I understand, but I would 3 have thought -- 4 MR. HICKS: So there would be a small 5 penalty there. There would probably be an 6 additional penalty, because there is a rare 7 circumstance where you would be able to widen on 8 either side of the right-of-way without 9 occasionally encountering some obstacle, a service 10 station, a cabin, whatever. 11 MR. MAYER: A river crossing. 12 MR. HICKS: Yes. The second portion 13 of the table deals with the so-called highway 14 option, which in point of fact is a transmission 15 option, as we have described it to you. Wuskwatim 16 to Pipe Lake, this is the construction power 17 portion, would be 25.3 kilometres at the $222,000 18 figure. Pipe Lake to Birchtree would be 34.1 19 kilometres at the $220,000 figure, unit cost. And 20 the remaining segments are the two lines from 21 Wuskwatim to Pipe Lake to Ponton to Herblet, all 22 at the $200,000 unit figure. And the numbers 23 there are, again, 25.3 for the segment between 24 Wuskwatim and Pipe Lake; 121 Pipe Lake to Ponton; 25 and 71 and a half from Ponton to Herblet Lake, for 2545 1 a total of 495 kilometres versus the 319 in the 2 current concept, and a cost -- 3 MR. MAYER: What was the total again, 4 I am sorry? 5 MR. HICKS: 495 kilometres total 6 length of the alternative concept, versus 319 in 7 the current concept, at a cost differential from 8 64.9 million currently up to 100.5 million in the 9 alternative concept. The penalty would be 10 35.6 million or nearly 55 percent. 11 In addition to that penalty, Mr. Mazur 12 has done some preliminary estimates of reliability 13 implications and line losses. And I will let him 14 speak to that, but I can terminate my piece of the 15 presentation by saying that the line loss penalty 16 would be approximately $311,000 annually, 17 primarily due to the additional length. 18 Ron, did you want to add anything? 19 MR. MAZUR: Just briefly, we did some 20 very preliminary calculations, and really just 21 looking at the loss on the three specific line -- 22 or the two specific line sections, S-1 and S-2, at 23 the longer lengths, we have calculated a .68 24 megawatt loss increase for one typical operating 25 condition. Of course, when one tries to calculate 2546 1 losses, you look at a variety of conditions, but 2 we feel this is representative to give you some 3 quantitative idea. Assuming about a 6 cent per 4 kilowatt hour cost, I calculated the $311,000 per 5 year, considering the capacity factor of the 6 generator. Again, so this is a kind of "up to" 7 cost. You know, given the detailed analysis, one 8 could fine tune that. I believe the net present 9 value of that dollar figure per year is somewhere 10 over $5 million over the life of the generating 11 station, considering a real interest borrowing 12 rate of 5.25 percent and a life of 67 years. So 13 that just gives you some idea of what that loss 14 penalty might be. 15 As I said, as noted, the increase in 16 length is 176 kilometres. Looking at the 17 right-of-way, we have addressed in some 18 interrogatories the idea of lines on a single 19 right-of-way, and there is some exposure 20 obviously. I guess from a reliability perspective 21 now we are really putting all of the northern AC 22 generation on one common mode right-of-way, which 23 is the Kelsey generation, Jenpeg to some extent, 24 and the Wuskwatim. So from that perspective, 25 there is some further exposure, which is more 2547 1 significant because now we are talking about a 2 larger number of megawatts. From a steady state 3 and transient kind of operational performance 4 point of view, we obviously haven't really been 5 able to address that. But from addressing some of 6 the earlier studies that we have done, 7 particularly with the Wuskwatim/Notigi options 8 valuated in the process of coming to this point, I 9 can tell you that there will be some slight 10 degradation in performance. And that often can be 11 compensated for by increased voltage control 12 capability, which is usually in the form of 13 devices. So there might be some small impact in 14 capital costs, but I can't quantify that at this 15 point. 16 The additional issue that is of some 17 concern, as you may or may not know, the Ponton 18 corridor is again on a common corridor with our 19 HVDC Bipole lines which carry a majority of system 20 power. Now we are, via this plan, putting almost 21 all of the additional load in AC generation closer 22 to the vicinity of that corridor. I guess that 23 would be a concern as well. 24 MR. MAYER: Say that again? 25 MR. MAZUR: Our HVCD corridor 2548 1 runs along the -- 2 MR. MAYER: I know where that is. 3 MR. MAZUR: -- and veers away, so the 4 distance of the Ponton line as opposed to the 5 Wuskwatim, or the lake lines as proposed, is 6 closer. That is just a point. 7 MR. MAYER: I was going to say, but, I 8 mean, if I recall correctly your high voltage DC 9 line joins Highway Number 6, if I recall 10 correctly, just north of the Mininagu River. Am I 11 correct on that? 12 MR. MAZUR: That's right. 13 MR. MAYER: That is about 50 14 kilometres south -- 15 MR. MAZUR: My point is that there is 16 more transmission closer to the line so there is 17 some common mode exposure. 18 MR. MAYER: Okay. 19 MR. MAZUR: And I guess I preface that 20 comment by the idea that some of our experience 21 that has been mentioned in this hearing, exposure 22 to high straight line winds, I don't think there 23 is a lot of evidence one way or the other to say 24 that what the distance, separation distance -- 25 there is a lot on tornados and there is numbers 2549 1 like 20 to 40 kilometres have been exposed. 2 Straight line winds, it isn't as well defined. So 3 I am just pointing out that there is some 4 potential degradation in reliability, it is not 5 quantified. Just an observation. 6 MR. HICKS: That was the extent of our 7 prepared presentation, Mr. Chairman. We have, if 8 you like, we have prepared, as I said, a list of 9 references from the existing EIS and the 10 interrogatories, plus the two, or the map, two 11 maps actually, one which shows the outline of the 12 Nelson House resource management area overlaid on 13 this diagram, and the table comparing the features 14 of the different concepts. And if you like, we 15 could certainly submit that as an exhibit. 16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. So these 17 maps are on there? 18 MR. MAYER: I for one, Mr. Chair, 19 certainly appreciate this. I would like the 20 opportunity to go through that. As you may or may 21 not know, I haven't gone through all of the 22 interrogatories. I have read all of the material 23 but I haven't gone through the interrogatories. I 24 certainly appreciate it. 25 MR. GREWAR: Mr. Chairman, if we could 2550 1 enter that Wuskwatim Transmission Project EIS 2 supplemental filing and IR responses which address 3 alternative routes, and attached proposed mapping 4 and preliminary cost estimates, and map 2, other 5 proposed alternate routes, as MH/NCN 1020. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 7 8 (EXHIBIT MH/NCN-1020: Wuskwatim 9 Transmission Project EIS supplemental 10 filing and IR responses which address 11 alternative routes, attached proposed 12 mapping and preliminary cost 13 estimates, map 2, other proposed 14 alternate routes) 15 16 17 MR. HICKS: Mr. Chairman, again at 18 your disposal, we have readied two presentations 19 which may help to address the Commission's concern 20 that they were not able to follow entirely from 21 the scale of the mapping in the EIS the actual 22 pattern of the routes. The one presentation is 23 probably about 20 minutes at most. It basically 24 takes the mapping that is contained in the EIS, 25 and some photos that are also in the EIS, and 2551 1 packages that in a more consistent fashion from 2 Thompson through Wuskwatim down to The Pas. 3 We have a second presentation that is 4 a little longer, and we may want to check our time 5 on that, but we could certainly provide it today 6 or at some other point, perhaps even in the north. 7 It is based on the orthophotos, the air photo 8 coverage that is in the EIS, and has embedded in 9 it some video clips at key sites like river 10 crossings, where some of the TetrES people were 11 able to get out, actually take some photos from 12 the helicopter, and give you a sense of what the 13 ground conditions are at those particular points. 14 We have both available today. As I said, the 15 first is about 20 minutes, the second is probably 16 more like half a hour 17 THE CHAIRMAN: We should I think 18 proceed with the longer one first. We will have 19 to take a break some time, and then at 3 o'clock 20 there is a scheduled phone. So maybe if you 21 proceed with -- well, we probably have time for 22 both of them. 23 MR. HICKS: Perhaps we will start with 24 the one from the EIS then, because that is 25 material that you have seen, it just packages it, 2552 1 I think, in a little more intelligible fashion. 2 MR. MAYER: You must have 3 misunderstood the Chair, he wants a video of the 4 falls. 5 MR. HICKS: I understand. If we had a 6 complete video available, sir, we would be more 7 than pleased to provide it to you. 8 One of the difficulties, of course, 9 and we have encountered this ourselves is that -- 10 I won't say that the terrain is featureless, but 11 there is a certain sameness to it. And without 12 benefit of markings or survey markers, ground 13 targets, whatever, it is very difficult from the 14 air, or on the ground for that matter, to get a 15 real sense of the route. So what we did for our 16 own team, and what we have done with a number of 17 the elders and resource harvesters, both from NCN 18 and from Cormorant in particular, is we have 19 plotted the centre line on GPS, provided the 20 coordinates of the GPS route to a helicopter 21 pilot, and bundled our people up, and our elders 22 and our traditional harvesters up and took them on 23 a flight, so they could get a clear sense of where 24 they were relative to where the route would be. 25 We found that to be a very successful way of 2553 1 allowing in particular the local folks to apply 2 their traditional understanding of what was 3 happening in the area to the particular proposal 4 that we are putting forward. So we could perhaps 5 arrange to do the same for the Commission in the 6 north. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. I missed 8 some of that anyway, but -- I guess I was not 9 following as closely as I should all along. So 10 you have got those as video presentations? 11 MR. HICKS: We have a brief Power 12 Point presentation of what is essentially 13 contained in the EIS now, and a supplementary 14 presentation, which is the same sequence, but now 15 on an air photo base and with some embedded video 16 clips that would give you a better sense of what 17 happens at particular points. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: That wasn't quite the 19 trip I was talking about. Ms. Matthew Lemieux. 20 MS. MATTHEWS-LEMIEUX: I do have a 21 little video with us, if you want to look at this. 22 This is a video that has been produced by NCN that 23 shows a little bit about the community, it shows 24 the Wuskwatim site, it shows some of the 25 ceremonies that were held up there. It does have, 2554 1 in addition to members of Nisichawayasihk speaking 2 on it, it also has members of Manitoba Hydro on 3 this particular video. And it talks a little bit 4 about the history of this community's involvement 5 with the CRD, and essentially what Chief Primrose 6 talked about, the past and where they are moving 7 to. So I leave it up to you, this is available if 8 you wanted to see that little video. It is about 9 ten minutes. 10 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. So that may be 11 appropriate as we come back after the phone call. 12 We would like to have as clear a view of the whole 13 area, as much as possible. I think with the block 14 of times that we have right now, we can see both 15 of those, and then maybe the order is wrong 16 though -- 17 MR. HICKS: The first presentation 18 then, this is the overall map showing the red 19 proposed routes that we discussed previously with 20 you and presented to you in your opening remarks. 21 Unfortunately, the annotations are not easily 22 read I can see. Starting at the upper right at 23 Thompson, the line would proceed westerly across 24 Highway 6 and south of the Birchtree mine site, to 25 cross the Manasan River, then proceed 2555 1 southwesterly along the south side of the 2 Burntwood River, past Kepuche, and across the 3 Burntwood into the Wuskwatim site itself, at a 4 point of open water below Taskinigup Falls. 5 This is just some shots, that again 6 are in the EIS, of typical terrain conditions that 7 we will be encountering in the course of 8 developing the project. 9 I got ahead of myself there. This was 10 intended to be the slide that I would describe to 11 you the section from Birchtree into the Wuskwatim. 12 We do have a shot of the Birchtree station site as 13 proposed. You can see highway 6 running 14 diagonally through the left central portion of the 15 picture. The Birchtree station site would be 16 located on the right-of-way of an existing 17 transmission line from Kelsey into Mystery Lake 18 station. The line, the construction power line, 19 as I said would cross number 6 highway, proceed 20 across the access road into the Birchtree mine 21 site, and then head on southwesterly towards the 22 Manasan River. The right-of-way through this 23 section would be the 60 kilometre figure that we 24 talked about earlier. 25 MR. MAYER: Where are all of those 2556 1 helicopters that you were talking about? 2 MR. HICKS: They are there for 3 emergency maintenance, sir. The note here is that 4 the 60 metres would not be typically cleared to 5 its full width, more like 58, and at extreme 6 crossings or other sensitive areas we would be 7 employing selective clearing and much more 8 restrictive clearing. 9 This is a shot of the Burntwood itself 10 at the point where we would be crossing the river 11 to go north into the Wuskwatim generation station 12 site and the site of the proposed switching 13 station. 14 MR. MAYER: Are those graphics 15 something -- 16 MR. HICKS: I don't believe so. This 17 is about 5 kilometres downstream of Taskinigup. 18 This is always open water now and will continue to 19 be open water post construction of the dam and, of 20 course, is one of the reasons why in many cases we 21 don't believe that access along the transmission 22 lines rights-of-way is a major issue. 23 This is the site of the switching 24 station for the transmission facilities within the 25 larger footprint of the Wuskwatim Generating 2557 1 Station. The orientation is basically from, the 2 top of the map -- the map is oriented with north 3 east to the top essentially. The line would come 4 in from Thompson, the yellow hatched area to the 5 upper right is the site of the construction power 6 station which would be temporarily developed 7 during the course of generating station 8 construction to transfer the 230-kilowatt feed to 9 Thompson down to a usable level for the 10 construction process itself. And the construction 11 power line from Thompson would come into that 12 site. 13 Once the construction power was no 14 longer required, the line would be reterminated at 15 a new switch yard associated with the Wuskwatim 16 switching station at the west edge, in fact. The 17 two lines out to Herblet Lake would come out of 18 the east end of that switch yard and would cross 19 the Burntwood roughly two to three kilometres 20 downstream from Tuskinigup, more or less half way 21 between the point of crossing of the construction 22 power line coming in and the lines going out. The 23 difference being that when you are turning lines 24 in and around a station you need a great deal of 25 room to be able to do that. 2558 1 Now we are showing the second segment 2 from Herblet Lake, rather from Wuskwatim switching 3 station, the new station, down to the existing 4 Herblet Lake station north of the Pas. We have, 5 which -- do we have an intermediate shot there? 6 This is a double right-of-way, which we described 7 earlier, 110 kilometres, 108 cleared, and here is 8 the 50 metre separation between lines that we 9 described to you earlier for reasons of safety and 10 security. 11 MR. MAYER: And the ever present 12 helicopter. 13 MR. HICKS: Yes, sir. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: That separation line is 15 not deforested? 16 MR. HICKS: Sorry? 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Is it part, the 18 separation line, is it also cleared? 19 MR. HICKS: Yes, it is. The areas 20 where we would not clear the full 58 metres or 108 21 metres as the case may be, would typically be at 22 stream crossings where there is real concern about 23 the prospect of erosion or interference with the 24 stream. It might also occur in areas where our 25 ecologists advised that there was a particular 2559 1 sensitivity, and would prefer that we would not do 2 any more clearing than was absolutely necessary. 3 This is the Birchtree station site. 4 It is located north of Snow Lake near the tailings 5 area of the gold mine, the TBX line. Sorry, 6 Herblet Lake station. My apologies. 7 Now from the Herblet Lake station 8 existing, we would be routed along various 9 existing transmission lines which currently attach 10 themselves at Herblet Lake and which serve both 11 the mines in the area and which also provide a 12 connection to Flin Flon to the Cliff Lake station 13 eventually. 14 We would proceed south along the west 15 side of the Snow Lake access road, which I believe 16 is PR392. We cross the Grass River. I think we 17 have a shot there. Actually this is crossing the 18 Snow Creek or the narrow portion of Snow Lake 19 immediately outside of the town. This is the 20 Grass River crossing. 21 MR. MAYER: That is no where near the 22 road. 23 MR. HICKS: No, this is well removed 24 from the road. There is a berm area west of 392 25 which you may be familiar with, and this is the 2560 1 Grass River itself. 2 MR. MAYER: Where does Snow Creek -- 3 can you see the entry of Snow Creek into Tramping 4 Lake, I think you are getting dam close to 5 Tramping Lake, where you are crossing, aren't you? 6 MR. HICKS: We are downstream from 7 Tramping. I'm not sure of the exact distance. 8 What is the orientation here? What is the 9 orientation of the shot of Grass River? 10 MR. MAYER: I think the river flows 11 from left to right at that point. 12 MR. HICKS: That would be right by my 13 understanding, yes. And as I said, the berm area 14 is essentially south and east in this vicinity. 15 Now, we have crossed highway 39 and we 16 are approaching the Hudson Bay railway, PR287. 17 Now at this point in time, quite a difference, 18 there all of a sudden are some existing 19 opportunities which are coincident with the 20 general functional direction that we wish to take 21 for the line, so here we are trying to get tight 22 to the existing features. 23 MR. MAYER: I had noticed that on that 24 piece. 25 MR. HICKS: In point of fact, and I'm 2561 1 sure we will describe this as we go, we would like 2 to have been even closer and the reason we are not 3 is because of advice from the resource harvesters 4 in Cormorant that they were very concerned about 5 the crossing of Pickerel Creek which would have 6 been involved had we stuck tight to the railroad 7 throughout this area. 8 This is the crossing of the 9 Saskatchewan River, and here I'm not sure whether 10 this may have registered with everyone in the 11 room, but we are using existing towers. There are 12 two circuits strung on these towers presently, 13 only one is energized, and it is being used at a 14 very low voltage for service of the Tolko 15 facilities north of the Saskatchewan River. What 16 would happen here is we would relocate that line 17 to the other side of the towers, energize the 18 existing strung conductors, which are designed to 19 230 standard, and use those for the new lines. 20 There would be no physical change to the crossing 21 or the towers on either side of the crossing. And 22 this looks north of the Saskatchewan River at an 23 existing right-of-way which would be occupied 24 through this area, you see Umpherville on the 25 right hand side on the north bank of the river, 2562 1 and there are various reserve lands on the left 2 hand side. So we are in an existing right-of-way 3 which fortunately can be used to the necessary 4 standards to achieve the requirements of the new 5 line. 6 And then finally Ralls Island station, 7 the existing station on the south side of the 8 river. I should probably draw your attention 9 here, when we first made this submission, it was 10 our expectation that we would be wholly within the 11 fenced area at Ralls Island, with time, as 12 engineers tend to do, they complicated the design, 13 and it would look like we may have to use -- it 14 would be within the existing property, but we may 15 have to use portions that are outside of the 16 existing fenced area. 17 And that is the first slide show. I'm 18 not sure if that has been helpful. Are we still 19 okay on time? 20 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 21 MR. HICKS: The second one is one that 22 was prepared by George Kroupa of TetrES in the 23 course of terrain analysis that we have done or 24 are doing in support of the environmental 25 protection program, it is based on area 2563 1 photography, and as I said, embeds some video 2 clips at key points. Blair McMahon is going to 3 narrate this one for you. 4 MR. McMAHON: What I will show you now 5 will take no longer than 15 minutes to show. What 6 I'm going to do is just show you some of the route 7 that extends from the proposed Birchtree station 8 in Thompson south to the Wuskwatim, proposed 9 Wuskwatim switching station, and then onwards in a 10 southerly direction to Snow Lake and then Ralls 11 Island and The Pas. 12 So if we begin here, what I will do, 13 this is based on 1 to 60,000 ortho images, so we 14 are looking at air photos of this area. These are 15 film clips and they will show representative land 16 forms along the way. 17 MR. MAYER: That is Manasan Falls 18 right in the middle of the picture, is that right? 