Interrogatory Round One (Manitoba Wildlands Canadian Nature Federation)
IV. EIS – Project Design and Methods
Interrogatory Round One
Manitoba Wildlands – Canadian Nature Federation
Wuskwatim Generation and Transmission Projects
(File #4724.00 & #4725.00)
IV. EIS – Project Design and Methods
- Project Design
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS #229 - 255 – PROJ DES
- Future Projects
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS #256 - 271 – FUT PROJ
- Cumulative Effects Assessment
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS #272 - 302 – CEA
- Methods
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS #303 - 324 – METH
- HSI Models
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS #325 – 330 – HSI
- Mapping
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS #331 – 333 – MAP
Wuskwatim EIS Interrogatories – Project Design (PROJ DES)
Generation
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – PROJ DES #229
Can the proposed ‘low head’ dam be modified to act as a ‘high head’ dam at some future point? If yes, provide details on logistics, costs and timeframes.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – PROJ DES #230
Describe in detail the types of changes (and their relative degree both directly and/or indirectly) that may be expected or anticipated to the existing CRD/LWR project from the operation of the Wuskwatim Generation Project.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – PROJ DES #231
Provide a detailed summary of the status of all existing generation projects based on remaining years before expected decommissioning (i.e. remaining life-span) including plans for significant renovations.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – PROJ DES #232
Identify and describe with detail all relevant plans and associated steps for pursuing private ownership of the access road and associated land where Wuskwatim Generation facilities are expected to be located.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – PROJ DES #233
Identify and describe the various options for restricting access (both NCN members and other individuals) to the Wuskwatim lake region in a privately owned access road scenario and a publicly owned access road scenario.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – PROJ DES #234
Identify and describe Manitoba Hydro’s plans for the proposed Wuskwatim projects should NCN decide against investing in the Wuskwatim Generation Project.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – PROJ DES #235
Provide the decommissioning plan for Wuskwatim Generation Station.
Transmission
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – PROJ DES #236a
Are any of the Segments in the Wuskwatim projects intended or likely to be part of the East West Grid ?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – PROJ DES #236b
Does Manitoba Hydro have design plans (preliminary or otherwise) for the proposed East-West Power Grid? If yes, provide these plans with appropriate maps and cost estimates.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – PROJ DES #237
What differences would exist in terms of construction costs between the proposed Wuskwatim Transmission Project (i.e. the proposed S1, S2, and S3) and an alternative transmission design that linked a new 230 kV transmission line alongside the existing transmission corridor between Thompson and Ponton and then from Ponton to Grand Rapids? Provide a detailed comparison.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – PROJ DES #238
What has been the experience in Manitoba in terms of “common outage from a single event” (e.g. severe winds or ice storms)? Provide a detailed summary with particular emphasis on parallel transmission lines.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – PROJ DES #239
What is the risk of a “common outage from a single event” (e.g. severe winds or ice storms) occurring? Please identify, quantify and fully describe with particular emphasis on parallel transmission lines in the Thompson-Grand Rapids-The Pas region.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – PROJ DES #240
Does the segment of the Wuskwatim transmission project that is a shared, double width transmission corridor decrease or increase risks from a ‘common outage single events’?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – PROJ DES #241
How would Manitoba Hydro describe the existing transmission system in Manitoba (with particular emphasis on the Thompson-Grand Rapids-The Pas-Flin Flon region) in terms of the following: system operation and reliability, security, and relative capacity to absorb new generation? Please provide a summary description.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – PROJ DES #242
Provide a detailed comparison on the issue of system reliability issues between the proposed Wuskwatim Transmission Project (i.e. the proposed S1, S2, and S3) and an alternative transmission design that linked a new 230 kV transmission line alongside the existing transmission corridor between Thompson and Ponton and then from Ponton to Grand Rapids.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – PROJ DES #243
Provide a detailed overview of the justification for proposing to develop S3 (i.e. 230 kV transmission line between Snow Lake and The Pas) independent of the proposed Wuskwatim Transmission Project (identify and provide all issues associated with systems operations and reliability, security, etc.).
