Daily Summary CEC Review Hearings – Wuskwatim Projects
Primary Agenda Items:
1) CEC Cross examination of MH/NCN on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Date: March 19, 2004 Hearing Day: 11 Location: Radisson Hotel (Winnipeg)
Summary of Speakers or Presentations:
1. Doug Abra, CEC Counsel – led CEC cross examination of MH/NCN on EIS (see below regarding content of cross examination) 2. Gerard Lecuyer, CEC Chair – participated in cross examination of MH/NCN 3. Robert Mayer, CEC Commissioner – participated in cross examination of MH/NCN 4. Kathi Avery Kinew, CEC Commissioner – participated in cross examination of MH/NCN 5. Terry Sargeant, CEC Commissioner – participated in cross examination of MH/NCN
MN/NCN Panel responding to cross-examination:
6. Ken Adams, Manitoba Hydro, Vice-President of Power Supply 7. Ed Wojczynski, Manitoba Hydro, Program Planning Manager 8. W. Elvis Thomas, NCN Councilor 9. Cam Osler, MH/NCN consultant on socio-economic effects (Intergroup Consultants Ltd.) 10. George Rempel, MH/NCN consultant on environmental assessment (Water Resources Engineer with Intergroup Consultants Ltd.) 11. Stuart Davies, MH/NCN consultant on environmental impacts on wildlife (North/South Consultants Inc.) 12. David Hicks, Manitoba Hydro consultant on transmission line (NDLea Consulting Engineers and Planners) 13. Doug Bedford, MH/NCN Counsel
14. Merrell-Ann Phare, Consultant for Community Association of South Indian Lake (CASIL) – raised procedural issue (see below)
Motions filed/Rulings and other procedural matters:
Merrell-Ann Phare (Consultant for CASIL) raised a procedural point regarding Mr. Ken Adams’ suggestion on March 18 that he would be submitting evidence in response to a presentation by Mr. Allan Ciekiewicz the previous evening (March 17). Ms. Phare expressed concern that Mr. Adams had accused Mr. Ciekiewicz of being untruthful, and that presenting evidence in response to Mr. Ciekiewicz in his absence would be a breach of procedural fairness. This was raised in relation to overall fairness of hearing procedures.
The Commission ruled that if Mr. Adams (MH) were to present evidence in response to Mr. Ciekiewicz, they would need to give notice sufficient for Mr. Ciekiewicz to be contacted so that he could be present.
Documents / Evidence Filed:
Exhibits:
MH/NCN-1021: NCN, Guide Book to the Agreement in Principle, Winter 2001
MH/NCN-1022: NCN Overview Agreement In Principle, Winter 2001
MH/NCN-1023: Community profile CD, NCN
TREE/RCM-1002: Interrogatory responses to CNF, TREE/RCM, NFAAT 1-5
CNF-1012: Interrogatory responses from Manitoba Wildlands/ CNF to TREE/RCM
MH/NCN-1024: Answer to undertaking 35, 36, 37 requested by CNF re wind sensitivity analysis
Undertakings called for:
MH-45: Advise on the compensation savings re highway transmission route
MH-46: Advise on the expected value of delivered power, in relation to line loss for the longer highway transmission routing option
MH-47: Advise on the difference in value of the power per year that would be produced by low head and high head Wuskwatim designs
MH-48: Advise if flushing rate is faster than the rate in lake prior to CRD
MH-49: Provide explanation why predictions regarding average out flows at Missi Falls are less than historical monthly discharge
MH-50: Advise on Miss Falls out flows in relation to condition 23 of the Churchill Wier Agreement
MH-51: Advise on whether MH has received any requests for meetings regarding consultation from the Manitoba Métis Federation
MH-52: Provide a slide of maps of the proposed generating station site for discussion of width of transmission corridors leaving/entering the site
Questions & Answers Cross Examination:
1. The CEC Cross examination of MH/NCN by CEC Counsel Mr. Abra and Commission members included: - Discussion of accuracy of determinations that residual effects will be insignificant (response: asserted their high degree of confidence, and contingency measures in place where confidence is lesser) - Mr. Abra sought assurance that a full review of all relevant literature had been reviewed - Continued discussion of transmission routes, with MH asserting that the longer highway route will be more expensive, with no environmental advantage, and Mr. Mayer continuing to express dissatisfaction with responses he is getting. - Wuskwatim and contiguous lakes are about 2,970 hectares larger than they were prior to Churchill River Diversion, and constitute a “disrupted environment” - Mr. Abra questioned whether there had ever been an environmental assessment of CRD (Mr. Davies referred to the Federal Ecological Monitoring Program and the Ecological Monitoring Program as the most recent examples) - Mr. Abra asked questions regarding amounts of water released through the Missi Falls control structure (awaiting an undertaking).
Schedule Adjustments/Changes:
Times for April 6 and 7 in Winnipeg changed to 10: a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
If necessary, April 13, 14 and 15 (10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) will be added as hearing days in Winnipeg.
Notes / Comments:
Mr. Lecuyer laid out the obvious in stating that in the end there are uncertainties, and in the end the determination of what is significant and what is not is, in essence, a value judgment by someone. “There were no significant adverse effects determined throughout the physical, biophysical, socioeconomic transmission and generation studies.” Cam Osler Mr. Lecuyer pursued questions regarding the extent to which efforts had been made to consult with the Manitoba Métis Federation. “And these are cumulative effects, if you want to get technical….” Cam Osler referring to fear and mistrust of NCN members toward Manitoba Hydro. Cam Osler said that “professional” concepts of “significance” (with respect to impacts) and the concept an NCN elder might have are “night and day apart.” Regarding potential compensation to NCN for new transmission corridor in the NCN RMA, MH Counsel D. Bedford clarified that on “unoccupied Crown land” MH compensates individual trappers resources users not “nearby First Nations.”