19 MR. McMAHON: That's correct. So the 20 first clip will be in fact Manasan. So each of 21 these clips are in the order of at most one to two 22 minutes long, and again it will be a helicopter 23 fly-over going along the Manasan. It looks like 24 along the shore we are going along black spruce 25 forest and you can see the shorelines of the 2564 1 river. 2 MR. MAYER: You might want to point 3 out that part of the Manasan River has already 4 been affected by the backwaters in the increased 5 flow in the Burntwood. 6 MR. McMAHON: That's correct. So 7 there we are just touching down in terms of the 8 helicopter on the shoreline. I will flip back to 9 show the rest of the route. So, as we go from 10 Manasan we go close to the Birchtree Lake in terms 11 of the potential route, and we make our way along 12 parallel to the Burntwood River. And these are 13 just showing -- you can see various runnels and 14 creeks coming off the Burntwood or draining into, 15 I should say. I will just do it this way so we 16 can slowly make our way to Wuskwatim. 17 So now I will show the next clip. 18 That will be in the Wuskwatim area. This will be 19 the crossing site. And that is a view of the 20 Burntwood River. Again, it was George Kroupa from 21 TetrES that took this, so I can't tell you which 22 direction we are looking at, it could be starting 23 off looking easterly. 24 So somewhere in this area we have the 25 crossing site for the proposed transmission line 2565 1 going into the switching station at Wuskwatim. 2 MR. MAYER: I'm not seeing that white 3 water that I saw in the picture? Oh, here it 4 comes. 5 MR. McMAHON: That would be a 6 reflection off the rocks. Here is the white 7 water. So this is the area for Wuskwatim, and 8 where the proposed switching station will be 9 located, as well as the powerhouse and other 10 facilities associated with the generating station. 11 This is showing a key map. Now we are heading 12 from the Wuskwatim area southward towards Herblet 13 Lake. 14 Now, this we have already seen. Now 15 we are showing a little bit of the area as we head 16 south towards, getting close to Bison Lake, and I 17 will switch maps here. These were submitted as 18 part of the EIS and I believe that a couple of 19 hundred copies were sent out as part of the EIS. 20 So now we are in an area fairly south 21 of Wuskwatim, and we can take a look at the land, 22 we get into large bogs, patterned fens, and those 23 type of habitats. There is also mixtures of 24 uplands and lowlands as we head between Wuskwatim 25 and Snow Lake. So this is at one of the angled 2566 1 tower sites, so it is an uplands site, bedrock is 2 what you see predominantly in white. And there 3 are some bogs in these areas as well, some 4 lowlands mixed with the bedrock, and that would be 5 this type of area right here. 6 In some areas it is not all densely 7 treed as you can see, it is fairly scattered, 8 predominantly again black spruce, in some wet 9 areas you might get tamarack as well. Uplands 10 like this you may get in some cases Jack Pine and 11 also some white spruce. So showing a different 12 habitat type, I believe it is less than five 13 kilometres to the west. So this is a lake further 14 to the west, and I won't try to pronounce it, and 15 showing a stream crossing. This is showing fairly 16 wet areas in through here. And you have got these 17 peat uplands with spruce and other trees growing 18 on it as well. You do on occasion get some 19 deciduous, and that is why you get a mix of, it 20 looks like a little bit of deciduous in this area 21 as well. This is one of the "larger" of the 22 stream crossings that aren't class one stream. 23 So at junctures such as this we get 24 into angle tower structures as the proposed line 25 would bend more to the southwesterly. And you can 2567 1 see that, amongst other things, that it is 2 avoiding some of the larger water bodies that are 3 in the area. 4 So now this is Ferguson Creek, which 5 is a creek that drains down into the Grass River. 6 Now again we have in this particular 7 photograph it doesn't look like we have much in 8 way of bedrock or anything like that in terms of 9 uplands, it is a mixture of quite a bit of low 10 lands in through this area near the creek itself 11 and extending outwards. It appears to be 12 predominantly black spruce in that area. When you 13 have willows and other species they will be 14 growing along the creek. 15 MR. MAYER: Ferguson Creek is that the 16 water body referred to by Trapline 18? 17 MR. McMAHON: Yes, it is. I guess the 18 contention was that there was some sort of 19 underground river further to the north that 20 somehow drained into Ferguson Creek and thereby 21 drained into the Grass River system in which that 22 area of Trapline 18 occurs. 23 I will show you another map segment 24 further to the south. We will look at different 25 land form types. This is a horizontal fen. So as 2568 1 we head south from Wuskwatim we are getting into a 2 mosaic of lowlands and uplands of various types. 3 There are different names for different types of 4 bogs and fens, but the bogs that some of us are 5 familiar with, when you look at them from the air, 6 they may appear to be round and very treeless in 7 the middle, and surrounded by a ring of trees, 8 quite often black spruce, but there are other 9 forms of fens and bogs, and this is -- 10 MR. SARGEANT: What do you mean by 11 fens? 12 MR. McMAHON: I'm not a terrain 13 analyst, but a fen is typically where water is 14 flowing through. A bog is consistently an area 15 that is actually slowly becoming vegetative. It 16 was often a lake at one time or small water body 17 and then the vegetation is moving out from the 18 shoreline. When you look at a bog, quite often 19 you look at an area that has a lot of water type 20 grasses growing in it with trees around it, but 21 again I'm not a terrain analyst, perhaps if you 22 want a specific answer to that, we can ask George 23 Kroupa or -- 24 MR. SARGEANT: Thank you. Sorry, what 25 I heard was distracted from behind here. 2569 1 MR. McMAHON: (inaudible) meaning it 2 is quite a bit of sand or other materials that is 3 built up in these areas, it is somewhat of an 4 upland, but it is not something that we would 5 consider to be a bedrock outcropping or anything 6 like that. Again we have a mosaic of different 7 habitats that we are traveling through in terms of 8 the proposed transmission line, this being one. 9 Can you see the images -- there are 10 various still photographs as well within the 11 detailed documents, including for transmission 12 line, one of them being volume 2, which is the 13 terrain analysis, and I believe there is one 14 specifically as well for vegetation. So, there 15 are fairly expansive areas of bogs and fens in 16 this area between Wuskwatim and Herblet Lake. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: It would be a very wet 18 surface? 19 MR. McMAHON: It would be very wet, 20 yes. And what you may have is some areas of what 21 would look like slight uplands but they are often 22 called peat plateaus. So basically the dead 23 vegetation underneath has been pushed up, so they 24 look like islands of vegetation, but there is not 25 bedrock underneath it typically. 2570 1 In doing a terrain analysis, for 2 example, of the Wuskwatim transmission line, I 3 know George Kroupa interpreted air photos, also 4 did some field work, and that is what this was 5 based on, amongst other things, ensuring that his 6 analysis was correct and had little margin for 7 error in it. 8 So again we are heading -- let's take 9 a look at the map segment here, I will show you a 10 couple of others. Then we have -- we have seen 11 some bogs. Also as we get closer to Snow Lake, 12 there are some stream crossings as well. The 13 channel for the stream is fairly narrow here, but 14 you can see it extending out for several metres on 15 either side of it, it would be very wet and 16 grassy, that is why it is shown as a different 17 colour, kind of yellow, you might see it in the 18 back. 19 Now I would like to show you a few 20 sites between Ralls Island/Herblet station. So 21 this one I'm showing is the Ralls Island station 22 at The Pas right here. You can see that there. I 23 will show you the other end of it. So Herblet 24 Lake station is up here, and then the proposed 25 transmission line travels in generally a southerly 2571 1 direction until you hit an area called Dice Lake 2 and then bends to the southwest towards Ralls 3 Island and The Pas. 4 So this first area that I'm showing is 5 with respect to, close to Snow Lake. We have a 6 stream crossing here. The town is right in this 7 area right here. It is shown on the map in the 8 centre of the ortho image. In this area you get 9 into more of outcrop areas, more bedrock, more 10 uplands species of trees, black, white spruce, as 11 well as deciduous. It is crossed by trees of a 12 difference colour and those would be deciduous. 13 MR. MAYER: Do you have an existing 14 right-of-way there? 15 MR. McMAHON: To the transmission 16 line, yes. 17 MR. MAYER: Who at Hydro called that a 18 stream, and what is it? It is too wide for any 19 stream that I have seen. 20 MR. McMAHON: I would have to go back 21 and see if it is a major class one stream feature. 22 A stream can be a river of varying sizes. 23 MR. MAYER: Okay. 24 MR. HICKS: I believe it is a 25 narrowing of Snow Lake. The existing transmission 2572 1 line that is shown there, the Gull port line, 2 which typically has a span length of about 250 3 metres crosses relatively easily. The span length 4 that we are talking for this line would be in the 5 order of 400 plus metres. 6 MR. McMAHON: So now I have to double 7 check to see whether this was in fact within 8 Trapline 18's Tramping Lake in this area of the 9 Grass River. Again we have seen a few stream 10 crossings. Grass River being a fairly major river 11 in that area. 12 MR. HICKS: The Grass River at this 13 location, as I am sure Commissioner Mayer is 14 aware, it is a canoe route. It was a site of some 15 considerable sensitivity to people in and around 16 Snow Lake and we took great care to find a 17 suitable crossing here. 18 MR. MAYER: The Grass River is a canoe 19 route its whole length from First Cranberry Lake 20 all the way down to Split Lake, or actually just 21 below your station at Kelsey. 22 MR. HICKS: It is also worth noting 23 that the Grass River is open year round in this 24 location where we are making the crossing and 25 again will serve to help restrict access down the 2573 1 transmission line. 2 MR. McMAHON: Now we are moving from 3 Tramping Lake crossing highway 39, and this is a 4 fairly different -- more infrastructure in this 5 area. I will show a quick clip of this area, 6 close to highway 39. Tramping lake. Highway 39 7 travels east/west between Dice Lake to the south 8 and Snow Lake to the north, sort of in the middle 9 of that length of the route of the line, the 10 proposed line I should say. 11 MR. HICKS: You will note the berm 12 area that I referred to earlier which is west of 13 the Snow Lake access road 392 throughout this 14 area. 15 MR. McMAHON: I won't show the video 16 clip for Hayward Creek. 17 This should be -- I don't see the 18 definition of what this is, but it looks like a 19 patterned fen in the area. We get these as well 20 throughout the area between north of Dice Lake and 21 even north of Snow Lake. It is a patterned fen. 22 You can see it is almost like striations it looks 23 like from the air going in one direction and water 24 is flowing in that area, very slowly if it is 25 flowing. These can be fairly expansive in terms 2574 1 of the area that we are talking about. I can't 2 guesstimate, but I know from flying over there 3 that we are talking about several miles in any 4 direction. 5 MR. SARGEANT: How are you going to 6 put the towers up in that area? 7 MR. HICKS: Generally speaking the 8 towers can be installed in virtually any 9 condition, but you certainly prefer that you be in 10 areas where the embedding material can be gotten 11 through, and get your foundation founded on 12 bedrock. And then the use of the guiding towers 13 gives us some comfort then that if we can't get 14 right to the bedrock and have to raft the 15 foundation on softer material, that the use of the 16 guide towers gives you the opportunity and the 17 flexibility to be able to adjust in the event that 18 there is any unexpected settlement, whereas a 19 normal free standing tower of the type that you 20 might see in southern Manitoba would be subject to 21 a real risk of differential settlement and 22 failure. 23 MR. MAYER: I bet you use choppers to 24 put them in there, sir. 25 MR. HICKS: Winter construction, sir, 2575 1 winter construction under frozen conditions. 2 MR. McMAHON: Now we are somewhat to 3 the east of the Pas, Cormorant Lake is up here. 4 Frog Creek is an area of interest that we took a 5 look at, various specialties took a look at. I 6 will show you a photograph of that area. Frog 7 Creek is located south. 8 MR. HICKS: Frog Creek is located 9 south of Cormorant. It is a stream typically open 10 on a year round basis. 11 MR. McMAHON: There is a landing close 12 to the creek itself, there is water grasses, 13 sedges and other species. And there is a fair bit 14 of infrastructure in the area of Cormorant Lake, 15 float plane base in the area, there is the road 16 and a Hudson Bay rail line as well. But still a 17 fair number of lowlands in that area. This is 18 showing a fen in that particular area south of 19 Cormorant Lake. 20 You can see it is fairly treeless in 21 this area. What is there is very sparse and 22 again, we get into sometimes willows or it looks 23 like an old creek channel through that area, and 24 there might be tamarack or some stunted smaller 25 black spruce. In the image it looks fairly washed 2576 1 out. 2 And then we get very close to The Pas. 3 And this is showing a blowup now of the 4 Saskatchewan River crossing that was discussed 5 before. Ralls Island station down here. And 6 community of Umpherville further to the north on 7 the northern side of the Saskatchewan River. 8 And that concludes the images for the 9 terrain multi media PDF. Thank you. 10 MR. HICKS: Mr. Chairman, with your 11 permission I would like to apologize to the 12 recorder. That must have been a challenge. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you for showing 14 us that. Mr. Grewar, at what time do you wish to 15 have the -- that particular scheduled phone call? 16 MR. GREWAR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 17 As a matter of fact, we don't plan now on having 18 it today. Apparently the witness is not available 19 at 3:00 as we thought. It will be deferred now 20 likely until April, with your permission. And so 21 we would be able to move directly to 22 cross-examination, if that is your desire. I'm 23 not certain whether or not this item is available 24 or should be appropriately entered as some form of 25 an exhibit. 2577 1 MR. HICKS: We can certainly enter it 2 as a CD, if that is the wish of the Commission. 3 MR. GREWAR: I think for the record it 4 should be entered. 5 MR. HICKS: I guess it was part of the 6 submission actually. I believe you already have 7 the CD. 8 MR. GREWAR: As it was projected 9 today? 10 MR. HICKS: Yes. 11 MR. GREWAR: If it is part of the 12 existing filing, we won't assign it a separate 13 number. Thank you. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mayer. 15 MR. MAYER: I understand we have a 16 witness that was supposed to be on the phone today 17 and is now not available. I don't think that we 18 have any material from that witness. If it is now 19 going to be April, I want to put on the record 20 that everybody better have all of the material and 21 the backup material, whatever reports, well in 22 advance of that day. If it was available today, 23 we should be able to have the material today I 24 trust. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I guess we 2578 1 will proceed then with the questioning of the EIS. 2 Is it convenient, do you -- We have the brief NCN 3 film. That is the one from Ms. Matthews Lemieux. 4 Yes, okay. 5 (VIDEO PLAYED) 6 7 THE CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, 8 thank you for the opportunity to see more clearly 9 the areas we have been discussing. I believe that 10 the time is appropriate to have the break now and 11 then we can proceed without interruption with the 12 EIS afterwards. So, we will take a 20 minute 13 break at this point. 14 15 (PROCEEDINGS RECESSED AT 2:50 AND 16 RECONVENED AT 3:15 P.M.) 17 18 THE CHAIRMAN: We are ready to proceed 19 with the questions on the EIS, as soon as we have 20 the presence of counsel on the other side. Can we 21 proceed? I am looking at you folks, or do you 22 require the presence of your counsel here before 23 we can proceed? 24 MR. REMPEL: I think we can proceed, 25 Mr. Chairman. 2579 1 THE CHAIRMAN: All right, thank you. 2 Mr. Abra. 3 MR. ABRA: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, 4 Members of the panel, I understand, Mr. Rempel, 5 that you want the questions directed to you and 6 then whoever is the most appropriate will answer 7 them, and you will designate or whatever? 8 MR. REMPEL: I will do that where it 9 is not clear. As you get into a particular line 10 of questioning, it will be probably pretty evident 11 which person is responding. I can tell you in 12 general that Dave Hicks will respond to the 13 transmission line questions. Stu Davies to my 14 left will deal with aquatic and terrestrial 15 issues. I will mainly respond to project 16 description, water regime, physical environment. 17 Mr. Osler will deal with regulatory issues, 18 socioeconomic issues, and the public involvement 19 program. And Manitoba Hydro and NCN reps will 20 deal with policy and their own perspectives on 21 these issues. 22 MR. ABRA: Thank you very much. 23 What I propose to do initially is go 24 through a series of definitions that I think are 25 common to all of us that have been involved in 2580 1 this process for some time, but I would like to 2 get on the record exactly what Hydro's position is 3 and NCN's position is with respect to these 4 definitions, so that they are on the record, and 5 once we use them in future questioning, hopefully 6 we are on the same wave length as to what is being 7 talked about. 8 Firstly, with respect to the 9 Environmental Impact Statements themselves, or the 10 EIS as it has been referred to throughout these 11 proceedings, it was prepared, of course, in 12 support of the application to the Clean 13 Environment Commission, along with the needs and 14 alternatives assessment, and is to be used 15 primarily for project planning and for all of the 16 approvals. 17 Now, there is a definition of an 18 environmental assessment within the Canadian 19 Environmental Assessment Act, and also the 20 Environment Act of Manitoba. Is the environmental 21 assessment -- excuse me, the Environmental Impact 22 Statement that has been submitted intended to be 23 an environmental assessment within the means of 24 the statutes, or is there another meaning that you 25 put on it? 2581 1 MR. REMPEL: No, I think the EIS, 2 along with the supporting documents, is intended 3 to provide the full environmental assessment, in 4 response to both Acts. 5 MR. ABRA: Now, the definition of 6 environment itself, obviously it is a term that we 7 are going to be hearing a lot of over the next 8 while. How do you define environment within the 9 meaning of the EIS and so on? Again, there is a 10 definition, of course, in the statutes. Is that 11 the definition -- or what definition are you 12 relying upon in your use of the word 13 "environment"? 14 MR. REMPEL: We believe there is a 15 definition, as you say, in the Canadian 16 Environmental Assessment Act. It includes a 17 pretty broad definition of the various 18 biophysical, socioeconomic environments, and we 19 have used that in our response in terms of the 20 EIS. 21 MR. ABRA: Is it fair to say that 22 generally you, and many other people that are 23 professionals in the area of environmental studies 24 and so on, do rely on the Canadian statute more 25 than the Manitoba statute -- not to be 2582 1 derogatory -- but that the terms in it are more 2 extensive and the statute is more thorough and so 3 on? Is that fair? 4 MR. REMPEL: No, I don't think that we 5 have that opinion. We think both Acts are equally 6 applicable, and we believe they both are quite 7 strong legislation in terms of environmental 8 assessment. 9 MR. ABRA: The definition section, 10 though, in the Canadian statute is more extensive 11 than in the Manitoba statute; am I correct? 