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – PROJ DES #244
Provide a detailed rationale for NCN stated preference (Wuskwatim Transmission Project EIS Chapter 6 Volume 1 pg. 8) in maximizing the amount of transmission lines in the Nelson House Resource Management Area (RMA).
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – PROJ DES #245
Identify and describe with detail one or more alternative transmission designs (preliminary, concept or otherwise) that do not connect directly to the Herblet Lake Station (at Snow Lake) and that meets Manitoba Hydro’s stated three-fold criteria (as identified on Page 2 in Appendix C in the August 8, 2003 EIS Supplementary Filing) in terms of system requirements (provide appropriate maps and cost estimates).
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – PROJ DES #246
Identify and describe with detail one or more alternative transmission designs (preliminary, concept or otherwise) that do not connect directly to the Ralls Island Station (at The Pas) and that meets Manitoba Hydro’s stated three-fold criteria (as identified on Page 2 in Appendix C in the August 8, 2003 EIS Supplementary Filing) in terms of system requirements (provide appropriate maps and cost estimates).
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – PROJ DES #247
Please provide a summary indicating the basis and method for arriving at Manitoba Hydro’s “three fold criteria” (as identified on Page 2 in Appendix C in the August 8, 2003 EIS Supplementary Filing) in terms of system requirements.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – PROJ DES #248
Identify, describe and illustrate (via mapping) transmission system design(s) (preliminary, concept, or otherwise) that connects all potentialgeneration projects (i.e. those listed on Page 2 of Chapter 4 of Volume 1 of the NFAAT) to the main hydroelectric grid system.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – PROJ DES #249
Identify and describe in detail the manner and extent to which Manitoba Hydro and NCN examined options for aligning the Wuskwatim Generation access road (i.e. using minimal curves) with a transmission line connecting to the main transmission grid system. Provide appropriate maps and cost estimates (preliminary or otherwise).
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – PROJ DES #250a
Why has Manitoba Hydro/NCN not chosen to develop a comprehensive access management plan now — before problems arise? Estimates of winter usage of the RoWs — when species such as caribou are especially vulnerable — are crucial for conservation planning.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – PROJ DES #250b
Why has Manitoba Hydro/NCN not responded to the concerns of Manitoba Conservation, and environmental groups in this regard ?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – PROJ DES #251
Are there differences in the ecological impacts of a 60m – wide RoW versus one that is 110m wide?
If so, what are they?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – PROJ DES #252
The SSEA purportedly (Wuskwatim Integrated Executive Summary, pg.8) “seeks to avoid adverse environmental effects” regarding RoW routing. How is this possible with a 110m wide corridor?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – PROJ DES #253
How was the zone of influence (ZOI) width of 150m chosen, when the fragmentation/linear disturbance literature (Dyer et al. 2000) clearly shows that the actual ZOI of roads etc. can extend up to 1.5 km or more on either side of the corridor? Please provide sources, references to support the response.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – PROJ DES #254
The EIS states that the RoW impacts can be “mitigated”. How does MH plan to mitigate the ecological effects (e.g. dispersal barrier) of a 110m-wide corridor?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – PROJ DES #255
Did Manitoba Hydro consult with environmental experts, and organizations regarding site selection for the Wuskwatim Generation and Wuskwatim Transmission project site locations?
Citations
Dyer, S.J., O’Neill, J.P., Wasel, S.M. and Boutin, S. 2000. Avoidance of Industrial Development by Woodland Caribou. Journal of Wildlife Management. 65(3): 531-542.
Wuskwatim EIS Interrogatories – Future Projects (FUT PROJ)
Generation
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – FUT PROJ #256
According to the Wuskwatim Integrated Executive Summary (pg.4), one of the three major benefits of the Wuskwatim Generation project is helping to fix fluctuations (Wuskwatim Lake levels) caused by the Churchill River Development. Will the next Manitoba Hydro project feature, as one of its advantages, addressing problems with water levels caused by the Wuskwatim Generation project?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – FUT PROJ #257a
What is the schedule for maintenance, upgrades, repair, and decommissioning to existing generation projects that are part of the hydro system connected to Wuskwatim?
