II. EIS – Ecosystems and Land Use
Interrogatory Round One
Manitoba Wildlands – Canadian Nature Federation
Wuskwatim Generation and Transmission Projects
(File #4724.00 & #4725.00)
II. EIS – Ecosystems and Land Use
· Ecosystem & Ecological Functions
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS #48 - 86 – ECO FUNC
· Trapping and Land Use and Management
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS #87 - 106 – LAND
· Forestry
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS #107 - 117 – FOR
· Corridors
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS #118 - 125 – COR
Wuskwatim EIS Interrogatories – Ecosystem & Ecological Functions (ECO FUNC)
Ecodistricts
The EEA (Environmental Effects Assessment) of wildlife effects restricted its assessment to the ecodistricts crossed by the Wuskwatim Transmission Project (Transmission Vol 4, Section 5, page 53).
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #48a
What method was used to assess environmental impacts from the transmission corridors or species whose ranges exceed a single ecodistrict (such as Woodland Caribou, bald eagle)?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #48b
Does Manitoba Hydro use single ecodistrict geographic context in EIS for all projects?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #48c
Does Manitoba Hydro take into account Manitoba’s natural regions system, within which eco districts nest in undertaking an EIS?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #48d
Provide full natural regions information for the combined geographic scope for the generation and transmission project showing ecodistricts within.
Volume 4 (Wildlife Environment) of the Transmission EIS describes the impacts of the project on ecodistricts.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #49a
Has Manitoba Hydro/NCN included data regarding past and current impacts and disturbances in ecodistricts adjacent to or contained within the geographic scope for an EIS due to existing projects that the Wuskwatim Transmission project interacts with (e.g. existing switching stations)?
If not, please provide the scientific basis for doing so.
If so, please provide supporting documentation.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #49b
Please also provide information from environmental monitoring programs (wildlife, habitat fragmentation, etc.) for existing generation stations, switching stations, and transmission infrastructure in the Wuskwatim Transmission project region.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #50
With regard to Volume 4 (Wildlife Environment) of the Transmission EIS, has Manitoba Hydro/NCN evaluated the additive effects of incremental additions of transmission infrastructure (i.e. in this instance the Wuskwatim Transmission Project’s three transmission segments) to existing sources of environmental disturbance in each ecodistrict?
If not, please provide the scientific basis for doing so.
If so, please provide supporting documentation.
Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs)
VECs were selected in the Wuskwatim EIS for terrestrial habitat, birds, and mammals. It is apparent that an ecological approach was not applied to this exercise, or at best, applied minimally. Virtually all, or all, of the species selected have some consumptive (e.g., for food or cash) or cultural value. For example, for the terrestrial VECs for mammals, there is not one primary consumer (e.g., snowshoe hare or mice).
Manitobans, including those that reside in the area of this proposed development, value ecosystems for considerably more than just those species that can be eaten or sold or used for some other personal use (Tolko Environmental Impact Statement).
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #51a
Is Manitoba Hydro/NCN aware that many of the people who live in the area of impact value the many native species of plants and animals that are not eaten, killed, picked or used for some personal, commercial or cultural purpose?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #51b
Of the species selected as VECs, what proportion were selected because they represented food or dollars (e.g., fur) or some other personal or cultural use?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #52a
Which of the species selected as a VEC was done so for some purpose other than the fact that it represents food or dollars (e.g., fur) or other personal or cultural use?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #52b
For any species indicated as being selected for some purpose other than representing food or dollars, was its value in terms of food or cash or some other personal or cultural use a secondary reason for its selection?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #52c
For any species indicated, what was the primary reason for its selection?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #53a
What was the primary reason for the selection of ‘dry jack pine forest’ as a VEC?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #53b
Were there any secondary reasons?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #54a
Is Manitoba Hydro/NCN aware that a complementary approach to VECs involves the selection of species that are of particular importance to the functioning of ecosystems (e.g., the selection of species at various trophic levels)?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #54b
Why did Manitoba Hydro/NCN reject the selection of species as VECs on the basis of their functional value to ecosystems (e.g., decomposers - a mushroom)?
Please provide sources, detailed analysis to support response.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #54c
Why did Manitoba Hydro/NCN reject the selection of species as VECs on the basis of their key role within ecosystems (e.g., snowshoe hare)?
Please provide sources, detailed analysis to support response.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #55
Given the interest of Manitobans in all components of the boreal forest ecosystem, and not just those that can be eaten, sold, or used for some other purpose (Tolko Environmental Impact), why did Manitoba Hydro/NCN choose, for all intents and purposes, to ignore all the other species that work to keep the ecosystem functioning?
Please provide sources, detailed analysis to support response.
Models and Data
The Wuskwatim Transmission EIS Volume 1 Appendix F, page 15-16states:
Data sources for the fine habitat maps included Soil Landscapes of Canada (SLC V2.2), Veldhuis (digital maps produced for Manitoba Hydro- undated) and the Manitoba Forest Resource Inventory (FRI) for surface materials and soils, Watersheds of Canada (Cansis digital spatial dataset) for watershed boundaries and the Manitoba Forest Resource Inventory (FRI) for vegetation and land cover. The FRI was the primary data source for the fine habitat maps because this is the only source of data available at an appropriate scale for the entire area included in the effects assessment. The FRI is mapped at a scale of 1:15,840 whereas the next most detailed mapping (Veldhuis unpubl. data) is at a scale of 1:125,000 region (see Wuskwatim Generating Station EIS Volume 6 Section 5 for details on conversion of FRI data into habitat types including strengths and weaknesses of the FRI for this purpose). Generalizations for the site and organism ecosystem scales were developed from field data, literature reviews and expert opinion. Maps for the broad habitat, landscape, sub-region and region scales were created by combining similar fine habitat classes into broader classes (combining classes has the effect of creating larger patches/ polygons on the maps). The broader classes were broad habitat type and land cover type.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #56a
Does the Manitoba Hydro/NCN analysis rely on habitat and ecosystem types provided by the FRI?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #56b
With respect to habitat classes and the information above, did Manitoba Hydro/NCN decide which ‘fine’ habitat classes should be combined to create ‘broad’ habitat classes?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #56c
What information, references, sources were the basis for these decisions? Please provide a detailed explanation.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #57
What year, or years, do the Forest Resource Inventory (FRI) data used in the Wuskwatim EISs relate to (i.e., year of photography)?