12 MR. REMPEL: It may be more extensive, 13 more specifically defined than under the Manitoba 14 Environment Act, I believe that is correct, yes. 15 MR. ABRA: Now, the term 16 "environmental effect," you have generally used 17 that phrase in the EIS documents for both the 18 submissions related to the transmission lines and 19 the generation project. On occasion there has 20 been used the word "impact" or "environmental 21 impact" as opposed to environmental effect. Are 22 the two terms synonymous? 23 MR. REMPEL: Before I answer that, 24 Mr. Osler had a comment on the socioeconomic 25 interpretation under the Canadian Environmental 2583 1 Assessment Act. Can I ask Mr. Osler to expand on 2 that before we answer that question? 3 MR. ABRA: Certainly. 4 MR. OSLER: For the definitions 5 perspective, our focus was on what were given from 6 the guidelines. The guidelines reflected both the 7 Manitoba and the Canadian statutes. We've taken 8 the interpretation that the scope, if anything, is 9 a bit broader when dealing with the socioeconomic 10 matters than would be applicable if I was doing it 11 solely under the Canadian Environmental Assessment 12 Act. 13 MR. ABRA: Sorry, I can't hear you. 14 Lift up the microphone or -- there you go. 15 MR. OSLER: Is that better? 16 MR. ABRA: Yes, thank you. 17 MR. OSLER: I will start again. We 18 have been working from, responding to the EIS 19 guidelines set by the Federal and Provincial 20 authorities. The guidelines reflect both the 21 statutes that you have referred to, Manitoba 22 statute and the Canadian statute. When dealing 23 with socioeconomic matters, the Canadian statute 24 is known to be limiting in the sense that an 25 environmental effect that is to be assessed only 2584 1 deals with effects on people that flow through the 2 environmental chain. If you looked at a job per 3 se, hiring someone, it would not be an effect 4 under that statute, for example. Our 5 interpretation of the guidelines were that we were 6 to be broader than that, and to look at all 7 effects of any nature, including all of the types 8 of socioeconomic effects, and not to be limited to 9 the extent that you would be if you were just 10 going by the Canadian Environmental Assessment 11 Act. I just wanted to get that point clear. I 12 think your question then was dealing with impact 13 versus effects? 14 MR. ABRA: What I was asking really 15 was your definition of environmental effect, and 16 on occasion, as I say, the phrase environmental 17 impact does appear. And are they meant to be the 18 same basically? 19 MR. REMPEL: Mr. Davies will respond 20 to that question. 21 MR. DAVIES: We generally tried to 22 differentiate between impacts and effects, and a 23 very simple explanation would be, blasting would 24 be an impact, the effect of that blasting on fish 25 that are in the water would be the effect. So it 2585 1 is -- we did differentiate to the extent that we 2 could. 3 MR. ABRA: All right. So what do each 4 of them mean? 5 MR. DAVIES: The impact would be the 6 sound waves that are going through the water as a 7 result of the blasting. The effect on the fish 8 would be a negative effect on the swim bladder of 9 the fish. So there is a differentiation between 10 the project effect, which would be a direct 11 effect, and the subsequent effect on the organism. 12 MR. ABRA: Okay. So with respect to 13 fish, you are saying that the two terms are 14 different? 15 MR. DAVIES: We are saying that the 16 impact would be the blasting and the waves that 17 would come off the blasting. The effect would be 18 how the fish would respond to that impact in terms 19 of its swim bladder or other effects that may 20 occur with the fish. 21 MR. ABRA: All right. But I believe, 22 although I stand to be corrected, and don't 23 hesitate to correct me if I am wrong, but I 24 believe that in the Environmental Impact 25 Statements, in areas other than fish and so on, 2586 1 that the terms "environmental impact" and 2 "environmental effect" seem to appear in different 3 spots. And what I am asking is, leaving fish 4 aside -- obviously what you are saying is that 5 they are intended to be different with respect to 6 fish -- were they intended to be different with 7 the balance of the EIS or were the terms used 8 interchangeably? 9 MR. DAVIES: They were sometimes used 10 interchangeably, but basically we tried to have 11 the impact being what the project does. The 12 effect is what that has on the environment, 13 whether it is a fish or bird or other organism. 14 MR. ABRA: Okay. 15 MR. REMPEL: As another example, just 16 to perhaps illustrate this; in the physical 17 environment we did describe erosion, and that is 18 certainly an impact of the project. In terms of 19 the effects on the aquatic environment, that was 20 answered in another section, and the significance 21 of that assessment, of that effect was assessed in 22 that particular section. But there was some 23 interchanging of the terminology, I grant you 24 that. 25 MR. OSLER: I think you will find 2587 1 instances easily where the terms have been used 2 interchangeably. Not that that was desired, but 3 it effectively happened from time to time. So 4 that we consciously tried to edit the final 5 version to do what Stuart was saying, but I am 6 sure there are times when the word "impacts" crept 7 in when we would have preferred on retrospect to 8 have said "effect" and vice versa. 9 The definition that we use in the 10 glossary, an impact is a positive or negative 11 effect of a disturbance on the environment or a 12 component of environment. So I suppose somebody 13 could have fun with this in the context of what 14 you are asking right now, just given that 15 definition. 16 So the words technically should be 17 used the way Mr. Davies was describing it, and 18 they are in many instances, but I wouldn't be 19 surprised to find instances where they are not. 20 MR. ABRA: And environmental effect 21 then, can you give me a definition of it, just so 22 we are on common ground for the purposes of this 23 examination? 24 MR. OSLER: Well, we are looking at 25 the components of the environment as per the 2588 1 guidelines. So it is an effect of the project on 2 one or more of those components. 3 MR. ABRA: Okay. Is it fair to say 4 that it is designed as a change in the environment 5 caused by the project, relative to baseline 6 conditions and a change in the project caused by 7 the environment? 8 MR. REMPEL: I think that is fair. 9 MR. ABRA: Now, the baseline, what is 10 your definition of baseline and -- well, firstly 11 if you could answer that, and then we will go from 12 there. 13 MR. REMPEL: The definition we used is 14 that it is the existing biophysical and 15 socioeconomic environment that we see there 16 without the project, and how that existing 17 environment will evolve, if the project is not 18 built. We recognize that what we see there in 19 terms of the existing environment is not static, 20 it is evolving. But we try to predict how that 21 existing environment will evolve if the project 22 were not built, and that it is our baseline or 23 existing environment, and then we superimpose on 24 that existing evolving environment what the 25 effects of the project would be, and then judge 2589 1 the significance of those changes. 2 MR. ABRA: What is a static baseline 3 and what is an evolving baseline? 4 MR. REMPEL: Perhaps the easiest 5 example is the physical environment, the erosions 6 of the shorelines in Wuskwatim Lake. Those 7 shorelines are eroding, they eroded quite heavily 8 after the Churchill River Diversion, they continue 9 to erode. And what we have done is projected how 10 that erosion will project into the future without 11 the project, and that is what we call evolving 12 environment. That is one example. There are 13 others. The changing concentrations of mercury in 14 fish, again, evolving with time, that we would 15 consider to be the existing environment as it is 16 evolving. 17 MR. ABRA: Now, I understood your 18 position to be, and correct me if I am wrong, that 19 for the purposes of establishing the baseline, you 20 took the present situation, which includes all of 21 the environmental effects from Churchill River 22 Diversion, or CRD as it is often referred to, as 23 existing at the present time, and the baseline 24 then starts from there. Am I correct, or am I 25 wrong? 2590 1 MR. REMPEL: I think in general you 2 are correct. We did not go back to pre-CRD 3 environments, if that is your question. 4 MR. ABRA: That implies to me then 5 that you are at least beginning with a static 6 situation as it exists now? Am I correct or -- 7 MR. REMPEL: I do not regard that as 8 static. 9 MR. ABRA: Why? 10 MR. REMPEL: Because we know it is the 11 existing environment that is there now. We are 12 not reviewing past projects from the standpoint of 13 how they, how that prior pre-project environment 14 existed. We are looking at what is there now and 15 how it will evolve, change as a result of actions 16 that have already taken place. So it is not 17 static, it is changing, we know that, and we are 18 taking that into account. 19 MR. ABRA: But you are not taking into 20 consideration what changes have taken place up 21 until now, but you are just anticipating what 22 changes will take place in the future? 23 MR. REMPEL: We take the existing 24 environment as it has changed, disrupted, as a 25 baseline. 2591 1 MR. ABRA: Okay. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: Therefore, as it exists 3 before you start the projects? 4 MR. REMPEL: Yes. 5 MR. ABRA: And then after you have 6 done a certain, some work on the project, whether 7 it be construction or whatever you do, then you 8 expect that that is going to have an effect. And 9 is that what you mean by evolving baseline then, 10 that as changes go along it will be -- I am having 11 difficulty, I am sorry, it may be me, but I am 12 having difficulty knowing exactly what you mean by 13 a baseline. To me, a baseline is A in the 14 alphabet, and then you have changes after that. 15 But are you saying that the baseline chronically 16 goes through B, C, D, E and so on? 17 MR. REMPEL: Yes. What we do is we 18 project how that existing baseline will go B, C, 19 D, E, et cetera, if the project was not built, 20 because it will change if the project is not 21 built. Then we look to project how that 22 environment, that evolving, changing environment 23 would change even further, the incremental change 24 brought about by the proposed project. And that 25 increment is what we assess as the effect. 2592 1 MR. ABRA: I am not trying to put 2 words in your mouth, but do I understand you to be 3 saying that you recognize that the baseline is 4 going to change whether the project moves ahead or 5 doesn't? 6 MR. REMPEL: That's correct. 7 MR. ABRA: And then what you consider 8 to be the environmental effect is the difference 9 between how the baseline would change itself 10 without the project and how the project will 11 impact upon that evolving baseline? 12 MR. REMPEL: Precisely. 13 MR. ABRA: Have I got that clear? 14 MR. REMPEL: Yes. 15 MR. ABRA: What is a mitigation 16 measure, or what is mitigation? 17 MR. REMPEL: Mitigation is remedial 18 response to an adverse effect that you identify 19 from a project, in other words, an enhancement 20 measure, a measure you can take to prevent the 21 adverse effect. If, for example, there is 22 something that you can do to -- just erosion again 23 as an example -- perhaps deflect the flow away 24 from an area of vulnerability, you would do that, 25 and that would be considered a mitigation effort. 2593 1 2 Mr. Hicks has a comment. 3 MR. HICKS: Mr. Rempel I think just 4 made the point that I was going to make, that 5 sometimes where in the case of transmission, for 6 example, we have an opportunity to alter the 7 project or revise or refine the project in advance 8 of making a final decision as to its location. I 9 might sometimes describe that change as a 10 mitigating effect, or rather a mitigating measure. 11 I would equally be comfortable in describing it as 12 a means of avoiding an impact. So there is a 13 certain amount of interchangeability there. 14 MR. ABRA: You are predicting what 15 effect you expect a certain step that you do 16 during the project to have on the environment, and 17 then what you can do to prevent it from happening? 18 MR. HICKS: I am making a distinction 19 in the case of the transmission project, in that 20 when we go into consultation with affected 21 stakeholders, or potentially affected 22 stakeholders, we have still available to us a 23 major means of avoidance or mitigation of 24 potential adverse effects. We don't have to wait 25 until we have defined the project and then measure 2594 1 its impact, and then identify means of mitigating 2 that impact. We can in fact do it in 3 advance. 4 MR. ABRA: Are you saying that that's 5 just done with respect to the transmission 6 project? I assume that there are attempts made to 7 do the same with respect to the generation 8 project, are there not? 9 MR. HICKS: I think certainly the 10 decision to go to the low head project would be in 11 that same vein. All I am suggesting is that it is 12 a major feature of the site selection 13 environmental assessment process for transmission 14 lines, in fact, perhaps the central feature of the 15 process. 16 MR. ABRA: Okay. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: There is something in 18 that definition. We said before that we are 19 trying to establish commonality in terms here, so 20 I guess the only time to correct it is right 21 before -- 22 MR. ABRA: Go ahead, Mr. Chairman. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: If we call remedial, 24 mitigation a remedial measure, you can't very well 25 say, well, we are not going to do it that way, and 2595 1 that's mitigation. Mitigation to correct the 2 problem that has occurred. So, I don't easily 3 accept that avoidance mean one and the same thing. 4 MR. HICKS: I think I appreciate your 5 point, Mr. Chairman. I have to confess, though, 6 we may have not made a distinction as clearly as 7 you would prefer in the documentation. I will be 8 very careful in responding to your questions to 9 ensure that I do make the distinction now. 10 MR. REMPEL: Mr. Chair, I have 11 actually a definition that we did in fact provide 12 in a glossary, and I think that perhaps explains 13 it better perhaps than we have. It says, 14 "Mitigation is defined as actions 15 taken during the planning, design, 16 construction, and operation of works 17 to reduce or avoid potential adverse 18 effects." 19 So, it is that proactive, to avoid. But the Clean 20 Environmental Assessment Act actually goes on to 21 give a definition that says it can also be done 22 after an action has, an undesirable effect has 23 occurred. 24 MR. ABRA: So, it can be one or the 25 other, but -- 2596 1 MR. HICKS: Yeah. 2 MR. ABRA: -- I think what the 3 Chairman and I are both asking is, surely 4 mitigation does include attempting to predict what 5 an impact or effect is going be, and taking steps 6 to prevent that from happening or to mitigate the 7 effect even before you do it? 8 MR. REMPEL: That's correct. 9 MR. ABRA: You are agreeing it can be 10 both before or after? 11 MR. REMPEL: Yes. 12 MR. ABRA: Where does monitoring fit 13 into this? Is it your position that monitoring is 14 part of mitigation or is a different term -- or 15 excuse me, is it a different concept? 16 MR. REMPEL: It is a different 17 concept. 18 MR. ABRA: Because there are many 19 places, of course, in your Environmental Impact 20 Statements, and I am not being critical when I say 21 this, but there are many places where you say that 22 you are going to monitor after you do something. 23 You're saying that that is not part of mitigation? 24 MR. REMPEL: No, I am saying that the 25 monitoring can give direction to the appropriate 2597 1 mitigation. If, for example, monitoring is done 2 and predictions are not as favourable as we have 3 indicated, perhaps some mitigation action can be 4 taken in response to the results of the monitoring 5 programs. So, it is a feature of the package, but 6 it is different than the mitigation itself. It 7 provides insight into the appropriate mitigation. 8 MR. ABRA: It tells you what you have 9 to do to mitigate? 10 MR. REMPEL: Yes. Again, apparently 11 we have a definition of monitoring. It says, 12 "Any ongoing process or program for 13 measuring the actual effects of 14 constructing or operating a 15 development." 16 So that is the monitoring, and that can give 17 guidance to the appropriate additional mitigation 18 that might be required. 19 MR. ABRA: So, in the EIS then when 20 you have used the expression that "we expect that 21 X may happen, but we will monitor," that's with 22 the intention of once you monitor, of then taking 23 mitigation steps, if possible? 24 MR. REMPEL: That's correct. 25 MR. ABRA: Then that basically leads 2598 1 into my next definition then. It is my 2 understanding, but correct me if I am wrong, that 3 in essence residual environmental effects are 4 those that remain after you have mitigated and you 5 can't do anything more to prevent them; is that 6 correct or am I -- 7 MR. REMPEL: Yes, that's correct. 8 MR. ABRA: Okay. Is that the 9 definition then of residual environmental effects 10 that you have used throughout the EIS, or is that 11 in essence the meaning of it? 12 MR. REMPEL: Yes. 13 MR. ABRA: Where does that definition 14 come from? 15 MR. REMPEL: Mr. Osler. 16 MR. ABRA: Mr. Osler gave it? 17 MR. OSLER: The guidelines, sir, each 18 of the transmission and generation guidelines have 19 a section called residual effects, so it is there. 20 You won't find it in the Environmental Assessment 21 Act, for example. 22 MR. ABRA: That's the reason I asked. 23 MR. OSLER: What you will find is the 24 obligation to make your determinations under that 25 Act after consideration of mitigation, if you look 2599 1 at each one of the key statements. The key 2 question that the authority who has to act under 3 that Act has to ask him or herself is, is there 4 going to be a likely, significant adverse effect, 5 meaning an effect after mitigation measures have 6 taken place. The text always puts it in that 7 long-winded wording, it doesn't say residual, as 8 defined somewhere as after mitigation. But the 9 practice is quite common and the guidelines 10 reflect the practice to sort of use this term 11 "residual" as meaning exactly what we have just 12 finished saying. As we said in the definition in 13 the volume, the effects of a project that are 14 expected to remain after mitigation or enhancement 15 measures have been implemented. I am looking at 16 all of these definitions from the back of volume 1 17 of the generation submission. 18 MR. ABRA: Okay. What is your 19 definition of cumulative environmental effects? 20 MR. OSLER: In order to keep it short, 21 the combined effects of several projects on the 22 environment, cumulative effects have to be 23 considered as part of the environmental assessment 24 process. That is the definition in the glossary. 25 The definition in the guidelines was 2600 1 expanded a little bit in the course of finalizing 2 the guidelines to make the point that you are to 3 look at past, current or existing, and future 4 projects that will occur. And the wording in that 5 case essentially paralleled section 16 of the 6 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, where you 7 have to look at the cumulative environmental 8 effects that are likely to result from the project 9 in combination with other projects or activities 10 that have been or will be carried out. 11 So, in essence, cumulative effect is 12 still the difference between what would happen 13 with the project versus what would happen without 14 the project going forward in the sense that you 15 and Mr. Rempel discussed. The difference is that 16 you are looking at a baseline now that has to take 17 into account past, existing, or future projects 18 that will be carried out. And you are still 19 trying to assess what is the effect of this 20 project in that context. 21 MR. ABRA: We will be getting to this 22 in considerably more detail, as I am sure you 23 understand, but the cumulative effects do relate 24 to past, present, and future, do they not? It 25 is a different concept from baseline and moving 2601 1 forward as far as effects are concerned. Are you 2 not supposed to take into consideration the past 3 as well? 4 MR. OSLER: You do in the context, the 5 way we have interpreted it, of the baseline, in 6 the sense that you are looking -- well, let me put 7 it simply. Our view of cumulative effects is it 8 is simply environmental assessment done well. It 9 is not something magical or different or unique. 10 In the context -- sorry, in the 11 context of past and existing projects, it is 12 recognized that good practice has quite often 13 already incorporated past and existing projects in 14 establishing the baseline for an environmental 15 assessment. I think I am paraphrasing the '99 16 practitioner's guide accurately by saying, the 17 special feature that seems to have arisen in 18 practice from bringing cumulative effects to the 19 table is insisting that you look at projects that 20 will be carried out as well, and assess whether 21 this project that is under review will have a 22 material effect on the environment after you have 23 taken into consideration these other projects that 24 will be carried out. 25 MR. MAYER: Mr. Osler -- 2602 1 MR. OSLER: Yes, sir. 2 MR. MAYER: -- taking that definition 3 into account, and I understand where everybody is 4 going with the Wuskwatim Lake issue, let's take 5 something a whole lot simpler. Your proposal 6 right now is to cut a power line from Wuskwatim to 7 Herblet Lake through previously uncut territory. 