Please provide a detailed summary of the status of existing generation projects in terms of age, remaining lifetime in comparison to initial lifetime estimates, and in terms of any associated decommissioning plans. Reconstruction, repair, upgrade plans should be provided for the generation station and associated reservoirs.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – FUT PROJ #257b
Why are these future ‘projects’ (i.e. upgrades, maintenance) not described as such and included in the cumulative effects assessment?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – PROJ DES #258
Does Manitoba Hydro have design plans (preliminary or otherwise) for the proposed Notigi Generation Project? If yes, provide these plans with appropriate maps and cost estimates.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – FUT PROJ #259
Identify and describe each potential generation project identified by Manitoba Hydro on Chapter 4 of Volume 1 (pg. 2) of the NFAAT by stage as per the five general stages identified in Volume 3 Section 3 (pg. 1) of the Wuskwatim Generation EIS.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – FUT PROJ #260
Identify and describe the incremental impacts (both individual and cumulative within a specified preliminary range, to the extent possible) to the existing CRD/LWR project from the future development of each potential generation project identified by Manitoba Hydro on Chapter 4 of Volume 1 (pg. 2) of the NFAAT along the Burntwood River (specify a preliminary range where necessary).
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – FUT PROJ #261
Identify and describe the incremental impacts (both individual and cumulative) to the existing CRD/LWR project from the future development of each potential individual generation project identified by Manitoba Hydro on Chapter 4 of Volume 1 (pg. 2) of the NFAAT in the whole Hydro system (specify a preliminary range where necessary).
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – FUT PROJ #262
Assess and describe whether it would be reasonable to conclude that a significant amount of the identified potential generation projects identified (Chapter 4 of Volume 1 pg. 2 of the NFAAT) along the Burntwood River will be developed over the next 50 years (identify the most likely projects based on current information).
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – FUT PROJ #263
Assess and describe whether it would be reasonable to conclude that a significant amount of the identified potential generation projects (Chapter 4 of Volume 1 pg. 2 of the NFAAT) will be developed in northern Manitoba over the next 50 years (identify the most likely projects based on current information).
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – FUT PROJ #264
Provide a comparison of all potential generation projects identified by Manitoba Hydro on Chapter 4 of Volume 1 (pg. 2) of the NFAAT on the basis of expected environmental impacts (i.e. low to high) based on current information.
Transmission
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – FUT PROJ #265
Identify and describe transmission system design(s) (preliminary, concept, or otherwise) for the Notigi generation project (provide appropriate maps).
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – FUT PROJ #266a
Has Manitoba Hydro participated in any feasibility studies for the East West Grid? Please provide.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – FUT PROJ #266b
Identify and describe transmission system design(s) (preliminary, concept, or otherwise) for the East-West power Grid (provide appropriate maps).
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – FUT PROJ #266c
Are any transmission segments of the Wuskwatim project feasible or possible as links in the East West grid?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – FUT PROJ #267a
What is the schedule for maintenance, upgrades, repair, and decommissioning to existing transmission projects that are part of the hydro system connected to Wuskwatim?
Please provide a detailed summary of the status of existing transmission projects in terms of age, remaining lifetime in comparison to initial lifetime estimates, and in terms of any associated decommissioning plans. Reconstruction, repair, upgrade plans should be provided for the transmission segments and associated infrastructure.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – FUT PROJ #267b
Why are these future ‘projects’ (i.e. upgrades, maintenance) not described as such and included in the cumulative effects assessment?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – FUT PROJ #268
Identify and describe options (preliminary or otherwise) for new transmission lines in relation to the future development of the Burntwood River. Provide appropriate maps and cost estimates.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – FUT PROJ #269
Identify and describe transmission system design(s) (preliminary, concept, or otherwise) in relation to all potential generation project identified by Manitoba Hydro on Chapter 4 of Volume 1 (pg. 2) of the NFAAT (provide appropriate maps).