If more than one year, please identify which areas relate to which years.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #58
Did Manitoba Hydro/NCN derive updated FRI data for any part of its proposed development via aerial photography and photo interpretation?
If not, why not?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #59
Did Manitoba Hydro/NCN sample the forest presently found within the area of the proposed development so that it could confidently estimate the extent to which the FRI data were in error (either via original or present misclassification of aerial photographs, or because the forest had changed over the interval since the year of photography)?
If yes, Please provide full information on sampling design and statistical reliability (i.e., location of samples, sampling intensity, sample sizes, variance).
If not, Why not?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #60
In Manitoba Hydro/NCN’s attempt to classify ecosystems, did it base its classification solely on over storey tree species? If no, How so?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #61
In Manitoba Hydro/NCN’s attempt to classify ecosystems, did it base its classification solely on present or past plant species composition? If no, How so?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #62
In Manitoba Hydro/NCN’s attempt to classify ecosystems, did it incorporate those variables that ultimately dictate the ecosystems that will be found at a given location over time and the dynamics of those ecosystems (e.g., soils, surficial geology, Manitoba Conservation’s landscape unit analysis)?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #63
What field data on animals and plants were collected along the proposed transmission line? Please provide full information on sampling design and statistical reliability (i.e., location of samples, sampling intensity, sample sizes, variance).
Habitat
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #64
What is the source / justification for the EIS statement “wildfires can reset landscape features modified by forestry back to a nearly natural state.” (Transmission Volume 4, Section 5, page 53)
Provide all citations, sources, research to support this statement.
Also define ‘nearly natural state’.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #65a
How did Manitoba Hydro calculate the reduction of habitat potentially disturbed by forestry from 3% to 1.9% because of wildfire? (Transmission Volume 4, Section 5, page 53)
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #65b
Does this figure, arrived at in order to reach the conclusion that “forestry is projected to have a residual effect on about 1.9% of wildlife habitat within each potentially affected ecodistrict over 50 years” (Transmission Volume 4, Section 5, page 53, 54) apply in all eco districts?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #65c
Which 50 year period is this based on?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #65d
Did the review and calculation regarding wildfire rely on the past 50 years or a projection of the next 50?
Please provide supporting documentation.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #66
What is the source of the claim that maximum effects on potential area available for timber harvest would be a 2% conversion to a non-forest habitat type) and a 10% conversion to a substantially different forest type? (Generation Volume 1, Section 7.11 page 81)
Please provide supporting documentation.
Transmission Volume 4, Section 5.4 page 54-55 refers to Wildlife Ecosystem Effects Assessment. This section references the HSI models – the overall ecosystem effects assessment comes up with a number (km2) or % of habitat disturbed both by the transmission project and cumulatively. The amount of habitat is determined to be not significant. “No significant project related adverse effects to terrestrial wildlife as a result of the ecosystem level effects in the area are anticipated.” No information is provided as to the relative importance of the habitat affected by the projects in addition to impacts from other existing and proposed projects.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #67a
Please provide information as to the amount of alternative suitable habitat in the project region for the Woodland Caribou in terms of area of habitat that may be affected and type of habitat, including priority uses by woodland caribou that may be affected.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #67b
Provide the same information for the eight passerine bird species identified in the EIS.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #67c
What certainty exists for the assertion that the alternative habitat identified will remain intact and available to these eight passerine bird species?
Transmission Volume 4, Section 5.4 page 55 states: “For woodland caribou, the total degree of habitat loss, disruption and reduced use (assuming a 100m wide zone) within the affected ecodistricts is anticipated to increase from 5.7% of the surface area to 5.8% with the additional project; an increase of 0.1% (Table 5-5). This 0.1% increase in the effective human disruption of woodland caribou habitat as a result of the Project is not considered to be a substantive change within the regional context.”
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #68a
What is Manitoba Hydro/NCN’s identified threshold for significance for total degree of habitat loss, disruption and reduced use for a species that is already at risk, such as woodland caribou?
Please provide justification for the threshold.
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #68b
What references or other studies, support the claim that the additional disruption or alteration to woodland caribou habitat will not result in an effect that is significant?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC # 68c
How many species customarily use the same habitat as woodland caribou?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #68d
Did Manitoba Hydro apply conservation biology principles to their woodland caribou studies?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #68e
Did Manitoba Hydro/NCN apply the law of the minimum before arriving at these conclusions regarding woodland caribou habitat?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #68f
Does Manitoba Hydro/NCN know whether the .1% loss of habitat is calving or wintering habitat?
CNF/MH/NCN I – EIS – ECO FUNC #68g
Could Manitoba Hydro/NCN provide the data and measurements to demonstrate what kind of habitat the 5.7%, 5.8%, and 0.1% apply to?
Edge Effects
The influences of edge on the population dynamics of species (plants, animals) fall into four principal categories (Fagan et al. 1999). These are as follows.
· “... roles as dispersal barriers or filters,
· ... influences on mortality,
· ... involvement in spatial subsidies (in which dispersers’ intrapatch impacts are maintained by their activities in other habitats), and