8 I read nothing in your material 9 that -- what I read in your material was, the 10 effects would be minimal, all that stuff, but 11 nothing about what they would do when added to the 12 other places where you slash through the boreal 13 forest, the other power lines which happened to be 14 mentioned, I saw nothing about that. Isn't that 15 what cumulative effects are all about? 16 MR. OSLER: Just to be clear in your 17 question, are you thinking about in terms of lines 18 that are already there? 19 MR. MAYER: Yes. 20 MR. OSLER: Okay. The assessment of 21 the biologists or the terrestrial people, or 22 anybody else looking at it, should be looking at 23 the environment as it exists, with the 24 transmission lines, the roads, the other features 25 of the built environment that are there, and they 2603 1 should be trying to assess the effect that this 2 project is going to add incrementally to all of 3 those other effects that are already there. I 4 think appendix F of the transmission section -- I 5 mean, we have to get to the detail in each 6 professional area, but in appendix F of the 7 transmission section is an ecological assessment 8 that purports to do just that, and takes into 9 account the built environment and the existing 10 disturbances to the environment at certain parts 11 along the transmission route. 12 MR. MAYER: I am trying to relate this 13 to Dr. Bayne's evidence this morning, which made a 14 lot of sense to me. How many more access routes, 15 how many more migration routes, how many of these 16 can you have before you start significantly 17 disturbing the flight of the birds, the access of 18 the animals, the invasion of predators, et cetera, 19 et cetera? You're saying that somewhere here, 20 because I didn't see it? 21 MR. OSLER: I am saying professionally 22 in terms of our definitions, the assessment of the 23 effect of the transmission projects that you saw 24 today has to be done in good environmental 25 practice taking into account the level of 2604 1 disturbance of the environment that is already 2 there. It also has to take into account, which is 3 the point that I was discussing with Mr. Abra, any 4 projects that we believe are going to emerge, that 5 will may not be there yet, but they are coming for 6 sure. 7 When you sit and assess the effect of 8 this transmission line, you are taking into 9 account all the things you heard from the good 10 doctor on the telephone today. That is good 11 practice in terms of environmental assessment. 12 The cumulative effect doesn't add anything magical 13 to it. In fact, probably it was good practice 14 before somebody had the word cumulative effect, to 15 deal with the existing environmental disturbances 16 that are there today? 17 MR. MAYER: That's an incredible 18 argument, Mr. Osler, but I think it is incredibly 19 fallacious, because it doesn't deal with the 20 continual one drop of water into the glass. I 21 don't know how many drops of water go into the 22 forest as a result of you slashing through the 23 boreal forest from Wuskwatim to Herblet Lake. 24 Even if I call that one drop in the glass, I don't 25 know how many drops you have attributed to the 2605 1 other transmission lines which are in the 2 immediate vicinity and in fact within the project 3 area, which appear to be 1, 2, 3, 4 in the project 4 area. So, I don't recall reading anything about 5 what you -- what amount you attributed to that 6 because the effect of the one line you said is 7 insignificant. I heard that and read it a number 8 of times. But I didn't see -- did you also say 9 the 230-kilowatt line from Ponton to Herblet Lake 10 already -- what did you say that did? I don't 11 recall -- I am reading about what all the power 12 lines and your volume 1 of the impact assessment, 13 and I am looking at chapter 3. You mention the 14 fact that they are there, but I didn't see 15 anything in the material I read that talked about 16 what effect that had upon the birds, upon the 17 caribou, upon the -- et cetera. I wouldn't expect 18 a whole lot on the fish but -- 19 MR. REMPEL: I will just make one 20 comment that I believe much of that was discussed 21 in volume 4, which Dr. Bayne acknowledged he had 22 not read, but I think Dave Hicks can respond more 23 fully that to. 24 MR. HICKS: Mr. Chairman, Commission 25 Mayer, I sense that we will be discussing this a 2606 1 lot further as we go. 2 MR. ABRA: I don't know why you think 3 that. 4 MR. HICKS: If I might offer one 5 observation, one of the key considerations in 6 addressing effects is to look at their spatial 7 extent. You might recall my opening remarks to 8 this Commission, I made the observation that based 9 on our experience, and more particularly on 10 Manitoba Hydro's experience which is quite 11 extensive in the north with transmission lines, it 12 is our belief and our judgment that adverse 13 effects associated with those lines tend generally 14 to be concentrated on or immediately adjacent to 15 the right-of-way. I think much of what you heard 16 from Dr. Bayne this morning essentially said the 17 same thing. So if we are overlapping, or if we 18 are crossing, or if we are in close proximity to 19 the point where there is a spatial overlap between 20 those effects, then you would see a great deal 21 more in the assessment document. 22 But in point of fact, it is our belief 23 that the existing transmission lines that you have 24 mentioned do not have overlapping effects for the 25 most part, and for that reason, we do not add a 2607 1 cumulative effect to the next. 2 MR. MAYER: But, sir, I am looking at 3 figure 3.1 in volume 1 of the Environmental Impact 4 Statement. It is showing me a map. I listened to 5 the good doctor this morning talk about migration 6 of species basically from south to north. Now, I 7 am prepared to agree there wouldn't be a whole lot 8 with your transmission that you are walking about 9 going from Wuskwatim to Herblet Lake. When I look 10 at the intersection and I look at the line coming 11 all the way up Number 6 from Winnipeg, all the way 12 up Number 6, and intersecting with your line, and 13 therefore your right-of-way and your access, 14 branching up in Herblet Lake and off to the right, 15 and where your line comes in, again into the 16 middle of the boreal forest, I am telling you, 17 that in my opinion, and from what I heard from 18 Dr. Bayne this morning, that is a significant 19 effect that results from the previous, from the 20 fact that you are intersecting with a north/south 21 line as opposed to an east/west line. 22 MR. HICKS: I would certainly agree 23 with Dr. Bayne to the extent that there is a 24 concern that needs to be addressed, a potential 25 concern. 2608 1 Let me offer a perspective here. 2 There are something like 263,000 square kilometers 3 of boreal forest in Manitoba. Manitoba Hydro 4 operates something like 11,000 kilometers of 5 transmission line, that is 115 kilovolts or 6 greater. Somewhat less that 4000 kilometers are 7 in the north, specifically north of Grand Rapids. 8 To a degree that probably overstates the effect 9 because at least a major chunk of that 4000 10 kilometers is associated with the shared 11 right-of-way of Bipoles I and II. It is a 12 relatively simple calculation in terms of overall 13 perspective to look at the area of those 14 rights-of-way relative to the forest environment 15 that is out there to appreciate that this is a 16 very small effect. 17 MR. MAYER: But it wasn't the area 18 that is the concern, it is the corridor that 19 allows the migration, isn't it? The corridor 20 could be 50 metres or a 100 metres wide, the 21 bottom line is, it is the access that can be 22 gained by the use of those corridors. 23 Admittedly, I suppose it is certainly 24 not Hydro's fault we also have a road there, some 25 of us kind of like that road. But that also 2609 1 provides that corridor access. Does that not have 2 to be taken into account when you are assessing 3 the addition of yet another power line and yet 4 another access? 5 MR. HICKS: Yes, and I believe it has 6 been taken into account. It has been taken into 7 account in respect of particular impacts rather 8 than some -- perhaps I should not have offered up 9 the broader perspective. What we are looking at, 10 for example, what Dr. Bayne mentioned this morning 11 are effects that range from edge effects to 12 fragmentation effects, which can be conduit 13 effects that might increase access, or potential 14 for access, they may be barrier effects that might 15 lead to a tendency for some species to not cross, 16 or to cross the line with lesser frequency, or to 17 avoid the line to some degree. Again, in 18 technical volume 4, dealing with wildlife in 19 particular, those assumptions are stated quite 20 clearly. They are based on the available 21 literature, on field research done by our 22 specialists. Their conclusion, for example, was 23 in the case of caribou that there would be an 24 avoidance of effect that would extend in the 25 right-of-way, and that was factored into their 2610 1 assessment of the effect on the habitat, and in 2 turn, their assessment of the significance of the 3 potential effect on caribou. 4 MR. MAYER: Thank you, sir. 5 MR. ABRA: I won't go on any further 6 with cumulative effects now. I think we have your 7 definition, as Mr. Hicks has quite properly 8 pointed out, we will be dealing with it at some 9 length, I expect probably tomorrow. 10 Just a couple more definitions. A 11 follow-up is a term I understand that is used 12 commonly in environmental assessment. What does 13 follow-up mean? What meaning do you give to it? 14 MR. REMPEL: A follow-up action could 15 be the monitoring programs themselves, or it could 16 be action taken as a result of the insight 17 provided by the monitoring data. It is a 18 follow-up to the impact assessment and the actual 19 implementation of the project. 20 MR. ABRA: Where does that definition 21 come from, Mr. Rempel? 22 MR. REMPEL: I think that is a 23 commonly accepted definition. I am not sure that 24 is defined anywhere in legislation that I am 25 aware. 2611 1 MR. ABRA: I think it is in the 2 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, I believe. 3 MR. REMPEL: Actually -- 4 MR. ABRA: Page 9. 5 MR. REMPEL: -- I am wrong. There is 6 a definition in the Clean Environment Assessment 7 Act, and it goes on to say, 8 "A follow-up program means a program 9 for A, verifying the accuracy of 10 environmental assessment of a 11 project." 12 Which I would consider monitoring to respond to 13 that, those are my words. And then, B, back to 14 the quote, 15 "Determining effectiveness of any 16 measures taken to mitigate the adverse 17 environmental effects of the project." 18 I think that fits in the way we interpreted 19 follow-up actually. 20 MR. ABRA: Okay. In essence, the 21 definition you used for follow-up is that from the 22 statute? 23 MR. REMPEL: Yes. 24 MR. ABRA: Okay. It is my 25 understanding that those of you who are 2612 1 environmental practitioners, or environmental 2 professionals have an approach to assessment that 3 is commonly referred to as western science. Am I 4 correct? 5 MR. REMPEL: I would say that all of 6 us that work in the environmental field in 7 Manitoba, certainly in Manitoba's north, attempt 8 to blend the scientific approach and traditional 9 knowledge. It is not only a good approach, good 10 sensible way to do it, it is also I think the only 11 way we would continue to be able to be engaged for 12 work in the north. 13 MR. ABRA: You have done a very good 14 job of guessing my next question or -- I shouldn't 15 use the word guess -- but that is really what I 16 wanted to ask you about, is whether, in particular 17 with respect to this project, because of course it 18 is a joint project and you have indicated at some 19 length, as has Mr. Thomas in his participation, 20 that traditional knowledge has been used to a 21 significant degree in the environmental assessment 22 with respect to the Wuskwatim project. 23 Did you find in discussions and 24 planning and the preparation of the environmental 25 impact statements, when you were working with 2613 1 members of NCN, that you were on common ground 2 with respect to terminology and so on, with 3 respect to traditional knowledge, as opposed to 4 those of you who are professionals? So, for 5 example, when we use the terms and the definitions 6 that we have used up until now, is everybody on 7 common ground in the use of those definitions? 8 When I say everybody, I mean the two respective 9 partners? 10 MR. REMPEL: There was time spent on 11 that issue, and Mr. Osler was part of that. 12 MR. OSLER: Your question could be 13 either very broadly about all the issues we have 14 been talking about, or very specific to 15 traditional knowledge. Are you thinking of 16 traditional knowledge when you ask the question 17 specifically, or are you thinking of, does 18 everybody understand all of the definitions 19 between the partners and the team? 20 MR. ABRA: It is the broader one that 21 is I am interested in. Was everybody on the same 22 page with -- 23 MR. OSLER: Let me deal with that -- 24 MR. ABRA: Or are you on the same page 25 now? 2614 1 MR. OSLER: I hope so. 2 MR. ABRA: That's the reason I am 3 asking the question. 4 MR. OSLER: What this project involved 5 was, the team you got here is working with both 6 partners at either end of this table. It is an 7 experience that is, in my professional career, 8 certainly unique so far. There are quite 9 different perspectives. And I don't particularly 10 like the word western science, I think it is 11 something I object to personally, but there is a 12 totally different perspective between a highly 13 organized professional engineering orientated 14 organization such as Manitoba Hydro, and a highly 15 organized, dynamically evolving from a traditional 16 to a more modern society, such as NCN -- before we 17 even get to the fact that they were hardly 18 speaking to each other, other than through 19 lawyers, not too long ago. So getting on the same 20 page would be hard for the four of us 21 professionally on any one job, because the 22 terminology, frankly, to use Mr. Rempel's term, 23 tends to evolve, and it is not as precise as 24 professionals would like, if you read through the 25 guides. But we would be used to working on that 2615 1 in professional practice. 2 But when you are trying to put 3 together in documents that in the end have to be 4 approved by the two gentlemen, the two parties at 5 either end of this table, they are their 6 documents, sir, they are not my documents. They 7 have to be comfortable with the words. And they 8 have great difficulty, we have lots of instances 9 where we have great difficulty understanding the 10 words and trying to stick to the words and trying 11 to get common understanding. 12 So, I wouldn't want to underestimate 13 at all the difficulty of it, or whether we have 14 fully achieved it all the way through this. I can 15 go to a meeting in Hydro or in Nelson House, and I 16 would not be surprised to run into problems over 17 words. So that's a perspective. 18 On traditional knowledge, NCN has 19 given the definition on the first day. Councillor 20 Thomas laid it out, it is the definition in volume 21 1. There are other definitions of traditional 22 knowledge that we have heard, you and the 23 Commission have heard. Inside NCN the evolution 24 of using this definition required considerable 25 discussion. 2616 1 So, these are not precise terms. I 2 think everybody has to appreciate when we go 3 through this discussion, and it is easy for people 4 to be coming at them from different angles, even 5 when they have been working together for a while. 6 There may be some other perspectives here. 7 MR. REMPEL: Mr. Davies was involved 8 in a number of workshops that addressed or 9 discussed these issues, and perhaps Stuart Davies 10 can add something to this. 11 MR. DAVIES: I just wanted to add that 12 actually right from the very start, the first 13 thing that we did as a study team was meet with 14 NCN's resource harvesters, elders, and community 15 members. We had a number of very intensive 16 workshops where traditional knowledge was shared 17 with us, and that traditional knowledge really 18 helped to scope the entire study process from the 19 very beginning. The issues and concerns of the 20 First Nation people at Nelson House really became 21 the driver for the studies. That was our first 22 real introduction to traditional knowledge and the 23 values and items of significance to the people 24 that were there. 25 So it was not only a main component, 2617 1 but it was a main component from the very outset 2 of the process. 3 MR. HICKS: If I might, Mr. Chair, 4 just to comment on the same vein. I am more a 5 planner than a scientist, but I have maybe a 6 slightly different sense of this as well. It is 7 not always possible to box traditional knowledge 8 into a western scientific frame, and I think that 9 is a serious mistake at times. Very often our 10 better bet is to listen. And if we are told in 11 the vein of tradition of knowledge that there is 12 something that we are doing wrong, something that 13 we should be doing differently, then we found that 14 very often the proper response and the respectful 15 response, understanding that we have to examine 16 that from our own perspective to see if there is a 17 fatal flaw from a technical or cost perspective, 18 that we would incorporate that decision on the 19 basis it was offered from a traditional or 20 cultural background that I simply do not 21 understand in some cases. 22 MR. ABRA: Okay. 23 THE CHAIRMAN: Can I make the 24 comparison of the choir, you have different voices 25 but you sing from the same song book? 2618 1 MR. HICKS: Yes. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: When you are saying one 3 has influenced the other, am I hearing, Mr. Osler, 4 or I believe it was Mr. Davies that made reference 5 to that, that the input from these discussions 6 with traditional, the Aboriginal people in regards 7 to traditional knowledge, helped focus on the 8 specific value features that they were interested 9 in? 10 MR. DAVIES: It definitely did. Some 11 of the -- first of all, one of the things that we 12 had in common right from the very start was the 13 holistic approach that is generally used by the 14 First Nation people was fairly close to the 15 ecosystem approach that is used by us, where 16 everything is linked and one can have an effect on 17 another. 18 The discussions with the First Nations 19 people at the very beginning, particularly the 20 elders, gave us direction, and I guess also 21 allowed us to prioritize some of the things that 22 we were going to look at. While we normally 23 wouldn't have spent as much time looking at the 24 effects of mercury, because of the very small 25 amount of flooding that is taking place with this 2619 1 project, it was a significant concern to the 2 elders and resource harvesters at those workshops. 3 So it became one of the larger areas that we did 4 look at. So we did become a driver in a number of 5 different components. 6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 7 MR. ABRA: One of the terms that we 8 have noticed throughout the EIS, as you are 9 talking about different environmental effects, or 10 anticipated environmental effects, is that once 11 the effect is known, you will monitor it. 12 In many instances there is no 13 reference to mitigation once you have monitored if 14 there is an impact or an effect. 15 I do understand, although correct me 16 if I am wrong, from the work that is being done by 17 both partners, that in essence, traditional 18 knowledge when the -- in effect, monitoring in 19 traditional knowledge includes mitigation. Am I 20 correct? And secondly, is that the reason in the 21 Environmental Impact Statements that you referred 22 to monitoring and then left it at that, because in 23 effect monitoring includes mitigation as best as 24 possible? 25 MR. DAVIES: I think, first of all, 2620 1 that monitoring without a view to mitigation 2 really has very little value, other than getting a 3 better knowledge of the potential effects or the 4 effects of the project. 5 But mitigation to a large extent is 6 put in place that you can determine what the 7 effect actually has been, and the significance of 8 that effect, and then you design your monitoring 9 program once you have a better understanding of 10 what has actually happened. The monitoring that 11 is being proposed to large extent is there so that 12 we get a better understanding, and then we can 13 then design monitoring programs if required. 14 MR. ABRA: You mean mitigation 15 programs? 16 MR. DAVIES: I am sorry, mitigation 17 programs if required. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Avery Kinew? 19 MS. AVERY KINEW: Thank you, 20 Mr. Chairman. I was just wondering -- Mr. Thomas, 21 I admire how you are working with a choir with 22 different voices. I was wondering about the Cree 23 words. I don't see any Cree words in here, 24 phrases, or concepts that are explained in your 25 own language, and I was wondering if the elders 2621 1 raised that, that they wanted to -- that they have 2 different opinions? I appreciate the counsel for 3 the Commission has just brought up how elders 4 might have seen monitoring requiring mitigation? 5 MR. THOMAS: First of all, just in 6 regard to the discussion that is being had on the 7 issue of definitions, as to what it all -- what 8 all is entailed in using a word to figure out 9 exactly what all that includes is quite a 10 difficult thing for us to grasp as a people. 