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – FUT PROJ #270
Identify and describe (with appropriate illustrations) the most preferred transmission corridor system (based on preliminary technical and cost considerations) in relation to all potential generation project identified by Manitoba Hydro on Chapter 4 of Volume 1 (pg. 2) of the NFAAT (using an assumption that all projects will be constructed).
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – FUT PROJ #271
Identify and describe options (preliminary or otherwise) for new transmission lines in relation to long-term system needs. Provide appropriate maps and cost estimates.
Wuskwatim EIS Interrogatories – Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA)
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – CEA #272
Many cumulative impacts are unpredictable because they only become apparent after a time lag. Does Manitoba Hydro/NCN agree or disagree with this statement?
Please provide reasons, support for response.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – CEA #273
Does Manitoba Hydro/NCN agree that the cumulative impacts of all developments in the region (hydro and non-hydro) upon the Hudson Bay marine ecosystem complex, should be part of the Wuskwatim projects CEA?
Please provide reasons, support for the response.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – CEA #274
Would Manitoba Hydro/NCN and its consultants describe existing knowledge of the region’s species and their ecology as adequate for the prediction of the potential (long-term, complex) impacts of proposed projects like Wuskwatim?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – CEA #275
According to Rosenberg et al. (1987) pre-development conditions must be measured over a period of years. Does the two-year Manitoba Hydro/NCN study fall into the “naively short” category described by these authorities?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – CEA #276
What is Manitoba Hydro’s definition of ecological integrity ?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – CEA #277
What is the current level of ecological integrity for the Wuskwatim project region?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – CEA #278
Has this been ascertained/quantified?
Please provide specific references, reports to substantiate.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – CEA #279
If current status of Ecological Integrity is not known, how can Manitoba Hydro/NCN attempt to predict and monitor cumulative impacts without knowledge of the current ecological integrity of the region?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – CEA #280
Have testable hypotheses (that can be modeled quantitatively) been developed for the regional CEA?
If not, why not? If so, please provide studies, reports.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – CEA #281
Was any extinction debt modeling done for the Cumulative Effects Assessment?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – CEA #282
Have any minimum viable population analyses been done for Woodland Caribou, Pine Marten, or any other mammalian ecological indicator species within the region?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – CEA #283
Why have the potential microclimatic impacts associated with the project (especially RoW clearances) received so little study? Please provide sources, references with the response
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – CEA #284
Why hasn’t Manitoba Hydro/NCN computer modeled the ecological impacts over time of all existing and proposed developments in the region using an ALCES – type program?
ALCES - ALCES® is a fast user-friendly landscape simulator that enables resource managers, the scientific community, and the general public to explore and quantify dynamic landscapes subjected to single or multiple human landuse practices and various natural disturbance regimes (such as fire). By FOREM Technologies.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – CEA #285
Manitoba Hydro/NCN determined the amounts of habitat loss/fragmentation in the project regions that represent the critical threshold values beyond which loss of ecological integrity will occur. What specific strategies will Manitoba Hydro apply so that these critical thresholds will not be passed?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – CEA #286
Manitoba Hydro/NCN omitted a review of the Transmission Project’s Residual Effects despite the inevitable long-term ecological problems that can be associated with rights-of-way. Does Manitoba Hydro guarantee no residual effects? Will a transmission residual effects plan be done?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – CEA #287
The CEA for the Wuskwatim project region does not fully address the fragmentation of river systems (loss of connectivity). Please provide this analysis.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – CEA #288
It is understandable that the choice of Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) prioritizes exploited species. However, these represent a tiny fraction of Boreal Forest biodiversity. Why weren’t more ecological indicator species added to the list of taxa chosen for monitoring? Please provide sources, references to support approach taken in the EIS..
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – CEA #289
Why did Manitoba Hydro/NCN not choose more umbrella, keystone and ecological indicator species as “valuable ecosystem components” in both the Wuskwatim Generation and Transmission project EISs?