11 We are quite used to thinking in what 12 was referenced as a holistic way. I have to agree 13 that it is not an easy job to try and figure out 14 exactly how the choir is going to be singing from 15 so many different pitches, I guess, or something 16 like that. 17 But the use of terminology is quite 18 different from the way that we use words or 19 phrases to identify things. Our language is quite 20 descriptive in nature. When we try to -- I am 21 reminded of the expert on Aboriginal culture that 22 was here -- trying to confine a culture to only 23 hunting, fishing, trapping kind of thing. Those 24 are the same kind of things that you encounter 25 when you try to box ideas into a particular word 2622 1 or phrase. It is quite difficult to do. And when 2 we assert ourselves that the definition as 3 provided just doesn't go far enough, we have many 4 of our people talk to us that this should be 5 looked at, that should be looked at. And when we 6 assert ourselves in that way, then the western 7 scientific definition is not just taken at face 8 value for whatever definition is provided, it is 9 enhanced by our assertions and the use of our own 10 thinking, which is quite holistic in nature. 11 So, we do have difficulties trying to 12 box in our concepts in the way that the English 13 language has developed over thousands of years. 14 Now, with regard to the question that 15 you asked on whether or not our elders have 16 expressed concern about no Cree words appearing 17 here, we have hired our own people to be 18 translators in this process. They are our 19 community consultants, and they speak with the 20 elders, they do the translations, and make sure 21 that the messages, or our understandings get 22 across to those that are involved in the studies. 23 So, that is the way that we have 24 incorporated our language and our meanings into 25 this process. 2623 1 MS. AVERY KINEW: So, you would have a 2 concept for mitigation or monitoring or -- it 3 would be the elders saying, you have to take care 4 of this in a certain way? Is that the way it is? 5 MR. THOMAS: I am looking at my elder 6 and another elder in the community who has worked 7 with this quite a bit, Sam Dysart and also Jimmy 8 D. Spence. They are quite knowledgeable about 9 these kind of matters. We have done whatever we 10 can to take the information, to make sure that it 11 has been included in this -- in our process. 12 MS. AVERY KINEW: Okay, thank you. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Abra? 14 MR. ABRA: Thank you. Are there 15 recognized standards or best practices with 16 respect to the conduct of environmental 17 assessments in Manitoba? 18 MR. REMPEL: I don't think there is a 19 defined code or practice, if you like, or 20 standards, but most environmental impact 21 statements are firstly reviewed typically with a 22 technical advisory committee. In other words, 23 there is a scientific peer review, there is a 24 public review, and there is a very real testing of 25 the adequacy of the EIS. That probably serves as 2624 1 the best test of adequacy rather than the code of 2 standards. 3 MR. ABRA: The last definition, VEC, 4 do you people use it as environmental, 5 environmental component, or environmental 6 ecosystem component? 7 MR. REMPEL: I think we consider that 8 both were appropriate. 9 MR. ABRA: Okay. What is it, or what 10 are they? 11 MR. REMPEL: I believe there is a 12 definition, and rather than try to do it offhand, 13 I will look for the definition in, I believe it is 14 SEIA? 15 MR. DAVIES: While they are looking 16 for that, valued ecosystem components were 17 selected for several reasons. First of all, 18 because of their importance to people and that 19 importance can either be economic or spiritual. 20 They were also chosen if they were a 21 representative of a group or species or provided a 22 special function in terms of allowing us to 23 determine impacts. 24 In the VECs that are in the EIS are 25 slightly different than what may be in other ones 2625 1 and in part, that is reflected by the input of 2 NCN. Things like water are not generally 3 considered a valued ecosystem component. In the 4 EIS it was and it was specifically put in because 5 of the feeling of the elders that it was the 6 mother of all life. I will turn it over to the 7 people that are going to give you the official 8 definition. 9 MR. REMPEL: We are looking for the 10 definition in our own body of work, but we do have 11 a definition that is described in the accumulative 12 effects assessment practitioner's guide. That 13 says, a valued ecosystem component or VEC; any 14 part of the environment considered important by 15 the proponent, public, scientists and government 16 involved in the assessment process. Importance 17 may be determined on the basis of cultural values 18 or scientific concern. 19 I think that is, in fact, how we 20 approached it. 21 MR. ABRA: Okay. So, that definition 22 is satisfactory from your perspective? 23 MR. REMPEL: Yeah. 24 MR. ABRA: Okay. Just so we are on 25 the same page for the future, because undoubtedly 2626 1 it is going to come up again -- sorry, Mr. Davies, 2 go ahead. 3 MR. DAVIES: No, that was all I had to 4 say. 5 MR. ABRA: In any environmental 6 assessment, I believe that you do your best to 7 identify all of the VECs arising from biophysical, 8 socioeconomic and cultural aspects of any project 9 that you are working on? 10 MR. REMPEL: Yes. In this case, as 11 Mr. Davies indicated, there was particularly 12 strong dialogue with NCN on the VECs as they 13 identified them. But, we also -- 14 MR. ABRA: What was important to them? 15 The components were important to them? 16 MR. REMPEL: That's correct. We also 17 did describe those VECs to other participants in 18 the public involvement program and also, even if 19 there was a species or a component of the 20 environment that was not defined as a VEC, we 21 still studied it, we just simply didn't 22 necessarily give it the same definition or 23 criteria for assessment for significance as we did 24 for the VECs. 25 MR. ABRA: Is there a readily 2627 1 accessible list of those VECs that arose from the 2 project that you are relying upon, Mr. Rempel? 3 MR. REMPEL: There is a list for the 4 GS. The VECs are not as applicable to the 5 transmission line project where a lot of the 6 assessment process involves route selection. But, 7 Mr. Davies has a list of VECs, perhaps he can 8 respond to that. 9 MR. DAVIES: It is quite a long list. 10 The terrestrial VECs -- 11 MR. ABRA: Is it on your computer or 12 are you looking at a document? Because what I was 13 going to suggest that if there is a document that 14 contains the VECs, if it could be distributed, it 15 would probably be helpful to everybody. Is there 16 such a document? 17 MR. DAVIES: The VECs are identified 18 in a number of different places. I am not sure if 19 they are in one spot. All of the terrestrial VECs 20 are identified in table 7.1-1 and that lists the 21 habitats and plants, birds and mammals. 22 The aquatic VECs were water quality 23 and the four key domestic and commercial fish 24 species are Northern Pike or Jackfish, Walleye or 25 Pickerel, Lake Cisco or Tullibee and Lake 2628 1 Whitefish. 2 We also included, not necessarily as 3 the VEC -- although I think we called it that -- 4 traditional harvesting because of its importance 5 to NCN. That's basically the list, the table plus 6 the additional ones I just mentioned. 7 MR. ABRA: Okay. 8 MR. DAVIES: I should mention, when I 9 am talking about traditional harvesting, it is not 10 just the domestic harvesting, but also the 11 commercial fishing and the commercial trapping. 12 MR. ABRA: Is there a VEC for fish 13 habitat? 14 MR. DAVIES: Fish habitat was not 15 called a VEC. In some EIS's it is considered a 16 VEC and others it is not. 17 Despite the fact that we didn't call 18 it a VEC, there are over 100 and some pages 19 specifically devoted to fish habitat and that is 20 in response to section 35 of the Fisheries Act, 21 which requires fish habitat compensation if you 22 are going to have harmful alteration of habitat. 23 So, it was dealt with in a very large amount of 24 detail in the EIS. 25 MR. ABRA: Okay. 2629 1 MR. OSLER: To finish that off -- 2 MR. ABRA: Sure. 3 MR. OSLER: -- as it is said in both 4 volumes, the valued ecosystem and valued ecosystem 5 components -- 6 MR. ABRA: Cam, I wonder if you could 7 speak up, please. 8 MR. OSLER: Sorry. The term 9 "environmental component" was introduced and it 10 was used in the Boise Bay EIS and it has been used 11 in some other ones in order to get beyond thinking 12 that you were only thinking about the ecosystem or 13 ecological elements, okay. So, my understanding 14 is that is why the term has tended to start 15 evolving. It leaves the VEC acronym, but has a 16 slightly broader scope. 17 And we, in the socioeconomic area, 18 explained our approach to it at page 8-11 of 19 volume 1, and it essentially said we would look at 20 the elements that were in the guidelines as 21 indicating to us the important elements that were 22 for starters, in terms of the components of 23 socioeconomic environment that had to be examined. 24 Of course, we looked in -- under each 25 one of those elements that people told us were 2630 1 important to them, which is consistent with what 2 the biologists do when they do their biophysical 3 area, when we look at the important components to 4 people or scientists or regulators with respect to 5 elements of the biophysical environments, such as 6 Mr. Davies is describing. 7 This concept Mr. Hicks may want to 8 comment on for a couple minutes, just so we all 9 start from the same page, which is where you are 10 trying to ensure we are today. 11 In the transmission section, you will 12 not see the same reliance on the concept of VECs 13 as you will in the biophysical and generation 14 sections and perhaps we should get clear from the 15 outset why and so we don't get confused. 16 MR. HICKS: Mr. Chairman, Hicks for 17 the record. 18 As I recall, it is chapter 2 of our 19 volume 1 in the transmission EIS where we point 20 out that we have not explicitly used a VEC 21 approach to our work, although in principle many 22 of the same concepts and ideas are applicable and 23 were used. 24 I will give you an example. When we 25 first began to meet with people in Snow Lake, we 2631 1 were told of a very real concern common in, I 2 think, any single enterprise community, in a 3 mining town, that there was a lot of worry that 4 the community might not be sustainable in the 5 event that the mines closed. That was translated 6 to us in a rather higher priority than to what 7 they saw as an alternative future, which was 8 perhaps a greater dependence on tourism, 9 recreation and wilderness experience. 10 They counselled us as a result of that 11 to adjust our reading process to avoid areas where 12 they thought there was the greatest potential for 13 that kind of activity or that kind of development. 14 For that reason, we located ourselves well to the 15 west and north of Weskusko Lake and we are very 16 careful in defining a crossing of the Grass River. 17 So, what I am suggesting is that the 18 principle of value in this case -- I suppose a 19 socioeconomic component -- finds its way into the 20 EIS and into the decisions that crop up in the 21 course of EIS. It is nowhere described as a VEC, 22 but I would commend to you chapter 5 of volume 1 23 which deals with the public consultation process 24 and chapter 6 which explains how route adjustments 25 were made to accommodate that kind of input. 2632 1 MR. MAYER: When you say volume 1 and 2 you just gave us a number a little while ago, 3 figure 7.1-1, there are two volume "1s" in your 4 EIS -- 5 MR. HICKS: Yes, and I should -- in my 6 case, if I say "volume 1", I will always be 7 referring to the transmission project volume 1, 8 and if you will remind me, I will go further and 9 make the point directly. 10 MR. MAYER: I have in front of me the 11 transmission volume 1. I am now looking for 7 -- 12 figure 7.1-1 where someone said the VECs were 13 listed. 14 MR. HICKS: I believe that reference 15 was made by Mr. Davies to the generating station 16 in volume 1 and I apologize -- 17 MR. DAVIES: Davies speaking, Mr. 18 Chair. When I am referring to a page or a section 19 or a table, I will almost always be referring to 20 the generation component. 21 MR. MAYER: You do generation and you 22 do transmission unless you say otherwise? 23 MR. HICKS: Right. 24 MR. DAVIES: Right. 25 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Osler. 2633 1 MR. OSLER: And I will try and be 2 clear. 3 To help, Mr. Abra and everybody else, 4 there was a question from CNF in round 1 under the 5 EIS section, 51b that will list, for those 6 interested, the VECs that were used in the 7 generation under aquatic and terrestrial and it 8 goes on for several pages. 9 In that area of the CNF questions, 10 there are some other questions to do with VECs. 11 If you want follow up on this, 51b round 1 EIS 12 questions from CNF to Manitoba Hydro and NCN does 13 address sort of the listings and perspectives on 14 it. And it is on either side in 51B for either 15 questions. 16 So, in summary, it is like this 17 consistent practice that you are worrying about. 18 I wanted us to be clear at the outset that there 19 are different perspectives. It is very 20 well-defined in the case of generation, aquatic 21 and terrestrial and probably resource use. It is 22 definitely used a bit when we do the 23 socioeconomics and Mr. Hicks has described 24 approaches a little bit different, but 25 fundamentally founded in the same thought process 2634 1 in the case of the transmission, but it isn't the 2 same wording and the same way of expressing it at 3 all. 4 I would say to you from my memory of 5 the meetings initially with NCN, there was 6 objection from members of NCN to the concept of 7 focusing on something called a VEC. They objected 8 to it in principle as not being wholistic. 9 MR. ABRA: You are dividing things up 10 into components as opposed to taking things as a 11 whole? 12 MR. OSLER: Right, everything is 13 important and why would you say this is important 14 rather than that. We have to explain what we have 15 to do in this type of forum and why we have to 16 focus. The concept of the VEC has emerged in our 17 practice as a way of focusing. You can't study 18 everything. So, you should study what is 19 important. That's the idea down deep 20 years 20 ago, 30 years ago. That's all it is. 21 It is really -- I can remember talking 22 to Peter Dowker (ph) and saying, I wish I never 23 dreamed up the word, he said to me in one of the 24 sessions. But, it is a simple concept. Nothing 25 to get too magical about. Focus, focus, focus on 2635 1 what is important. 2 MS. AVERY KINEW: Excuse me, Mr. 3 Osler. Is that -- could you refer to a reference 4 of that discussion you had with NCN? 5 MR. OSLER: I would have to check 6 whether it is recorded -- it would have been in 7 the original April 2000 -- February/March/April 8 2000 workshop Mr. Davies was describing. I don't 9 know if it is written down. 10 MS. AVERY KINEW: Is it in what we 11 have received? 12 MR. OSLER: I don't know whether if it 13 is written down in what you have received -- 14 MS. AVERY KINEW: We would like to 15 know how traditional knowledge is incorporated. I 16 see particularly of the access road and generation 17 and protection of sacred lands, but ... 18 MR. OSLER: In a sense -- 19 MS. AVERY KINEW: I would like to see 20 if you had a reference to that documentation, 21 that's all. 22 MR. OSLER: I would have to check 23 afterwards. I will check to see whether it is 24 recorded in writing. I wouldn't be surprised if 25 it is not, but I will look to check it. It would 2636 1 be in volume 2 of the generation material, 2 probably appendix 3, but I will check. 3 4 (UNDERTAKING 44: Find reference to discussion had 5 with NCN how traditional knowledge is 6 incorporated) 7 8 MS. AVERY KINEW: Thank you. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: Councillor Thomas would 10 like to talk to this. 11 MR. THOMAS: In regard to the 12 questioning that is being put forward, I 13 understand the importance of getting exact words 14 and definitions so that you can have a base 15 reference with which to use, to try and understand 16 what role things may have in regard to what has 17 been done and what effects it could have on 18 everything that we are looking at. 19 It has been quite difficult for us as 20 a people. As indicated previously, we look at 21 things from a wholistic respect. It is hard for 22 us to understand why something that may be 23 considered small and something that may be 24 considered really huge, may be more important than 25 the other. We see all things as being important, 2637 1 all life being important and all things contained 2 in life being important. 3 We have tried the best we can to 4 provide our understandings of things in regard to 5 our submissions. With regard, say, for example, 6 to the question whether or not we have a 7 definition or a word that means the same thing as 8 "mitigate", I look into one of the documents that 9 we have produced, which is an overview of the 10 agreement in principle. We also have a guide book 11 to the agreement in principle to try and explain 12 things. 13 Within this overview of the agreement 14 in principle, we do have Cree translations of 15 terms that are related to the AIP in the overview. 16 In the Cree translations, we try to explain what 17 certain words in English mean in Cree and quite 18 often, you will find that our words are very 19 descriptive in nature and they are quite all 20 encompassing. 21 So, you will have to bear with us when 22 we talk about definitions of particular words. 23 The example I can give you on 24 mitigated would be (SPEAKS CREE) which means "just 25 enough" kind of idea, where there is something 2638 1 that is happening and whatever needs to be done to 2 address that issue; whatever enough is needed is 3 going to be done, kind of thing. 4 So, we do have these Cree translations 5 that have been requested by our elders for us to 6 provide to the community. I don't know if this 7 has been entered into the record? If not -- 8 MR. ABRA: It should be, Mr. Thomas. 9 MR. THOMAS: Perhaps maybe we should 10 offer it to the commission as part of the record 11 of what we do, and the definitions will be in 12 there and you will find that they are quite 13 descriptive. Thank you. 14 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 15 MR. ABRA: Thank you. 16 MS. AVERY KINEW: Just for 17 clarification, I know that traditional knowledge 18 goes more the other way too, that's why I was 19 wondering, like, (SPEAKS CREE) being health, like, 20 way more than in wholistic health terms, walking 21 in balance, if your concepts that way are going 22 this way and not translating? 23 MR. THOMAS: It is quite difficult not 24 to sound ethnocentric or superior in any way, but 25 it has taken quite a while for non-Aboriginal 2639 1 societies to evolve to the point where they are 2 now starting to think wholistic and describe 3 things in a much more wholistic way. 4 So, to try to go, as you say, the 5 other way or in reverse is quite difficult. We 6 kind of hope that the other would occur. 7 MS. AVERY KINEW: Will catch up to 8 you. 9 MR. THOMAS: Thank you. 10 MR. ABRA: Thank you, Mr. Thomas. 11 I would like to move on to the 12 environmental impact statements themselves. The 13 first word is a follow-up on -- I believe Mr. 14 Davies used it initially. It is -- what is meant 15 by "scoping" in the environmental assessment, and 16 what scoping was done with respect to the EIS, 17 both with respect to the generation project and 18 then the transmission project? 19 MR. DAVIES: Stuart Davies speaking, 20 and, again, I am speaking to the generation 21 component specifically. 22 The scoping was really initiated again 23 in late 1999 and early 2000 through a series of 24 intensive workshops with NCN resource harvesters, 25 elders and members. 2640 1 We looked at various -- different 2 components at each workshop, the first one being 3 the aquatic environment. We took a wholistic 4 approach to it by looking at how all things were 5 late, starting with the sun and energy transfer, 6 and we worked with NCN to provide sort of linkage 7 diagrams that we could start with. 8 Through that, the types of studies 9 of -- that were identified that addressed the 10 issues and concerns expressed by the NCN members, 11 but also addressed the information requirements 12 that were required to write the environmental 13 impact statement. 14 Scoping in terms of spatial areas was 15 different. We did have to scope different 16 components to different sizes because of the range 17 of the -- 18 MR. ABRA: When you talk about 19 spatial, Mr. Davies, I believe you are talking 20 about the geographic area of the scoping; am I 21 correct? 22 MR. DAVIES: That's correct. If we 23 are looking at something like a vole or a muskrat, 24 they have a very small home range. If we are 25 looking at something like caribou, they have a 2641 1 much, much larger home range. If you are looking 2 at something like a passerine, a song bird, if 3 they are neotropical, they migrate very long 4 distances. So, the VECs ended up with different 5 spatial areas that we specifically looked at. 6 But, at the same time, we also created 7 different layers for examining these in, one being 8 the subregion, which is identified in the 9 environmental impact statements and the region. 10 And we looked at the components within those 11 regions, but again, we also looked at the specific 12 animal or plant or water effect and how far that 13 would be distributed. 14 MR. ABRA: What was the geographic 15 area? 16 MR. DAVIES: Actually, I have some 17 sizes here. I am trying to remember the size of 18 the subregion. 19 MR. REMPEL: Rempel here. While Mr. 20 Davies is looking for that, I would just like to 21 make a comment on scoping. 22 A big component of the scoping 23 exercise is to provide the regulators with a 24 description of the two projects that are being 25 proposed. Once the regulator sees the kind of 2642 1 components that are involved in the two projects, 2 the process of setting guidelines, which do 3 describe the scope of the assessment, begins. 4 In this case, draft guidelines were 5 put out, which did give guidance in terms of the 6 scope, what components the environment should be 7 studied and some particular specifics of those 8 various components, and they were then revised in 9 due course. Those provide guidance from the 10 regulators as to the scope of the assessments of 11 the two projects. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Rempel, like, if I 13 understand, like, going from the initial broad 14 guidelines, very unspecified and adding some 15 degree of preciseness and -- it is part of what 16 you describe as scoping? 17 MR. REMPEL: Yes. 18 THE CHAIRMAN: Sort of bringing it 19 down to the exact terms that you finally decide 20 on? 21 MR. REMPEL: Yes. The guidelines are 22 not prescriptive. As Mr. Davies said, when he is 23 looking at wildlife, he has to look at different 24 study areas, for example, depending on the nature 25 of the species that he is looking at. 2643 1 So, it is our job to get more specific 2 once we have that general guidance on scoping, and 3 I think Mr. Davies can now provide some examples 4 of such an exercise. 5 MR. DAVIES: Stuart Davies speaking. 6 For the terrestrial assessment, there 7 was a tiered approach that was taken. The 8 smallest area that was looked at was the project 9 area, which was actually the footprint of various 10 structures and that was somewhat less than 16 11 square kilometers. 12 The next area was the primary zone of 13 influence. There was a 150-metre buffer around 14 the project areas where the majority of effects 15 would occur. 16 There was also what was called the 17 landscape zone of influence, and those were one 18 kilometer buffers around project impact areas. 19 This morning, Dr. Bayne was referring 20 to the 250 and 500-metre buffers or areas where 21 disturbance could occur. We actually use a 22 slightly broader area than that and all of the 23 EISs use a one-kilometer buffer area. 24 The main area that we generally 25 compare the impacts to for the majority of the 2644 1 animals was the subregion and that's 3356 2 kilometers squared. Within that, is the region, 3 which is the largest area and that is 24,790 4 metres squared. 5 Now, for the aquatic assessment, that 6 was slightly different. We looked at four 7 different regions initially. Each one being the 8 area between Early Morning Rapids and Taskinigup 9 Falls. The area there was 8970 hectares. We also 10 looked at the area between -- sorry, Wuskwatim 11 Falls and Taskinigup Falls, which is somewhere 12 around 50 hectares. 13 We then looked at the reach from 14 Taskinigup Falls downstream to Opegano Lake, which 15 is somewhere around a 13-kilometers stretch of 16 river. 17 And then we finally looked at Opegano 18 Lake -- the start of Opegano Lake to the end of 19 Opegano Lake as reach four. 20 The study reach for the aquatic 21 assessment actually extended slightly further 22 afterwards because of some of the concerns that 23 were raised by downstream communities. So, water 24 quality sampling actually took place much further 25 down to an area just upstream at Split Lake. 2645 1 MR. REMPEL: Mr. Osler has a comment 2 to add to that in terms of a general approach on 3 scoping. 4 MR. OSLER: Just -- the question was 5 very general to start with and we have been very 6 specific in answering it to do with an element of 7 generation. But, in essence, scoping is doing the 8 hard work that the chairman asked Mr. Rempel about 9 to figure out exactly what you should focus on. 10 The rules in the practitioner's guide 11 would say "Scoping should involve", just to get a 12 good check list: Issues identification. 13 Number 2: Valued ecosystem component selection or 14 valued environmental components. The things that 15 you should focus looking at that are important. 16 Spatial bounding. How big is the geographic area 17 you should look at? Temporal bounding. The time 18 period you should look at and the list of the 19 included projects from the point of view of 20 accumulated effects and assessment, past, present 21 and future. 22 What you will get is that this 23 varies -- as I tried to point out in my opening 24 day presentation -- it will vary component of the 25 environment by component of the environment and 2646 1 sometimes by sections of the components of the 2 environment. So, there is not one region, there 3 is not one area -- 4 MR. ABRA: No, I think Mr. Davies has 5 said that, that there were different areas that 6 were covered depending on what the component was. 7 MR. OSLER: Right. So, you have to 8 go -- in the socioeconomic area, I can give you a 9 broader set of definitions. Mr. Hicks would say 10 his scoping had to be quite a lot broader because 11 he had to cut off the alternative routes that 12 might be under study. Where Mr. Davies had the 13 opportunity to focus his mind on a particular 14 location that was already picked where the 15 generating station would be. 16 When we looked at alternative routes 17 for the road, there had to be a pretty broad 18 region to look at the scope for that. 19 So, we have to avoid thinking that 20 there is a general answer to the question. It 21 will vary by the two documents. It will vary by 22 each one the environmental components, physical, 23 aquatic, terrestrial, heritage and socioeconomic. 24 MR. ABRA: But, what I did ask Mr. 25 Davies about was the geographic area of the 2647 1 scoping and I think he has answered that. 2 What about you, Mr. Hicks, what was 3 the geographic area of your scoping with regard to 4 the transmission project? 5 MR. HICKS: Hicks for the record. 6 As Mr. Osler has indicated, we started 7 with a rather larger study area because we have to 8 think in terms of the ability to identify 9 alternative routes that might respond to different 10 people, different interest groups, or attitudes 11 towards of the routing process. 12 So, we started with an area that is 13 mapped in figure 4.1 of transmission volume number 14 1, and described the scoping process in section 15 1.4 of the same volume. 16 What we were looking for was -- we 17 knew that ultimately in the terms of the concept 18 that was supplied to us by Hydro, that we needed 19 to get from Thompson, or thereabouts, to The Pas. 20 We knew that to make that connection to effect the 21 system functions that were being asked for by the 22 technical people, that we would need to encompass 23 an area large enough that we could find discreet 24 and reasonably well-defined ways of getting there 25 that might address different people's concerns. 2648 1 So, we started with a very large area. 2 We extended east as far as Highway 6. Extended 3 west as far as -- beyond Herblet Lake station and 4 down and over to the west of and north of 5 Clearwater and Cormorant Lake -- 6 We then, in a series of steps, tried 7 to reduce that. How we reduced it, once we got 8 the alternative routes in place or some sense of 9 what might be an alternative route worthy of 10 further assessment, that we then began to look at 11 the source of impacts, potentially, that we need 12 to be studying and we were guided in that again by 13 the fact that Manitoba Hydro has had some 14 considerable experience under environmental 15 legislation with the production of site selection 16 and environmental assessment documents for 17 transmission lines. 18 Our specialists have worked on a 19 number of things. We have a good solid notion, I 20 think, of what sorts of potential effects are of 21 concern or could be an issue, unless you are 22 careful with your routing and design. Then went 23 to the process that Stuart has described, which 24 is, in essence, adjust the study area or scoping 25 area, if you will, for the particular impact or 2649 1 effect that is at hand. 2 So, it was really a succession of 3 interim steps that were designed to allow us at 4 each stage to focus in more explicitly on the 5 issue at hand. 6 Further guidance that we sought in 7 that whole process and what I have always found 8 important to a scoping exercise, is through a 9 series of stages in the public involvement 10 program, we solicited advice from again 11 potentially effected interest groups and 12 stakeholders to tell us what they felt would be an 13 appropriate range of alternatives and we would 14 move the study area to accommodate that. 15 MR. ABRA: Okay. Mr. Davies, you may 16 have answered this earlier, but you gave a lot of 17 distances that your scoping area covered. Either 18 with use of the maps or just for the record, the 19 maximum area I think you said was, what, 24,000 20 square metres or whatever? What I am asking is 21 that geographically -- or name wise, what area are 22 we talking about? 23 MR. DAVIES: It is an area of 24,790 24 square kilometers. 25 MR. ABRA: Kilometers, sorry. I said 2650 1 metres. What area are we talking about, sir? 2 MR. DAVIES: We need a map, I guess. 3 MR. ABRA: You have got one. Is it 4 larger than what is on the map -- 5 MR. DAVIES: First of all, I guess for 6 the aquatic, if we take a look at the map, Early 7 Morning Rapids is the upstream extent and Early 8 Morning Rapids was selected as the upstream extent 9 because water level variations resulting from 10 Wuskwatim don't go further upstream than Early 11 Morning Rapids. 12 We also don't find a lot of fish 13 movements between the two. Fish cannot go up and 14 we haven't found a lot of fish that have been 15 moving down. So, it is basically a natural 16 separation area. 17 The downstream boundary goes to 18 Opegano Lake. We also did take a look at 19 Birchtree Lake, where we have a -- I believe it is 20 0.1 metre objective for water levels. 21 So that by the time we hit Opegano 22 Lake, we were at an area where we didn't feel that 23 any further downstream, you would be seeing any 24 significant effects of the project or any 25 measurable effects of the project. So, that is 2651 1 where the boundaries for that took place. 2 The terrestrial component was 3 different. Again, we looked at the -- the first 4 tier was the area where immediately -- that would 5 be immediately lost to the structure itself; the 6 construction camp area, the footprint of the 7 generating station. That area was less than 16 8 square kilometers. 9 We then moved through a number of 10 different areas until we hit the subregion and 11 then the subregion being contained within the 12 region -- and I really need a map in order to show 13 that. Perhaps I could submit this as a document? 14 Page 7-4 of volume 1. 15 MR. ABRA: Of the generating volume 1? 16 MR. DAVIES: Of the generating volume 17 1. 18 MR. ABRA: I was just about to ask 19 you, the Early Morning Rapids to Opegano lake, 20 that can't be 24,000 kilometers, even going north 21 and south that far? 22 MR. DAVIES: I believe it is. 23 MR. SARGEANT: 24,000 square 24 kilometers is -- it is a 24 mile-wide -- or 25 24-kilometer wide stretch from here to Calgary. 2652 1 MR. DAVIES: Yes -- no. It is 247 2 kilometers by 100 kilometers. 3 If we take a look at section 7, page 4 7-4, the area that is red in the box is the 5 subregion and that is a smaller area. That's the 6 3000 square kilometers. If we take a look at the 7 area that is in green, the larger area, that is 8 the actual region. Again, if you have an area 9 that is approximately 247 kilometers by 100, you 10 end up with around 24,000 square kilometers and 11 that's the larger area that we looked at. 12 MR. HICKS: Mr. Chairman, if I may 13 offer clarification in the case of the 14 transmission line to put it into a more consistent 15 perspective with what my colleague Mr. Davies has 16 described. 17 The initial study area that we looked 18 at for routing purposes, which as I mentioned, was 19 illustrated in figure 4.1 of the transmission 20 volume 1, was 21,000 square kilometers. 21 When we moved later in the project to 22 look at an ecological analysis of the potential 23 effects of the project with the help of our 24 ecologist, who was also working with Stuart's 25 group, we defined the same footprint zone and 2653 1 influence and landscape sale study areas that Stu 2 has mentioned, the width, the right-of-way itself, 3 150 metre band on either side of the right-of-way 4 and a landscape band that varies anywhere from 2 5 kilometers up to 5 or 6 kilometers in width for 6 the whole length of the each of the alternative 7 routes and/or finally, the alternative route. 8 But, we also defined at that stage, 9 for the purposes of comparing and establishing the 10 significance of some of the effects, a much larger 11 study area which was in fact 45,000 square 12 kilometers. That is the basis -- that region, if 13 you will, that combination of two subregions is 14 the -- what we used in cases where we were trying 15 to express a particular impact as a fraction of 16 the affected subregion or region. 17 So, again, we move from 21,000 18 kilometers for the purpose of finding alternative 19 routes, ultimately up to an area of 45,000 square 20 kilometers for the purpose of comparing effects 21 that we expected within our fine habitat or our 22 broad habitat brands. 23 To confuse the matter further, without 24 intending to, in the case of the wildlife 25 assessment, we used eco districts as a measure of 2654 1 the comparative areas. Eco districts are 2 well-defined in the literature and they -- I don't 3 know the area offhand that was involved, but there 4 were, I believe, seven separate eco districts that 5 were looked at as part and parcel of the wildlife 6 impact assessment. 7 MR. ABRA: Okay. Mr. Davies, for what 8 reason did you not go past Early Morning Rapids as 9 far as your environmental assessment was 10 concerned? 11 MR. DAVIES: Water level effects from 12 Wuskwatim, if constructed, would not go past Early 13 Morning Rapids. They would be dampened by the 14 rapids themselves. So, you wouldn't see any water 15 level fluctuations or any water level changes 16 upstream from Early Morning Rapids. 17 MR. ABRA: On what basis do you say 18 that, sir? 19 MR. DAVIES: That was the information 20 provide to me by Manitoba Hydro's engineers. 21 MR. REMPEL: I think I can add 22 something to that. I think I explained in day one 23 that Early Morning Rapids really acts as a 24 hydraulic break. In other words, if there is a 25 backwater from building the dam at Taskinigup 2655 1 Falls, that backwater, the effect of putting that 2 fence, if you like, across the river, that 3 backwater extends to the base of Early Morning 4 Rapids. It cannot surmount those rapids. In 5 other words, it has no effect on the water levels 6 upstream of those rapids. That is because there 7 is super critical flow across the rapids. There 8 is a drop, in effect. 9 So, if you had a very much higher 10 head, there would -- say, a high-head development 11 that was talked about, again on day one, that 12 would cause effects upstream of Early Morning 13 Rapids. But, by virtue of having the 234 metre 14 forebay above sea level, there is no effect, 15 hydraulic effect into Early Morning Rapids. The 16 effects stay at the base of Early Morning Rapids, 17 both in winter and in summer. It is a hydraulic 18 break. 19 MR. ABRA: Are you going to have -- I 20 wonder if we could move that map back. I would 21 like the other one, please. It shows Wuskwatim 22 Lake and Missi Falls and so on. 23 MR. REMPEL: Incidentally, Mr. Abra, I 24 don't know if you had a chance to look at the 25 plastic model showing the running water? 2656 1 MR. ABRA: Yes, I did. 2 MR. REMPEL: That, in effect, 3 demonstrated that when you build that obstacle to 4 the river of Taskinigup Falls, that makes a 5 reservoir or forebay which extends to the base of 6 the rapids. But, above the rapids, the flow 7 continues just as it would have if you had not 8 built that dam. 9 MR. ABRA: I will be blunt. What we 10 are wondering or what our concern is that you may 11 be correct as far as the water backing up is 12 concerned, but we are wondering with the building 13 of the Wuskwatim dam, the water maybe not backed 14 up any more than to Early Morning Rapids, but are 15 you not bringing more water into the Burntwood 16 River for the purpose of the Wuskwatim dam? And 17 is that not going to have an impact on Wuskwatim 18 Lake and, in fact, have less water going through 19 Missi Falls to the Churchill River -- not more, 20 less? 21 MR. REMPEL: No. We have said in the 22 EIS, based on assertions by Manitoba Hydro and we 23 are satisfied that there is no incentive for them 24 to do otherwise as well, that they will not change 25 the operation of the CRD itself. In other words, 2657 1 they will not change the flow patterns in terms of 2 the flows leaving Missi Falls or leaving Notigi. 3 So, every year the flow is different 4 in terms of what is available in that watershed 5 and flows are diverted in accordance with the 6 agreements and the conditions provided by the 7 Manitoba Government. 8 But, there is no intent to change 9 those patterns to provide more or less flow going 10 down the Rat/Burntwood system than would otherwise 11 happen without the project. 12 MR. ABRA: So, it is your position -- 13 or Hydro's position and NCN's position that there 14 will not be more water required in the Burntwood 15 for the purposes of the dam, than if the dam was 16 not built? 17 MR. REMPEL: There will be no change 18 in the flow patterns in terms of releases from 19 Notigi brought about because of the Wuskwatim dam. 20 I think Hydro and NCN have agreed that 21 that is the case. It was important to NCN and it 22 is also a stated policy by Manitoba Hydro. Mr. 23 Wojczynski might wish to reinforce that. 24 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Ed Wojczynski. Yes, 25 as we have said on day one and I think some other 2658 1 times on the record that we already are operating 2 the CRD in a way that maximizes the flows down 3 into the Nelson River for the major plants down 4 there. By virtue of the fact that we are already 5 maximizing and optimizing the flows for that, we 6 would be providing the same optimization, if you 7 like, for Wuskwatim. So, we have no incentive to 8 do anything different. We already go into a 9 maximum benefit situation. 10 Secondly, that is our plan and 11 intention not to do anything different. 12 I might add that that the whole CRD 13 benefit is -- the vast majority of it, even if you 14 include -- say, if you look at the plants on the 15 Nelson, compared to the benefit of our flow regime 16 from CRD, the vast majority of the benefits are 17 from the plants that are on the Nelson. If you 18 look at Wuskwatim, it is a relatively small 19 additional benefit and the driver is what is 20 happening on the Nelson. 21 MR. MAYER: I think we should clarify 22 though, you keep saying "CRD", and I think that 23 each time you say that on the record, you should 24 make it very clear that in your opinion, or at 25 least in your view, CRD includes the augmented 2659 1 program which has to do reviewed annually, right? 2 MR. WOJCZYNSKI: Yes. When I am 3 referring to CRD, we are talking about continuing 4 to operate the CRD the way we have for 18 years. 5 So, in our view, CRD operation -- continuing its 6 operation is the way we have done it for 18 years, 7 which does include the ARP, absolutely. 8 MR. HICKS: Mr. Chair, I don't wish to 9 interrupt the flow here, but I have a point of 10 clarification. 11 I had earlier indicated that I didn't 12 have a figure at my fingertips for the area of the 13 seven eco districts that were reviewed in the 14 course of the wildlife assessment. They, in fact, 15 total 42,000 square kilometers. 16 MR. THOMAS: Mr. Chairman? 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Thomas. 18 MR. THOMAS: If I may add to the 19 comment provided by Mr. Wojczynski with regard to 20 the CRD issue. 21 I indicated at the beginning that our 22 people were very concerned that there could be 23 changes to the system in addition to what was 24 allowable under the augmented flow program. 25 They indicated to us that they didn't 2660 1 want any additional flooding to occur and that's 2 the primary reason why they asked for a low head 3 design and one that wouldn't go back into the 4 Footprint Lake system. 5 They recognize that the Early Morning 6 Rapids would act as a buffer in terms of any 7 potential effects. So, that is part of the record 8 already. Thank you. 9 THE CHAIRMAN: That is correct. We 10 heard that very clearly. We'll keep it in mind. 11 Mr. Abra. 12 MR. ABRA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Are 13 you both satisfied -- I would be surprised if your 14 answer is no. For the record, are you both 15 satisfied that the project study areas that you 16 used, the geographic area that you used for your 17 scoping was large enough to consider all relevant 18 direct and indirect environmental effects and also 19 accumulative environmental effects? 20 MR. DAVIES: Stuart Davies speaking. 21 Yes, I am. 22 MR. HICKS: Hicks. Yes. 23 MR. ABRA: Now, you both did your own 24 environmental assessments, I understand. Some of 25 the area was common, obviously, as far as the 2661 1 spatial scoping was concerned, the geographic 2 scoping? 3 MR. DAVIES: That's correct. 4 MR. ABRA: Thank you. 5 MR. REMPEL: Mr. Abra, I might add, 6 that one of the reasons we had an environmental 7 management team was to assure that there was 8 attention given to overlap issues and there was 9 integration of the approaches and the kinds of 10 criteria for judgments, et cetera, between the two 11 EISs. 12 So, there were regular meetings of the 13 EMT, as we called it, to address those areas of 14 overlap and ensure a measure of consistency as 15 appropriate because they are two different 16 projects and they are very distinctive in terms of 17 one being a linear feature, the other being a 18 generation project. But, we did have that kind of 19 an integrated approach to ensure some consistency. 20 MR. ABRA: Thank you. 21 MR. HICKS: Hicks here. 22 I might add that Stuart, on the 23 generation side of EIS, was in many cases 24 responding to some very serious concerns in the 25 community about the generation project. So, he 2662 1 was running on a slightly faster track than were 2 we. We benefited in many cases from the research 3 and the consultation work that he was doing. We 4 were there, but he was for -- for a substantial 5 period of time, he was the focus of attention. We 6 came along a little bit later. 7 MR. ABRA: Now, just going back to 8 what I was asking you a few moments ago, I gather 9 that -- well, Mr. Davies, you said you relied on 10 the Hydro engineers, but what studies were done to 11 determine if there would be any environmental 12 effects on the Wuskwatim projects on the Lower 13 Nelson, the Churchill and Hudson Bay itself? Just 14 the fact that it is not anticipated that the water 15 will go back up past Early Morning Rapids, or on 16 what basis did the engineers give you that view? 17 Just from what Mr. Wojczynski said? 18 MR. DAVIES: Based on the information 19 received from Manitoba Hydro and what 20 Mr. Wojczynski said, yes, that's correct. 21 We were under the impression, and I 22 believe it is correct, that the Churchill River 23 diversion will not change as a result of this 24 project and the assessment was based on the 25 Churchill River diversion, including the augmented 2663 1 flow program. 2 MR. HICKS: Mr. Chairman, in the case 3 of transmission, we relied on studies that were 4 produced by the transmission system planning 5 group, which do not deal with the environmental 6 effects explicitly, but as Stuart's engineering 7 counterparts on GS, we are dealing with the flow 8 of water. The studies that we were provided, 9 dealt with the flow of power and electricity. 10 MR. ABRA: Okay. With respect to the 11 scoping, I would like to deal briefly with the 12 time frames which I understand to those of you who 13 are assessment professionals use the term 14 "temporal scoping". I guess, like lawyers, we 15 like to use phrases that nobody understands. 16 "Spatial" and "temporal" to me are different than 17 geographic and time frame. But, in any event, the 18 time frames and the temporal scoping, what time 19 frame did you look at? 20 MR. REMPEL: Rempel here -- 21 MR. ABRA: Obviously, I will ask both 22 of you. Sorry, Mr. Rempel, I didn't mean to 23 interrupt. 24 MR. REMPEL: There were differences in 25 the approaches in defining the appropriate time 2664 1 lines. Just as an example, for erosion, shoreline 2 erosion, we had zero to five and then we had 3 ten-year time steps and then we went out to 25 4 years and beyond to 100 years in terms of 5 predicting effects without the project and with 6 the project. That is kind of a physical time 7 line. 8 In the case of biological time lines, 9 there were time lines that were more associated 10 with the life spans of the various species and 11 their recovery times for an adverse effect and 12 Stuart may wish to define that further. 13 MR. DAVIES: The CEAA Practitioner's 14 Guide does recommend that you look at the project 15 such as a generating station -- 16 MR. ABRA: You said the C-E-A-A 17 Practitioner's Guide? 18 MR. DAVIES: That's correct. We 19 looked -- in terms of time frame for the 20 generation project, we looked at the construction 21 phase, first of all, being the six-year period. 22 That was the first component. We also looked at 23 the operation phase, which goes to approximately 24 100 years. Those are the two main components that 25 you are to look at. 2665 1 We also stuck in an additional one 2 that we called a transitional phase and that was 3 from zero to 25 years. Once the project is built, 4 there is a period of time when the majority of the 5 effects will occur. After that, things start to 6 stabilize. 7 So, we ended up with the construction 8 phase, a transition phase and then what we call 9 the operation phase. 10 MR. ABRA: What were the time frames, 11 sir? 12 MR. DAVIES: Zero to five years. Six 13 to 25 and 26 to 100. 14 MR. ABRA: Okay. So, the zero to five 15 is the construction phase? 16 MR. DAVIES: That's correct. 17 MR. ABRA: The second one is five to 18 25, did you say? 19 MR. DAVIES: Six to 25 is the 20 transitional phase. 21 MR. ABRA: Okay. What is involved in 22 that? 23 MR. DAVIES: Just as an example, 24 Mr. Rempel was referring to erosion and we know 25 that the majority of erosion is expected to occur 2666 1 within the first five years of operation. So, 2 that would occur during the transitional phase. 3 Once the majority of the erosion occurs during the 4 first five years, we will see things slowly going 5 down. By 25 years, erosion will have stabilized 6 to some extent on Wuskwatim Lake and be in a much 7 more stable period. That's the period we call the 8 operation phase. 9 MR. ABRA: That's six to 25? 10 MR. DAVIES: That's 25 to 100. 11 MR. ABRA: I am sorry, 25 to 100. 12 MR. DAVIES: That's right -- 26 to 13 100. 14 MR. OSLER: Just to -- these are all 15 summarized in the generation volume, section 2 16 page 2-3, and you should keep in mind that they 17 will vary depending on which component we are 18 talking about and the socioeconomic component will 19 have different spatial and temporal -- to use your 20 terminology -- elements that are described in 21 chapter 9 of volume 1. Again, these are very 22 specific in the end to the component in the 23 environment that we are looking at. 24 MR. ABRA: Okay. Mr. Hicks, with 25 respect to the transmission lines? 2667 1 MR. HICKS: In principle, a parallel 2 approach. In the case of transmission, the 3 construction period is much briefer. It tends to 4 be anywhere from one to two winter construction 5 seasons for particular segments. So, you are 6 looking at one to two years maximum for the 7 construction period. 8 The operating period is, again, a 9 little different in that there is a cycle, a 10 vegetation management cycle, which essentially 11 repeats itself on an ongoing basis for the life of 12 the project. So, there is kind of an indefinite 13 quality from a project perspective there. 14 In terms of looking at other projects 15 that we might feel needed or we scoped into our 16 accumulative effects assessment, we were guided in 17 some cases by the cycles associated with those. 18 For example, forestry and the forest management 19 cycle is quite different and is described in 20 technical volume 5 of the transmission submission. 21 MR. ABRA: Now, is there a third 22 period, shall we say, as there was for the 23 generation project? As you say, it is 24 lifetime-basically, there is the construction -- 25 MR. HICKS: In essence, yes. The 2668 1 ongoing operation of the line and the management 2 of the right-of-way is, effectively, an ongoing 3 continuing process. 4 MR. ABRA: Okay. How did you go about 5 ensuring that all of the environmental effects of 6 both the generation project and the transmission 7 lines were identified? 8 MR. HICKS: Perhaps I will start this 9 one -- Hicks for the record -- on the transmission 10 side. 11 We start in all cases with, again, the 12 experience of Manitoba Hydro in the development 13 and operation of over 11,000 kilometers of 14 transmission line in Manitoba, the fact that those 15 lines are patrolled and inspected in the course of 16 operations and maintenance activity roughly four 17 times a year for each line. So there is a base of 18 activity and information about their effects. 19 As one would expect, if the effects 20 are not in keeping with the expectations, it is 21 not at all uncommon to hear from the communities, 22 or the affected trappers or others. So, again, 23 there is a lengthy record of experience that 24 fleshes out a sense of what the potential effects 25 can be. 2669 1 Over and above that, we require each 2 of our technical specialists when they become 3 involved in the project to undertake what we call 4 a study area classification, where they will go 5 all through the available literature, all of the 6 available research in their area, and apprise 7 themselves of any particular sensitivities. They 8 will also look at the literature and they will 9 update themselves from time to time on these 10 projects with respect to the potential effects 11 that others may have identified for transmission 12 in respect of those sensitivities. 13 Then from there we move to a more 14 project specific assessment, which in the first 15 instance is an attempt to qualify and compare 16 different alternative routes, and ultimately, once 17 a route has been selected, in consultation with 18 the local and traditional representatives, we then 19 move to a formal assessment of that particular 20 route and its impacts. 21 MR. REMPEL: I would like to add 22 something to that. In terms of -- aside from the 23 experience that Dave, Mr. Hicks has talked about, 24 we do also identify the issues that we see to the 25 regulators and to the public, and we do seek their 2670 1 guidance in terms of whether we have it right, and 2 add issues as the process unfolds. So, we do get 3 guidance from, firstly, sharing with them our 4 interpretation from the experience Mr. Hicks 5 talked about, both on the GS, the generating 6 station and the transmission projects. They 7 provide guidance back to us, and some of that 8 guidance is reflected in the guidelines. 9 We then talk about those issues to the 10 various publics, and information is received. And 11 as Mr. Davies indicated, sometimes issues are 12 emphasized, given greater focus than they would 13 otherwise have been, such as the mercury item he 14 mentioned. So, it is an evolving process with 15 certainly regulatory and public input being very 16 important. 17 MR. DAVIES: Stuart Davies speaking. 18 The generation -- 19 MR. ABRA: I might indicate for your 20 benefit, it is really not necessary to identify 21 yourselves each time you are speaking. Although 22 it is being tape recorded, the reporter will just 23 put down which of you is speaking at the time that 24 you do. It is really not necessary to 25 differentiate. 2671 1 MR. DAVIES: Thank you. The approach 2 that was taken for the generation component was 3 very similar to the approach that Mr. Hicks just 4 described. The sources of information that were 5 used to identify impacts were fairly broad. First 6 of all, traditional knowledge, and we have spoken 7 about the workshops and involvement of NCN 8 members. It was particularly important in this 9 because a lot of the elders live through the 10 Churchill River Diversion experience and had a 11 very good understanding of the types of impacts 12 that occurred as a result of that project. 13 There is also a lot of information 14 that has been generated in Manitoba, Southern 15 Indian Lake is a good example, of a very large 16 amount of literature and good information that can 17 be used for these types of projects. Hydro Quebec 18 also has provided a lot of information on the 19 effects of hydroelectric generating stations, as 20 well as areas around the world. 21 We also depend on the expertise of the 22 various specialists, and we try to have 23 specialists, and we did have specialists looking 24 at each of the main components with extensive 25 experience. 2672 1 All of that combined was used to 2 identify the types of impacts that we were looking 3 at. Thank you. 4 MR. ABRA: You identify environmental 5 effects. What methods do you use to quantify 6 them? 7 MR. REMPEL: A variety of techniques 8 are used; in some cases it is modeling, in some 9 cases it is mapping, classifications of habitats. 10 There is a wide variety of different methods used. 11 I think we described them in one of the IRs, I 12 can't recall which one, but it does vary in terms 13 of the environmental component that is under 14 consideration. 15 MR. ABRA: There were instances, I 16 gather, where you use matrixes and checklists and 17 overlay maps and so on, as you have said? 18 MR. REMPEL: Yes. 19 MR. ABRA: These are traditional 20 methods that are generally used for the purposes 21 of quantifying environmental assessment? 22 MR. REMPEL: I am hesitant to respond 23 to the use of the word "traditional." 24 MR. ABRA: Sorry. 25 MR. REMPEL: Are these conventional 2673 1 methods? 2 MR. ABRA: Conventional is a good 3 word -- sorry, often used? 4 MR. REMPEL: There is a mix of 5 different methods that are used conventionally in 6 EIS's, and it varies, as I say, with the physical, 7 aquatic, and terrestrial components, yes. 8 MR. ABRA: Same with respect to the 9 transmission lines for both projects, the same 10 methodology was used to quantify? 11 MR. HICKS: Yes, again, a wide range 12 of effects and a wide range of techniques, at the 13 one level where there are defined regulatory 14 thresholds for things with like radio 15 interference, measurement, prediction, modeling. 16 At the far end of the spectrum, professional 17 judgment is often a key consideration. 18 MR. ABRA: Okay. What methods do you 19 use to assess the adversity of environmental 20 effects after you have quantified them? 21 MR. REMPEL: For clarification, do you 22 mean the significance of the effect? 23 MR. ABRA: Once you identify that 24 there is going to be an adverse environmental 25 effect, you have to then quantify it, do you not? 2674 1 How do you assess it and quantify it once you have 2 identified it? 3 MR. REMPEL: Could I have just a 4 moment, please? 5 MR. ABRA: Sure. I don't have the 6 section in front of me right now, but there is a 7 fairly extensive description in section 2, I 8 believe, of volume 1 of the GS, and probably the 9 same one in the transmission line, where we 10 describe various attributes of adversity, of the 11 effect, in terms of duration, magnitude. I think 12 there is about six criteria, whether geographical 13 extent is local, site specific, or regional. So 14 those are all the kinds of criteria we used to get 15 a gauge on the extent of adversity, if you like, 16 and ultimately significance. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Rempel, surely, you 18 would not -- I know you said there were various 19 methods of quantifying, and one of them was 20 described as graphs and maps and so forth, but 21 actual measurements are also part of that 22 quantification obviously, mathematical 23 measurements and scientific data is part of that 24 quantification as well, depending on what it is 25 that we are dealing with? 2675 1 MR. REMPEL: Certainly, we try to 2 quantify, for example, in erosion estimates, how 3 much the shoreline would recess. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: That's why I was 5 asking. 6 MR. REMPEL: We consider that to be a 7 model. Maybe I didn't explain it properly. It 8 was a modeling technique that was used to project 9 that loss of shoreline, and it was quantified in 10 terms of tonnes of organic material, trees lost, 11 et cetera. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: I just wanted to make 13 sure that that was also added to what you had 14 said. 15 MR. REMPEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 16 I am not sure if I completed the answer to your 17 question, Mr. Abra? Was that satisfactory? Do 18 you want to pursue that further? 19 MR. ABRA: Well, I guess we want some 20 examples. The Chairman did a better job of 21 getting one than I did. 22 MR. REMPEL: Okay. 23 MR. ABRA: It is fine to say we used 24 the traditional models and steps and so on, but 25 what we want to know is what some of them are? I 2676 1 recognize there are many used and I don't expect 2 you to give a full recital, but, for example, with 3 respect to the erosion, you obviously quantified 4 what you anticipate it is going to be? 5 MR. REMPEL: Right. 6 MR. ABRA: Similarly, I assume you did 7 the same with respect to transmission line, you 8 did the same with respect to fish habitat and so 9 on? 10 MR. REMPEL: Yes. There are a number 11 of examples, and I will ask Mr. Hicks and 12 Mr. Davies to provide some of those. But just as 13 an example, again, on the physical environment, we 14 did estimate the amount of granular material that 15 would be extracted from a ridge nearby the site, 16 and indicated how many cubic metres of granular 17 material would be used for that purpose. We 18 identified an estimate in a way of the overall 19 granular resources in the area and put it into 20 perspective that this was a very small percentage 21 of the overall resources, would not preclude 22 options for NCN for access to adequate granular 23 resources, and concluded that that was a very 24 small effect. So we tried to provide that 25 quantification perspective, quantification where 2677 1 it was possible, and judgments where it was not. 2 Perhaps, Mr. Hicks or Davies would 3 like to give other examples to perhaps help out in 4 that. 5 MR. HICKS: Mr. Chair, in the case of 6 transmission, Mr. Rempel referred to the volume 1 7 of each of the documents, both the transmission 8 and the generation, outlining the process for 9 determining significance. And I will give you 10 those references in the case of transmission, it 11 is section 2.5, where we identify, based on in 12 point of fact the section 8 of the EIS guidelines, 13 a number of criteria, nature of the effect, 14 magnitude of the effect, duration, frequency, 15 spatial boundaries, reversibility, and ecological 16 context. 17 Then we go on to offer a matrix which 18 attempts to explain how we would use those key 19 effects to determine significance. What the 20 matrix does is compare small, moderate, and large 21 effects at either the site local or regional 22 level, in either the short-term or long-term, as a 23 means of identifying significance. That's the 24 framework. 25 To come back to my earlier example, in 2678 1 the case of transmission, I used the one standard 2 of radio interference. There are others. There 3 are television interference, there are measures of 4 electric and magnetic fields, there are measures 5 of audible noise which can be and were in fact 6 modeled, and those results are incorporated in the 7 Volume 1 of the transmission work. And they are 8 compared, where available, to regulatory 9 thresholds or industry standards. 10 In the middle of the spectrum, there 11 are instances like effects on habitat, where by 12 virtue of clearing the right-of-way, we are 13 expecting to remove some habitat permanently, we 14 are expecting to have an edge effect, if you will, 15 on habitat in the immediate vicinity of the 16 right-of-way. There are no regulatory standards 17 in this area, but our ecologist provided us with 18 ideas as to what might be a reasonable level of 19 significance, it was he that helped us to 20 determine what might be the appropriate 21 comparative areas for that purpose. And you will 22 find in his section of Volume 1, which as I recall 23 is appendix F, he deals with the consequence, or 24 rather the significance of that habitat alteration 25 by expressing the expected amount, very 2679 1 conservatively speaking I might say, in relation 2 to the subregion area that he has defined as being 3 relevant to that effect. 4 Then, as I said earlier, at the 5 extreme other end of the scale, there are some 6 circumstances where habitat in itself is a useful 7 surrogate for anticipating effects on wildlife 8 populations, but it doesn't really allow you to 9 predict precisely how many birds might be 10 affected. So there comes into play a question of 11 professional judgment, a lot of reliance on the 12 literature, a lot of reliance on field surveys, 13 transects conducted by our specialists, and 14 ultimately some professional judgment. 15 MR. DAVIES: On the generation side, 16 one of the best examples is probably mercury. 17 First of all, historic data was accessed and used 18 to take a look where we were in the cycle, whether 19 mercury levels were still elevated or whether they 20 were declining for each of the key fish species. 21 Additional information was then gathered. Several 22 years of data were collected for mercury in the 23 key fish species. They were added to the existing 24 database. That database was then used and ran 25 through a model called a Johnson model to predict 2680 1 what levels may be experienced as a result of this 2 project. The results of that model were discussed 3 with external experts to make sure we were getting 4 the best possible advice. 5 Once that was done, we took a look at 6 the results of discussions in the model runs and 7 the information that was collected. We looked at 8 the increases in mercury in terms of magnitude, 9 how much of an increase were we expecting to get, 10 duration, when it did increase, how long would it 11 increase for, and the spatial extent, whether we 12 were limited to Wuskwatim Lake or whether it was 13 carried further downstream. And then significance 14 was determined from those data. 15 MR. ABRA: If I might just have a 16 moment, Mr. Chairman. 17 THE CHAIRMAN: Sure. While, you are 18 having that moment, I will further ask Mr. Davies, 19 just further on that example, I know -- we are 20 scoping right now, and eventually we will get down 21 to some of the specifics. 22 Let me ask just one of the specifics 23 right now when I have got a moment. When you are 24 talking about measuring, quantifying effects in 25 the area of mercury, for instance, and looking at 2681 1 it from a temporal standpoint, to arrive at 2 measurements for today, like, how far back did you 3 look at? Because I know you are talking 4 potentially about development of Wuskwatim for 5 some years, and if I recall, the numbers that I 6 saw were basically on the last couple of years. I 7 would have thought maybe we could have had the 8 figures maybe for the last eight years perhaps. 9 MR. DAVIES: We actually went back 10 approximately -- 11 THE CHAIRMAN: Not on the modeling, I 12 am talking the actual -- 13 MR. DAVIES: The actual data, we went 14 back almost 30 years. We took some data that 15 was -- we took the existing data actually prior to 16 the Churchill River Diversion, and the data are 17 not as good as the information that was collected 18 post-diversion, because there was not quite the 19 standards in place, but we did look at the 20 information prior to 1976. And then we looked at 21 all the information from 1976, which showed the 22 fairly rapid increases as a result of the 23 Churchill River Diversion, and then the peaks for 24 the various fish species, which generally occurred 25 some time in the early to mid-1980s, and declined 2682 1 fairly quickly after that. 2 THE CHAIRMAN: So those were actual 3 data? 4 MR. DAVIES: Those were actual numbers 5 that were accessed through the literature. And 6 all of that information was used to determine the 7 effects and the duration of the effects. 8 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, thanks. 9 MR. DAVIES: I will refer to the 10 generation volume again, volume 1 page 6-112 does 11 have a graph that shows the mercury concentrations 12 from approximately 1971 to 2002. 13 THE CHAIRMAN: I have seen that. I 14 just misunderstood. I thought that was based on 15 part of the modeling. 16 MR. DAVIES: The model projected the 17 expected concentrations in the future based on the 18 past. 19 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. 20 MR. REMPEL: If I may, I would like to 21 make another comment. When we talked about models 22 before, mathematical models, perhaps I should have 23 mentioned that with regard to hydraulic models, 24 and perhaps that maybe will add some confidence to 25 our assertions about Early Morning Rapids being a 2683 1 hydraulic break. Manitoba Hydro has for years 2 studied the flow and ice characteristics on the 3 Rat/Burntwood system, have developed calibrated 4 models. These are not just hydraulic models 5 without data. They have built the models using 6 existing data, calibrated it, verified these 7 models, and as a result there is a high level of 8 confidence. They use a number of models, some are 9 open water hydraulic computer based models, some 10 are ice progression models, and those were all 11 used to support the interpretation of the effects 12 on the water regime. I believe something like 80 13 years of flow records were run through these 14 various models. 15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Abra. 16 MR. ABRA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 17 We were talking earlier about 18 mitigation, and you do attempt to identify early 19 in the process what environmental effect there may 20 be, and even before you go ahead and start to do 21 something, you try to determine what the effect 22 might be, and if you determine there might be one 23 you then take steps to mitigate. You can't 24 identify everything, so you monitor afterwards and 25 then react. You have explained all that to me. 2684 1 I assume that there have been some 2 environmental effects that you have identified 3 already, that you have taken, that you are 4 planning on taking steps to mitigate. I wonder if 5 you might give us some examples in that regard? 6 What environmental impacts have you assessed and 7 what steps have you taken to mitigate? Now, I 8 don't need to know everything. Let's put it this 9 way; we are trying to determine that you crossed 10 the T's and dotted the I's. 11 MR. REMPEL: I can give you a few 12 examples. I guess during the discussion and 13 review of the EIS, Department of Fisheries and 14 Oceans I believe, perhaps Environment Canada, I 15 can't remember, did identify some concerns about 16 riverine erosion below the spillway, where the 17 flow would now exit the spillway on occasion when 18 the turbines can't accommodate all the flow, and 19 there would be perhaps the flow impinging on the 20 river bank below the tail race, if you like, at 21 the tail race, and they expressed concern about 22 erosion and could that be mitigated perhaps by 23 river bank protection or the like. 24 What the Hydro/NCN engineers did is 25 revised the spillway configuration such that the 2685 1 flow will be redirected more to the centre of the 2 channel and avoid that impingement. We believe 3 that has mitigated that concern. That is one 4 example. 5 Again, in the review process, there 6 was concern expressed about the mobilization of 7 sediment during construction, particularly 8 construction activities in the river bed. In the 9 course of those discussions, the configurations of 10 the cofferdams that are used to create working 11 areas in the dry, these cofferdams were realigned 12 or additional groins were put out to deflect the 13 flow away from work areas while the rest of the 14 cofferdams were being built, such that the flow 15 would be more tranquil and there would not be a 16 suspension of sediments. 17 As well, monitoring was proposed, and 18 if that monitoring indicates the need for it, 19 there is a potential for putting in some silt 20 curtain, silt fences, and the like. 21 So that is two examples in the 22 physical environment where mitigation was done in 23 the course of review of the EIS. 24 MR. ABRA: Mr. Osler? 25 MR. OSLER: The sediment, one of the 2686 1 documents that was filed today in the DFO related 2 documents is a sediment management plan. 3 MR. ABRA: I am having trouble hearing 4 you. 5 MR. OSLER: A draft sediment 6 management plan was one of the documents that 7 Mr. Bedford referred to, and it was given an 8 exhibit number, in all of those documents that had 9 been filed with DFO. So that is a draft document 10 addressing just what Mr. Rempel was talking about. 11 The so-called Birchtree Lake 12 constraint of operations I think is another 13 mitigation measure that was adopted in the course 14 of the studies. That is explained at the bottom 15 of page 1-10 of volume of the generation project. 16 It is essentially saying that Hydro is committed 17 to operating this facility such that the project 18 related daily water level fluctuations downstream 19 at Birchtree Lake will be less than O.10 metres 20 during open water and less an 0.15 metres during 21 winter. 22 We could get into -- we predict it 23 will be less than, that is one type of approach, 24 and monitor it and see whether it will be, or the 25 proponent can adopt a mitigation measure that says 2687 1 he will operate this system subject to emergencies 2 or local storms or something such that this will 3 not occur. This EIS adopts a mitigation measure 4 here saying it will not occur. That's a very 5 specific element that emerged from the course of 6 the work and the discussions. 7 I can get into quite a few in the 8 socioeconomic area, but maybe we should go up the 9 food chain before we get to people. 10 MR. DAVIES: There are a number of 11 mitigation measures identified in the generation 12 documents and I won't go through all of them, but 13 there are some examples. One of the impacts, 14 potential impacts that was identified was over 15 harvesting due to increased access caused by the 16 access road. The access management plan was put 17 together in order to mitigate that. 18 If we are looking at caribou 19 specifically, the access management plan will 20 mitigate effects of over harvesting of caribou. 21 And in addition to that, there is also a caribou 22 awareness program that will be instituted by NCN 23 and Manitoba Hydro to further educate people in 24 the area about the need of conservation. 25 There is also a number of different 2688 1 things such as spill containment measures that are 2 put in place. The environmental protection plans 3 will identify some very site specific mitigation 4 measures. 5 In regards to fish habitat, the fish 6 habitat compensation plan will provide mitigation 7 and compensation for fish habitat losses or 8 alterations as a result of the project. 9 As I said, there is a number of 10 different examples we could provide. 11 MR. ABRA: Thank you. 12 MR. HICKS: In the case of the 13 transmission document, chapter 3, section 3.7 14 outline -- this derives from the fact that Hydro 15 does a lot of transmission development and has 16 been doing so under the current regulatory regime 17 for some time. Section 3.7 identifies what amount 18 to a number of standard operating procedures which 19 are in essence designed to mitigate or to avoid 20 adverse effects. 21 I will use one example that is perhaps 22 not specifically dealt with there, but that is 23 simply the decision to use winter construction. 24 The decision to use winter construction, in 25 essence, avoids impacts on vegetation. It 2689 1 facilitates stream crossing without damage. You 2 are still subject to guidelines, but there is no 3 permanent damage, and there is no permanent 4 alteration to the drainage on the terrain that you 5 are crossing. 6 It also has some additional beneficial 7 effects in that it considerably limits access 8 opportunities, because you are not creating 9 bridges, you are not re-grading the terrain to 10 facilitate access. 11 There are a number of examples that I 12 could give, but that's perhaps the best. 13 MR. MAYER: I would like to go back to 14 something Mr. Osler said, I think it was Mr. Osler 15 who said it. One of the ways you mitigate is you 16 undertake to operate the system within certain 17 parameters. I think you talked about the river 18 fluctuation at Birchtree Lake. Who, other than 19 Hydro, will monitor to confirm that that is in 20 fact what you are doing? I am keeping in mind the 21 presentation we had last night about Selkirk, and 22 that disturbed me somewhat. Who else other than 23 Hydro monitors this? 24 MR. ADAMS: I would like to respond to 25 that. We will respond to the presentation on 2690 1 Selkirk last night, and I am quite convinced that 2 when we have responded to it, you will not be 3 disturbed any more. 4 MR. MAYER: I will not be concerned? 5 You didn't burn that bituminous coal because you 6 had too much of it? 7 MR. ADAMS: I am not going to leave it 8 there. Mr. Ciekiewicz has a long history of 9 objecting to everything we have done at Selkirk. 10 On several occasions he has complained to Manitoba 11 Environment, or Conservation as it turned into. 12 Manitoba Conservation has responded to Mr. 13 Ciekiewicz on more than one occasion, telling him 14 that we are operating the plant strictly in 15 accordance with the various licenses we have had 16 over the time. Mr. Ciekiewicz also took a private 17 prosecution against Manitoba Hydro, and was taken 18 over by the Attorney General's Department, hired a 19 special prosecutor. The case was dropped. 20 So, I am prepared to respond to that 21 in a lot more detail. I preferred not to do it 22 last night because I didn't think it would add to 23 the discussion. 24 In response to your original question, 25 we have to, under the terms of our licenses, we 2691 1 have to collect an enormous amount of data, and we 2 have to submit it both to the Provincial 3 Government and the Federal Government, and we do 4 on a regular basis. Most of the information is 5 also made public in the various communities. We 6 have implementation agreements with all the 7 Aboriginal communities, and part of that is a 8 monitoring program. 9 I do -- it is getting late -- I get 10 upset when we are accused of illegalities. We do 11 not operate outside the law. We respond and we 12 act within accordance with all our licenses, and 13 when we make a commitment to maintain the lake 14 within a certain level, we will, subject to nature 15 and the whims of nature obviously. 16 MR. MAYER: I understand that, and I 17 think we would all be, or at least I would feel 18 comforted by the fact that there was little or no 19 truth in the allegations made last night. I would 20 also like to believe that there was little or no 21 truth about the pencil story at Cross Lake, but I 22 am sorry, I heard about that before. 23 The answer to my question, as I 24 understand it, is that the monitoring is done by 25 Hydro, but those results have to be submitted; is 2692 1 that correct? 2 MR. ADAMS: Yes. 3 MR. MAYER: Thank you, sir. 4 THE CHAIRMAN: I have to add something 5 to that, because I think -- you could have said 6 Mr. Adams, I think you have referred to licenses 7 with the conditions, and who ensures that you 8 abide by these conditions? You could have said 9 that but you didn't. 10 MR. ADAMS: We are regulated by 11 Manitoba Conservation -- 12 THE CHAIRMAN: That's what I wanted to 13 hear. 14 MR. ADAMS: -- Manitoba Water 15 Stewardship Department, the Department of 16 Fisheries, the Coast Guard, wherever they happen 17 to be -- they were in Fisheries for a few years, 18 now they have been moved again. But we are 19 regulated quite rigorously by both the Federal and 20 Provincial Governments. 21 MR. ABRA: I would like to ask just 22 one last question before we break. 23 We talked earlier about residual 24 effects or residual environmental effects. Have 25 you identified any to date, and have you been able 2693 1 to quantify what their effects might be? 2 MR. REMPEL: Have we identified any 3 residual effects? 4 MR. ABRA: Yes. 5 MR. REMPEL: Certainly we have. 6 MR. ABRA: Can you give us some 7 examples? 8 MR. REMPEL: Yes. We have said there 9 is an unavoidable footprint of say the Generating 10 Station that will effectively lead to the loss of 11 the falls. That's a residual effect. We 12 identified that in the physical environment. The 13 significance, the values that were attached to 14 that feature were discussed in the socioeconomic 15 side of it. There is a number of other residual 16 effects that are identified, that we believe are 17 small site specific, and we have deemed them to be 18 insignificant, but nonetheless, they were residual 19 effects. 20 MR. ABRA: What were they? We all 21 recognize, of course, the transmission line and 22 the building of the dam. 23 MR. OSLER: Well, there was in CEC 24 100, round one, EIS, a table given by component of 25 the environment for generation, and I think also 2694 1 for transmission. And there is a column in there 2 for residual effects which summarizes where you 3 look in the volume to get residual effects. In 4 the generation volume 1, there are 40 pages or so 5 of tables at the end of each one of these sections 6 that summarize it. The physical environment has 7 about three pages and summarizes the residual 8 effects on water, ice, climate, et cetera, 9 component by component. I think you heard them 10 summarized in the opening day? 11 MR. ABRA: I think your conclusion 12 with respect to just about all of them is it is 13 insignificant, is it not? 14 MR. OSLER: Right. But the point is 15 that our job is to go through each one of those 16 areas and each one of those tables and say, okay, 17 you have looked at that, your professionals have 18 looked at that, you have discussed it with the 19 First Nations, you have discussed it with the 20 regulators, what is the ultimate net effect -- 21 comparing what will happen with this project 22 compared to what will happen without it, after 23 mitigation, and is it significant? Is it positive 24 or negative and is it significant, based on either 25 quantitative or qualitative assessment? It goes 2695 1 through all of those, there is about 40 pages in 2 tables that does it. We should perhaps go to 3 those and discuss area by area, or some of the key 4 examples. 5 MR. ABRA: I guess what we are more 6 concerned about, Mr. Osler -- I won't say guess -- 7 I know what we are more concerned about is that 8 the EIS, notwithstanding that you have identified 9 residual effects in the manner that you have 10 described, and you have basically said that they 11 are insignificant and site specific. That's fine. 12 That's the conclusion you have come to. There is 13 not very much, if anything, that describes what 14 you did to come to that conclusion. That's what I 15 am asking you. 16 MR. OSLER: Well, that's a different 17 question, with all due respect. It is how do you 18 come to that conclusion and was it quantified -- 19 if I read between the lines -- is that what you 20 are getting at? 21 MR. ABRA: Yes. 22 MR. OSLER: Because that is a 23 different thought process. If you go to each 24 discipline, the parties involved will say that 25 they have quantified it, and they have written so 2696 1 much material that some people thought they wrote 2 too much. The problem seems to be how to describe 3 succinctly what was done with all the 4 quantification exercise. I go to Mr. Davies, he 5 can deal with aquatic, or he can deal with 6 terrestrial. They have got tonnes of 7 quantification involved in resource use. I am 8 quite happy to deal with the socioeconomic on the 9 same grounds. 10 So our problem is how to communicate 11 what is essentially a lot of analysis and material 12 in a very simple way in this forum. That is our 13 job. I am not begrudging it, but I am trying to 14 find a path that will get us there efficiently. I 15 an happy to do socioeconomics but I am not happy 16 to do the physical or -- 17 MR. ABRA: No, I don't expect you to. 18 I don't know that we want to go through all of 19 them with respect to each of the practitioners and 20 each of the different areas. As I said, what did 21 cause us concern, and what does cause us concern 22 is to satisfy ourselves that indeed you have done 23 what you are saying that you did, because there is 24 no reference to it really in the EIS documents, as 25 you know. If you are saying that you spent 2697 1 hundreds of hours doing them -- 2 MR. OSLER: Sorry, I will let you ask 3 the question and then I will try and answer. 4 MR. ABRA: That's really what I am 5 asking. You have answered it, in essence, by 6 saying that you did spend many, many hours -- or 7 that different ones of you spent many, many hours 8 in the areas in which you work, quantifying them 9 and then deciding, and coming to the conclusion 10 they were significant or insignificant, and local 11 and so on. 12 MR. OSLER: I also think that in the 13 summary volume, considerable effort was taken to 14 summarize that work. So I categorically have 15 great difficulty understanding the assertion that 16 there is no quantification there. 17 MR. SARGEANT: Can I just interrupt 18 here? Mr. Osler, it is our job to determine 19 whether or not you did your job properly. 20 MR. OSLER: Agreed. 21 MR. SARGEANT: That's where these 22 questions are coming from. We have to be able to 23 determine that to write our report. 24 MR. OSLER: Right. I fully accept 25 that. I am trying to find the path that will 2698 1 allow us to answer the question effectively. 2 Because the reaction, when somebody says to us 3 that there is no quantification there, they really 4 don't know where to start. 5 The other criticism we have been 6 exposed to is there is so much material and so 7 much detail, and we boiled it down to a volume -- 8 for goodness sake, it is 500 pages -- then we 9 boiled it down to 30 or 40 pages to try to help 10 people with that. So, when you are asking us to 11 deal with it at a general level, it is very hard 12 to satisfy you that at a specific level we did our 13 job. I am persuaded myself that the best way to 14 deal with this is to go through systematically, at 15 the physical, or biophysical, aquatic and 16 terrestrial, and then socioeconomic, and be 17 satisfied that the practitioners in each one of 18 these areas did their job, and that they talked to 19 people and they did the quantification. It is 20 hard to answer at a general level, just watching 21 the process. 22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I think 23 that leads us to the point where I get some 24 indication that you have done a major portion of 25 the scoping that we are talking about. And I hear 2699 1 you say, well, get down to some of the specifics 2 and we will give you some answers. Presumably, 3 that is the next step that we have to go through. 4 But before I -- and Mr. Abra you had indicated 5 that -- 6 MR. ABRA: I am finished. 7 THE CHAIRMAN: -- you were going to 8 stop here at this point. Mr. MacInnes, you wanted 9 to -- 10 MR. MacINNES: I will wait until there 11 are more specifics. 12 THE CHAIRMAN: All right. That being 13 the case, I think we are ready to adjourn and we 14 will reconvene tomorrow at 10:00 o'clock. 15 16 (ADJOURNED AT 5:44 P.M.) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25